Member Info for AB124

C7 the 100k trade is cancelled

Dalester

Take your point but spinning the article as if it's a release from Scancell is potentially very unhelpful.

Take the article at face value, not as some stealth release from Scancell.

If it is a Scancell release then it's potentially not a clever move and the CEO needs some help (or to have control of what the Company puts out as PR during a trial).

If the full results are anywhere near this one patient's response then there's no need to go public ATM.

i'll call it a day now.

Thanks for all your responses.

AIMO

RW,

Sadly you haven't understood what I've previously written.

Your statement,

" Maybe AB should send a message to Clatterbridge, asking them to tell Trish that it's not that good or promising after all."

Don't see why, that's nothing to do with what I've posted today.

Thanks for trying to help though.

ATB

Crumbs,

You have posted nothing in your 09;20 with which I don't agree.

I disagree though with the suggestions that somehow Scancell are behind this (having sanctioned the article).

I doubt they are.

Nobody would hang around in an investment such as this for ten years plus (as I have) without nurturing the hope to which you refer. So we all hope for success, I am concerned that the announcement of the official trial results will be the proof of the pudding and any excitement generated over the results of one patient proves very little in the overall scheme of things.

WTP

At least I'm prepared to admit I'm no expert, unlike some who self appoint their "expertise"; not always appropriately.

But continue to hope.

AIMO

WTP

Not, Balance more common sense.

I'd hate for Scancell to have trouble with the Trials in progress because of misplaced "Assistance" which might have a result in getting the SP up a few pence. I'm sure there are many more than a few who need to see a bit of an SP boost after the recent poor price showing.

This "success" is proclaimed from one patient's results but well before the greater and meaningful stats are gathered and assessed. It's a great individual story, nobody can deny that, BUT I hope it doesn't damage the Company on a broader horizon. If the results are spread across the other trial participants then THAT'S the real story and the SP will fly with good reason. Any SP benefit from one result is likely to be transitory (But nonetheless welcome for some to benefit I'm sure).

So generally speaking the information is good, is nothing Investors on this BB didn't know before and is superb news for the lady and her family.

But for the SP (Like any holder here) I hope so.

WTP

I'm not claiming balance, I'm merely pointing out some issues that early publication of data might not be the best way forward if not sanctioned by the Trial Runner. Since the trial's still in progress let's hope no damage is done. IMO Scancell should be the only source of information, and that should be clearly attributed.

As this is not I don't think Scancell are being helped by this sort of thing.

We'll see.

AIMO

Rob,

Trish was NOT very vocal in the past. She was posting on a Forum for Cancer sufferers. In the first instance she was horrified when her comments were spread to other Social Media.

Her comments were spread by others, not her.

The reason I have taken issue here was because it has been implied that this WAS a Scancell backed release.

As WTP posted earlier,

“…..The fact that Dr Ottensmier is quoted would imply a Scancell approved article. An element of de-cloaking by Scancell? Finally?”

So talking it down to Clatterbridge etc. is now moving us away from earlier claims about it being a Scancell release. Results even BEFORE the trial had run its course?

Scancell approved?

I doubt it.

AIMO

Crumbs,

I'm amazed if Scancell would be in any way happy with that article.

I'm not sure that Clatterbridge are in a position to allow press releases independently of the trial runners.

This seems a very strange situation. A clinic advertising their trial by releasing information to the public during a trial from one patient?

If you can assure me Crumbs that there's no ethical problem with this I'll reconsider but until you can prove to me that a clinic can openly advertise for trial participants independently of the trial runners then I' reconsider my position in this matter.

Chester,

Do you really think that LD has given her blessing to this? Quite apart from the diluting of the NEWS Value,a national newspaper at least would be the desired outlet for such information AT THE APPRROPRIATE TIME , as well as the fact that you are at odds with Crumbs who thinks that the Clinic did it without reference

Until then I feel very uncomfortable with what's happened here.

AIMO

As to the Clinic "putting it out" I'm not sure that's particularly likely either.

AIMO

Crumbs,

Thankyou.

Let's put an end to Scancell being the source of this article. It certainly better not have been.

AIMO

RW,

So wittily inaccurate (as ever).!

No, actually I'm saying that Scancell have failed miserably in approaching the Weekend Reporter on the Liverpool Echo to release information about a product currently undergoing trials and basing the entire reporting of the Trial on one single patient.

In fact I suspect that it would be frowned upon by the regulators.

That's what makes me unsure of the source of the information being Scancell.

I hope that any problems with this first release to the World isn't going to backfire on Scancell.

AIMO

C11

OK so why are Scancell using the Liverpool Echo?

They used to use SKY, and get representation on the programme.

What's changed with their ability to get coverage.

Or maybe it wasn't anything to do with Scancell.

The article was written by that paper's "Weekend Reporter".

Surely Scancell could do better?

AIMO

If Scancell are dropping the cloak why not use SKY (as before) or something national rather than the Liverpool Echo? It seems a strange route for a Bio to bring Modify to the world's attention.

I would have hoped such news would be considered much more of a national (if not international) import.

I'm no PR expert though.

