Member Info for BOJO2020

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

I do appreciate your post was in good faith and very helpful

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.

Highly recommend those downloading the AGM recording courtesy of Botski save it to desktop and listen as many times and whenever you wish

Moab

We know the Parsortix capture rates are high and it provides a superior sample. It is the case that ctDNA is established and deep routed Parsortix is not. Also it reasonable to suggest that assays are calibrated to ctDNA. So the question is, how well do these assays work using a superior sample? We can't just guess. Angle has to prove this. We know that there is going to be a repeat study on the ovarian sample. However, we don't know what else is happening in the background. Is one of the big companies working on a specific or amending a current assay to use with Parsortix so that they can steal a march on the competition? Abbot?

We just don't know.

Liquid biopsy are long established. They are a common part of clinical trials for example as a series of steps too measure outcomes. Currently Parsortix appears not to play a part as ctDNA is long established. It is actually more about the assays right now but if Parsortix could gain a foot hold then using current effective assays would likely be better for the patient as it provides a superior sample.

ATB

"The blood tests work by looking for microscopic traces of cancer in the bloodstream called circulating tumour DNA."

"The trial, called TRACC, is using a test created by US company Guardant Health."

Well put simply it isn't us...

Angles Parsortix system captures CTC's which is a sub section of liquid biopsy. This test is ctDNA

Also Guardant have massive resources compared to Angle

Might be worth keeping an eye on this page. Especially cancer applications. Although one cannot be sure how often websites are updated.

https://pharmajet.com/pipeline/

Also plenty to read on the entire website if anybody fancies popping down those particular rabbit holes.

Thanks Thompi. That is the way I see things as well.

ATB

As I understand it there is a need in testing for a repeat test. Which means that the veracity of the ovarian study needs to be validated with a repeat test. This does not mean that Angle have done anything wrong or that the original study is in any doubt. It is simply what is expected by industry before adoption.

Angle have the samples apparently and they announced in Jan they were selecting a third party assay.

Re timelines, it could be anytime soon or next year. Angle have also said they will only update the market when necessary so it is feasible that it could happen soon. Who knows. It doesn’t mean we wil be notified if and when the assay is chosen.

As you say there could be other news anytime.

People should check for themselves before taking this information as red.

I am also happy to be corrected.

MJ

It isn't easy to see what is happening on this board; someone has pulled the plug out of the bath and everyone is scared witless that they are going to be sucked down the drain!!

My take on it is that Angle need to back up the outstanding ovarian results using a third party assay. Once this is done then the LDT's are go go go. Also waiting on Solaris so basically 2024 should see things begin to happen. Angles form with studies and validation are outstanding but the timelines are also staggeringly looooonnnnggg!!! I don't expect this too change.

DYOR of course but that is the gist of things as I see them. However, they may surprise us somehow.

ATB

Thanks Ruck and Moonparty,

Many of us are going to need to understand how to interpret results and RNS's as they come through (hopefully thick and fast) and your post's have been most helpful. Although ratcliffe writer appears to be on the same lines too!

Is there such a thing as standard medical terminology that promotes accurate interpretation of official updates? It would certainly stop the rampers and derampers in their tracks! An anti ramp - deramp almanac as it were?

ATB