Scancell Share Discussion Threads

[2tyke] 09/5/2024 07:50

Opportunity loss ? Lol
I suppose investors here know all about that !

[marcusl2] 08/5/2024 19:35

Given "the continued turbulence in the UK public markets", Oxford Cannabinoid's directors unanimously opted for cancellation.

[inanaco] 08/5/2024 18:43

if you use the 70% target the numbers go much higher

so i needed 200 patients with 180 on control arm

---------------------------------------------------------

if you put in 100 patients on each arm it was not enough

Significance level P = 0.0289

[inanaco] 08/5/2024 18:29

In my series of maths calculators .......... control arm

With a p-value of 0.0025, we feel comfortable dismissing the “chance explanation,” which means that we are comfortable ascribing the imbalance seen to
the effect of the superior drug treatment. With a p-value of 0.52, we can’t dismiss chance. But failing to rule out an explanation (such as “chance”) hardly
means that the explanation is true—only that it is not obviously false.
Consequently, small p-values permit investigators to draw a conclusion about
whether one drug is more effective than another by allowing them to eliminate
all but that possibility. Large p-values simply do not permit investigators to
eliminate any possibilities.
With a p-value of 0.52, it would be incorrect to conclude that aspirin and
placebo are equally effective. Rather, we would have to conclude that aspirin’s
effectiveness remains unproven.



in other words if you design a trial the control arm / treatment arm you need a P value that is representative to achieve P 0.0025 or less


here is a size calculator that predicts P value

if you make the 4 boxs the same .. so efficacy 55% and 100 patients

the calculator predicts P 1 perfectly balanced no clinical effect

so put in what we know i have played with it to get the P level correct P .0025

box 1 85% efficacy vaccine
Box 2 100 patients

Box 3 55% control arm efficacy
Box 4 20 patients to prove P.0025



this is what clinical significant does to a trial your control arm is 1/5 of the vaccine arm





to test it ... make both sides the same efficacy and patient numbers

P value moves to 1

[inanaco] 08/5/2024 15:52

I would say the opposite .... the alert is what is keeping you alive ... mind you a miserable existence suffering from "seething"

a few on here have that issue ...

[inanaco] 08/5/2024 15:49

and you are still awake ? able to function as normal or are you dreaming again cuddled up to a keyboard

Loz failed his own trial

[the real lozan] 08/5/2024 15:40

A medical breakthrough -
Certain medical reviews are now recognizing, and pointing out, the 'value' of inan'n'co's posts.
Doctoers and other medical experts are now reccomending inan'n'co's posts as .....
a cure for insomnia

[inanaco] 08/5/2024 15:30

Cleanerworld we are on that website

[inanaco] 08/5/2024 15:10

ruck

The Da Vinci Code


"How its done" .... the Holy Grail

[inanaco] 08/5/2024 15:01

ruckrover .....

LOL

[inanaco] 08/5/2024 15:00

This post covers two points .......... understanding the effect of allowing the patient to see scans in a double blind trial and risk

if you keep the patient informed announce the cancer is getting worse because they looked at the scans

How do you prove PFS and OS ... on BOTH arms if half your patients have disappeared with "I cant be bothered with this any more" cancer is back

this refers to Bermuda's post on Risk which included a statement on the patients knowing what is going on

I have explained everything else ... and dismissed every point he has made with evidence

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Bermudashorts - 29 Apr 2024 - 16:38:16 - 8218 of 8575 Scancell - Pot of Gold or POS? - SCLP
Inanaco,

Last post - Scancell have told us it's a randomised study. Don't you understand the implications of that? I don't have to resort to googling and c&p. That's all you need to know - it's a randomised study. The results of the SCIB1 arm WILL be compared to the SOC arm and WILL need to demonstrate a statistically significant improvement in ORR/PFS and probably OS too.


You are proud of the fact that you have 1.5m shares in an early stage bio and I admire your complete and utter faith in the outcome here, but your posts so clearly demonstrate the drawback of a narrow focus. You don't understand the role of the regulators, you think patients in a double blinded study have to have 2 doctors each and aren't allowed to know their scan results and you don't understand randomised studies and yet you are telling others that a randomised phase II/III has a 90% chance of success.

This is a genuine comment and I hope you will take it in the spirit intended. Please be careful, you have a huge amount of cash tied up here and are convincing yourself that the next trial has a 90% probability of success.



There's every reason to be hopeful but a randomised study is a whole different ballgame and Scancell have yet to run one.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Introduction

The double-blinded randomized controlled trial (RCT) is a golden standard in the clinical assessment of novel drugs. Blinding investigators and patients decreases the likelihood of biased observations of the effectiveness outcomes and the patient drop out (1). Withholding the participants' treatment assignment may adversely affect their medical care in case of emergency (2) or after the completion of study (3, 4), thus raises ethical concerns. The unblinding procedure is well-established in trial protocol in response to these circumstances. However, in double-blinded randomized controlled cancer drug clinical trials, maintaining the blind at disease progression may also have a negative impact on the subjects' subsequent treatment, namely, preventing or delaying them from receiving approved therapy or entering into other clinical trials (1). Whether and how to set the unblinding procedure in this situation require further discussion.

