Member Info for Bermudashorts

hasiba,

I genuinely don't care whether or not you decide to be vaccinated, or which vaccine you decide to have, although I doubt you'll have a choice.

If you're going to make these alarmist comments about safety then I don't think it's unreasonable for you to be asked to back them up with facts. We've seen one poster tonight who already had concerns and who knows how many others have read your posts and now believe that the mRNA vaccines aren't safe.

Ivy - Agreed, I'm happy that the EMA will only be approving vaccines when they have sufficient data to demonstrate safety and efficacy.

Hasiba - the AZN vaccine also uses previously unproven tech with the chimp adenovirus and has been developed to very similar timescales. So if the Pfizer /Moderna vaccines have been rushed through, then so has the AZN/Oxford vax. It is just possible that they all have been developed in record timescales due to a monumental effort from all concerned, including manufacturers, regulators, CROs, all of the participating doctors, nurses and of course the patients themselves. Quickly doesn't automatically mean corners cut.

Ray,

I completely agree.

Of course, it's entirely a matter of personal choice whether or not anyone decides to have a covid vaccination so long as they are aware of all the facts. There's so much fake news, scaremongering and just plain ignorance around these vaccines.

Interesting, thanks for the info. hasiba.

You're absolutely right of course, there has never been an approved mRNA vaccine, so I can understand your concerns. On the other hand, you're very confident about Scancell and yet there has never been an approved DNA vaccine either. Hmmmm

Virtually all discussion on this bb regarding Covidity has centred around the T cell response. I assume that's because it's potentially one area that differentiates Scancell's vaccine from the pack. As suggested in previous posts, a potent T cell response will mean that any infected cells will be quickly dealt with, however, we shouldn't overlook that the aim of Covidity is also to produce effective neutralising antibodies to prevent infection in the first place. We know from the Pfizer/Moderna successes that they're aiming at the right target.

Hasiba, the fact that the Pfizer/Moderna vaccine have been developed so quickly doesn't mean that any less care has been taken regarding safety. Together, these vaccines have now been tested in nearly 100,000 people - way, way more than the norm for a new vaccine and there have been no safety issues.

Crackin,

For the greater good, the best case scenario is that all of the 1st generation vaccines are successful and can't be improved upon. Given what we already know about dosing, storage and transportation, that's unlikely but it would be fantastic and would solve the concerns about the ability to manufacture enough supplies to vaccinate in every country.

So where would that leave Scancell? Answer is, it would leave them with an updated and newly patented version of ImmunoBody, together with a new delivery system - funded by UKRI. In addition, it's highly likely that no matter what Scancell will run a phase I for Covidity, so they also may bank some useful data validating the platform's potential in infectious disease. The short patent life of ImmunoBody has been discussed many times here and was a real concern and whilst Lindy Durrant mentioned the potential of ImmunoBody in infectious diseases way back in 2009, they've never had the funds or a reason to go down that avenue.

So if there never is a need for a 2nd generation vaccine, it seems to me that's a win/win situation for everyone.

Burble

Great explanation thanks.

Burble,

Thanks that makes sense. Sorry if this is a stupid question, but is the manufacturing process for the plasmids the same no matter what the eventual delivery method? ie. Could they manufacture and store the dna plasmids and then at a later date formulate into different versions of the vaccine ? For example, formulate a lnp version for one market and an electroporation version for another from the same batch? Or do they have to be formulated into the final version (with carrier/adjuvant) before going into storage?

Burble,

Are you saying that the shelf life remains the same regardless of the delivery system? So an ImmunoBody vaccine delivered via electroporation will have the same shelf life as the lipid nanoparticle and peptide delivery ones?

