Member Info for Bermudashorts

Yes, think we can assume a couple of things. Firstly that a member of the Shadow Cabinet is fighting Scancell's corner and secondly, as of yesterday, Scancell were still awaiting a decision.

WTP

In case it gets lost, that's a great spot and I believe the second time Chi Onwurah has asked about the Scancell vax.

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2020-07-13.72904.h

Ipad,

Do you mean the Biodiscovery Institute or the COVID-19 vax?

Link below is to an article about the fantastic new Biodiscovery Institute at University of Nottingham where Scancell's labs are sited. Real state of the art stuff and apparently one of the most well-equipped academic institutes in the world. Lindy Durrant and her Covid-19 vax gets a special mention:-

'One example here in the Biodiscovery Institute is the work of Lindy Durrant, which is incredibly exciting. She and her colleagues have been creating vaccines which trigger two types of response in the immune system; one which is antibody based and the other is something called ‘T cells’.

In trying to create a vaccine for COVID-19 she has used this dual approach to attack two different proteins in the virus, one on the outside, one on the inside. The one on the outside is thought to stimulate the antibody response and the one on the inside the killer T cells. This is the same technology being used to treat melanoma patients too and the trials have been absolutely outstanding – many patients have no trace of cancer five years on.'

https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/impactcampaign/news-and-views/items/news/alt/2020/uncovering-our-biodiscovery-institute.aspx

A cracking trading update.

- EBITDA for FY 2020 expected to be materially ahead of market expectations
- Total revenues for H1 2020 increased by 14.8%
- Sales of new business for H1 2020 increased by 22.9%
- Order book up 28% to £151.4 million

Ah thank goodness for that - had me worried for a second.

Chelsea,

Did you say there were 60 people in the waiting room in the Oncology Dept.? Were there any COVID-19 measures in place?

Ah right sorry, it came across as negative - probably just me misinterpreting your meaning. Happens quite a bit on here.

'Does that sound like careful wording on a small phase 1 result?'

Ummm I mentioned 'serious adverse events' because SAE's would be considered an unacceptable safety profile in a vaccination for healthy people.

Burble,

Sorry, have only just seen your post.

Having had a look at what I think is the same page of BioNTech's website, I don't think we can expect Scancell's name to appear. The first half looks to be signed commercial development/licensing deals - ie. commercial terms agreed and signed. Scancell's collaboration hasn't yet reached that stage. The second half are all academic/scientific partners.

Having said that, afaik, there was no mention of Scancell in BioNTech's IPO prospectus and I don't remember ever reading a statement from the Company regarding Scancell and I agree with you, it would be good to see something!

GF123,

There's a code of practice when it comes to official reporting of clinical trial results - acceptable safety profile means exactly what it says and the results are all in the report if you want to check them out. There wasn't a single serious adverse event. Have to be careful painting a negative slant on safety data from any COVID-19 vax trial, especially if it's unfounded.

As for over 55's, you wont find any particularly vulnerable groups in a phase I study for obvious reasons. The phase II/III trials have already started and the patient population has been expanded to include over 55's and children. Time will tell and as you say, there's a long way to go.

GF123,

You think 1077 patients is a small phase I trial? Acceptable safety profile sounds like good news and perfectly normal language to use in clinical trial reporting. Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet is an outspoken critic of the Gov. and this is his take on the Oxford results:-

'The phase 1/2 Oxford COVID-19 vaccine trial is now published. The vaccine is safe, well-tolerated, and immunogenic. Congratulations to Pedro Folegatti and colleagues. These results are extremely encouraging'

Moreover, CanSino have also released similarly encouraging results. So that's BioNTech/Pfizer, Oxford/AZN and CanSino all in one day and all with results that warrant taking the various vaccines into a phase III. Really good news and probably better than anyone could have hoped for a few months ago.

In addition, all data coming out of these trials can only help to inform on development and clinical trial design for 2nd generation vaccines such as Scancell's Covidity.

LochinvarLass,

Yep, one of them was BioNTech's mRNA vax. BioNTech released an RNS an hour or so ago with more data on T cell responses from their COVID-19 phase I/II trial. Looking promising.

https://www.investegate.co.uk/biontech-se/gnw/pfizer-and-biontech-announce-early-positive-update-from-german-phase-1-2-covid-19-vaccine-study--including-first-t-cell-response-data/20200720134510H2098/

Inanco,

Can you read? Of course they're not breaking the law .

