Member Info for Bermudashorts

1) lol have a read of your 22.10 when you went to the effort of copying and pasting my post . Your response - 'it doesn't work like that' - dismissive and incorrect and I notice since then you have acknowledged that you would have liked a larger trial.

2) Please, please, please try to read and understand my posts - you don't need to point out to me that 25 patients is sufficient to meet the endpoints. It has no relevance to the issue we're discussing and I have already clearly explained this in my post to Chelsea.

3) I have never said a 25 patient trial has no value - why are you even raising that point?

4) I am not acting as big pharma - what a very silly comment. I was simply voicing my concern that patient numbers may not be sufficient to attract a partner. It was no big deal and was actually part of a post responding to Ruck and highlighting why Scancell's products still have every chance of success.

Please read and try to understand my 8.08 to Chelsea - especially the difference between points 1 and 2.

I have never suggested that the trial is too small to provide evidence that SCIB1 should move into a larger trial. The concern I flagged is whether it's big enough to persuade anybody else to pay for it. Scancell already has some fantastic data in the bag for SCIB1 and yet despite exhaustive efforts, they haven't been able to secure a deal. One of the reasons often given by the Company themselves for the lack of a deal is small patient numbers. You on the other hand seem to know better.

I'm not trying to beat Scancell with anything, simply posting how I see it. It is pointless trying to highlight the many positives here if at the same time you are in complete denial that there are any legitimate areas of concern. It damages your credibility and that of the bb.

Morning,

This discussion is mixing 2 different issues when it comes to the aims of this trial.

1) There is the clinical aim of the trial which is simply to meet the endpoints and provide sufficient evidence that SCIB1 merits further development. The trial is clearly powered to achieve that.

2) Then there is the commercial side - will the results be good enough to attract a partner to fund a larger trial? Inanaco has touted the Genexine trial many times but the huge difference between Genexine and Scancell is that they already have a deal with Merck.

Of course it works like that. No matter how you wrap it up, even with supporting data from the previous trial, this study will be considered very small by any potential partners. Why do you think Scancell originally wanted to run an 85 patient randomised study?

'easy with a crayon set and wet paper ...'

...........Another view might be - easy when you're told a clinical trial will commence in H2 2016 and 3 years later you're still waiting for the first patient to be dosed. Meanwhile the whole field has moved on. I don't agree with Ruck's comments but it's not hard to understand why some holders may be concerned when they see fantastic results from combination trials starting to come through.

But Ruck, there is no race with one overall winner - it just doesn't work like that.

Yervoy has been approved and marketed in melanoma since 2011, Opdivo since 2014 and the combination of the two since 2015. Both drugs have already generated many billions of $$$ in sales for BMS. That doesn't mean everybody else has shut down their labs and given up because they've missed the boat.

The field is absolutely massive and constantly evolving alongside understanding of the immune system and tumours at a molecular level. There will never be one treatment that suits all, in fact advances in diagnostics are driving the field towards the vision LD outlined in Project Blueprint - analysis of the tumour followed by treatment tailored to suit. This means that an ever more diverse range of therapies and combinations is likely. So plenty of room for all.

Regarding SCIB1, if the trial is successful then it needs to move into a much larger randomised study and the concern must be whether the results in just 25 patients will be enough to attract a partner to fund it. That's a very different risk though from whether or not the market has disappeared because others have beaten Scancell to it.

As for Moditope, it's cutting edge brand new tech. so hard to see how it can be left behind. Just have to hope that Scancell can attract sufficient funding to do it justice.

Crumbs thanks, haven't had a chance to read the posters yet but looks like my post on Tuesday was correct - well at least with regards to abstract A201:-

'A201 - GRP78 is a heat shock protein which is linked to autophagy and highly expressed in tumours. Citrullinated GRP78 is a potential target for Moditope - is this Modi3?'

How do you know they're Modi3?

The AIM Awards are in their 24th year and take place on 10th October in London. Angle have been nominated and shortlisted in the best technology category. Thoroughly deserved.

http://www.aim-awards.co.uk/shortlist/

corr. - therefore, not there

Bronxville,

Aegerion licensed Japanese rights to Juxtapid to back in February. The deal included potential milestones and royalties and also the transfer of Japanese marketing approval. I'm not sure what the terms of the deal were in the event of Aegerion being acquired or how that may be complicated by the fact that entered into bankruptcy first. There I'm not sure whether Amryt will now be entitled to receive those milestone/royalty payments or not.

As for AP103, as I understand it, pre-clinical development work is ongoing.

bobbust

FG2811 comes from the Avidimab platform, not Moditope and is not connected with the BioNTech collaboration. It's also very, very early days so I'm not sure it tells us much about timing of any deals.

Strong interim results announced today:-

Revenue up 37%
Backlog up 27% to £118m
Major new contracts, including 1400 patient phase III
cash generating, profit making and debt free!

Interview with CFO, Richard Barfield below

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3n8mhLCwtBI

Far be it from me to speak for McBlue, but I think he is frustrated by the lack of proactive promotion by Scancell of these sorts of events. Think we all appreciate that this is primarily a scientific conference and these posters are intended for those working in R&D either in academia or industry. Nevertheless, with precious little other news at the moment, a few crumbs via the odd tweet would be welcome. It's quite possible to tweet their attendance and the fact that they'll be presenting posters without revealing content - I'm sure they'll be doing so tomorrow and who knows, we may get an RNS (REACH).

Chelsea,

Yes, I should have given credit to McBlue for eliciting that information - thanks McBlue :)

Scancell have explained on twitter that poster presentations don't take place until tomorrow and can't be shared until then.

Following today's RNS, below is link to Proactive interview with Jo Wiley.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDRH35338W4

Chelsea,

You need to think of it as one trial being carried out in different centres in the US and UK. Previously the trial was to be conducted under the umbrella of the IND and although MHRA approval to open sites in the UK was also required, they came under the IND umbrella. Now the IND umbrella has been withdrawn and replaced with the UK equivalent - the CTA from the MHRA. So in answer to your question, possibly:-

1) I think the MHRA and ethics committees would expect/require a UK based investigator

2) Because they can't open any study centres in the US and have no idea if/when they'll be able to, it wouldn't make any sense for KF to remain as PI.

3) He may not have been willing to do it in any case - I have my doubts as to whether he would have remained as PI even if the IND had been cleared. At one stage Scancell were stating that KF would definitely be principal investigator and over recent months they changed the language to say that he would definitely be involved - there's quite a difference.

Take your pick! Could be many other reasons that I'm not aware of but probably academic now.

Chelsea,

He would actually have been principal investigator for the whole trial - US and UK. Such a shame that's no longer possible.

Chelsea - Yes and and also should have been principal investigator for SCIB1 trial.

Dracula - not sure what you mean by SCIB1 needs combos.