Member Info for Bermudashorts

Roses

As I mentioned last night, I will withdraw and that should put an end to it. However, for the benefit of those who avoid it, I just want to copy across this post from David Evans on ADVFN this morning:-

'NXC
23 Jan '20 - 07:56 - 26938 of 26950
0 ? ? 5 ? 0
For avoidance of doubt I have not sold any shares in SCLP as suggested by Inan - the idea that I was pumping and dumping is without foundation. I will let you know when I do sell but I am currently not a seller. My intentions will be driven by personal circumstances more than anything to do with SCLP per se.'

Chester - No need - I shall withdraw.

Inanaco - I have often defended the board of Scancell, past and present. It's all in my posting history. You on the other hand have chosen to cast doubt over the integrity of Scancell's ex-chairman and raise the prospect that he is offloading stock. Not helpful at all to Scancell.

No I absolutely don't have all the answers but I would never, ever question any poster's integrity on a public forum without any evidence - let alone the ex-chairman of a company I happen to be invested in.

David Evans is a well known figure in the biotech. world, especially on the finance side and you might want to leave it there as you're skating on pretty thin ice.

Excellent news this morning and looking forward to confirmation that full submission has been made to the FDA.

On a side note, Angle are presenting at the Diagnostics Innovation Summit in Lisbon on 19th May. The link below gives more detail - particularly liked this sentence:-

'The presented workflow would provide a complete and standardised sample-to-answer imaging solution, from blood separation to images of CTCs.'

https://www.dxinnovationsummit.com/enabling-technologies-for-liquid-biopsy-and-beyond

Inanaco,

Yes I do have an alternative - he was simply posting his opinion.

You also missed some fairly important information from your 'event log'. David Evans has invested over £400,000 in Scancell stock, that figure excludes the latest buy which takes it up to nearly half a million. He has participated in funding rounds even after his departure.. He clearly stated on ADVFN that he was looking to average down with the 1m buy but you seem to have missed that post in your event log.

You question whether he may have posted to facilitate flipping his shares simply because he bought 1m shares at 7p. I'm all for discussing alternative views - about Scancell. But you have questioned the integrity of Scancell's ex-chairman.

Inanaco,

Thanks for the reply.

The primary role of a Chairman is to advise and guide on strategy and inevitably there will be occasions when the Chairman and CEO have differing opinions . That can be entirely healthy though and the fact that DE had a different view of the way forward for Moditope doesn't mean he had 'issues' with Richard Goodfellow. I had always understood that DE and RG had an excellent working relationship and that DE was/is fully supportive of RG.

As for questioning whether David Evans was posting on ADVFN in an attempt to flip his shares.......................honestly Inanaco, you're better than that.

You said in your 14.56 that David Evans had issues with Richard Goodfellow - can you elaborate?

Check out the RNS's from Feb/March 2018, I believe the rise was news driven, although no doubt helped along by the Mail article. As Ray pointed out though - the effect is just temporary. Great for traders, not so much for longs.

To reinforce Ray's point, Scancell have had their fair share of media coverage - a few below and am sure there were many more. How many of them can you actually remember and did they have any impact?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1278836/Holy-Grail-cancer-vaccine-blasts-tumours-weeks-hailed-huge-leap-fighting-disease.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-5376825/Experts-develop-revolutionise-skin-cancer-jab.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2031506/Electric-jab-arm-fights-skin-cancer.html

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/06/26/pioneering-british-firm-wins-patent-cancer-vaccines-technology/

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cancer-drugs-give-pharma-shot-in-arm-sqgcgt2sp9g

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/uk-cancer-vaccine-technology-patent-granted-scancell-immunobody-scib1-a7808986.html

https://www.ft.com/content/d0a2225c-86e2-11e9-97ea-05ac2431f453

Thanks for the reply Ray - appreciated

Being lazy here but to save me going back and reading up, does anybody know whether all the mAbs in Scancell's pipeline are Avidimab mAbs, ie. they've all undergone Avidimab modification to the Fc domain?

WTP - not a liberty at all and thanks for highlighting.

Crumbs - perhaps a nod to the possibility of licensing the Avidimab tech. as opposed to licensing individual mAbs. Would be good to just get one commercial deal across the line and to see Trinity Delta revising their target upwards.

