Member Info for Bermudashorts

Not sure where this suggestion of inside information came from. David Evans made it very clear that he was just speculating based on his instinct that fundraising may be difficult in the current investment climate. He may not be an expert on the science but he certainly is on biotech funding and so his views must be worth discussing.

Why would BioNTech would go to all the trouble and expense of a hostile takeover when they could quite easily license any product/platform that interests them? It also is completely at odds with their collaborative strategy and ethos. If Scancell were unable to do justice to Moditope in the clinic and they had a willing and trusted partner who were prepared to buy the Company at a fair price, it would make complete sense for the BOD to consider any offers.

All of the BOD's share options have an exercise price ranging from 4.5p to 17p (with the exception of one tranche belonging to RG) and they would be compensated for any unexercised options in the event of a deal. Moreover, afaik all shares owned by the BOD were purchased at a price well below 22p and their major shareholder bought at 5p. If they couldn't progress Moditope as they would like and they had a decent offer on the table does anyone really think they'd advise shareholders to reject it?

I would much prefer that any deal is struck after the Modi1 trial but in the event that it can't be adequately funded, I find it very reassuring that Scancell's ex-chairman feels there may be other options that would allow a return for shareholders and just as importantly, Scancell's products to continue to be developed.

Time will tell.

Excellent news - must have been a very worrying time for you all.

Was that really the point for you? I think that says more about you than my knowledge or understanding.

It's late, it's been a long day, I came across what I thought was some interesting and relevant information and thought I would share it with others who may be interested. I quickly read it and concentrated on the points of interest for me. They were that BioNTech had produced some really good data by combining their CAR T and vaccine platforms. That was all I wanted or needed to know. I'm sure that if I felt I had a point to prove or wanted to appear very clever, I have sufficient knowledge and intelligence to read up and understand more and I'm sure that applies to every single poster here.

Let me make this clear for you yet again Inanaco, I have said many, many times that I don't claim to be an expert on the science. Anybody here who claims to understand and operate at that level is a liar and readers should take all such posts with a massive pinch of salt.

You're welcome and pleased you found the link interesting.

If it really bothers you, change the word via to with if you prefer. The point was the announcement from BioNTech.

Some very encouraging early preclinical data published by BioNTech today for BNT211 - their CAR-T therapy delivered via mRNA vaccine:-

https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2020/01/02/1965843/0/en/BioNTech-Announces-Publication-of-Preclinical-Data-for-First-in-Kind-CAR-T-Cell-Therapy-Approach-Targeting-Solid-Tumors-in-Science.html

Inanaco,

1) Your point regarding a 'defined product' is a red herring - as I have previously stated, it's not a prerequisite for a deal to have a fully defined and clinic ready product - fact, not opinion.

2) In the context of my posts, it's irrelevant that SCIB2 needed more work. Scancell themselves were telling us that they were actively seeking to license SCIB2 and did not intend to develop it any further - are you now saying that wasn't true and that they couldn't do a deal on SCIB2 as it wasn't ready?

3) Yes, it is possible that Scancell may not be prepared to do a deal on Moditope yet, although I'm sure if the price was right........... In any case, how is that relevant?

What outlook have I presented as fact? Where I have given an opinion, I have made it clear that it is my opinion but no matter how much you dislike it, the rest was fact. There were no deals, there was no rush of institutional investment and the share price did plunge after the 2013 funding. That's not trying to set myself up as an authority - it's stating the bleeding obvious and believe it or not, my posts were intended to be supportive of the Scancell BOD.

If you're not sure of the relevance of 2013 then you either haven't read or haven't understood my posts, all of which arose from Crackin's earlier points about the reason for the decline in SP and all of which mentioned 2013.

As for which defined products existed back in 2015 - SCIB1, SCIB2 and Modi1. Not sure what your point is about defined products though - plenty of pre-clinical licensing deals are struck with the identification of individual products candidates forming part of the deal - a defined product is not a pre-requisite for a deal.

