Member Info for Bermudashorts

rats,

Who are you referring to - who is talking it down?

The SCIB1 trial record has been updated today - Royal Free London added as a study centre but not yet recruiting and Plymouth now open for recruitment.

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04079166?term=scancell&draw=2&rank=3

TF - Sorry, I'm not with you, the article posted back in January was in the BMJ. I expect it appeared online ahead of print.

Matt - yes of course the BMJ is not aimed at investors. I sense your frustration and honestly, I do get it, but as you've alluded to in your last post, the sort of reaction and coverage you're talking about for Moditope will only come with more mature clinical trial results or the announcement of a deal. In terms of potential for the next news, I think/hope another glycan mAb deal.

TF

Not that it matters, but the article was posted and discussed on this board back on 6th January which was also the date of the tweet I linked to in my post yesterday. Probably a lesson to be learned somewhere in all this - perhaps that articles are quickly forgotten and the impact short lived and you can just redistribute every few months and it still has a positive impact!

Crumbs - yes some nice coverage there for Scancell. A link directly to the article in my tweet below

https://twitter.com/Bermudashorts2/status/1611414279923589120

Matt - I think they serve a purpose and have often been a useful reference point

Matt -

Sorry I have no idea of the cost or whether Scancell commission each individual report or whether there's some form of contractual agreement to produce X number of reports a year or cover certain events.

Ivy,

I don't understand the criticism aimed at Trinity Delta and I guess it all goes back to expectations. Scancell have commissioned TD to present their investment case and I think they do a pretty good job of explaining complex science, providing an overview of the finances (although this is rarely discussed) and where Scancell's products sit in the wider field. Of course the valuation for any early stage biotech is not going to be precise - but the trend is worth keeping an eye on.

It's never going to be on a par with analysis coming from a top life sciences specialist, but it's not trying to be anything other than what it is - a useful document and good reference point and sadly necessary due to lack of any coverage from independent analysts.

Of course - it's highly encouraging. BUT you mentioned TD reflecting the significance in the valuation model and my post related purely to that comment. What is the significance to the valuation? I'm struggling to see how without knowing exactly how DTH translates to clinical benefit and in what percentage of patients and how Scancell's responses stack up against that benchmark, they could possibly adjust the valuation.

WW - how do they estimate the significance in the valuation model? Are there any trials/studies which demonstrate the percentage of oncology patients with DTH that go on to demonstrate an objective response from a cancer vaccine? If yes, then how does Modi1 compare with those studies - so far 100% of Modi1 patients with DTH and 50% of patients assessed have shown an OR? It's clinical efficacy and safety that will shift possibilities of success, encouraging signs are great but they need to translate into clinical benefit.

GIVMESUNSHINE

Sorry, I don't quite understand your 13.47.

RNS of 16th August confirmed there were 3 patients in cohort 1
RNS of 31st October confirmed there were 3 patients in cohort 2
RNS of 21st February detailed responses of the first 14 patients to be evaluated.

So 6 of the 14 patients were from cohorts 1 and 2 and the other 8 must either be from cohort 3 (combination arm) or the expansion phase of the monotherapy arms. It's highly unlikely that Scancell would need to recruit 8 patients to cohort 3. In addition, the majority dosed so far are ovarian cancer patients and of course there is no combination arm for ovarian cancer - it's monotherapy only. All this suggests that the first 6 of the 14 patients were cohorts 1 and 2 and the majority of the rest were from the expansion phase of the monotherapy trial.

.............or the fact that the Modi1 has cleared 2 safety hurdles in the clinic and the trial now has a confirmed partial response and several patients with stable disease.

Max,

It would be unreasonable (IMO) to expect Scancell to explain in detail their clinical trial design, protocol and endpoints and even more so to explain why they haven't selected certain endpoints - where do they stop? An outline explaining the aims and design of the trial should be sufficient for the average investor. We have to trust that Scancell have optimised the trial design and chosen the most appropriate endpoints to achieve the goals they have clearly set out.

Max, what are the unknowns needing clarification? There may be some on here or advfn who can help explain, otherwise an email to Scancell is always an option if it's important.

There were just 3 patients each in the first 2 cohorts, so out of the 14 patients evaluated to date, 6 were from the cohorts 1 and 2. The rest will either be from the monotherapy expansion arms or the combination cohort 3 safety group. I don't know, but suspect the bulk (if not all) of them were monotherapy expansion patients.

ShearClass - exactly, which is why I referenced your earlier post when you were calculating the likely shares in issue

Yes I get that - my point re. the share consolidation was in relation to the calculations in your earlier post

Regarding your earlier post, don't forget that Jounce are going to do a 5 for 1 share consolidation taking the no. of Jounce shares in issue down to around 10.3 m.

I have been out and about today and haven't yet had a chance to study the document on Redx's website or listen to the webcast, but to all intents and purposes this is a reverse takeover. At this particular point in time it makes sense for Redx to take this route to a NASDAQ listing. Biotech has been having a tough time and the IPO market is problematical at best, also plenty of bios are in distress, laying off staff etc. Jounce have $150m of cash but a failed pipeline and Redx have a promising pipeline but need cash. Rather than risk an IPO in a poor market, it seems sensible to RTO onto NASDAQ and secure $150m of funding to take the pipeline to natural inflection points.

A couple of points of interest. Firstly that RXC007 will be the top priority for the newly enlarged company meaning that Redx clearly see this as their most promising candidate and also good to see that the CVRs are only valid for 1 year.

Matt,

No problem - that wasn't a loaded question by the way, I was going to DM you there with a little more detail to explain rather than boring everyone here. You've had a lucky escape!

Anyway good to see you posting here and whilst we don't always agree, it's good to be able to debate these things in an amicable and civil way.

corr - my not me

Matt,

All fair comment but I think we'll have to agree to disagree. My expectations were just based on me experience with other bios I've been invested in and research I've done for those investments. You'll always find examples of bigger deals, but regarding the comment you quoted from a previous poster with sales expertise:-

'if you have a great proven product you have to be smart enough to know that and sell it for it’s true worth'

That's exactly the point - it's much easier to sell a proven product but despite what you may read elsewhere, Scancell don't have one yet! In fact the licensing deal wasn't even for a product, Genmab still have to create that. It's a new product in a newly emerging field and IMO a good deal to pave the way hopefully for others.

Matt, do you post on advfn?

Matt,

You are absolutely correct that it's totally legitimate to criticise the BOD and hold them to account if you believe that performance isn't up to scratch. I don't fall into the 'Scancell can do no wrong' camp, but I think we have differing opinions on what is fair criticism and perhaps that's just down to expectations. The Genmab upfront payment is a good example - yes I was very happy with it because it was in line with my expectations and the overall size of the deal exceeded my expecations by some margin.

The fact that you think Scancell has never had a big splash sort of demonstrates my point. They have - quite a few in fact but the impact is short lived and quickly forgotten. Here are a few, but there were plenty more.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1278836/Holy-Grail-cancer-vaccine-blasts-tumours-weeks-hailed-huge-leap-fighting-disease.html
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boffins-in-skin-cancer-success-hmbvx87g2qp
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/uk-cancer-vaccine-technology-patent-granted-scancell-immunobody-scib1-a7808986.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-9853221/The-super-universal-vaccine-fight-coronavirus.html
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/exclusive-universal-vaccine-can-conquer-covid-variants-could/

etc. etc. etc.