Your post this morning using the fact that hospitals are overwhelmed with the backlog of cancer patients as a reason to suggest that those calling for an update are being unreasonable, plumbed new depths. I have politely tried over and over to explain my position and to end the debate.

Filtered for the sake of my own sanity and the bb.

Inanaco,

'if you think Scancell has broken the law '

Why would you post that? When have I ever claimed or even remotely suggested that Scancell have broken the law? No wonder some on this board have gone to such lengths to defend the BOD/discredit the poster if that's what you believe I'm saying.

I have tried several times to convey my opinion with as much clarity as possible. If, as you seem to be suggesting, you and others on this bb feel that there is somehow something underhand in my posting then it would be great if they are honest enough to explain.

Inanaco,

I genuinely don't understand the point you're making re. the need for a regulatory RNS - the fact that the study is run by an investigator doesn't absolve Scancell of any disclosure obligations but I think we're getting distracted by whether or not a regulatory announcement is required.

You and others on this bb may be more than happy with communication and have enough research under your belts to make assumptions, guesses. However, I'm pretty sure that you're not typical of the average retail investor. It's nothing to do with intelligence, understanding the science, how much money you have - it's the simple fact that most retail investors won't be as well researched because they simply have a different investment strategy.

Many will have entered this pandemic with a portfolio of shares and will be concerned over the impact of COVID-19 and particularly over the looming recession. They'll be making decisions about which shares to buy, hold or sell, many will just be moving to cash. I can promise you that what they won't be doing, is scrabbling around researching to try and work out the state of play with Scancell.

IMO, it would have been wise for Scancell to issue a COVID-19 update along the lines of the one I posted earlier. As I've said, if you can, why not? You think otherwise and that's fine. Yesterday, I tried to draw a line and move on - am happy to leave it there if you are.

Inanaco,

1) You are not seeing constant demands for an update. You were the one that raised the issue yet again.

2) You conveniently overlooked the part in Angle's RNS where they announced that recruitment had been suspended to their ovarian cancer study.

3) You are fixating on the regulatory requirement for an RNS but Scancell could easily issue an RNS REACH

I won't bring this up again but I will continue to defend my opinion so it's up to you whether or not you just want to accept that or whether you want to continue to discuss.

Inanaco,

That's not the point. Seriously, read the RNS I linked to from start to finish with an open mind and imagine Scancell had issued a similar one. How would you feel? Impressed and reassured I'd imagine. So if you can offer that to your shareholders, why wouldn't you?

Ivy,

Re. your earlier questions. As we have said before, it's probably just as well that no patients had actually been dosed on the SCIB1 trial. Although we don't know for sure, it's highly likely that the trial would have been interrupted by COVID with all the associated data continuity and integrity issues that would bring. So at least the trial will be starting with a clean slate.

Looking forward, I don't think the backlog of patients should have any real impact as long as the trial centres have the resources available to recruit and run the trial. If Keytruda is the standard of care treatment for a patient, then it is and they either meet the recruitment criteria or they don't. I can understand that there may be a reluctance from patients to physically go into hospitals and that may deter some from joining clinical trials but these patients have to go in anyway to receive their Keytruda infusion so that's not an issue for the SCIB1 trial.

So IMO we will be back to the same issues as before re. recruitment. The only way to deal with that is to screen more patients and the only way to do that is to open more trial centres and it seems that is exactly what they're doing.

Inanaco,

I thought we had moved on but since you are bringing it up yet again, below is the sort of update Scancell's peers were issuing within a few days of lockdown. Clearly detailing the impact of COVID on their staff, their trials, their business and finances. They obviously considered that halting recruitment to their trials due to COVID should be disclosed to the market but that's not the point. It gave a very strong message that the board was on top of the situation, that they were proactively managing their way through it.

It's the sort of update I would have liked and expected from Scancell and I'm sure I'm not alone in that. Can't we just leave it at that?

https://www.investegate.co.uk/angle-plc--agl-/rns/covid-19-business-impact-update/202003310700071356I/