Member Info for AB124

Cleaner, I think you hit the nail on the head regarding the complex logistics of personalised vaccines.

Why would a hospital deal with the massive expense and delay of bespoke sequencing when they could pull an off-the-shelf vial of iSCIB1+ out of standard storage and inject it immediately?Selection for the NHS Cancer Vaccine Launch Pad was the ultimate validation of this simplicity. Scancell is quietly sitting on a platform that solves the biggest commercial flaws of the mRNA giants. Surely they won’t be able to ignore this market disruption for much longer.

Makes for a positive on a day that the SP seems directionless.

AIMO

Cleanerworld, your 07:40

Brilliant summary.

You've absolutely nailed the strategic endgame here. The underlying question—“If you owned a multibillion-dollar checkpoint franchise, would you really want somebody else owning the vaccine that makes your drugs work better?”—is exactly why the major players will be watching the Phase 3 trial like a hawk.A few things to add to your thesis: The Patent Cliff is Ticking: With Opdivo and Keytruda facing LOEs (Loss of Exclusivity) in the late 2020s, combining them with a targeted vaccine like iSCIB1+ creates an entirely new proprietary asset. Pharma companies will pay a massive premium to extend the lifecycle of their blockbuster drugs. The "Defender's Dilemma": If BMS lets Merck acquire Scancell, Merck's Keytruda could instantly leapfrog Opdivo. BMS is forced to consider a pre-emptive strike just to protect their existing melanoma and solid tumor dominance. Derisked Validation: The FDA's recent clearance of the registrational trial and the Fast Track Designation goes a long way toward ticking off your conditions #1 and #2. The strong progression-free survival (PFS) signals we've seen in the SCOPE trial mean Scancell has already done a lot of heavy lifting.The "Platform" Multiplier: As you noted, it's not just melanoma. If iSCIB1+ validates the ImmunoBody platform, the acquiring company suddenly has a pipeline-in-a-product across multiple solid tumors.

Ultimately, you are spot on: none of this means a deal is imminent. But as the trial progresses and translational validation continues, Scancell’s optionality becomes incredibly powerful. If Phase 3 reproduces those impressive Phase 2 signals, you have all the ingredients for a classic big pharma bidding war.

Looks hopeful?

AIMO

CP

You frightened the life out of me just now... I thought the OFFER was at 13.55 :-)

Woke me up anyway ..

Bermuda,

Thanks for your 09:41, appreciate the observations and conclusions.

An alternative view is a useful post for someone such as myself with only limited scientific understanding.

AIMO

Chester,

If there's a deal or some form of exciting cash injection/offer/part or sale of platform in sight/expected, why on earth would RM want to exacerbate the pressure on the SP by applying for a part redemption of their holding of Convertible Loan Notes?

Surely they'd simply await the cash's arrival and perhaps (more simply) arrange a transfer of shares with a subsequent sale (if they didn't want to upset any applecarts)?

I would be very surprised to see any major SP enhancing announcement in the immediate future.

However, nothing would please me more than to be completely wrong in that assessment.

AIMO

C11

There's a difference in the context between my two posts.

The one you quote was as it says allowing posters with no idea to use jargon which gives the impression of knowledge. This is obviously pointless.

The context today was in the AI generated "Information" which could have influence on the SP as a publically available source where Buy/Sell decisions could be made on the emergence of such detail.

It may be a fine line, but as you'll know you can read information as an informed investor or you can "parrot" information having no clue as to its meaning.

the informed investor can make a value judgement, the parrot cannot.

Hence both points I have made have value when considering the use of AI and its effect on the SP.

AI is obviously a double edged sword, but should not, in my view, be dismissed out of hand. I think dismissing such "information" is potentially dangerous, its value is in the interpretation after due considerion. No ability to consider = no value. Due consideration by a qualifued investor = potential value.

Hope that clarifies.

AIMO

I'm intrigued that people who say that AI produces "Utter Cobblers" have been generally equally as successful in producing financial profits (thus far) as anyone who slavishly followed the siren calls of the AI Prophets (thus far).

Dear pot, love kettle maybe?

AIMO

EE

You were saying about Efficient Market Theory the other day,

"BUT when it comes to single stocks, there is a really crucial nuance…..because markets are actually pricing everything that participants THINK they know about assets - and their “knowledge” may be wrong, incomplete, outdated or based on a collection of misunderstandings. And that is REALLY important to remember."

So that suggests that you're being rather selective in your 40 year+ experience of EMT.

If "information" generated by AI is in the public domain, surely, ignoring the product of that source leaves you exposed to the effect such generated "information" might have on the SP.

I think as more people turn to obtaining info from any available source you might be at a disadvantage should you ignore one (potentially increasingly influential) source of "Information".

I personally believe that the use of AI in the wrong hands could well be dangerous, but to dismiss AI with your comment "AI posts generate utter cobblers" is not necessarily the attitude for the expert in EMT (such as yourself) who has an appetite for all sources of publically available information on a specific target investment.

All sources of "information" potentially play a part in the SP trajectory, to dismiss one as "utter cobblers" from wherever it might come is, in the context of your knowledge of EMT, rather surprising.

Don't forget, if the majority of interested investors believe a plausible argument for a buy or sell of a stock (irrespective of its source) the SP will respoond accordingly.

AIMO

Apols the CLNs were issued in 2020.

When the CLNs were issued the 3% coupon was a substantial insurance against the failure of the underlying equity. In the current world interest rate scenario this is no longer the case.

If your insurance cover has reduced you reconsider your strategy?

Beyond that maybe the performance of the equity influences your strategy?

