Scancell Share Discussion Threads

[inanaco] 27/4/2024 10:15

at the moment scancell is only considering Partial response ORR rate ...... which is an endpoint because its achieved very quickly ...

as the trial progresses ....

Complete response

Progression-free survival

Overall survival

come into play

This thread started with me playing with the 90%

Bermuda then made a guest appearance and wrecked the BB

what i do know 90% in play .... for ORR

the next transformative news is CR

and PFS is an absolute game changer if no new lesions

if the trend as seen in scancells Plots continue shrinkage with no new lesions

it becomes a different beast all together

if you take bits of the trials we have already done and overlay the data

it becomes very exciting indeed ....

FDA and MHRA use the same principle ... Prove efficacy and safety

the way the next trial is designed we may have a possible approval at the beginning of the phase 3 transition

so the stage 3 in effect becomes a stage 4

if your exceeding the margin of ORR by 15% constantly ..... and you add in PFS at 12 months it would be very difficult to even design a trial that would fail

as i have explained before

the trial is geared to achieve 70% if you exceed that by 15% on the next read out at 43 patients then the probability Must be higher than 85% on the next trial

like having a car do 100mph top speed ....

it will always manage 70 mph even up a hill

but rarely 110mph only down the hill

ATB

how you play around with the maths is up to u

this is what i do know

""the trial is geared to achieve 70% if you exceed that by 15% on the next read out at 43 patients then the probability Must be higher than 85% on the next trial""

prove that wrong

ATB

[ivyspivey] 27/4/2024 10:01

Morning I will probably get a reprimand from TF which I apologise for in advance as I am not trying to bait Inanaco as I really feel he can make a good contribution here despite some of my past comments.
But he would need to change his behaviour in only one main respect to gain that credence.
It is his constant need to be seen to be right in any discussion about any subject and whoever he argues or debates with.
If he genuinely conceded that there may be occasions where other contributors may have a more correct or more accurate view than his own it would be a much better board and he imo would enjoy it much more.
Anyway have a nice w/ end one and all

[ruckrover] 27/4/2024 09:46

.Inan,I'm sorry, but our discussion has nothing to do with anything Bermuda may or may not have said. It is only over statistics, mathematics and probability, specifically your inability to grasp any of the concepts.You are so off beam on so many tracks that I'm actually at a loss where to start. If you flip a coin 11 times and get 9 heads and 2 tails (82%) there is absolutely nothing you can deduce from those results. You CANNOT say in the next 11 flips that there is a 90% that you are going to get 8 heads (73%) that is just NOT TRUE. The chance of getting 9 heads in 11 throws is 2.7%. That was true before the toss and remains true after the toss. That is basic probability theory.Of course, the clinical trial is not pure chance. It may turn out that 9 out of 11 is the norm. We may get zero responses or 11 responses. At this stage WE JUST DONT KNOW. We do not have enough data to make any meaningful predictions although the initial results do look promising. Far better to have good results and hope they are maintained rather than poor results and hope they improve.No one has offered an explanation as to how Scancell say there is a 90% chance of achieving a 70% response in the larger group. Even LD says it's what she has been told. I'd hazard a guess that certain markers have been used and these follow a normal distribution. This then would allow standard deviation to be calculated. To get a 90% confidence you would need to apply 1.28 sdevs to the arithmetic mean. If this was taken off the marker results and the response categories reapplied, this would result in a 70% or above responders.Hope this clears it up.

[inanaco] 27/4/2024 01:05

RuckRover - 26 Apr 2024 - 07:06:48 - 7993 of 8057 Scancell - Pot of Gold or POS? - SCLP
Inan,

Once again you totally miss the point.
The chance of getting a head in a coin toss is 50%. That is the maths and the maths IS correct. If you toss 10 times and get 4 heads (40%) it doesn’t mean the maths is wrong, the probability is an indisputable mathematical fact.
There is no way the 90% can ever be proven accurate.

[inanaco] 27/4/2024 00:42

82% 85% is what we have .... depending which data you look at

""The chances of getting higher than 82% zero and less than 82% zero.""

yes because we have based the maths on what is known so the dice are giving you the correct answer

i cant change that, its what it is .... however medically there will be a tolerance because we are not one's and zero's

i was trying to sort out your coin flip issue .

not predict the trial with dice

after all its been done for u 90% why reinvent the wheel



suggest you take up your issues with Bermuda on scalability and probability ""after"" we have the next set of results and write a plan that incudes the random arm which is what Bermuda believes should be included

I look forward to it

have a good weekend

ATB

[ruckrover] 26/4/2024 23:35

The probability of getting green is 82% since you have chosen to paint 82% of the sides green. So in future tests you will always get 82% green. Mathematical, we can predict that with 100% certainty (NOT 90%) The chances of getting higher than 82% zero and less than 82% zero. So what does that show? Absolutely nothing. YOU have set the odds at 82% so that's what it will is.Surely even you must get that? Nothing to do with trials, nothing to do with probability it is just a number fixed by you.

