Member Info for Bermudashorts

Yes, I guess all that will come when they have the funds, for now it would be good just to get those trials underway:)

Ivy,

Yes, although I must admit that I was puzzled that responsibility for the website seems to lie with Sally Adams.

They're also presenting at the Investival Showcase next week, another investment conference (link below).

Find it very strange that Scancell went to all the trouble of issuing an RNS for the low key Proactive presentation but didn't think to bolt on a paragraph to inform shareholders of the these events, all of which were taking place within the next couple of weeks:-

- Bio Europe in Copenhagen
- Investival Showcase in London
- China Healthcare Summit in Shanghai

The sooner Scancell get an upcoming events section on their website the better. in the meantime, wherever they can it would be better to let shareholders know what's going on rather than finding out these things through random replies on twitter.

https://www.lsxleaders.com/investival-showcase/agenda

Unless they're going for the same drug or same rare disease then they're absolutely not in competition with each other. Seems your issue relates to Fastnet days.

Bronxville,

I'm really struggling to see why you have a problem with Open Orphan. If Amryt were the only company operating in the orphan drug space or if Open Orphan were targeting the HoFH or EB market then you might have a point but they're not! Some facts to add a bit of perspective here:-

- There are around 7000 rare diseases
- Orphan drug sales this year $138 billion
- Sales of orphan drugs are predicted to grow by 11% pa, nearly double the rate of overall pharma sales
- Orphan drugs account for over 16% of all worldwide prescriptions and by 2024 will be nearly 22%
- FDA Orphan Drug Designations increased by over 40% last year

The scale of the market goes way, way beyond Amryt and Open Orphan and there's plenty to go round, so it's nonsense to attempt to portray Open Orphan as some sort of a threat or negative. As far as I know Cathal Friel still holds nearly 25 million Amryt shares. The fact that he has been sufficiently impressed to invest in another start-up operating within the orphan drug field surely is an endorsement of Amryt's business model?

-

The figure of 17.86% on Scancell's website includes holdings above 10% plus directors holdings - so that's 12.89% for Calculus and just 4.97% for all directors.

You're quite right there are also other institutional holders with disclosed positions totalling around 13%. It would be good to see an increase in both II and directors holdings.

lol - sorry

Well let's hope that one day 100% of Scancell shares will be owned by Genentech or Merck or Pfizer etc.etc.etc.

Chester, sorry but that's not the case.

Chester, I wish the free float was 67m, unfortunately it's nearer 318m. Think you may have percentage wrong way round, 17.5% is the percentage not in public hands.

British Diagnostics Firm Develops More Accurate Fetal Health Screen

https://labiotech.eu/medical/angle-fetal-health-screen/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=meetedgar

It's not very often that an AIM listed bio appears on this calendar:)

http://www.rttnews.com/corpinfo/fdacalendar.aspx

Have you hacked Scancell's twitter account?

https://twitter.com/scancellpharma/status/1058354367097638912

very sorry to hear that, sincere condolences

fourteen14,

It's not so much a question of good or bad - they are what they are and at this early stage it will all be about understanding exactly what the drug does and the right setting and development path. But you're right when it goes into trial with bigger patient numbers in different settings they hopefully will find out far more. The standard of care treatment for NSCLC has changed and I assume that if they're going to go for a phase III in the therapeutic setting then it may well be in combination with a checkpoint inhibitor against a control group receiving SOC treatment (probably PD-1 plus chemo).

Further clarity re. your 9.27.

'responder patients obtain an increase in mean PFS and in mean OS of 8.7 weeks and 12.9 weeks, respectively, compared with the non-responder population'

Those who are new to bios should understand exactly what that means.

The important wording is:-

'The difference and rationale between responders and non-responders to VAL401 is not clear yet'

There were no biomarkers to identify responders and no control group - they simply have a list of 7 patients and have cut the data in such a way as to say the top 3 were responders, the bottom 2 were excluded and the other 2 were non-responders thereby giving a 60% response rate. This does not mean that VAL401 has been shown to increase survival.

They have classified 3 as responders because they lived longer than the other 4. There were 4 non-responders but they've excluded the results from 2 patients as they weren't treated for long enough. I assume one of these was the patient withdrawn from the trial due to the serious adverse event.

VAL are talking about a phase III trial and these results will determine the setting they choose and which market they're targeting. Is it as a therapeutic treatment to prolong survival or simply a palliative end of life treatment? Two very different markets, different trials, different evidence required by the regulators and different risk from an investors point of view.

SCIB1 won't double or treble the number of people who can have PD-1. SCIB1 is only suitable for HLA-A2 positive patients - around 45% of the population. So very best case scenario is that it could improve response rates for about 45% of PD-1 patients. Also treatment for melanoma with PD-1 is not linked to PD-L1 expression (you may be thinking of lung cancer).

So SCIB1 may improve response rates for up to 45% of PD-1 patients but it can't increase the number of people who can be prescribed it. Hope this makes sense!

Re. Your 17.17, I'm not sure it's correct to say that VAL401 has demonstrated any survival benefit so far. I appreciate that VAL have plotted the survival of their trial patients against that of a 'matched control' group of untreated patients but the survival times given are from the patients first treatment with chemo, with the longest surviving VAL patient living between 800 and 900 days as opposed to between 500 and 600 for the untreated group from when they started chemo.

The problem is that this graph gives no indication at all as to when each patient was treated with VAL401 but we know that overall survival (from date of screening for trial until death) ranged from between 0.4 weeks to 15.3 weeks with a mean survival of just 5.2 weeks.

If you then look again at the 'matched control' survival graph (link below) and work backwards from the number of days survival at death is it not the case that the VAL401 patients had already survived longer than the 'control' group before they were even treated with VAL401? Perhaps I have it wrong - would be interested in your comments and even if I'm correct that's not to say that VAL401 won't lead to increased survival but as far as I can see they don't yet have any data to prove it.

I know VAL plan to run a larger trial and it will be interesting to see what setting they go for.

http://1cqi8a4dpf4p8okqjp35hmi5.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/VS-Jan-2018-one-pager.pdf

Steve

Thanks very much for taking the time and trouble to post the recording. Great sound quality and I'm sure much appreciated by all here.

Thanks Ivy

Thanks all

Ivy, can I just check, did you say that 10 of the 25 SCIB1 combo patients will be recruited in the UK?