Scancell Share Discussion Threads

[markingtime] 11/6/2024 07:57

Even by the standards of small shareholders, you are totally delusional.Redmile and Vulpes own nearly half the shares, with one sat on the Board. They effectively are the only shareholders who are important - and I would be 100% certain that they are kept well-informed (though only Vulpes/Diggle is deemed an insider).I'd also point out that anyone interested in a corporate deal knows they need those two on board. So why would the Board be interested in potentially wrecking a corporate deal by pumping the market up with a steady stream of unimportant updates?The Nomad and the independent directors are the ones who ensure that shareholders are given material information.Bottom line here is that the correct share price based on disclosed info is in the 8-14p range......and there is potential for 30-70p soon if a corporate deal is the reason for staying relatively quiet.

[inanaco] 11/6/2024 07:36

sept 9 of 11 banked
nov 11 of 13 banked

each one is a data set

ORR is not static ... but its date stamped

thus its an event

[sci102] 10/6/2024 18:43

Oh yeah, cause reality bends to your will lmao

[dominiccummings] 10/6/2024 18:29

Just wrong...

[sci102] 10/6/2024 18:21

If it is not static, then how am I wrong? Lmao

[inanaco] 10/6/2024 17:58

by the way how many shares do you own SC102

[inanaco] 10/6/2024 17:53

Sci10210 Jun '24 - 17:49 - 9325 of 9326
0 0 0
Let's not forget

Unless we coordinate to demand that the company explains

======================================================================

first you need to find somebody with enough shares to listen

ATB

[inanaco] 10/6/2024 17:51

what is your point ?

i have already said its not static

but you dont lose data

its just another data set at another time point

what are you arguing for ?

tell me if scancell start a registrational trial early in 2025 how can they produce data in 2025 as per presentations ?

if they have to wait 2 years ?

[sci102] 10/6/2024 17:49

Let's not forget

Unless we coordinate to demand that the company explains

1. Why they gave an impossible guidance back in 2023 that scib 1 would be fully recruited (43 patients) by end of 2023, when in fact it took them from 2019 to September 2023 to recruit 16 patients and another 8 months to recruite another 11 (27 recruited in May 2024. Under what circumstances did they expect to recruit 43 patients till end of 2023 given the recruitment track record prior to the guidance?

2.Why do they refuse to update on SCIB1 current data when with only 2 additional patients and while SCOPE study with SCIB1 had already passed to Simon stage 2, they gave an update in November 2023 just before the cash raise and then never updated us formally again.

3. Why do they not upload the presentations/posters from the last 8 months on their website, while they used to do it before? Last data available to download are from November 2023, while there is plenty before that.

What will happen next is the share price is going to drip down steadily and then RM/Vulpes/other are going to take the company private for peanuts and we'll get shafted.

PS Do not listen to Bermuda, he is most likely associated to one of the funds. Especially if he says look at Redx. Redx kept investors updated regularly and had genuine reasons vs the share price dropping slowly because the company has released nothing substantial of all the work they have done since November 2023.

[sci102] 10/6/2024 17:38

He doesn't inderstand science either btw, the guy is a monkey that has broken into a lab and made a mess

[sci102] 10/6/2024 17:19

Lmao are you drunk? It doesn't "delete" data, it is simply updated

Read the trial protocol

[inanaco] 10/6/2024 15:51

my post or bermuda does not suggest the ORR rate is static but its taken at different time points, that does NOT delete the previous Data obtained

your arguments are worthless if you dont appreciate the value of 13 weeks or 26 weeks

after all Scancell could have stopped the trial with that data if it was a failure

[2tyke] 10/6/2024 15:47

No inane you fool...you're the dangerous one !
That's because you've been encouraging peeps to lose money by buying this stock much much higher.
And you've been wrong at every turn.
That's because you've got COMPLETELY the WRONG idea about the stock market...simples !

[sci102] 10/6/2024 13:23

They are simply different endpoints. PFS is SD+PR+CR but measured over a longer period of time. That doesn't mean that ORR stops being evaluated at first confirmatory scan in a single arm phase 2.

[inanaco] 10/6/2024 11:22

Bermuda is Correct ...........

the ORR in the Scope trial is date stamped

indeed you had two date stamped points

with the second acting as a "confirmation of the first"

so yes its data that is banked

the reason for that is so you can look at early data in the first 6 months and compare that to PFS and OS to see if a link is applicable ...

if it is you can predict a trial outcome based on the first 2 scans which maybe very valuable as data is collected on the registrational trial to monetise if you can prove a probability .... ££££££££££££££££££

because Don't forget this Scope trial is also looking at PFS and OS

one other poster mentioned that those with a 100% clearance they would drop out of ORR That is not the case ORR includes CR

Scinv_temp is dangerous


Bermudashorts

Posts: 12,666

Price: 9.65

No Opinion

RE: Morning9 Jun 2024 21:42
Moonparty,

The 2 year timeframe quoted by Scinv_temp is simply the period over which the measurement is taken. My 18.42 is absolutely correct - once a patient has demonstrated an objective response, it is effectively banked in terms of the overall study. If they subsequently progress it has no impact on ORR.

