Member Info for Burble

I’m in…..to the tune of far more than I had ever thought. When i first invested back in 2010. But every time the share price has dropped I’ve used the shrapnel down the sofa to buy more. Something about the Scancell story just kept me hooked and keeps me here 16 years later.

When will the radio silence end?! I’m going to say the 18th June. But won’t hold my breathe

Add to these great posts, this would be getting it over the line.

Because it targets fundamental biochemical processes within cancer cells, rather than particular markers on the surface of cells in more traditional therapies, once on the market, I suspect the number of application targets would increase rapidly.

There are many different cancers which broadly look similar to these, some with large numbers of patients with unmet need, others more in the rare oncology space which could possibly be trialed on compassionate grounds.

Then we also know Modi-2 is waiting in the wings…

Something said yesterday got me thinking and apologies if it was talked about earlier. Could Sath’s leaving be entirely because of Phil’s final comment regarding companies being unable to invest because we’re on AIM? Ie funding is there, lined up but is entirely dependent on us getting a Nasdaq listing.

If so, does anyone know the timelines for this type of thing? Is this a few months kind of option, or is it many longer to do?

Different Patel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narendra_Patel,_Baron_Patel

FDA has granted us Fast Track Designation for iSCIB1+.

What a nice start to Tuesday!

1) Yes - I was an early investor there and know some people were involved in the Merck acquisition.

2) No - they're not my team of choice.

Background:

SCIB1 and iSCIB1+ are off the shelf DNA vaccines incorporating CD8 and CD4 epitopes from TRP2/gp100 into an antibody framework to allow Fc targeting of activated dendritic cells. SCIB1 and iSCIB1+ potentially have a synergistic effect on advanced unresectable melanoma when combined with checkpoint inhibitors (CPI). SCIB1 was successfully evaluated as monotherapy in a phase 1/2 in stage 3/4 melanoma patients. SCIB1 induced T cell responses in 88% patients, 75% RFS at 39 months cut off (n=16) versus 63% for Pembrolizumab (Keynote 054). The current Phase 2 trial tests the hypothesis that unresectable patients may have an improved response when the vaccine is combined with CPI. SCIB1 induced T cell responses in HLA-A2 patients, iSCIB1+ has a modified Fc and contains additional epitopes covering more HLA haplotypes, HLA-A2, A3, A31, Bw4, B35 and B44 representing 80% of the population.

Methods:

In a Phase 2 trial patients with advanced unresectable melanoma were treated with SCIB1 or iSCIB1+ (i.m) in combination with nivolumab and ipilimumab. Clinical response was assessed by RECIST 1.1. T cell responses to SCIB1 and iSCIB1+ were assessed using a cultured IFNγ ELISpot assay, single cell RNA- and TCR-seq analysis.

Results:

41 patients received SCIB1 and had a PFS of 55% and OS of 77% at 26 months. 39 patients received iSCIB1+ and had an improved PFS of 74% at 16 months when compared to SCIB1, possibly due to the modified Fc and additional epitopes. This compares favorably with CPI alone in checkmate 067 which had a median PFS of 11.5 months and similar patient demographics. Among 200 grade 3 or greater adverse events only 4 (uveitis), were solely related to vaccine and were rapidly resolved upon treatment. Vaccine induced T cell responses peaked at 25 weeks and strongly correlated with PFS and DCR. Patients that generated a strong T cell response to both gp100 and TRP2 peptides post-vaccination exhibited better tumor control, with tumors reducing in size or disappearing (PR/CR, 70%). Seventy percent (23/32) of patients responded to both TRP2 and gp100 making antigen loss less likely. iSCIB1+ specific TCRs cloned from these patients confirmed epitope and HLA restriction and showed strong recognition and killing of melanoma target cells. T cells expressing iSCIB1+ specific TCRs showed a strong cytotoxic and polyfunctional Tpex transcriptional profile.

Conclusions:

iSCIB1+ in combination with nivolumab and ipilimumab as first line treatment for unresectable melanoma showed improved PFS of 74% at 16 months without an increase in clinically meaningful adverse events. Clinical benefit was correlated with strong iSCIB1+ induced T cell responses. These data support a registrational, randomized, controlled trial of iSCIB1 + with potential to redefine frontline therapy for unresectable advanced melanoma.

Is it just me or does it feel like we’re in radio silence at the moment? I sense something big is possibly brewing but unsure when the storm will break.

Https://www.theguardian.com/science/audio/2026/apr/14/helium-the-invisible-gas-that-powers-ai-and-why-its-in-short-supply-podcast

Well that wasn’t news I was expecting. A Nasdaq listing and bringing in the big guns from Redmile.

