Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
TF,
It does look like recruitment is going well for ModiFY.
When it comes to the Scope trial, Scancell will hopefully get the nod for iSCIB1+! That will certainly remove a significant hurdle of recruitment... So would that mean a significant change to the trial protocol, hence the delay. Delay is fine by the way! Better do it properly IMO.
ATB
AB,
We have optimists and pessimists views and many in between on this forum. A pessimist may see a balanced/objective view as over optimistic. An optimist may see a pessimist as unrealistically negative. A balanced view can see both sides but is accused of sitting on the fence. Anyway, a lot of strings are pulled by such semantics.
The original question you ask, "What if the results garnered so far aren't quite as stunning as hoped?"
We all know the steps the Company has taken to mitigate failure, and whilst nobody in their right might can dismiss failure, it is imperative to acknowledge that success is an equal possibility.
My own view is that Modi 1 will see both success and failure. Some patients may be cured or partially cured whilst others succumb to their illness. Just look at SCIB1.
I don't see a COMPLETE success or failure at this stage. My initial thought was that your question was alluding to complete failure? Although that was not the words you used.
ATB
Hi Johnny,
Thanks for reply.
Ivy,
I see your point. If this were AZN or Merck then yes. Stacks of cash. Defined position in the market and space. Layers of talented staff. Supported by government. Why would they feel obliged to keep the market updated as often as a startup? Scancell on the other hand is a different story. They are in the process of defining themselves. Of course they will not ramp but they must remain aware and alert to opportunities. Communicating with the market is critical. Hence they have had something to talk about at AACR…
JonnyB1 Thanks.
I wonder if you are a lawyer (rhetoric) as you seem to have an eye for detail.
We know that the head and neck cancer patient posted an update also on the 21st Feb. I wonder if she and others were asked to wait to publicly announce any update until an official update could be made, hence the same date as the RNS? Probably unlikely and could just be coincidence. At first I thought it might be the organisers waiting for any scan results that fell on or around the 21st before releasing an RNS. Just in case there might be contradictory or outstanding data. However she said that she had received her 5th dose and scan on the 7th (which I presume to be also February). This patient is from cohort two.
I wonder then if it is possible to roughly extrapolate when we might see a second update RNS
16th Aug 2022: RNS first person dosed in cohort 2 of ModiFY phase 1 clinical trial
16th Aug 2022: Same RNS stated that all three patients in cohort 1 had received two doses
7th Feb 2023: Scan and fifth dose H& N patient in cohort 2
21st Feb: RNS update on ModiFY trial
21st Feb: Patient updated Mcmillian - I see the timing as largely irrelevant and most likely coincidental.
Random thoughts and questionable basis:
14 days happened to have elapsed from her last scan - dose to RNS. Again I don't see this as significant to just one patient, just the timing. Clearly we can't tie in the likelihood of an update based on one patient in one cohort of a basket trial, however as the dates are quite close (two weeks apart) might we get an idea as they follow a similar timeline?
I have always thought that we would get a second RNS update by mid April. Maybe before the end of the month.
Thoughts?
Thanks Bamps,
59 mins 25 seconds: You mentioned when chatting to Liam BR in the recent webcast, that Ruddall could be twice as big a target as Hav. Great foresight from you! I am curious, what stood out prior to today's result about Ruddall.
By the way, compliments to you and Liam for a great and insightful webcast. I skimmed through it again today and it seem to have more relevance somehow. This could be a longstanding reference point I think as results and development evolve.
ATB.
Hi Konar,
On the 21st of Feb, the head and neck cancer patient from McMillan posted she had received her 5th dose in cohort two and that the third cohort has commenced now and that she was not sure if she might be eligible and may soon find out. I appreciate this is anecdotal but the date does tie in with Lindy's comment that you posted. If we were willing to take that anecdotal evidence at face value then cohort 3 started two months ago?
Tick tock, Scancell's wonky clock! We may have to wait a while yet.
ATB
Konar,
Thanks for that I am very glad you have pointed this out. It is just one of those things. You don’t know until you know!
The general point still stands: Presentation, engagement, understanding. The point of the presentation is to engender engagement and better understanding.
We could see an RNS before or after the presentation. Personally don’t think it matters much either way to be honest.
We must be due more results soon.
ATB
I imagine that LD will stand up and speak officially to the results as of Jan 23.
However, when the room begins to clear or people line up to shake hands and ask the inevitable informal questions she could point to the latest information that has been released. So an RNS before hand would be helpful...
if one of the outcomes of AACR might be:
Touching base with familiar faces
Future collaborations
Trial expansion into other territories such as the US
I know this is not an earth shattering suggestion but it could be a reasonable shout based on promising first data for Modi trial, especially following preclinical abstracts. Admittedly conversations may well need to happen beyond the meeting itself.
Clearly an obstacle to a US arm would be funding for one thing, but maybe a a generous collaborator could help? I am trying to think of baby steps rather than a giant leap such as Big Pharma paying £20 a share or whatever.
Maybe something as simple as an introduction...
Correct me if I am wrong but what we are looking for from Modi and Scib is a baseline efficacy from which Lindy and team can build. We know cancer fights back and most often evades destruction. It can lay dormant and come back.
I see it more like a sword fight than a drug being so good that it simply destroys cancer. I am imagining that Lindy and team are already working on improvements and fine tuning drugs in clinic for future trials. Yes, cancer evolves but so does the scientist. They already have their eye in the game and will thwart cancer at every step. Guess and second guessing, thinking several moves ahead.
That baseline efficacy which essentially means the drug works is what we need to prove right? I just don't see a scenario where we present a drug that is 70% effective right off the bat. I mean I am certainly willing to be found wrong! Please feel free to help me better understand this.
Anybody that watched the 'Diggle short,' link I posted from YouTube recently will know that Stephen Diggle has in the past at least considered himself to be contrarian. I take this to mean he does not follow the crowd and has his own opinion. We can deduce from the DD that Vulpes carried out before investing in Scancell, that they are not rash or prone to pure instinct. It's not about the adrenaline rush or some strange psychological pay off winning or losing. Vulpes are driven by fact, by tangible opportunity. We know that as much as possible they have a balanced portfolio, investing in Germany property as well as investing in British bio's.
If they are excited, then I am excited! But we already know they are excited, Martin said so at the AGM. I too find it intriguing that they have chosen to do this now. I do wonder with all of the experience they have and all the people they have gotten to know along the way, Who is this really aimed at?
DYOR
4pm Friday 14th April embargo lifted. Not long to go now. Expect wild speculation...tenuous links, maybe some posters issuing strong buy signals tempered with a healthy dose of caution (eyes rolled emoji). Personally I cant wait for the facts!
Fascinated to know what other scientist's make of the Modi trial. Prepared to wait of course as these things take time.
Good Luck
I can highly recommend your taking the time to transcribe Lindy's comments at the last AGM. Listening is a passive exercise in which details ARE missed, even if listening several times over.
Reading a transcription is one step closer to a better understanding for sure, but as any editor will tell you, the human brain has a tendency to replace words in text! Transcribing or taking notes for one self means you see word for word what has actually been said and I believe this promotes a better understanding and absolute word accuracy. The beauty of that of course is that no ramper or doomster can ever can ever persuade you differently as understanding should be based on fact, or at least in this case as Lindy and Sally see things. Most importantly context and intended meaning are maintained and not twisted, half understood or misrepresented.
ATB
So that is a study paper right? Not in human trials?
Yes I would be interested in other views. Striking resemblance to Moditope (from a lay persons point of view)
Could this be some kind of indirect validation of the science?
Thanks Crumbs for pointing this out. Always read your posts.