Scancell Share Discussion Threads

[inanaco] 07/7/2021 10:40

the consumers are doctors not the general public

and very specialized indeed (cancer)



so if the MHRA grant approval for a Booster shot to existing vaccines able to target the conserved area of future variants and current strains.. it would become a "standard" for others to compete against, its not the same ..

[emptyend] 07/7/2021 10:19

Nope. The point of the analogy is that a merely technically superior product isn't enough to dislodge competitor products that are already well-entrenched in consumers' minds. It has to be a whole step-change better.So.....extending my analogy, we must prove that we are working on the equivalent of a PVR, which needed materially better functionality to displace VHS in the market. That means we need to show it is a universal vaccine, effective against all variants of Covid19 (and, ideally, against other coronaviruses too). That is where the T-cell focus is crucial!

[inanaco] 07/7/2021 10:12

EE

this market is controlled by Standard of Care .....

not betamax v VHS

[emptyend] 07/7/2021 10:08

Lets be clear....for Covidity to yield commercial vaccine results, a large amount of money is needed for testing. Whether that comes from governments or large pharma companies is immaterial, except that the messaging impact of government backing would be more immediate. But this, again, is similar to the oil E&P business, in which small companies spend money developing concepts and then farm out their projects to larger companies in exchange for a financial carry through to certain milestones.Covidity is slightly better than a standalone project though, in that there are spin-off benefits from testing delivery mechanisms etc that can then be used for on cancer-related products. So there is value obtained for the company even if ultimately the new Covid vaccine isn't commercial.I see the biggest risk here re Covidity as taking too long to hit milestones. There is no money in producing the vaccine version of Betamax.....it might be technically superior for the purists, but if the VHS equivalent corners the vaccine market then that will be a problem.......and that is why the potential of Covidity to prove some element of universality in tackling coronaviruses is crucial! We won't out-compete Pfizer, Moderna etc without demonstrating substantially broader protection!

[inanaco] 07/7/2021 10:03

Loz your a Nutter

maybe a "Minted" nutter

maybe a "Nutter" with a squat nosed Bentley

but you have accepted 44p is attainable ... despite your posts

which is Nuts ....

[inanaco] 07/7/2021 10:00

dead easy to read High Avidity ............... understand and booooom

One of the best studied properties of the TCR is the affinity of the interaction between a TCR and its cognate ligand, the peptide-MHC complex (pMHC). The affinity of this interaction has a well-established effect on the subsequent activity of a CD8+ T cell [2]. TCR signals affect the priming of naïve CD8+ T cells, their ability to migrate into the relevant tissue [3], and their ability to kill target cells expressing the relevant antigen, including tumor cells [4]. As a result, the affinity of the TCR chosen for adoptive transfer therapy is likely to have a large impact on the anti-tumor activity of the transferred T cells.

It remains to be established exactly which affinity level leads to the best prognosis in ACT for cancer. Many studies have presumed that higher affinity TCRs will be the most effective as affinity closely matches T cell response in vitro, and some studies on immunity to viruses support this concept [5–7]. For example, Alexander-Miller et al. generated virus-specific CD8+ T cell lines by stimulation with either high or low concentrations of antigen, and from this, generated low or high affinity CD8+ T cell lines, respectively [7]. They then demonstrated that the higher affinity T cells were much more efficient at viral clearance [7]. Other studies have also shown that while very low affinity viral antigens can cause complete T cell activation, these responses are curtailed compared to high affinity responses [8]. Zehn et al. examined the responses of both endogenous and TCR transgenic T cells to viruses expressing modified forms of OVA, which contain peptides for the TCR transgenic T cells with known and varied affinities [8]. The viruses expressing low affinity peptides still activated naïve T cells, inducing them to proliferate, form effector cells, and generate memory cells, but the contraction phase was earlier than with the high affinity responses, and so the strong TCR signals caused a more sustained T cell response [8].


Further complicating these divergent models is the reality that in vivo, interactions between cells are complex, and a T cell can contact multiple APCs receiving cumulative signals, and/or form stable, long-lasting contacts where the signaling molecules are segregated into well-defined regions. At the priming stage, it was shown that TCR affinity affects the type of interaction with the APC and the strength of the intracellular signal subsequently received [19]. It was proposed that TCR-pMHC interactions above a certain affinity threshold permit the T cell to continue to interact with the APC long enough for the first cell division to occur while the cells are still interacting with the APC [20, 21]. As these sustained T cell-APC interactions cause a high level of asymmetry in the T cells, the two daughter CD8+ T cells tend to be different. The daughter T cell that develops closest to the APC, known as the proximal daughter T cell, appears to have a greater capacity to differentiate into a short-lived effector cell (SLEC), and SLECs have been shown to have the best functional potential [20, 21]. In contrast, low affinity interactions lead to symmetrical cell division as T cells are no longer in contact with the APC when they divide, and hence there is a reduced production of SLECs, and a subsequently weaker immune response [20, 21]. Affinity is also important for tumor target recognition and killing. While low affinity signals are able to cause polarization of the centrosome and associated cytotoxic machinery, in the absence of high affinity signals, cytotoxic granules may not be recruited and so the T cell cannot kill the target cells [22].

