Member Info for Bermudashorts

Can you please provide link to approval from the regulators for commercialisation of VAL401?

Ivan,

From memory, think headline is similar to last year's. Unfortunately, I didn't keep copy - perhaps someone else can confirm? Am pretty sure the percentage re. pre-emption rights is unchanged at 20%.

The buy back resolution has been there for several years now I think. Had hoped we'd also be seeing a resolution to appoint new NED but clearly not to be. Mind you, that doesn't mean that they won't be recruiting a new NED as they can appoint at any time and just formally elect him/her at next year's AGM.

AGM doc now available to view on Scancell's website. Can't see any surprises.

http://www.scancell.co.uk/file-manager/PDFs/scancell_holdings_agm_notice_2018.pdf

Citrullinated and homocitrullinated peptides are chemically very similar - if you don't think a successful Modi1 trial provides proof of concept then fair enough.

It's untrue to say that Scancell have a 4th platform and IMO far more confusing than simply calling it another product under the Moditope umbrella - which is exactly what it is.

Folks should be aware that this is an exciting new addition to Moditope and that the platform as a whole will be validated by the Modi1 trial.

I'll leave you to it.

Why respond in that way Inanaco?

The Moditope platform isn't limited to one modification, it goes way beyond just citrullination. You'll remember that the original patent application included claims for 4 or 5 different modifications. That's the whole beauty of it, the potential is vast.

Sorry but why do you think abstract B104 is another platform? Surely it's an addition to the Moditope platform - just a different PTM (carbamylation) targeting homocitrullinated peptides.

I would have said JC remaining as Executive Chairman would have been concerning. Entirely appropriate IMO now that CH is up and running that he reverts to non-exec. status.

Good luck with whatever you do with the proceeds.

barbl - I don't think AIM regulations are relevant here, ALL listed companies (no matter what exchange) are required by law to hold an AGM.

From a quick glance, looks like a solid set of interims with some important bits of news thrown in:-

- Lojuxta sales up 14.6%, margins up and cost of sales (per sale) down.

- At physician's request Lojuxta being supplied by Amryt for an investigator led study into Familial Chylomicronaemia, possible proof of concept studies into additional use for Lojuxta being funded by others.

- First orders for Lojuxta from NHS already received

- Pre-clinical results for gene therapy AP

- Decision from France on reimbursement for Lojuxta expected in coming weeks

- Recruitment of final patient required for review of EB phase III expected by the end of this month. Recruitment with rare diseases such as EB is so difficult so that's great news.

- Applying to FDA for Breakthrough Therapy Designation

- Pre clinical results for gene therapy AP103 due in Q4

...........never a good idea to tell your shareholders to go away.

Andy, placing shares were admitted to trading today - RNS below

https://investegate.co.uk/aim/rns/aim-notice---20-09-2018/201809200800012519B/

lol

You may well be right. Just pointing out that the release of today's RNS isn't necessarily a sign of anything other than they'll be releasing final results next week :)

roses - am very happy to give plenty of examples

Notice of results RNSs are issued on just about every stock in my portfolio as a matter of routine. I had assumed that it was now a regulatory requirement but haven't checked. Either way it seems to be considered best practice.

Also the date of release of the results fluctuates slightly every year and may have as much to do with Champion's workloads as Scancell's. I just don't think you can read anything at all into todays RNS other than we'll be getting another one next week!.

Trametinib in combination with dabrafenib was approved by NICE back in 2016 for use in unresectable melanoma and so has been used for a while now by the NHS.

The news today is that NICE have now approved use in the adjuvant setting too (after surgical removal to prevent recurrence). Great news for patients as I believe it's the first ever specific adjuvant therapy approved for use in the NHS (they have certainly previously rejected PD-1).

With the possible exception of the last one, each and every item on your list falls under LD and the workload is down to her and her team.

On their payroll, Scancell also have an EXECUTIVE Chairman and CEO . Not to mention the fact that they seem to be making plenty of use of FTI's IR services. I would hope that between them they'd be able to find the time to provide the regular updates that were promised by John Chiplin.

Scancell are fortunate in that they have some very loyal long term retail investors. We have waited patiently for 3 years with no products in the clinic and watched their own published timelines shift time and again. I personally find it much easier to be patient when companies communicate.

For the SCIB1 original trial Scancell issued 3 RNSs to update shareholders with various milestones leading up to the trial - appointment of the CRO, submission of CTA and approval of CTA . Against the backdrop of this long period of waiting, we are now being told that they don't consider any of these significant enough to bother with an RNS this time round and will simply issue an RNS when the trial commences.

I can fully understand why they wouldn't want to RNS the submission of the IND but why on earth not the acceptance of it? It doesn't have to be a regulatory RNS, just an RNS Reach. I can only hope that there are good commercial reasons why not because I'm sure there are many shareholders who would rather be kept informed.

The good news is that I'm sure we'll get a full update at the AGM but if you happen to be looking in Cliff, I hope you'll reconsider!!

The event isn't about major pharma - it's about what's going on at the cutting edge of advanced therapies with input from where most of that innovation is taking place - biotech and academia.

Some pretty impressive names there from both sectors, Adaptimmune, Bluebird, Cell and Gene Therapy Catapult, Cellectis, Imperial College, Kings College, Karolinska, Scripps, Penn, etc. etc Scancell seem to fit nicely.

By the way, of course you are entitled to your opinion. You asked why I posted. IMO your post left the impression that whether or not LD chaired the vaccines session at the conference hinged on BioNTech's attendance. I believe your comment placed far too much emphasis on the BioNTech collaboration and far too little on LD, Scancell and its products. We have slightly different opinions but that's fine. That's why I made the point and isn't that when these bb's work best? When differing views are allowed to be expressed and discussed?