From a policy perspective, this issue seems ignored by current regulations and guidelines, which are mainly aimed at unblinding under emergency or at the end of study (2–4). Only Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the United States has issued relative guidance, which from the ethical view, recommended unblinding the patient and the investigator at disease progression or recurrence to ensure optimal subsequent management. The guidance also emphasized the informed consent of relevant risk if the sponsor intended to maintain patient-level blinding at disease progression (1). As only placebo-controlled studies are within the scope of guidance, it is unclear whether this recommendation should be adopted in other double-blinded cancer drug RCTs.

To make matters worse, it is reported that pharmaceutical industry trials most often maintain blinding until the completion of the entire study (5). For cancer clinical trials, unblinding process at disease progression or crossover design is avoided when OS is part of the primary endpoint. The sponsors, from the scientific view, claim that the reliability of OS endpoint is negatively impacted by the open-label stage beyond disease progression, and the effect of study treatment is potentially confounded by switch-over from control to study treatment or subsequent therapies (6, 7). Therefore, the rules or procedures should be established to balance the paradoxical views of science and ethics at this question.



he sold down .............

ATB

[ruckrover] 08/5/2024 14:42

Inan,"Solved it for you ............."Sorry, what exactly have you solved?

[inanaco] 08/5/2024 13:54

risk

Bermuda considers the adjuvant trial as a different setting ....

i don't

its the same setting but giving treatment later ..

the cancer grows yes ... but it's the same melanoma

otherwise if it was different ... why would the same vaccine work in both adjuvant and unresected

its all down to how you think and rationalise

[inanaco] 08/5/2024 13:44

""" Risk perception is a highly personal process of decision making, based on an individual's frame of reference developed over a lifetime, among many other factors."""" google

you promote risk without an explanation Ruck ...

joining others that think the same way ... to end up as a gang

suggest you read up on my earlier post ruck ... tricks of the conman

Reinforcing an incorrect statement

you tried that with ""Un-citrullinated""

[inanaco] 08/5/2024 13:36

MT good point !

[inanaco] 08/5/2024 13:35

If you use Bermudas Historical data of success .... you would not invest !! simple

3.4% you would want your head looking at with that level of risk

the risk was years ago before the adjuvant trial !!

all you had to understand was T cells and avidity ....

[inanaco] 08/5/2024 13:30

the last time you attempted to be clever .... you posted this

LOL



RuckRover3 May '24 - 16:51 - 8465 of 8528
0 2 0
Inan,

Page 10 is very interesting.
It looks like there are all the numbers there to find out how the 90% probability was arrived at.
I’m away from home at the moment but will have a go when I’m back.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Result ZERO despite it being your "DAY" job

Solved it for you .............


""" Risk perception is a highly personal process of decision making, based on an individual's frame of reference developed over a lifetime, among many other factors."""" google

""You most certainly haven’t. The “no risk” only exists in your head. In order to quantify risk you need to define it."""


I have and did ..........

which trial has failed

Scib1 or Keytruda

so when i say my Risk is sorted ... have you

................ of which you reply mine is not sorted ...

is that because its your day Job ??????

[markingtime] 08/5/2024 13:25

Not quite. You then have the psychologically-damaging possibility of opportunity loss.....

[ruckrover] 08/5/2024 13:21

The only way to PROVE no risk would be to sell now and take a small lossOr, Sell when you are at break even Or, wait for 8 quid and sellOnly when you have divested all interest does the risk become zero.

[ruckrover] 08/5/2024 13:20

Inan,Sometimes it needs an alternative view, especially when nonsense like this appears:"I have proved mine carries no risk ..."You most certainly haven't. The "no risk" only exists in your head. In order to quantify risk you need to define it. For exampleThe risk of you losing all your moneyThe risk of losing any moneyThe risk of it not making 8 quid3 very different criteria, and each has a different risk factor.

[marcusl2] 08/5/2024 12:57

Scancell
@scancellpharma
·
2h
Metastatic #melanoma occurs when melanoma spreads from the skin to other areas of the body, posing significant challenges in terms of treatment, and continued #research and collaboration is necessary to meet patients’ unmet needs.

[marcusl2] 08/5/2024 12:55

Scancell
@scancellpharma
May is #MelanomaAwareness month. Over the next few weeks, we will be sharing information about the science behind melanoma and how our therapeutic approach has the potential to provide better treatment options for patients. For more:

[inanaco] 08/5/2024 11:46

Oh! are you going to give us Alternative view Therapy Loz ?

[the real lozan] 08/5/2024 11:42

No



YOU haven't