Scancell Share Discussion Threads

[inanaco] 27/4/2024 15:17

Ivy

"I want the share price to go up but equally am comfortable to wait or even if it went bust or went to £1 it would not impact me hence I don’t post that often"

implies you have no shares again

ATB

[ivyspivey] 27/4/2024 15:10

Fair post Ruck as you say we all have a motivation to be here to some extent but it dies amuse me when others portray us individually as belonging to a certain camp when only us know the truth.
I frequent these boards as I am invested here and simply want to know as much as possible about my investment by watching the various inputs and making a judgement.
I have absolutely no agenda in trying to drive the share price down for any reason despite others assertions.
I want the share price to go up but equally am comfortable to wait or even if it went bust or went to £1 it would not impact me hence I don’t post that often
Anyway most of the comment action on AIM shares has moved away from BBs to TG groups ( Although the SCLP one is extremely quiet).
Anyways always nice to look in and touch base with folks

[inanaco] 27/4/2024 14:58

Bermudashorts27 Apr '24 - 14:43 - 8082 of 8085
0 0 0
The reason I asked for clarification is that your posts aren't always easy to follow.

This is what I understood you to be saying. Essentially Scancell have predicted a 90% probability of success for the current trial based on the 85% response rate from the first 13 Patients. You have then projected that 85% rate forwards to the end of the trial and assuming all 43 (you said 47 but assume you meant 43) patients respond have then factored that actross to a future randomised phase II/III trial. Please tell me if this is correct and then I will answer your point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
yea based on an assumed 150 if three. 200 if four. trial vaccine arm

[inanaco] 27/4/2024 14:54

4 th issue rude and obnoxious


inanaco - 22 Apr 2024 - 09:04:34 - 7899 of 8085 Scancell - Pot of Gold or POS? - SCLP
i will explain your problem

36 of 43 achieves 85% ORR

we only need 70%

so the probability of success in further trials will always be higher than the ORR rate achieved so far


I don't think maths is Bermuda's strong point

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

Bermudas reply


Bermudashorts - 22 Apr 2024 - 09:44:56 - 7902 of 8084 Scancell - Pot of Gold or POS? - SCLP
inanaco

From your 7899:-

''so the probability of success in further trials will always be higher than the ORR rate achieved so far'

This will be my last post to you and then I'll revert to the filter. Sometimes it's best to stop digging. This statement from you shows a complete and utter lack of understanding of the clinical trial process. Moreover it's highly misleading to those who follow you blindly and you should delete it immediately. If you seriously believe it, no wonder you think there's no risk.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No Body since has proved otherwise and where is your maths Bermuda ? you make a statement with no backup at all


i will explain your problem

36 of 43 achieves 85% ORR

we only need 70%

so the probability of success in further trials will always be higher than the ORR rate achieved so far

--------------------------------------------------------------------
as an alternative can you show how it could be lower ?

[bermudashorts] 27/4/2024 14:49

Inanaco,

If you can just answer my 8082 I'll answer all of your points in the order you've raised them.

[inanaco] 27/4/2024 14:47

same answer really issue 3

However, the trial can't and won't morhph into an adjuvant study and you shouldn't be raising expectations that it can.

who is giving this impression ? please provide my post that shows this



Bermudashorts - 20 Apr 2024 - 22:43:39 - 7885 of 8078 Scancell - Pot of Gold or POS? - SCLP
inanaco

Your 7883 - I did not separate adjuvant melanoma from stage 4 - what a bizarre takeaway from this debate. The forthcoming phase 2/3 is being run in advanced inoperable melanoma where SCIB1/CPIs are being given as a first line therapy. PFS and OS are standard endpoints in virtually all oncology trials, no matter what setting and clearly the better the response the better those survival results will be. However, the trial can't and won't morhph into an adjuvant study and you shouldn't be raising expectations that it can.

Similarly it's utter nonsense to suggest that any phase II/III trial (especially the first randomised study for the drug in question)could have a probability of success of 90% at outset.

Finally you are quite right, I don't buy into your 'no risk' fairytale and it's somewhat ironic that in order to highlight this you quote the results of the original SCIB1 study. A trial that took place over a decade ago, when there were only about 200m shares in issue and the results were so good that they were going to lead to a trade sale for many multiples of the market cap. Here we are nearly 14 years later and nearly 1 billion shares in issue and the share price under 10p. No risk indeed.

We seem unable to have a reasoned debate and I'm sure have much better things to do with our time. I'll move across to one of the other boards and leave you to get on with it. You should know though that although I reduced my holding, I am still invested and want Scancell to succeed every bit as much as you.

[bermudashorts] 27/4/2024 14:43

The reason I asked for clarification is that your posts aren't always easy to follow.

