The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring financial educator and author Jared Dillian has been released. Listen here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
The selling looks like patience has run out for some folk. It’s Scancell’s year end today so no last minute deals or trail news.
There is no quick route to the trial data, it will arrive as soon as enough patients have reached their scans and the results have been confirmed. What can happen at any time are ‘deals’. GenMab may even get the green light to start a trial with our GlyMab target tomorrow or in three months.
So it’s down to each investor do you stick or twist.
I’m sticking, solely because I believe that the data when it arrives will be worth every bit of the wait.
It certainly isn’t WTP….nothing but sells over the past few days, which suggests to me that news is some way off. Hope I’m wrong!
The similar lack of news/RNS's isn't helping the SP either it seems.
Stakis,
"No posts since Sunday - is the site down?"
It's a fair question. I thought my iPad had frozen so rebooted a couple of times. It must be a record for the length of time without a post on the LSE SCLP board.
As TF says, plenty on ADVFN/PoG so maybe everyone is catching up on the War and Peace plot over there.
Nope ! Have a look at PoG if you are bored. ATB
No posts since Sunday - is the site down?
WTP
Yes well liked and well respected
Excellent
Nice find. Brad Locar seems to be one of the most followed bio reporters does he not?
Good to see that Brad Loncar will be interviewing Lindy Durrant on his UK tour 'profiling the best of life sciences in London, Oxford, and Cambridge.'
https://twitter.com/BiotechTVHQ/status/1783797670462587120
I thought, would have at the vaccines we have pitched against in the other trials in the ASCO article find below
1.Evaxion Biotech 26th of April -4.1800
+0.0600 (+1.46%)
Day's Range 4.0500 - 4.2500
52 Week Range 2.8240 - 18.5000
https://www.evaxion-biotech.com
2. BioNtech https://www.biontech.com/int/en/home.html
Prev. Close 86.71
52 Wk. Low 85.21
52 Wk. High 125.83
3. Moderna https://www.modernatx.com/en-GB
Prev. Close 106.18
52 Wk. Low 62.55
52 Wk. High 142.79
4. Scancell https://www.scancell.co.uk
Prev. Close 9.60p
52 Wk. Low 7.59
52 Wk. High 18.29
5.IQ Biotech, Inc
https://iobiotech.com
Prev. Close 1.4500
52 Wk. Low 0.8160
52 Wk. High 2.6400
Sorry, last sentence should read "accountant"
Ripley,
Yes, in principle losses can be offset against gains as far as CGT liability goes,
There are a number of considerations though that can make the actual calculation complicated:
There are different rates of CGT for stocks and residential property. So offsetting one type against another will affect the tax liability.
There is CGT allowance and a personal tax allowance and both may come into play.
A capital gain is taxed when it is materialised so you can't offset paper losses!
Your account will be able to advise you on your particular circumstances.
Ripley
You'd have thought so but others here may know for certain.
Difficult decision whether to hold or sell. The obvious difficulty will be if you need access to the cash and can't sell but the upside is that C4X have great potential and strong leadership and I feel they may be biding their time waiting for conditions to improve for a NASDAQ IPO. If so that problem disappears.
Thanks again Bermudashorts
I have just kept my C4X the ones in the ISA were at the bigger loss , they will be transferd and held in the non ISA now.
As a side if they were ever to go bust , I wondered if you could offset against gains in ordinary acc .
First top up here for a wile that has not got even cheaper after 10 days .
Redmile Group, LLC
They still have a large holding in Scancell ( SCLP ) 29% which they increased by 12% 20/12/23 from previous 17%
RA Capital I read went on a Buying Spree over the last month , as did other hedge funds to a lesser extent in sector.
Yes Cleaner thanks for that. I'm not checking now but I thought that segment at ASCO included BioNTech, Moderna and Scancell. Therefore, so nice to see that special mention. ATB
Noted. I will ensure I spell out future comments very slowly for you.
Meanwhile, please feel free to pick on somebody else for your tedious nitpicking.
Nice find thanks for sharing
ASCO PUBLICATIONS
26th of April
“Curing Stage IV Melanoma: Where Have We Been and Where Are We?”
https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/EDBK_438654
scroll down to Cancer Vaccines :
BioNTech (BNT221),57 while Moderna is focusing on the adjuvant melanoma space in collaboration with Merck.58 BioNTech is also the manufacturer of BNT111, a cancer vaccine encoding for a fixed set of four cancer-specific antigens (NY-ESO-1, MAGE-A3, tyrosinase, and TPTE),59 now being evaluated combined with cemiplimab in a randomized prospective trial that has recently completed recruitment (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04526899).
Other innovative vaccine approaches in testing include Scancell's DNA plasmid vaccine, SCIB1, which incorporates specific epitopes from proteins gp100 and TRP-2, identified from the cloning of T cells from patients who spontaneously recovered from melanoma. Both proteins play key roles in the production of melanin. Evaluation of the first 12 patients recruited to a phase II trial combining SCIB1 with ipinivo reported a response rate of 83% (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04079166). IO102-IO103, manufactured by IO Biotech, targets immunosuppressive proteins such as IDO and PD-L1. The phase I/II trial (KEYNOTE-D18) combined with pembrolizumab and demonstrated an overall response rate of 73% and a CR rate of 47%. These results led to the FDA granting breakthrough designation of the combination, and a confirmatory randomized phase II trial is underway (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05280314).
Really? How can this sentence be read in any other way?
'If there was a 90% chance of exceeding an 85% ORR then you can be certain that 85% would have been the target ORR, not 70%.'
Perhaps 'without saying as much' part could be the problem?
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……..
Ee
The whole trial was designed and powered to produce a 70% response rate as that is the level which demonstrates that SCIB1 is having an impact (ie. 20% higher than CPIs alone) and merits further development. How/why could/would they change that to 85%?
Johnny,
It is the fact that 85% is “in the bag” from the initial cohort that drives the 90% probability of exceeding 70% ORR.
If there was a 90% chance of exceeding an 85% ORR then you can be certain that 85% would have been the target ORR, not 70%.
That said, as I pointed out earlier, the 90% number is irrelevant once the results start coming in…..indeed their internal expectations may already be different?
Bermuda,
Thank you for getting clarification on that, I appreciate it.