[ruckrover] 26/4/2024 23:31

inan,You wrote earlier:>try another way a dice ............it has 11 sides 9 sides are marked Green for efficacy 2 are marked red for failurescancells probabilityNow roll the dice and record the outcome

[2tyke] 26/4/2024 22:58

Wasting your time with inanaco...he will never understand probability...or what moves SP's.
He's totally adrift in the markets.
He spends his time counting pennies in a car park kiosk.
If he had invested in something going up like crypto rather than going down, he wouldn't be in a car park kiosk.
Just to be clear....2 points
1) A 90% confidence level does NOT mean that the desired result is guaranteed.
2) Even if the desired result IS achieved, there is NO guarantee that the share price will rise.
Dear...oh dear.

[rogerbridge] 26/4/2024 21:54

Greedy directors, short term institutions and fund mangers would rather make a quick turn than grow businesses into world beaters.
It's the UK disease.

If a fund manager invests in Moderna and loses money, the other fund managers also lose. Everyone keeps their job.
Invest in growing companies such as Scancell and go out on a limb, your career is at risk.
Get it right and you are a hero.

Scancell are fortunate to have some good institutions backing them.

[inanaco] 26/4/2024 19:41

Try again ........ everyday

a post to Bermuda from

emptyend

Posts: 570

Price: 9.60

Strong Buy

RE: OncliveToday 19:23
They wouldn’t.

I was just making the point that the 90% confidence in reaching 70% is driven by the 85% already having been achieved in one cohort - and noting (without saying as much) that it would be nuts to think they had a 90% chance of beating 85%.

You seem determined to get the wrong end of the stick today……..

[ruckrover] 26/4/2024 19:07

Inan,I'm in the pub having fish and chips looking out at the North Sea.This takes priority over pointing out how ridiculous your assertions are. When I get back home I may enlighten you although that's probably a tall order.

[inanaco] 26/4/2024 19:02

you mean unable to reply ... Ruck

I do love your attempts to be clever ... same as moljen and bermuda

if you cant win Just be Rude and obnoxious and try and twist everything ...

but the best must be Bermuda having to ask Lindy "what does it mean" 🕵️205;♂️

[ruckrover] 26/4/2024 18:56

Moljen,Agree it is pointless. I said yesterday that inan just doesn't get it. His diatribe today just proved what I said. The garbage he had come out has left me speechless.

[inanaco] 26/4/2024 18:07

How many times have i told you that !

Bermudashorts

Posts: 12,627

Price: 9.60

No Opinion

RE: OncliveToday 16:58
Johnny,

Just an update on the 90% probability of success discussion regarding SCIB1.

Lindy has clarified that it is the probability of achieving a 70% response rate, not replicating the current 85%. To be precise it's the probability of achieving a '70% ORR on 43 patients' from the current SCIB1 study.

[inanaco] 26/4/2024 18:04

""It's a pleasure providing research which can be backed up by evidence which even a numpty could understand … and you dismiss it :-)""

pleasure mate as only a numpty would answer a question with the same question unanswered as evidence

this is just like your last effort trying to prove t cells repair viral infected cells

Moljen .... why subject yourself ? trying to be clever like ruck and being clever are not the same chap

[inanaco] 26/4/2024 17:53

you have just posted a question that has not been answered ? Moljen

[moljen] 26/4/2024 17:52

PS weekend time so I'm not going to waste time reading Mr Devor's thesis as I'm pretty sure it's a brilliant piece of work but I'm also pretty sure it will include the proviso that not a "fair dice".
If it ain't a fair dice you can't use it in statistics.
Anyway enjoy your next 20 posts as you'll be arguing with yourself again

[moljen] 26/4/2024 17:48

It's a pleasure providing research which can be backed up by evidence which even a numpty could understand … and you dismiss it :-)

hxxps://mathoverflow.net/questions/452776/why-is-it-impossible-to-create-a-numerically-balanced-die-with-more-than-120-sid

Suggest sticking to your innane ramblings rather than trying to persuade people you're a mathematical and statistical genius.

I trust other posters grasp of maths and finance for good reason, thank you for confirming a wise and astute decision.

You carry on dismissing, have a good weekend.

[inanaco] 26/4/2024 17:47

Moljen

fair point ... only unlike space time's variable Clock which can even stop (event horizon)

scancell reset the Earth clock with the ISCB1 patent

[inanaco] 26/4/2024 17:43

What is the maximum number of sides dice can have?

Jonathan Devor
·
Follow
PhD in Astronomy, Harvard University (Graduated 2008)Updated 5y


Infinity.

If the only requirement is that the die is made up of identical polygons, then there is no upper bound to how large the die can be.

[moljen] 26/4/2024 17:42

It was, quite interesting researching it. Some games like Warhammer have something called a 1000 sided die but it's actually 3 D100 dice rolled.
Bit more interesting than various arguments over probabilities when it's actually fairly binary …. someone comes along and thinks it's magic and pays a shed load of money or they don't in which case it'll follow the usual AIM pattern of next year rodders whilst all the while dilution occurs. Time is a risk which can't be avoided - we can argue till the cows come home as to why time is passing, whether things should / could happen quicker or anyone of a hundred variables but what we can't argue about is that time has passed. The market has measured this risk accordingly hence why 50p to where we are today.
To say this is a no risk share is nonsense which I think is why many have an issue with you

[inanaco] 26/4/2024 17:40

and by the way there is no upper limit of faces ... mathematically

that's more to do with practicality of use, but nothing to stop you having a bigger dice one can easily roll a beach ball sized dice you would need a measuring device to find the winning face


anyway ... so thanks for your research just dismissed it