This is what I understood you to be saying. Essentially Scancell have predicted a 90% probability of success for the current trial based on the 85% response rate from the first 13 Patients. You have then projected that 85% rate forwards to the end of the trial and assuming all 43 (you said 47 but assume you meant 43) patients respond have then factored that actross to a future randomised phase II/III trial. Please tell me if this is correct and then I will answer your point.

[inanaco] 27/4/2024 14:41

second issue

I then posted

inanaco - 19 Apr 2024 - 19:47:19 - 7870 of 8078 Scancell - Pot of Gold or POS? - SCLP
and if I really want to get clever .... it will not be just the 43 it will also include ISCIB1 patients

increasing the accuracy of the probability indeed you could also include the adjuvant arm data as well

as that involves long term data if the current trial shrinks all tumor to zero it effectively becomes an adjuvant trial

thus data would be pfs and OS

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


Bermudashorts - 19 Apr 2024 - 21:14:32 - 7874 of 8078 Scancell - Pot of Gold or POS? - SCLP
inanco

lol- so in a randomised combination study you're going to ignore the control arm and give the treatment arm a 90% chance of success. How are you measuring success then? It doesn't matter whether it's 200, 400 or 2000 patients the point stands. You CANNOT take the 90% probability of success for the SCIB1 trial and apply that to the next trial. That 90% figure was simply the chance of an 85% response rate in 13 patients turning into a 70% response rate in 43 in that particular trial.

Your adjuvant T cell comment is irrelevant - the next trial is in advanced unresectable melanoma. It cannot become an adjuvant trial.

Your iscib1 comment shows that you're just not understanding that whist positive data from other SCIBs or from different settings is encouraging, it can't be extrapolated to give a possibility of success for a new trial in a completely different setting, with a different design, and completely different measures of success. Lindy would be a laughing stock if she tried to suggest a 90% probability of success for SCIB1's first ever randomised study.

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


so your first para Ignoring the control arm ...

Randomization as a method of experimental control has been extensively used in human clinical trials and other biological experiments. It prevents the selection bias and insures against the accidental bias. It produces the comparable groups and eliminates the source of bias in treatment assignments. Google

absolutely the probability is predicting the vaccine arm and has nothing to do with the control arm what the control arm is doing is making sure no bias because in this instance we have extremely accurate data because the checkpoints are approved
----------------------------------------------------------------
next points ... who mentioned turning the trial into an adjuvant trial ?

adjuvant melanoma is treating secondary cancer circulating cells before they seed or have seeded but cant be measured which is melanoma after surgical removal of the cancer and maybe lymph nodes

unresected is the same cancer that's grown as such data is relevant not to try and get approval but adding weight to your Probability

again this is you making claims that i have just not said .... and what has Lindy got to do with this ... and who is laughing ?

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

Your adjuvant T cell comment is irrelevant - the next trial is in advanced unresectable melanoma. It cannot become an adjuvant trial.

Your iscib1 comment shows that you're just not understanding that whist positive data from other SCIBs or from different settings is encouraging, it can't be extrapolated to give a possibility of success for a new trial in a completely different setting, with a different design, and completely different measures of success. Lindy would be a laughing stock if she tried to suggest a 90% probability of success for SCIB1's first ever randomised study.

[ruckrover] 27/4/2024 14:33

Ivy,
Quite often on these boards we get accusations of “agenda” or “motive”
There was a thread on LSE with questions over someone’s motivation. It made me ponder the actual motivation of the accusers or any of us for that matter. Clearly, the fact someone posts indicates that there is some sort of motivation.
So I asked myself, “what makes me read the BB and post?” Well, I feel that many heads are better than one. There are many people on these boards who have greater experience and knowledge in certain areas than I do. In fact I’d go so far as to say that every other person on this board will know more about certain topics than I do. But most of us aren’t parasites and will contribute in areas where we have more knowledge on a topic than most but by no means all.
We can then form conclusions based on a wide pool of knowledge rather than our own, often somewhat limited or even biased knowledge base.
We have a choice whether or not to accept what someone else says and have a right to challenge. But if the disagreement cannot be resolved then there should be a polite “agree to disagree conclusion.
(IMO)

[inanaco] 27/4/2024 14:13

we can deal with the issues one at a time

so my question is did i say that or not ?


""Honestly Inanaco, predicting a 90% probability of success for a 400 patient randomised study based on the results of 13 patients from a different single arm study just isn't realistic.""

