Member Info for Bermudashorts

Matt,

I agree that communication from Scancell isn't always as good as we'd like, however need to remember that there are strict protocols around the dissemination of clinical trial results and all credible bios will follow that protocol.

The point is that the update yesterday was only from the first scan from 14 patients - it's really very early days and I thought the tone of the RNS was spot on for the stage of development. Highly encouraging, but Scancell will want to see more data and that the response is durable before wasting time and effort on a bit publicity splash. You can only do so many of those and have to pick the optimum time - I don't think that time is now.

Much more interesting (to me anyway) was the immunogenicity data which was light on detail. I wonder whether Scancell are hoping to present the data at one of the major conferences (must be unpublished data)? AACR and ASCO are not too far away and it would be fantastic to see a Moditope abstract accepted for presentation. At this stage, that would really be reaching the people they need to rather than a quickly forgotten splash in the Daily Mail - IMO of course.

A cracking RNS that probably will fall completely under the radar of most.

The pharma industry spend a fortune on post-hoc analysis of clinical trial data and I wonder how many good drugs fail clinical trials and end up on the shelf because they didn't know what to look for? The potential for the PatientSeek platform both to help with design and recruitment for clinical trials and post-hoc analysis will be very attractive commercially.

This is better

https://twitter.com/Bermudashorts2/status/1505624618886914050

Wild,

No problem.

My take from the report was that there are some drugs in mid and late stage trials that are showing real promise and could make it to approval. Hopefully then patients will have real treatment options without having to resort to clinical trials.

So glad your Dad is at home and comfortable and wishing him all the very best.

Wild,

Not sure whether you've already come across this, but evaluate have produced a report on IPF:-

Spotlight – still plenty of hopefuls in lung fibrosis

https://www.evaluate.com/vantage/articles/analysis/spotlight/spotlight-still-plenty-hopefuls-lung-fibrosis

You can download the report from the link (am pretty sure it's free). Hope it's of some help.

Wigwammer,

Of course TD will have taken into account the backing of Redmile etc. and many other factors too, some of which are laid out in the report. Please stop twisting my posts - I have been crystal clear, I don't know what an accurate probablilty of success is for Modi1, but I'm happy to accept that TD probaby know better than me and don't see any problem with the figure they've used. You feel they've got it wrong - if you feel that strongly, you can always ring them and point out where they've gone wrong.

For me, the investment case here is definitely not that Modi1 will hit the market in 2029 and achieve $3.5 billion in peak sales and so the probability of success used by TD is really not that relevant. IMO the investment case is the potential for the current trial to generate positive results which will trigger interest in the company with a corresponding increase in SP and ultimately hopefully a licensing deal. So you see it's perfectly possible to be a positive, long term holder and have no issue with TD's valuation.

By the way, testing of human blood samples in the lab is a standard part of preclincial development, for any new to the sector, it is not the same thing at all as testing in humans.

wigwammer,

I'm sorry, I know I said I wouldn't post again on this subject, but your 7.10 misrepresents the points I was making. I wasn't for one second using RG's words to suggest all products going into the clinic have the same chance of success - if that were the case, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place!

Has it crossed your mind that without those excellent preclinical results, a company who has no track record of taking products beyond early stage trials, who doesn't yet have the funds to run later stage trials and who is testing a completely novel treatment might have been given a lower than average chance of success? There is no precise and accurate figure that TD can use - positioning Modi1 where they have seems fair enough to me.

Finally, even though I have already explained to you, you have again taken my comment about the underlying message being from Scancell out of context and twisted it. That comment was made in response to criticism about the usefulness of the report and I was simply explaining that it was in fact Scancell presenting their investment case and so the underlying message comes from Scancell.

wigwammer,

You'll be pleased to hear that this will be my last post to you on this subject.

With your extensive experience, you'll know that biotech valuations are notoriously difficult and early biotech even more so. I hope you will go back and take some time to have another read of my posts with an open mind - they have nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of the preclinical research and your accusation that holders have somehow dismissed those results shows that you haven't understood a word I've said. Probably my fault for failing to explain. Perhaps this direct quote from Richard Goodfellow does a better job:-

'In immunotherapy, cancer immunotherapy in particular, it's very difficult to predict from animal studies what's going to work in the clinic. So you can get fantastic results in animals and it's not quite as good in the clinic. You just don't know'

At some point in the relatively near future, we'll get an RNS that will tell us exactly how well Modi1 has translated into the clinic - at that point TD will review their valuation. Until then, who knows what an accurate probability of success is? Not me and not you I suspect. TD using industry averages doesn't seem unreasonable. I have no idea why you have such an issue with it.

wigwammer,

How do you know? Why do you believe that you know what Scancell are thinking, but those with industry experience and direct access to Scancell don't? Do you honestly think Scancell would pay for coverage that they disagree with and then tweet it out for all to see? This is TD's explanation for the percentages used:-

'Success probabilities are based on standard industry criteria for the respective stage of the clinical development process but are flexed to reflect the inherent risks of the individual programmes, the technology risk, the indication targeted, and, where relevant, the trial design.'

