We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
It seems she also presented at the Association of Cancer Physicians event on the 1st March 2024 in the New Therapies session delivering a presentation titled 'cancer vaccines: trials and the future - where are we now?' Interesting tweet about it https://x.com/drlennardlee/status/1763629978430669099 'There was spontaneous applause when we heard what she was achieving in the #cancervaccine space!'
Bermuda,
Dr Shaw is also presenting at the Oncology Forum (https://oncology-forum.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/2024-UK-Oncology-Forum_DRAFT-Programme-4.pdf) in a breakout session titled 'multidisciplinary challenges for modern melanoma clinical practice' with a half hour talk entitled 'vaccines in early and advanced melanoma'.
This meeting is only open to UK cancer healthcare professionals, and has breakout sessions for the main cancer types.
Can a more experienced investor explain to me how a closed period actually works? If they were in discussions with somebody, would they be able to announce anything new to the market at these events or would their hands be forced to regurgitate old data because of the closed period?
I'm just curious as to whether or not this is or isn't a sign we are in a closed period or whether there isn't actually any news to share?
EE,
I see this in a completely different light. If you have a product which can be used for the same target but across multiple indications in infectious disease and oncology, why wouldn't you want to validate it in each of those? Not only does that give you multiple opportunities to do deals, it also means that you can offer exclusivity in one indication but not another.
So in the case of the glymab antibodies, you have a number of different avenues for doing deals and generating cash flows.
- Oncology - different indications or use in different modalities
- Infectious disease - detection or targeted treatment
- Diagnostics - highly specific antibodies are valuable in this space too
- Discovery - whilst slightly niche, antibodies can be bound to solid materials and then used to capture specific analytes in complex mixtures.
Each of these could generate deals which reduces the likelihood of us as shareholders being diluted through further raisings. So to me, I think it only natural that a company which has developed something like the glymabs to be exploring what they do.
As Lindy is a middle author in the author list, I would pretty much guarantee that LD has had limited input on this bar providing materials and possibly the odd zoom call. Where you say 'the company itself should be ENTIRELY focused on developing intellectual property and monetising it for the benefit of its shareholders.' I would think this is exactly what they are doing. They are not doing these experiments themselves, but are letting others explore what the technology can and cannot do through scientific/academic collaborations. In turn this is passively developing the IP and in turn helping drive the monetisation of the product.
Dracula, I've slowly been averaging down over the years with a drip feed of purchases whenever I've had some spare cash. Still slightly underwater but it's not a crazy amount that it needs to climb to get back into a small profit. I'm hoping to hold out for when it does rise, but I've stopped making any major purchases as I feel there are other opportunities to invest in other companies where the returns will be greater/quicker than locking more money up here.
Actually correction, it must have been 2011 that I made my first investment. That was when I got made redundant from Pfizer. Still, nearly 13 years it’s been and still waiting for something transformative to happen.
TF of course. My first purchase of SCLP shares was a spontaneous purchase made back in around August/Sept 2010 when I first started investing. I had just been made redundant from Pfizer at the time and had some spare cash lying around. Having never invested before I had no idea forums etc existed and had done very minor research into the company if I’m honest with you.
It was then later whilst working for a small biotech in Oxford, at the time I was looking at investing in OXB and was doing some research on them that I stumbled across LSE, joined and the rest is history!
Interesting that despite the presentation from SCLP, there is no mention of them in that article.
I sometimes wonder whether the delivery of our data isn’t as exciting. I appreciate our trials are earlier stage, but we never show data or scans from patients who were on the Ph1 trials (though I realise that was when we were trying electroporation), we occasionally show the swimmer plot, but it seems presenting data in the manner that we do, never seems to trigger that a-ha moment. Though I’m unsure what to suggest otherwise.
We had a fantastic opportunity here, sharing a session with some other strong players in this field, but it just seems to have fallen a bit flat.
Maybe that’s me becoming jaded by 14 years here. But I expected at least a minor up tick after all the presentations etc we’ve been doing recently
A quick glance at SM found the following from Cancer Research UK https://x.com/crukresearch/status/1777121247006204131?s=46&t=A6vOxblM5AgE5_ReawinRA
RP you state ‘ It is particularly logical that the clinical team would not allow the iscib1+ cohort to start recruiting until after the completion of the scib1 cohort.’
I beg to differ. From an ethical standpoint, it makes more sense to start recruiting people to the iSCIB1+ as soon as feasibly possible (after local approval for the amendment is granted).
If a patient fits the criteria for SCIB1, then recruiting them to that would be the right thing to do. If the patient has not got the right HLA group for SCIB1, then they go into the iSCIB1+ arm. Once the former is full, then all patients go onto the iSCIB1+ arm. There seems to point delaying opening the iSCIB1+ arm, as you never know when the former cohort will be fully recruited to.
Unsure whether this throws a curve ball. Does this mean we are not in a closed period? Or does that only count for directors etc? Also appreciate that end of FY is this week so could be someone using their tax allowance prior to announcements in the next FY
Ho Chester, where does mention BNT T-cell collaboration data will be published? AACR talks about mRNA vaccine, but I assume this will be the BNT personalised medicine mRNA vax data rather than any collaboration update unless I am mistaken
I was thinking today about Avidimab. So far, we have only really tested it in Covidity. Which whilst technically clinical, I wonder whether outsiders looking in haven't really given it much of a second thought. The fact it's deployed in iSCIB1+ I think could be the catalyst needed, it's being tested in an oncology setting which will peak interest.
From a scientific perspective, I wonder whether it may be overshadowed by the fact that SCIB1 and iSCIB1+ are not technically the same backbone with the addition of avidimab. But instead has more epitopes and avidimab too. So from a technical perspective will be difficult to say whether any improvement over the original SCIB1 construct, is due to the additional epitopes or whether it's due to the avidimab addition.
I'm curious what other people think. Do you think iSCIB1+ will be the catalyst needed for us to start doing some licensing deals on avidimab? or do you think one will be done before we get data on the new amended SCOPE trial?
Interesting GGP has a right of last refusal, rather than right of first refusal for Havieron. Does that mean we basically can match any offer and be guaranteed to buy it if we want to? Or could Newmont still decide to go with someone else?