Why did BioNTech decide to enter into a collaboration for TCR therapy rather than put their hands in their pockets and license/acquire the platform? You had better ask them, I can think of several reasons why that may be. Am happy to list them if you like but it might help if you explained what point you're trying to make and what issues you have with my posts.

If you think I'm wrong and there were deals waiting to be signed and fund managers keen to invest at any stage between 2013 and 2015 then just say so.

Chelsea - yes, sorry, Happy New Year to you to and all here.

That statement was actually accurate in my opinion. David Evans has confirmed that they were negotiating with Vulpes back in 2015 but they couldn't get them across the line. They weren't prepared to invest back then.

Inanco,

I have no idea what point you're making.

In the context of my discussion with Ray, I was simply offering my opinion that far from being complacent, Scancell's BOD simply had limited choices back in 2013 because there was no deal available for any products and institutions were not willing to invest. Do you disagree?

Ray,

I agree - it would have been fantastic to see SCIB1 go straight into a phase IIb and I'm sure if they could have raised the cash they would have done so. The very fact that the July 2013 funding was at such a deep discount and that Calculus had to take the bulk of it, is an indication (IMO) that they simply wouldn't have been able to raise enough cash on reasonable terms. There was no appetite from either pharma or fund managers for Scancell's products. Indeed even Vulpes weren't interested in 2015.

An alternative view is that RG managed to weather the storm and provide LD with enough funding (just) to progress Moditope and that cancer vaccine developers today find themselves in a much more friendly environment. Time will tell - this is an important year for Scancell.

Very sorry to read your 8.01 and wishing your Daughter-in-law all the very best for her surgery tomorrow.

Crackin - thanks for re-posting and hope your post remains. Sometimes it's really useful to take a huge step back. Having said that, sorry, but can't agree with your 16.15:) The rapid decline in the SP was directly triggered by the disastrous funding in July 2013. The combination of the 55% discount (from memory) and the realisation that the funding signified no deal was on the table for SCIB1 sent the SP into freefall and actually it never really has recovered.

Ray - not sure it's fair to say that there was complacency from the BOD that the SCIB1 trial would lead to a deal. As far as I can see, they explored every avenue - knocked on every door but there were simply no takers - what more could they have done? The same applies for SCIB2 - there was no strategic decision to leave it on the shelf - they just couldn't find a partner (until CRUK), nobody was prepared to take it on and they didn't have the resources to take it further themselves.

Link below is to another peer-reviewed publication for Lindy Durrant's glycan mAbs research. This time it's the Sialyl-di-Lewisa F129 mAb targeting colorectal, gastric and pancreatic cancer. The paper was published on 23rd December in AACR's Molecular Cancer Therapeutics Journal.

https://mct.aacrjournals.org/content/early/2019/12/21/1535-7163.MCT-19-0221.long

Slightly OT but interview with BioNTech's Sean Marett in link below might be of interest to some.

Wishing everyone a happy Christmas.

https://www.labiotech.eu/interviews/biontech-sean-marett-fundraising/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=meetedgar

Klepto,

Blimey, I didn't realise you could tell so much about a person's legal expertise by just listening to them reading a poem.

correction

each and every time shares are allocated

SFM

A block listing is simply a facility to admit a block of unallotted shares to trading on AIM - usually to cover share options and employee benefit schemes. Basically a way of saving the administrative burden of applying to have shares admitted to trading each and every time shares they are allocated under an employee share scheme. Instead they just apply to the regulators for a block listing facility, admit the block to trading and then issue them as and when shares are granted or share options are exercised.

yep good update this morning.

About to post the same - Q&A session at the end is well worth a listen

Looks like CRUK will have another NSCLC cancer vaccine clinical trial starting next year. See link below to announcement from CRUK of a deal with Vaccitech along very similar lines to the SCIB2 deal. The Vaccitech vaccine targets NY-ESO-1 and MAGE A3 but it's delivered via a viral vector and interestingly will be tested in combination with not only PD-1 but also chemo.

Http://commercial.cancerresearchuk.org/first-human-trial-new-lung-cancer-immunotherapy?utm_source=twitter_crukresearch&utm_medium=cruksocialmedia