[marcusl2] 09/6/2024 14:24

chester18

ISCIB+ 1st patient dosed 26th March 24.

Allowing for safety protocols and a build up to full recruitment we could have achieve 13 scanned patients by the end of July 24. We had the comment reported from the recent in-person presentation that 10 patients were enrolled in one month, which I presume was mid April to mid May.

My point being that we could have an RNS similar to the ( 9 out of 11 ) early data showing over 80% ORR by mid / late August.

The recruitment may be rapid but its the positive 13 week scans that are all important. Anything before then would be a bonus.

[the real lozan] 09/6/2024 12:39

It would appear -
That inane'n'co is not the only one to be obviously *over obsessed* with himself.
At least inane'n'co used to express HIMSELF by means of the ENGLISH language
.
Probably WHY the 'room is empty' = lack of interest

[marcusl2] 09/6/2024 11:09

The Glymabs can be used as Car Ts

“armouring” element comprises a co-expressed dominant-negative TGFβ receptor that’s been truncated, so it lacks an intracellular domain necessary for downstream signalling. This feature is designed to protect the Car-T cells from TGFβ-driven immunosuppression.

“It’s the first CAR therapy working in liver cancer. First validation of targeting GPC3 as a target. It’s the first validation of our armoring strategy. And it’s the first of many of our visions of CAR therapy in general,” Matt Hellmann, a medical oncologist and early development oncology lead at AstraZeneca, said in an interview.


Scancell already knows this

These CAR T cells target a prostate antigen known as prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) and they also express the dominant negative TGF-βRII that blocks TGF-β signaling. These CAR T cells displayed improved anti-tumor function when compared to CAR T cells that did not have the dominant negative TGF-βRII transfected into them.

[rogerbridge] 08/6/2024 17:15

Meanwhile, the sale of the centuary is probably nearing its end.

[marcusl2] 08/6/2024 13:30

Not long to see if Moditope`s modus operandi is proven.

How much could Modi-1,Mod-2 and Modi-3 be worth?

The Moditope platform exploits and harnesses the normal immune response that uses cytotoxic CD4 T cells to eradicate stressed cells. Citrullinated or homocitrullinated peptides are directly conjugated to adjuvant to activate APCs and allow presentation on MHC IIs to killer CD4 T cells. These primed killer CD4 T cells infiltrate the TME where they initially encounter citrullinated or homocitrullinated peptides expressed on the surface of APCs which stimulates release of interferon gamma (IFNγ), which induces local inflammation and upregulation of MHC-II on tumour cells. Tumour cells typically create an anti-inflammatory microenvironment, where MHC II expression is not upregulated, to evade the immune system.

The secretion of IFN-ϒ and the resultant inflammation could alter the nature of the TME, effectively converting “cold” tumours into “hot” ones, and so make a tumour visible to other elements of the immune system. Hence, Moditope stimulates the production of killer CD4 T cells which overcome the immune suppression induced by tumours, allowing activated T cells to seek out and kill tumour cells that would otherwise remain hidden from the immune system.

[marcusl2] 08/6/2024 13:27

Ipsen gets hot on cold tumors, inking $1.2B biobucks deal for Marengo's T-cell engagers



Cold tumors lack the attributes to support robust anti-cancer immune responses, for example because they are surrounded by cells that stop T cells from attacking. Immunotherapies have limited efficacy in such cancers, creating interest in how to turn cold tumors hot and allow more patients to benefit from the powerful drug class.

TriSTAR is Marengo’s answer to that question. Rather than rely on the T cells at the tumor site, which are often of poor quality or exhausted, Marengo wants to redirect a new, expanded pool of highly activated memory T cells to the tumor. If the biotech is right, the approach will promote more potent and durable anti-tumor activity than traditional T-cell engagers.

[inanaco] 07/6/2024 15:54

What is the response rate for nivolumab melanoma?
Among these patients, the objective response rate (ORR) by RECIST criteria across all dose levels was 28%, with the highest response rate observed in 3 mg/kg (41%). Responses were durable in most patients; in the 21 patients that achieved an objective response, 13 continued to respond for more than 1 year.

so the maths would change

as its a single cpi

85 - 41 = 44 44 of 59 = 74.5%

so scancell is 74.5%

v

33.6 %

it does not matter if we use doublet or not as the patient criteria does not change
we are still treating patients that would fail PD-1 as a mono also

a far better view would be Iscib1 because of greater coverage

[marcusl2] 07/6/2024 14:18

phase 2 IGNYTE trial (NCT03767348)

“Based on these compelling results and recent FDA interactions, we are increasingly confident in our path forward. We have shared the results with the agency and plan to request a pre-BLA meeting, in advance of our intended BLA submission. With these data in hand, we are preparing for a commercial launch next year.”

33.6% objective response rate in patients with melanoma who had progressed on PD-1 inhibitors.



(Expecting Scancell to follow suit)

[countbruga] 07/6/2024 13:56

Read the RNS's from the 16th and 24th May.