[the real lozan] 07/7/2021 10:00

BALANCE v unstable IMBALANCE -
23 innanEGO posts before my 'second brew' just about 'sums-up' the REALITY.
Whereas, most of those 23 innanEGO posts are focused on ATTACKING almost EVERY other poster.
Almost ALL other posters, are 'unified' in CORRECTING the 'image' DEMANDED by one single 'RAMPER'...The majority v The unbalanced RANTER.
It is, always was 'everso'.. a question of 'Common Sense v overblown EGO'.

[inanaco] 07/7/2021 09:34

ee

its the real risks of Immunobody that nobody seems to be able to quantify ...

covidity is two platforms ... thus carries a higher risk until proven but NOT to shareholders

its costs are mainly funded by Grants

[emptyend] 07/7/2021 09:28

If I may add to my #41697, I should confess that I have previously been in Inanaco's position in advocating investing in a stock that others dismissed as uninvestible. That was in 1999 and the market cap of that company at the time was £17mn....was below the normal institutional threshold.Less than a decade later, the shares reached a high point that was 80x my initial entry point (though of course I failed to "sell the lot" and sold only a few percent near the highs).But the initial situation was extremely similar to when I first invested here a year ago as, shortly after I invested, deals were done that validated the concepts as investible and materially increased the company's financial firepower. And then, of course, the company managed to prove up and commercialise a big chunk of its portfolio (before going on to fritter money away on efforts to repeat the trick in other locations).I'm very optimistic of similar returns here but, make no mistake, real risks remain. If they didn't then the possibility of enormous upside wouldn't exist.

[inanaco] 07/7/2021 09:26

ONW

why didn't you Scream Buy on here at 3.5p

as you are such an expert ??????????? or have you f..ked up that to ? mr commercial

why didn't you declare buys like i did ????? very quick to declare sells at 27p


intrigued

[gazza] 07/7/2021 09:24

Yes Inan, I can generate a loud sound through my Fender Telecaster and amp.It doesn't mean I will become a rock star.

[the real lozan] 07/7/2021 09:24

Snow crow -
Are you glad you 'asked' ???
If nothing else, this mornings 'discussions' may 'point you in the right direction' as to the 'virulent' nature 'to come', indicated by the 'volume' of certain 'single' posters, seeking to impose HIS will {EGO}, upon, and over - ALL OTHERS.
A CLEAR indication of 'What to expect in the future' from these SCLP forums
BUT....NOT
What to expect from SCLP
What most have come to expect from SCLP {unlike the 'Destruptive ONE'} = is 'silence'

[inanaco] 07/7/2021 09:20

Mia

Lindy has proved she can generate High Avidity ...........

its really is a simple concept ...

the T cells will react to very low levels of stimulation ...

and they react very strongly ...

you already trust your own T cells (i hope)

indeed

Wanderer
Dean
P7 ....

think they are marvelous and don't need a vaccine

[miavoce] 07/7/2021 09:14

Thanks Inanaco - i had misunderstood your earlier posts regarding risk and had assumed that you meant all platforms, thanks for the clarification. I agree that the outstanding success of the SCIB1 trial has hugely de-risked the platform, far more so than many phase 1/2 drug trials where the results barely justify moving to phase 3. I am however in the camp that believes the risk hasn't fully been eliminated until we are successfully through phase 3 although, like everybody else including LD, i have no idea whether a mechanism of failure may come to light (although this is very unlikely IMO) nor what it might be.

[inanaco] 07/7/2021 09:06

so explain ...

why did you not sell all ONW you joined with me from Barc at around 8p

why has Bermuda held

why has Gazza held

why has Wildforce held

Even Ivy retained some in the end but started from a higher base than us

are you saying you Fk..up ... and trying to pass this off as my fault ??

