Member Info for Bermudashorts

Chester,

A large portion of that work is handled by the CRO, not Scancell. It shouldn't be an issue for a company with Scancell's resources and expertise to design a phase I trial and appoint a CRO. Where I think they may run into issues is when it comes to larger phase II and III trials. We've seen the perfect example with the AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine of left and right hand designing and running trials simultaneously resulting in mixed/confused results. So it would be great to see Scancell run a proof of principle phase I and then hand over lock stock and barrel to a partner.

Agreed hasiba, important not to be taken in by unscrupulous traders posting misleading 'facts'. Make you own minds up folks as to whether it was down to lack of research/knowledge or not.

Correct spre, the SP of 73.5p quoted by Hasiba was prior to the stock split and equates to an SP of 7.35p. A perfect example of why it's meaningless to look at historical SP in isolation. Hasiba has failed to note that the market cap at the time was under £12m - today it sits at just under £190m.

It's also meaningless and slightly naive to look only at historical share prices - back in 2012 there were less than 195m shares in issue. Most investors would be looking at market cap.

AB124

Worth a read

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-55795297

Chelsea,

Ah right I'm with you now, thanks.

I think your comment may have been fair enough prior to Redmile's investment as Scancell historically have been vastly underfunded. However for nearly a year now they have had the cash to recruit as they deem necessary. Also don't overlook the additional resources enjoyed through Scancell's links with the UoN. So I'd be very disappointed if they had any human resource issues.

Regarding comparisons with big pharma, it's a bit like saying your local corner shop has human resource issues because they don't have as many staff as Tesco. Biotech and pharma are just completely different beasts and I'm not sure it's quite fair to suggest that there are human resource issues at Scancell simply because they don't have the infrastructure and budgets of big pharma.

Finally, In terms of development of Covidity, in the middle of a pandemic with countries battling for vaccine supplies and manufacturing issues left, right and centre I believe Scancell have done well to secure a manufacturing slot with Cobra and hope they've been as successful with the rest of the manufacturing process. I think the suggestion (not from you) that they shouldn't carry out a simple phase I study in healthy patients is frankly laughable. In terms of the design of the trial, if anyone doubts they have the expertise in-house then you only have to look at the SAB and virology experts at UoN for reassurance. As for the execution, I assume they'd use the Clinical Trials Unit at Nottingham and then it's down to the CRO. I fail to see what the issue is.

I have no idea whether they'll partner before or after the phase I, my personal preference would be the latter but they certainly won't be forced down one route or the other by lack of resource or expertise.

You mentioned in your 10.16:-

'At this stage I believe human resources is the most important issue'

Can you elaborate/explain? What is the issue with human resources?

I may be wrong, but my understanding is that once the plasmids are manufactured, they then still need to be formulated with the peptide delivery system and stability and toxicology testing needs to be carried out along the way too. It's not within Scancell's remit to make any announcements re. the delivery system as it falls within UoN but I'm sure it was decided upon long ago and I guess depending on testing they are just pressing ahead with standard preclinical preparations.

I'd be surprised if Scancell tell us when they apply to the MHRA for clinical trial approval which means that the first we'll know about it is when they issue an RNS to say CTA has been received. I'm hoping that'll be the next news.

Burble,

Scancell stopped collecting survival data in Feb 2018. I believe patients were followed up for a minimum period of 2 years after their last treatment.

Thanks for that Bronxville - good to see that Amryt seem to be gaining traction with US funds

This may already have been posted but 4D get a nice mention in this Nature article.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41587-021-00002-w

A small mention for Angle in today's Times:-

'Shares in Angle, a small British maker of blood tests, leapt 14¾p, or 17.8 per cent, to 98p after signing its first big deal with a pharmaceuticals company. The deal, worth up to $1.2 million, will allow the unnamed drugs group to use Angle’s Parsortix blood test to monitor cancer patients in its clinical trials. Angle’s founder, Andrew Newland, said he was “delighted” with the tie-up.'

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/wh-smith-is-going-places-as-long-as-were-cleared-for-take-off-ds2fg0fh3

Proactive interview with Andrew Newland below - well worth a listen

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyIHJuI8n_g

A watershed moment for Angle - well done to Andrew Newland and the whole team.

CRO/pharmacovigilance field really hotting up with some huge deals

Https://www.reuters.com/article/ppd-ma-thermo-fisher/update-1-thermo-fisher-in-late-talks-to-buy-ppd-for-over-15-bln-wsj-idUSL4N2M746D

Ivy,

Not sure they've ever had any non-core assets

David Evans has given a very candid account of the events surrounding the potential spin out of Moditope back in 2012/3 and it needs to be viewed in the context of the biotech. environment in the UK at that time.

Seed funding for biotech was relatively easy to come by but there was a significant gap when it came to follow-on funding - the so called valley of death. The argument for spinning out Moditope was that it would be much easier to secure seed funding to progress preclinical development. However, even though ImmunoBody had produced fantastic clinical trial results, cancer vaccines were a no-go area for big pharma - they simply couldn't secure any commercial interest and ImmunoBody was at the edge of that valley of death. The argument against spinning out Moditope was that it would be against the interests of existing Scancell shareholders who would be left holding stock in a company with an underfunded product in a 'cold area' of cancer research.

With hindsight, it was a fortuitous decision as we have now come full circle and now it's ImmunoBody that is driving funding and attracting investors and cancer vaccines are about to become hot again. I'm not sure it would have survived if Moditope had been spun off into a separate company and that would have been a tragedy. Incidentally, an excellent example of the benefit of having independent non-execs on the board when it comes to protecting the interests of shareholders.

Crumbs - yes and the 2 year clock is ticking down

Crumbs,

Three or four years ago I had some correspondence with Lindy Durrant regarding the potential of an mRNA Moditope vaccine. She confirmed that it was possible but a peptide vaccine would be much more effective as Moditope targets are effectively generated via post translational modifications.

Redx Pharma (AIM:REDX), the drug discovery and development Company focused on oncology and fibrosis, today announces that it will present a poster entitled 'Mechanism of action of RXC004, a Wnt pathway inhibitor, in genetically-defined models of cancer' at the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) Annual Meeting, being held virtually on 10 April 2021.

Link to abstract is below.

https://www.abstractsonline.com/pp8/#!/9325/presentation/2070