Member Info for Bermudashorts

nomlungu - exactly. I'm sure the author has made a genuine mistake and hope he corrects it quickly.

Reuters have institutional ownership for Valirx at 0.43% not 43%. Perhaps the author has made an error on his calculator!

https://uk.reuters.com/business/stocks/financial-highlights/VALX.L

Nice article featuring Amryt in The Sunday Times

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/amryt-pharma-the-drugs-minnow-with-big-ambitions-5qfkqqlh8

Well spotted and thanks for posting

You think position on a SAB is a shady role? How so? Standard practice for biotechs to seek medical/scientific advice from experts on a consultancy fee paying basis. Not an employee and nothing shady about it.

Cathal Friel - his modus operandi is to invest at start-up/very early stage in private companies, take them to IPO and then move on to the next one. Nothing at all wrong with that, it provides much needed capital for these companies. He still holds 24m Amryt shares.

Open Orphan aren't in direct competition with AMYT - they're just operating in the same (very wide) field of medicine. They will be marketing different drugs to different patients. If anything, it's reassuring that Friel's next project is another bio in the orphan drug field, it shows he sees value and potential there.

Moving down your list of questions, analyst coverage is a real problem for small/mid cap UK biotechs. I don't think any of the bios I have invested in have had any coverage other than from the house broker. It's why companies such as Hardman and Edison are finding a place trying to plug the gap. Coverage will be driven by market cap and trading volume rather than the potential of Episalvan.

Finally, I agree, it would be good to get an update on AP102 - Annual Report confirmed that pre-clinical studies will be completed during 2018. Aso looking forward to finding out more about AP103, the new gene therapy programme.

Where/how have they lied? That's quite an accusation.

Great news

https://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail/AMYT/13709595.html

You have posted that IMM longs got their risk analysis wrong - they made significant profits so clearly they didn't.

Feel that this statement from your 9.39 is a tad presumptuous:-

' its not that Leas bought and sold and made profit etc, its the fact that they got the risk analysis wrong in the first place to buy in thus it became a Gamble rather than an investment.'

Surely IMM longs got their risk analysis spot on. On the back of that analysis they decided when to buy and sell and take profit. Buying, selling and making a profit sounds like an investment to me.

Sailing the Med sounds good - white socks with Jesus sandals and shorts ......... not so :)

Take care and stay well!

Afternoon Leas - Boom here (have changed name)

Great result on HVO, you're not in SPH are you?

My 12.33 fully explains.

I'm really not with you - the only quotes I have made are yours or from the FDA.

Sorry, but I have found your posts confusing and I have read them thoroughly. It may well be me being slow but no matter how often you tell me they're not, I'm still confused. I really don't know why you say that Scancell's are not active drugs and that they can't be compared to standard industry rules. I asked you to explain and you just came back with SCIB1's MOA.

I think we both agree that all pre-clinical and clinical data from SCIB1 are positive and results of other vaccines in combination with PD-1 support Scancell's research. Therefore we both have very high hopes for SCIB1 in combination with PD-1. I suggest we leave it there.

You are describing the mechanism of action - which is triggered by the vaccine. If SCIB1 wasn't an active drug, it would be useless. FDA definition of active drug is:-

'any component of a drug product intended to furnish pharmacological activity or other direct effect in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, or to affect the structure or any function of the body of humans or other animals.'

Regardless of above, the bit of your post that is confusing is 'you must never compare to standard industry rules of potential trial failures etc''

Why so? Comparing SCIB1 to industry norms is precisely the reason why most longs are still holding here.

Can you explain what you mean when you say Scancell (assume you mean both SCIBs and Modis) isn't an active drug and ' you must never compare to standard industry rules of potential trial failures etc'. ?

Not sure that I understand the opening sentence of your 10.57. It's not a question of Boom tells us - it's fact.

Only a couple of days ago we saw Genentech announce the results of yet another successful phase III combining a checkpoint inhibitor with chemo. This was a really important study as it was the first time ever an immunotherapy has produced positive results in metastatic breast cancer. Side effects or not, breast cancer patients will be celebrating this major breakthrough.

We all know and understand that chemo (and indeed many immunotherapy treatments) have dreadful side effects and look forward to the day when SOC treatments are effective AND non-toxic. Obviously LTH's here hope and believe that SCIB1 could be one of those treatments. Would just point out that there will be plenty of candidates for combination therapies that have a benign safety profile - the keys to the kingdom come with no toxicity AND efficacy and it seems that there aren't many of those around at the moment. Reminds me of this paragraph from LD:-

'it might be possible to rescue a poor vaccine and/or a non-responsive anti-PD-1 tumor by using a combination but then the survival is still very low. In contrast, our vaccine alone gives good survival and anti-PD-1 alone shows therapeutic efficacy in 50% of the animals (similar to results in melanoma patients) but the combination gives an overall survival of 80%'.

The Hardman Report only mentioned breast cancer in relation to Modi1 but the trial will still definitely be in breast cancer, ovarian and sarcoma. This was confirmed by CH in his response to Ivy (thanks Ivy)

Agree with your post but just for clarity, Tecentriq targets PD-L1 not PD-1 and of course we know that pre-clinical research shows Immunobody increases expression of PD-L1.

There is nothing going on as far as we know.

Most, if not all of the major checkpoint inhibitors have been/are being trialled with chemo, including Keytruda, Opdivo and Durvalumab. In fact, the Keytruda/chemo combination has now received FDA approval as first-line treatment for NSCLC. So I'm not sure that it's a question of Roche falling back on combining Tecentriq with chemo due to lack of options, perhaps more a case of following a well-trodden path.

Also should point out that the Tecentriq link (thanks rats!) referred to the IMpower133 trial which was in Small Cell Lung Cancer (SCLC) . SCIB2 has the potential to increase response rates to Tecentriq in NSCLC but I don't believe there has ever been any mention from Scancell of a SCLC vaccine.