Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
Botski,
Haven't had the time to listen yet, but just wanted to say thanks for taking the trouble to record and for generously sharing it..........am sure it's much appreciated by all here.
There was a discussion here way back in May which outlined the history here and the connection with Texas Biomedical. Hopefully this summary will help to clarify matters regarding publication of this research:-
1) June 2021 original Covidity preclinical research published online ahead of peer review as a preprint on bioRxiv.org https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.18.448932v1?versioned=true
2) January 2023 - version 2 of above paper published again as a preprint. This was an updated version to reflect additional data on dosing regimes, immune response analysis AND live virus challenge experiments on animal models carried out by the Texas Biomedical Institute. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.18.448932v2
3) June 2023 - following peer review the paper was published in Fortune https://www.fortunejournals.com/articles/sarscov2-spike-rbd-and-nucleocapsid-encoding-dna-vaccine-elicits-t-cell-and-neutralising-antibody-responses-that-cross-react-with-.html
All the same research which has evolved as additional analysis and testing has been carried out by Scancell or by Texas Biomedical at the request of Scancell.
Nice find Konar.
Scancell used the Texas Biomedical Research Institute to carry out viral challenge animal experiments for Covidity. During the pandemic Texas Biomed became world leaders in animal testing with live SARS-COV-2 virus. As they had the facilities, animal models and expertise to carry out this work, it makes sense for Scancell to have collaborated with them and use their services for this aspect of the Covidity preclinial testing. The news report in the video was originally screened back in Jan 2022, although it looks like it's only recently been uploaded to youtube.
Ray - completely agree.
Moving on, the link below is to an excellent new report from Stifel 'Why Invest in Biotech?'.
Well worth a read to understand the current landscape, especially the section on valuations but also to appreciate the potential of the sector and the interdependent relationship between pharma and biotechnology companies.
https://www.stifel.com/newsletters/investmentbanking/bal/marketing/healthcare/biopharma_timopler/StifelWhyInvestInBiotech_11.22.2023.pdf
The article doesn't say that this patient is taking part in a clinical trial. It simply seems to be highlighting the efficacy of routine standard of care immunotherapy as well as Clatterbridge's expertise in managing toxicity. In view of the fact that he's receiving treatment after surgery, the dosing regime is 4 weekly and toxicity is an issue, it's possibly the PD-1 checkpoint inhibitor Nivolumab (Opdivo) which is approved in the UK for use in the adjuvant and advanced setting. Whatever it may be, it's wonderful that it's working so well for this patient.
Please ignore post below - it's nonsense (well half nonsense). Just noticed that the SMR abstract was also a LBA. Can only assume that they submitted with an earlier set of data which then allowed the latest data to be presented at SITC (must contain previously unpublished data)
Burble/Johnny,
The abstract sumbission deadline for this presentation was the end of June whereas the SITC poster was a late breaking abstract with a submission deadline of September 6th. If you look at the SITC poster, several patients had only just reached the first imaging point (13 weeks) so would not have been evaluated back in June.
Johnny,
I'm confused - shouldn't those options have expired in July? I know Lindy Durrant's 4.5p options were extended (again) back in July, but there was no mention of Richard's also being extended. So unless I'm missing something, either the dates on the SH01 are incorrect or Richard's were also extended .
Burble - did you used the contact us link on Scancell's website? If so, a while ago it wasn't working so you may need to email someone directly.
Ciaskin - poor show from Consilium
2023 revenue guidance
Merck 2023 $60 billion
BioNTech $4 billion
Moderna $6 billion
Attempting to compare share price of Scancell based on one or two early stage drugs is absolutely meaningless.
We have discussed valuations here many times but never seem to look beyond Scancell in those discussions. Even if you're just invested in the one bio, valuations need to be looked at in the context of the wider market.
We are hopefully getting to the end of one of the deepest and longest biotech downturns. It's not just Scancell and it's not just AIM - take a look at the NASDAQ biotech index which is facing its 3rd straight year of falling returns. Dozens of bios are trading below cash, IPOs are down by over 90% compared to 2021, funding is much harder to come by as generalist funds steer clear and about 30% of bios have less than one years cash. The whole sector has had a torrid time and the companies most affected are those with a market cap below $200m. Instead of covid vaccine trackers we now have biotech layoff trackers. This all against a backdrop of high inflation, high interest rates and economies on the brink of recession.
Unsurprisingly this has a knock-on effect on valuations and Scancell are not alone or immune. This doesn't mean that anyone should dismiss investing in the sector, the slump has forced companies to become more streamlined and commercially focused and to concentrate on the science with the very best chance of success. Companies with genuinely innovative science, creating and developing their own IP may come out of this leaner and more efficient but the lifestyle companies (we all know who they are) may well struggle.
Scancell have all the ingredients, novel products, ongoing trials with the promise of frequent (in bio terms) and positive newsflow and crucially are backed by specialist life science funds who have a deep understanding of the industry.
Don't forget Scancell simply licensed the mAb, Genmab have to carry out all the development work and preclinical testing to create and define a product. Assuming it's successful, they then have to evaluate where it sits in their overall pipeline and strategy and get the budget and approval from heads of R&D to proceed. Then they'll have to go through the usual applications to the regulators for CTA. etc. etc. There's a huge amount of work involved and a year really isn't a long time when it comes to drug discovery and development.
Ciaskin,
Thanks, I'm with you now!
Publication of the full application usually happens 18 months after the filing date although under certain circumstances Scancell can apply for an earlier publication (5 months from memory). So it will be a while yet.
Ciaskin,
Sorry, it's been a busy day and I'm being a bit slow - can you explain the question in your 14.13?
The SITC Annual Meeting abstracts were published yesterday - below is link to Scancell's abstract. Looking forward to seeing the full poster when it has been uploaded to Scancell's website.
https://jitc.bmj.com/content/11/Suppl_2/A1711
A new patent application from Scancell has been listed in today's UK Patents Journal:-
Title: Vaccine compositions and uses thereof
Date Lodged: 19 September 2023
We won't know any further details until the application is published.
https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-pj?startYear=2023&startMonth=August&startDay=30th+-+7006&endYear=2023&endMonth=November&endDay=1st+-+7015&filter=scancell&perPage=10&sort=Publication+Date
Cooley are Scancell's solicitors and it's probably as simple as they have the facilities, are prepared to hire them out as part of the service and it's a convenient location.
The SCIB1 clinical trial record on clinicaltrials.gov has been updated today with the addition of 2 new study centres - Guys & St. Thomas' in London plus Southampton. Also Royal Free London has changed from not yet recruiting to recruiting. There are now 9 study centres actively recruiting with the extra 2 presumably shortly to open for recruitment. Hopefully recruitment will be fairly swift when MHRA approval is received to open the iSCIB1+ cohort .
https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04079166?term=scancell&draw=2&rank=3
Also a quick update from Trinity Delta on today's results - I haven't read previous posts so apologies if already posted.
https://www.trinitydelta.org/research-notes/business-update-and-fy23-results/
Violindog,
There is no suggestion that Scancell have failed to complete their accounts in time, BDO have failed to audit them in time.