I wonder whether they’ve decided to step in to drive a harder bargain or whether something else is afoot

'We can insert other epitopes and target other solid tumours. There is discovery work to make sure we can broaden out the commercial and platform potential of the immunobody platform and move into other solid tumours in time too'.

Imagine what we could have done with $80m in cash up front! Dilution would have definitely been less than it is.

Whilst I agree on all points raised as I think they’re all equally valid. I do still feel in this arena, Phil could have said more. He may be needing to keep cards close to his chest, but from a scientific perspective I think he didn’t do himself any favours. Agree LD would have been a better choice but completely understand her propensity to get excited about the science and that may not be the right thing at this current critical inflection point.

We shall find out I guess about modi etc in due course

Having just listened to the cancer vaccine webinar for me it was a tale of two halves.

The majority of the speaker panel were fantastic. Really interesting conversations, some great insights and thoughts came across during the conversation. Both on cancer vaccines as a platform and the current environment they find themselves in.

Phil IMHO was a let down. Of all the people on the panel he spoke the least, when he did speak he really wasn’t over his brief. For example there was a part when the conversation pivoted to avidity of T-cell response. To me this would’ve been a perfect opportunity to talk about the Immunobody or Moditope platform, how they work, how they generate high avidity T cells (CD4 or CD8). But instead his only response was a reply back to someone saying words to the effect of ‘is it quality or quantity’.

Other topics covered were things like epitopes - how many is enough? Should we focus on earlier stage treatments? How is the funding landscape etc. the other speakers had a grea conversation, really insightful about some of the challenges and opportunities. Yet Phil either didn’t speak, or when he did was tbh pretty boring or spoke so generically it was the kind of thing a fresh out of uni graduate could have come out with.

Disappointed.

The recording is below if anyone wants to listen for themselves. https://event.on24.com/eventRegistration/console/apollox/mainEvent?&eventid=5196377&sessionid=1&username=&partnerref=&format=fhvideo1&mobile=&flashsupportedmobiledevice=&helpcenter=&key=7943633329239C8D9F665963D107AD99&newConsole=true&nxChe=true&newTabCon=true&consoleEarEventConsole=true&consoleEarCloudApi=false&text_language_id=en&playerwidth=748&playerheight=526&eventuserid=809374412&contenttype=A&mediametricsessionid=699212126&mediametricid=7288327&usercd=809374412&mode=launch

Https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/m-and-a/our-insights/life-sciences-dealmaking-gains-momentum-as-strategic-pressures-intensify

Https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/cancer-vaccine-bulletin-february-edition-lee-frcp-dphil-bmbch-e3dge?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_ios&utm_campaign=share_via

Seems the FDA really is on the war path against mRNA and vaccines.

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/fda-declines-review-modernas-mrna-flu-shot-rcna258436

Couldn't agree more. Across different government departments we are seeing infrastructure, facilities etc being costed and businesses cases approved, without a hollistic approach to asking 'is this necessary'. We see buildings being built at huge cost, but then sitting empty because the demand isn't there - yet we then have innovative businesses calling out for support or complaining that basic things like regulatory approval is underfunded and so slowing down the pace of innovation.

In addition the government says they want to see growth and that home grown innovations staying in the UK, yet don't seem to have cottoned on to the fact that companies won't just stay because they're british. They'll go elsewhere if they get the support they need to be able to continue to grow. Then you see US companies having money thrown at them to come to the UK and set up, at the detriment of the UK pharma/life science base (I'm sure it is happening in other industries too).

Just this week we've seen AZ increasing investments in China (to the tune of around $15bn) at the same time as launching on the NY stock exchange. If the UK wanted to support businesses to stay in the UK they have to be doing more than building a lot of white elephants and pointing to shiny lab space which sits empty or is sold off to private companies on the cheap.

Moderna signed a ten year strategic agreement with government (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-64856379) which could be why the focus is on personalised medicines because the government has agreed to buy vaccines from here to recoup costs.

Separately, the Sunak Government also sold off the government funded Vaccine Manufacturing Innovation Centre to Catalent (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-61011189) but unsure whether that resulted in government recouping costs.

Either way, the government (both Sunak and Starmer) have thrown weight behind personalised medicines which I think is linked to the pandemic hype. Even today, we see a huge focus on mRNA vaccines - more than IMHO there should be given their complexities with supply chain, manufacture and storage. The Intracellular Drug Delivery Centre of Excellence is another example where funding is going to support infrastructure trying to solve these issues (https://www.uk-cpi.com/about/national-centres/intracellular-drug-delivery-centre)