Despite both LIndy and Richard's comments re. mouse data, you believe that TD have got it wrong . I'm not sure it really makes a great deal of difference in the grand scheme of things, but I'm happy to accept the cautious and conservative approach from specialist biotech analysts and by the look of things, so are Scancell.

By the way, the 'message from Scancell' comment refers to the whole report -this report has been commissioned by Scancell in order to present the investment case to new and existing investors.

wigwammer,

It wasn't a slippery question at all. Please listen to Richard Goodfellow at 13.27. TD's figures simply reflect the stage of development and the fact that Moditope is completely novel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGBn9pStUYs

Wigwammer,

The likelihood of success depends on a whole host of factors - there is no doubt that the Modi preclinical results have been fantastic and I suspect is the main reason most of us remain invested here. However, what evidence do you have that those preclinical results are more likely than others to be replicated at the same level and without any safety issues in humans? Because that's the argument you're making when you say that TD should use above average likelihood of success. When considering a reply, please assume as TD are that results of the phase I trial are still awaited.

This is a completely novel platform with untested targets and an unapproved novel adjuvant. TD can't look at other drugs that have already been through trials and have validated the target and mechanism for comparison. For example, If this were a mAB targeting PD-1 you may have a point - it's much easier to make a comparison and increase or decrease the chances of success based on preclinical data for an already proven therapy, with a known safety record and a proven target. Then add in the fact that Scancell have yet to take a drug beyond phase IIa trials and so have no track record of taking a drug to market.

This in no way diminishes the potential here or undermines the investment case - quite the opposite in fact. It means that there's huge potential, but as Scancell keep reminding us - data is needed to validate that potential. If it's good enough then TD's valuation will be revised upwards, but you won't be able to buy in at 18p.

This post isn't directed to you Ray, but as a general point, I think we're in danger of mixing the valuation and potential valuation here. The TD valuation is as of today - what TD believe Scancell are worth right now. That can only be based on current stage of development.

We are never going to agree on this one - we'll just get into another mouse data debate.

Until those phase I/II results are in, nobody knows, not even Scancell to what degree the unprecedented results in mice will be replicated in humans. The time to increase likelihood of success percentages is when those results are in, if appropriate.

Their view is that their valuation is cautious and conservative and leaves room for plenty of upside IF the promise shown in mice in the lab translates to humans in the clinic AND Scancell are able to either efficiently take the product through the long clinical development path or license to another party who have the ability, funds and desire to do the same.

Wigwammer,

I assume that's a rhetorical question - let me know if not.

Chelsea,

No problem with a difference in opinion Chelsea - these boards work best when we can discuss openly and amicably, but you're assuming the Trinity Delta report is only aimed at you/us.

There is a depressing lack of analyst coverage for the UK bio sector and the whole point of hiring Trinity Delta is to fill that void. The TD report is also aimed at potential investors and whilst we may already know much of what's in the report, anyone new to Scancell won't.

Sorry Chelsea but I think that's more than a little harsh. Not sure whether you've had a chance to actually read and digest the whole thing - if not then give it a go. There is new info. and the explanations of the products and where they sit in the market are excellent. More than that though it gives a balanced view and a good feel for how the land lies. Remember, this is paid for coverage - the underlying message will be from Scancell.

Ruck,

The report does state that they've taken a cautious approach and that their valuation is conservative - better over cautious than over hyped IMO.

As you know, the likelihood of success percentages are standard for the stage of development - the Genmab deal has no impact on that, the mAb licensed to Genmab is still preclinical and without a defined clinic ready product.

The Ichor shares have been factored in.

corr - well written.

A new update from Trinity Delta with revised valuation. Well worth a read - these Trinity Delta notes are informative and wel written and this one is no exception.

https://www.trinitydelta.org/research-notes/a-leader-in-antibody-and-vaccine-oncology-platforms/