[inanaco] 27/4/2024 14:07

ok Bermuda i am a fair guy

started with this and it clearly states that if 47 achieve 85 % then you can scale again be it 3 or 4 x


inanaco - 19 Apr 2024 - 18:05:56 - 7867 of 8078 Scancell - Pot of Gold or POS? - SCLP
13 patients lindy gives a probability of 90% success with 47 based on OR of 85% thus = a factor of 4 approx

47 x 4 = 200 approx

with the same probability as 13 to 47
----------------------------------------------------------------------

you then followed with this complete miss representing my post with your last para.

if your statement was correct my maths would not be 4 x 47 but 15 x 13



Bermudashorts - 19 Apr 2024 - 19:34:07 - 7868 of 8078 Scancell - Pot of Gold or POS? - SCLP
Thanks,

I think it's a total of 43 not 47 patients so closer to a factor of 3 but in any case isn't the 90% figure simply the mathematical probability of achieving a 70% response rate from 43 patients based on having achieved an 85% response in from the first 13 patients? Lindy said she had no idea how it was calculated and I certainly haven't either but seems a bit more complicated.

Honestly Inanaco, predicting a 90% probability of success for a 400 patient randomised study based on the results of 13 patients from a different single arm study just isn't realistic.

[ivyspivey] 27/4/2024 13:12

Hi Ruck,
I don’t worry about TF but he is very polite and I have baited Nana in past but not on this occasion.
As you say we want to discuss these aspects in a balanced way and Nana would be welcome imo if he moderated his view of always needing to be right and as you say TF who knows him better than any of us is our best chance of persuading him if that is possible.
Again as you say there is no leader or followers just people who agree,disagree with other people but in a way that they don’t fall out or feel they have to have a binary view.
Have a good day all

[bermudashorts] 27/4/2024 13:04

Inanaco,

Since my last post to you, you have made at least 35 separate posts mentioning my name. Let's clear this up once and for all in a reasonable way and then perhaps you can move on. Please outline my ridiculous assumptions and exactly what is wrong with my comments and please be as concise as you can.

[inanaco] 27/4/2024 11:14

what makes me laugh !!

everyone reads the thread ... even those that have there own Private apartments

To watch Ruck Trip himself up because he can't support Bermuda's ridiculous assumptions is hilarious

and this one ruck ?


""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"

[dominiccummings] 27/4/2024 10:58

#8072 Nah. Not feasible.

[inanaco] 27/4/2024 10:50

LOL

well Prove Bermuda RIGHT

i will happily acknowledge if i am wrong

golden opportunity

[ruckrover] 27/4/2024 10:44

Inan, Could you start a new thread just for you. Perhaps you could call it "I'm right and everyone else is stupid"You may even get some followers.

[ruckrover] 27/4/2024 10:42

Nigel,It would. That's what i'm trying to do but some are intent on sabotaging sensible discussion.

[inanaco] 27/4/2024 10:41

inanaco - 20 Aug 2022 - 12:59:01 - 52021 of 56805
just a reminder


""At the levels of deciding how to make a Vax you need real expert scientists so top virologists which Lindy is not.
Not saying she has not got intellect but she is specialist in a different field abd no short cuts tone expertise in a very specific area.""

then Bermuda joined in .... with

""""Also worth noting that Scancell simply don't have a vaccine platform that can be quickly developed and manufactured yet and at the moment speed is of the essence, hence the focus on mRNA vaccines.""""


then Scancell announce they are building a Vaccine with immunobody


i am not making this up ....

Ivy the expert telling us Lindy does not know how and Bermuda telling us we don't have one

[ruckrover] 27/4/2024 10:40

He is NOT my leader.

[nigelpm] 27/4/2024 10:39

Be nice to use these boards to discuss scancell wouldn't it?

[ruckrover] 27/4/2024 10:39

"Please advise how the control arm plays into efficacy of the vaccine arm probability"Not interested, not part of our discussion. I repeat, I'm not interested in getting dragged into your argument with Bermuda. At least he had the sense to realise you can't engage in a sensible discussion.You have alienated anyone who has something useful to offer.

[inanaco] 27/4/2024 10:39

Ruck you have a golden opportunity to back your Leader, you keep telling us he is the science GURU and Ivy Does for that matter .........

well back up your own statements .... !!!!!!

lets see why you think he is the Guru

prove his statement

[inanaco] 27/4/2024 10:35

can you also explain to Bermuda that if the 43 patients achieve 85% in the current trial

the input to achieve the maths on the next trial remain the same !!!

[ruckrover] 27/4/2024 10:34

Morning Ivy,"It is his constant need to be seen to be right in any discussion about any subject and whoever he argues or debates with."That was my thought exactly. You'd have thought he at some point he would question why he disagrees with everyone on everything all the time.I wouldn't worry about TF. He'd be better off trying to get Inan to modify his behaviour rather than chastise everyone who disagrees with him regardless of the stupidity of his posts.