[inanaco] 07/7/2021 09:00

ONW and his pontification

""" he held through out""" .............. only slicing at 27p on the way down

interesting my wealth is generated through property ... its a gradual process over decades

nobody is forced to buy Scancell ........ and i am not a fund manager

and any one that did invest back in 2012 ... will still get profit if we have it right hence The VCT just selling a few at a profit ...... funny that

Tick tock

[inanaco] 07/7/2021 08:54

nobody should trust Burble or Myself Bermuda and certainly not you as you are not prepared to challenge any poster ... and indeed have supported dreadful posters, you put your own "standing" first .. that may look great to others but helps nobody in the long run because they would not know whats true or false ...

Nobody challenged you .... only me

You have not accepted any my posts on risk analyse of Immunobody ... yet provide no detail of what supports yours ..


all we are doing is supporting the science of Scancell

Its Lindy's work ....

Get it !!

[ivyspivey] 07/7/2021 08:49

Morning salient bit from Burbles post

But the sad truth is many pharma companies and their promising early phase drugs fail in clinical trials. Hence I have always tried to present as neutral and balanced view as possible.

Anyone with pharma experience knows and understand this and all SCLPs platforms are in early stages.That is a known known and anyone who pretends otherwise is certainly not neutral and should be viewed from that perspective

[bermudashorts] 07/7/2021 08:44

Inanaco,

This will be my last post to you on the subject today and then I suggest we drop it. In future we can probably avoid similar spats if you stop referring to risk as drivel.

You have stated today 'No risk in SCIB1 and the immunobody platform' - that just is not true and others may make investment decisions based on the fact they trust you and Burble re. the science.

[inanaco] 07/7/2021 08:41

I hope you understand the Mouse didn't change

they are not breed as lung cancer mice or Covid mice ...

[inanaco] 07/7/2021 08:36

Mia

Immunobody has already been in trial

all my "No Risk" here posts apply only to Immunobody ....

some have failed to explain that ....... Bermuda has painted a picture that i see no risk in scancell entirely .... that is not true

what i have said is ...... No risk in SCIB1 and the immunobody platform

i have tried to explain the Mouse model is also validated because it translated into the clinic

The market fluctuations create risk .... but that is sentiment

but Bermuda will not disagree that the value of Scib1 proved synergy will exceed the Mcap of Scancell with ease as it also opens up the entire platform for other deals with check points ...

but its also given us Covid


so all i can say to you ........... if 4 years ago you understood that ..

You Buy the share when others are selling ..............

I did ..

money where mouth is ... i declared all trades

[emptyend] 07/7/2021 08:29

If I may interject in the latest pointless spat....I don't understand the science other than at the broadest level; however I do understand risk. We are at the stage of having a portfolio of really promising concepts but there are a crucial series of steps about to be taken to provide the depth of data needed for commercial success.This is why I think of it as similar to oil exploration: you start out (hopefully) with a collection of well-researched play types and then acquire data such as aero-mag surveys, geochemical analysis of rocks and some 2D seismic. At that stage you have enough data to develop a theory of what is going on beneath the ground BUT it remains really early-stage and largely a matter of faith in the concept. This is the stage that Scancell are now at........but they are just about to embark on the equivalent of a massive 3D seismic campaign to refine their understanding of what is going on "under the surface" and they will then move immediately on to a "drilling campaign", which will attempt to prove up the various play types. EVEN IF they prove "oil" in every play type it doesn't mean that can be commercially valuable (due to competition from better nearby projects, or lack of flow rates etc)..... but if they succeed in commercialising their discovery then........then the good news is that the upside can be enormous. An increase of 100x in the share price is perfectly possible - but it wouldn't exist without acknowledging that there remains substantial risk at every step. What Scancell are now embarking on is a journey to derisk their portfolio : if they succeed, those who have significant six-figure holdings or more will literally make millions. Hence Redmile's backing......which is a very important straw in the wind.

[miavoce] 07/7/2021 08:28

Hi InanacoI really appreciate you input here and previously elsewhere on the science, but on this matter of risk i would appreciate your view on why clinical trials take place. I understood that they are, in essence, to flush out safety or efficacy problems which had not become apparent in the preclinical science i.e. were unpredictable prior to human trials. I'd welcome your thoughts.

[inanaco] 07/7/2021 08:20

Unrelated ?

no just showing that your understanding of the commercial aspects of Scancell

is bewildering ....

your efforts on the science can be summed up as zero input ...

i am sure if Bermuda thought you had any knowledge in that respect he would come out in support of you ...


what i am doing is giving Bermuda space to explain Risk as related to scancell ..

not broad stroke .. ALL bio are risky blah blah .... because he bought as well as i did Scancell

why would you buy a risky share ....

Bermuda would not buy VAL !!!!!!!!!!!! why ?