Not sure whether this has already been posted but the link below shows Scancell's new CMO discussing COVID vaccines with the BBC last Tuesday. Link comes courtesy of an ex-poster here (and no, it's not Inanaco)

https://www.fpm.org.uk/news/gillies-obryan-tear-appears-on-bbc-news-channel/

Ivy

Right am with you now - it's just that I read it as physical supplies of something rather than data if that makes sense

Ivy,

Regarding Trinity Delta's comments about the SCIB1 manufacturing costs - the expenses came through before April 2020 so I don't think they can be related to Covidity. Am going to check the Annual Report as there may be an explanation there but TD used the words ' manufacture of the SCIB1 clinical trial material' so it seems to be actual supplies for use in SCIB1 trial. Perhaps it's connected with the Ichor device - odd.

Ivy, posts crossed but I think we're saying the same thing

GF123

Re. your 9.37 - I think there's no doubt that if Redmile asked Scancell what they needed to optimise the potential value of their pipeline, then funds to further develop Avidimab/glycan mAbs would have been high on the list.

I'm not sure whether the potential deal was for Avidimab or a mAb or both. Either way though, I don't think it's necessarily the case that the other party undervalued the product. It may well be that they offered fair value for the very early stage of development and in the past, Scancell would have been forced to cut the deal. Not so now and both parties may have agreed to re-open negotiations when further development work has been completed. So the deal on the table didn't reflect the potential value of the product and Scancell are now going away to provide some evidence of that potential.

AB124 -

I agree with Ray, it's likely that SCIB2 would be enhanced with Avidimab and would replace the original SCIB2. Not only should the new version be more effective, but crucially it will have a much longer patent life. An added benefit of course is that Scancell get a double whammy on R&D costs as all development on SCIB2 is also validating Avidimab.

For any who haven't already done so, would recommend reading the whole of the Trinity Delta update (link below). Some points worth noting (in no particular order)

1) There is the suggestion of further UKRI funding for Covidity
2) Confirmation that it's increasingly unlikely that CRUK will develop SCIB2
3) Scancell may take an an updated derivative of the original SCIB2 into the clinic
4) We now have a shortlist of some of the proteins being evaluated for Modi2 indicating progress is being made
5) The comments about the Avidimab deal suggest the valuation was too low

There are a couple of mentions the impact of 'manufacture of the SCIB1 clinical trial material' on 2020 R&D expenses. I thought the newly manufactured supply of SCIB1 was delivered to Scancell in Autumn 2017 - anyone know what this new expense refers to?

https://www.trinitydelta.org/research-notes/redmile-funding-releases-the-brakes/

Crumbs,

Yes, sorry I should have made it clear but just wanted to make the point about upsetting CRUK.

If Scancell do regain SCIB2 then I guess they have some decisions to make. Do they enhance it with Avidimab before taking it into the clinic? Do they stick with the lipid nanoparticle delivery or do they go for the same peptide system being used for Covidity? Now they have funds, do they still go down the PD-1 combination route or do they go back to the monotherapy adjuvant setting?

Time will tell.

Crumbs,

Correct, it's a 3rd party proprietary system but it still required preclinical development and testing to tailor it for SCIB2. That was down to Scancell rather than CRUK.

Balerno,

I believe LD and Scancell, not CRUK were responsible for developing the lipid nanoparticle delivery system for SCIB2 and this was handed over to CRUK in May 2019.

Crumbs is right, most licensing agreements would contain a provision for the licensor to take back a drug if the licensee wasn't fulfilling it's development obligations. It would/should be possible to do that in a perfectly amicable way so I don't think we need to be concerned about upsetting CRUK.

It is an AGM and mainly routine housekeeping. Not unusual to run through the resolutions quickly but I haven't listened yet so will reserve judgement at this stage.

Of course the main news today is the new appointments which are very much needed IMO. Good to see Scancell finally having the resources to strengthen it's ability to take LD's brilliant science and translate it into hard clinical data. For far too long, there appears to have been a log jam. Hopefully now the candidates coming out of Scancell's labs will have a much smoother (and quicker!) transition into the clinic.

Good stuff.