Comment from Trinity Delta on today's RNS

https://www.trinitydelta.org/companies/scancell/

Inanaco,

I haven't responded because I had made my point.

The whole article is about hyperprogression and the passages in your 9.52 and 9.59 concern a patient who believes his immunotherapy treatment turbocharged the growth of his tumour. You replied with the comment 'SCIB1 had that effect on one patient .... ' ................it didn't, in any sense. The only effect SCIB1 had on patient's tumours was to shrink them, never to cause them to grow. I now know that's not what you meant but it's what your post suggested.

Just for clarity and for the benefit of anybody new looking at Scancell or perhaps more importantly at SCIB1, one of the biggest advantages of SCIB1 is its excellent safety record. In clinical trials it has shown itself to be safe and well tolerated with no serious adverse events.

Inanaco,

What makes you say that SCIB1 caused hyperprogression, have you read it somewhere? The clinical trial report for SCIB1 simply says that the patient developed further lesions due to disease progression and hyperprogression was definitely not listed as an adverse event for any patients.

I don't remember ever reading anything that suggested SCIB1 can cause hyperprogression. It would be a concern if you are correct so it's important to clarify.

Dracula - for reasons I have explained over on advfn, the restricted patient population for the SCIB1 trial doesn't mean that the market is small. It's not, it's huge and easily verified by checking out sales for Keytruda.

I don't know whether SCIB1 will eventually make it or not and the reason I remain invested here is the potential of Moditope, but if SCIB1 isn't commercially successful, the reason won't be anything to do with the size of the market.

LochinvarLass -

It all boils down to cost. Scancell have said that they intend to open more trial centres in the UK and if and when the IND is cleared will open centres in the US. There is no intention to open centres in any other countries as far as I know.

I really don't know the answer to your question regarding homeopathic remedies but looks like C7 has covered that.

Chester,

Re. your question regarding SCIB1 recruitment, just to add to TF's comments.

Firstly, I think the general impression is that there are thousands and thousands of patients out there to select from which makes the lack of recruitment baffling. That's not quite the case. Although melanoma is one of the most common cancers in the UK, fortunately the vast majority are early stage and easily removed by surgery. Only about 10% of cases are advanced melanoma and depending on which publication you read that's probably somewhere between 1000 and 1500 cases in the whole of the UK each year. Remember then that Scancell only have one study centre open and work out how many patients are likely to be walking through the door each month. Then factor in the list following.

1) They must be presenting for the first time with advanced melanoma, ie. this must be the first treatment they have ever received for advanced melanoma.

2) About half of all patients will have BRAF positive melanoma and for those patients, the first line standard of care treatment is likely to be a BRAF inhibitor rather than Keytruda so they wouldn't qualify.

3) Of those who are left, only around half will be the correct HLA type

4) Those who get this far still have to meet all the other entry criteria.

5) The patient has to agree to take part in the trial - not a given by any means

So they're recruiting from a relatively small patient pool and it always was going to be a slow process but you can understand why it's so very slow with just one study centre open.

Yep. Neon seem like a good match for BioNTech and it would appear that $67m may be a bargain basement price. Neon apparently raised over $160m in funding as a private company, followed by an extra $115 m from their IPO just 18 months ago. Their IPO was priced at $16 per share and BioNTech have acquired them a year and a half later for just $2.18 per share and it's not even a cash offer. Timing is everything!!

I'm sure that an added attraction for BioNTech is that the deal raises their US profile still further and worth noting that Neon won't be absorbed into BioNTech but will continue to run as a US based subsidiary.

BioNTech have announced that they are to acquire Neon Therapeutics for approx. $67m in an all stock transaction.

'“This acquisition fits with our strategy to expand our capabilities and build our presence in the U.S. and further strengthens our immunotherapy pipeline,” said Ugur Sahin, MD, Co-founder and CEO of BioNTech. “I am particularly excited about the adoptive T cell and neoantigen TCR therapies being developed by Neon, which are complementary to our pipeline and our focus on solid tumors.”'

https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2020/01/16/1971361/0/en/BioNTech-to-acquire-Neon-to-strengthen-global-leadership-position-in-T-cell-therapies.html