AIMO

FWIW I cannot conceive of the idea that RM would entertain making a full bid for SCLP. I'd also be surprised if they would be involved in making any significant further funding available to Scancell on anything but a short term loan based approach. Having said that stranger things have happened but they've already extended the facility through the CLNs and that suggested to me at the time that timelines had already started to slip. Maybe they will be prepared to increase their exposure but I'm sure the trial results will be significant in any new structured financing.
AIMO

Hello C7,
Thanks for your comments.
I would simply say to your point that,
"but even if Lindy is both CEO and CSO, do you really not think, there are many others inputting their commercial experiences and in particular Redmile and Vulpes"
Maybe you're right but never forget a camel is a horse designed by Committee. Vulpes have intimated their lack of enthusiasm for the speed of commercialisation and RM are investing for their own return (to be passed to their investors). Neither are Company Managers, they are investors. OK they may have useful contacts but at the end of the day they invest in Companies and people. The CEO should be driving the Commercials and strategy of the company. At least one of our investors has criticised that strategy in a veiled statement.. LD cannot rely on outsiders to drive the commercials while she runs the Science.
The good ship Scancell is negotiating choppy waters and in the funding context the outlook is difficult. Maybe the two IIs will bring in future investors but they will want their cut of the equity (perhaps that thought was the reason behind Diggle's comment on dilution)?
So I'm not sure about the finance being sewn up, particularly taking DeAar's quote from LD earlier,
""The cash runway extends to Q1 2024. We will need to do deals, and further things, to extend beyond that".
That needs set out in that quote are couched in the future tense.The climate is not improving in that context ATM.
If the data from trials in progress is seriously good (as we all hope) then that will obviously ease any potential future funding difficulties, but that wasn't the issue I was addressing. Is it true that the future trial you mention is fully funded? Is there certainty? I can't really comment further on that.
So all in all, as in any company such as Scancell, nothing is set in stone but I believe there are a great many hurdles to clear before we can rest particularly easily that the outcome is a Slam Dunk.
This is my view, the difference I think I identify between myself and many others is that i HOPE for success others EXPECT.
Hope that clarifies.
AIMO

DeaAar
" "The cash runway extends to Q1 2024. We will need to do deals, and further things, to extend beyond that"."
Do you think that that statement means that Scancell's funding requirements for 2024 Q2 on are sewn up?
the bit about doing deals and the mysterious "Further things" (not the words of a Financial professional IMO) make me think that it's a work in progress. Since the Financial climate has moved against borrowers in the last few months I'm not sure I'd be reading that as a done deal. Add to that the "Dilution" mentioned by Vulpes and I'm even less convinced.
WTP
"My point is AB124, you are not the self appointed paragon of balance you seem to think you are. IMO."
I'm not suggesting that I am the Paragon (?) of balance (if only I was perfect) but neither am I appointing myself in that role. All I did was to put forward a couple of less than positive "what ifs" of Scancell's current situation against the rather more robust (at least in volume) positive "What ifs" which seem to be the accepted rule on this BB.
Surely posters who continually tell us what happens next in the Scancell story which then seem never to be accurate there must be room for someone to put up an alternative view; or is that not allowed?
if it isn't simply say so and I'll get my post taken down.
If you are prepared to read the alternative please at least have the decency to accept that someone might just have a different view from the norm here and since the accepted normal view posted here is rarely correct it would be polite not to try and ridicule the poster of that alternative.
It seems to me there is a danger that by constantly repeating the same story it suddenly becomes the "truth" which might be misleading for anyone who might have a more in depth understanding of the Bio sector.
I don't claim that "more in depth understanding" for myself and that's the delight of being able to look at a situation and question the accepted norm.
So, I posted my alternative view and feel that it should be allowed to stand in that it is as equally valid as any other view posted here. Only time will prove whether one or the other is correct, or more likely what mix of the two transpires.
Hope that allows us to coexist in a relatively non adversarial way.
Once again,
AIMO

WTP
Yes, i am invested and have been for ten years plus.
I don't believe that a chairman would join if he thought the products were "Duds" as you put it, but many Bios have seen extremely promising products go to trial and then fail for a multitude of reasons (not all down to the products themselves).
AACR contents of the Poster were submitted many weeks ago. What is AACR if it isn't a principally Scientific forum. Don't forget the recently publicised Vulpes statement was not all glowing for Scancell and seemed to be implying that the Commercial side was running behind the Scientific. Don't forget also that the CEO and CSO of Scancell are one and the same person. Would you disagree that the Scientific side of those two critical parts of the Company's staffing is represented more strongly through the joint appointment than having a dedicated CEO with a proven track record? Finally on your point of AACR Scancell are going (by the CEO's own admission) to have to obtain funding in a matter of months. Makes sense to use AACR to make new (and possibly resurrect old) contacts to enhance all aspects of the Company's future.
I think the open question I raised offers a balance to the perceived views on here.
Hope everyone takes this post in the spirit it was written.
It was for Balance.
Obviously I write emphatically,
AIMO

I have to ask this simply because no one else has, so here goes.
What if the results garnered so far aren't quite as stunning as hoped?
Would you want incomplete data to be put out into the public domain when it's not required to be?
This is not what I would want to happen but surely it might be a reason for not going madly public when it's not necessary and further data reports might improve the overview?
This concept is no different from all the other ideas put out on this BB except it is on the other side of the argument.
So I simply put the concept here for balance (which I'm sure nobody could disagree is equally as possible as all the other points made in the recent past).
AIMO

In which case probably better not to have made your pointless 20.41.
Sleep well.

Fascinating that some posters seem unable to understand the difference between expectation and hope. A definite lack of comprehension of the richness of the English language.
Sad situation for a self professed wordsmith.
AIMO

Crumbs,
You asked a question,
"AB what are realistic expectations?"
I responded to your direct request, not sure it's "getting all worked up".
Anyway have a super evening.