Let's be honest, the original the original redemtion date has long passed. The investor is no longer controlling the investment.

That said I'm not suggesting anything other than RM's implied expectations in 2019 were rather different from those of today.

If anyone has a different take/speculation on the move it would be interesting to see it.

AIMO

EE

Please don't think I'm supporting the use of AI in the MAJORITY of cases on a BB such as this; But, to say that,

"AI is not a tool that looks forward and speculates about future events - it is locked in the past, based off what has happened."

is to misunderstand AI.

The reason that anyone who has a deep understanding of AI (and I certainly haven't) is likely to take great exception to your quote above, simply because the information generated in the system can and is being used to project into the future.

So I will continue to support the view that AI in the context of posters using it in a basic fashion is potentially not particularly useful if they are not in a position to judge the output of their AI enquiry, but to say AI is unable to move forward from historic information is rather to misunderstand the reasons so many are extremely concerned about the potential future decision making that it can actually achieve and also its ability to take its own future course should it not be carefully and securely contained.

I wouldn't write it off just yet.

AIMO

The great thing about using AI to generate posts for a BB such as this is that you don't have to have any understanding of the subject, the posts generated have very long and complicated words in them and the (the Good bit I guess) the poster asks what the other posters on the BB think of the "information" and "conclusions" generated.

Such posts are about as much use as a chocolate teapot.

But hey, Chocolate teapots do exist,

Taken from a longer post generated by AI

"........A BBC news article reported on a team of scientists and engineers creating a working chocolate teapot to disprove the phrase, using a special type of dark chocolate to withstand heat for a short period.

• Chocolate teapot proves useful - BBC News

9 Sept 2014

So that means that chocolate teapots are real, so therefore useful, so why don't we have them on sale in the shops?

Would welcome others' views on this AI revelation...... NOT!

NOT AIMO

RW

Some things transcend what occurs on a BB such as this.

Thank you for passing on the news about C7.

His contributions to this BB will be remembered by many for a long time to come and although I can't say we always agreed, he was always ready to add his views on anything Scancell.

Truly sad news.

RW,

Simply pointing out the errors in your understanding of the position in 2012 (The time to which Matt was referring and to whom you'd replied).

Quite honestly your appraisal of Scancell's situation vis a vis Finance and "Commercialisation" in those days was completely factually wrong.

I would have thought the reason that Inanaco was pillioried after 2013 has been proven rather more correct than his permanent cries of everyone who isn't holding strong is an idiot.

Good of you to rush to his aid thoiugh.

I'm sure he'll be appreciative.

AIMO

RW

As someone once said. "recollections may vary".

Yours as posted,

"......but my recollection of back then was of considerable financial insecurity with very promising science but on a small scale with a lot less hope of commercialisation. "

Actuality:

In 2012 there was absolutely no intention of developing SCIB beyond Stage 2 trials.

By 2013 there was no question of Scancell developing SCIB or MODITOPE beyond stage 2 trials.

The company was going to be SOLD by Y/E 2013 or early 2014 (see RG interview in Frankfurt Feb 2013). that was of course shortly before the notorious cash call at 22p (I think) in May 2013 (ish) even when the interview a few weeks earlier implied that there was no cash requirement.

If selling the Company lock stock and barrel was not "Commercialisation" I don't know what is.

It was only shortly after the little gem (Multiples of current SP ) was introduced to Scancell's folklore by inclusion in said interview.

Up until then most holders I believe were quite happy with the company. The cash raise put paid to that and then the railing against Inanaco etc started.

Since that cash raise those such as he have championed Scancell as being the holy grail of Bio stocks, but that's not really the case since 2013 is it?

OK, there's still hope, but a halved SP (with massive dilution for LTH) since 2013 can hardly be called a triumph for holders to date.

It's by no means dead yet, but please don't suggest that holding for the last twelve years has demonstrated the summit of investor wisdom. It most certainly has not (by any rational assessment).

AIMO

Sorry, last line of my 10.03 s/b,

"....source of massively varying quality."

I fear that AI will allow even greater numbers of people using the Internet will become "Experts" in every subject under the sun.

Being sufficiently advanced in years I remember the explosion of availability of "pocket calculators" in the 1970s.

Whilst being incredibly useful for allowing multiple and simultaneous calculations of massive complexity there's a rule that the user of these miraculous new inventions must have an idea of the likely "answer" to the calculation carried out, for without that rough check how would they know whether their input (hence the output) was correct?

Surely similar rules should apply to the use of AI for disseminating information to others. If the broadcaster of the AI information has no idea as to the veracity (or otherwise) of the detail they are publishing what is the point of doing so?

It seems to me that it's one thing to research a topic and then (re)publish fully accredited papers, but to simply use AI is potentially misleading and in extreme cases dangerously wrong.

I will concede it's useful for producing "information" on a particular topic, but if the poster using the AI information doesn't have the background knowledge or subject understanding to vouch for the quality of the AI information what is the use in posting the article?

I much prefer to read informed items from acknowledged writers who have the qualifications to back up their assertions.

Maybe there will accreditation for AI sources in the future, but as yet it seems to be a bit of a random source of massively varifying quality.

AIMO

Last line of previous post S/B "Your" rather than "Our".

Doh.

Thanks Bermuda.

Great to see some positive and relevant news.

As always our sharing is very much appreciated.

Hi Chelsea,

So sorry to hear about your current situation, so I just want to wish you well and to join the many others who've coined your phrase, "keep punching"!

There are very few who could keep the faith so determindly as you have, so you keep keeping on!

You really have become something of a legend

With all best wishes.