Member Info for Burble

For context - this is approvals to start trials. Not cutting the length of time the trials run themselves. So organisations would still need to run trials for a number of years or to get the appropriately powered number of patients. But these changes are designed to help get trials started sooner rather than be delayed.

So for us, it would hopefully cut the time for things like Modi-2 trial to start quicker.

If you’re any good at coding or know anyone who is, check out pi-hole. It’s a raspberry pi based ad blocker which removes every single advert from your wifi network on every device connected to it. Works wonders and makes the viewing experience of everything from LSE to YouTube etc so much more pleasant.

Downside is it needs some knowledge of coding to get installed. But well worth it if you can get over that hurdle.

*had

Berm, yes their email on the website. I’ve gas a few responses to them before

Nope, emailed the company directly

Interesting, I emailed Scancell investor relations earlier questioning the data. I hope I have not upset the Apple Cart

I'll give you an example. During my PhD, I was generating UV spectra for samples. This was 100s of scans per sample at different wavelengths, with 600 datapoints per scan and each scan resulted in a separate spreadsheet.

To analyse the data, you had to take scan 1, copy all 600 datapoints into a new spreadsheet column. Then copy the data from scan 2 spreadsheet into column 2 of that new spreadsheet etc. Until you got all the data in columns in a single spreadsheet.

I remember looking at the data and thinking 'there is this really interesting signal appearing around the 280nm wavelength'. It's very small but looks interesting.

I repeated the experiment and couldn't work out why I was no longer seeing that same signal. Despite the sample being the same, the setup being the same. I spent the whole afternoon repeating it and trying to work out what this signal was coming from. I looked through all the individual spreadsheets and didn't see any issue with the data that was being recorded - so not a machine error.

In anger, I went back and revisited my original compiled spreadsheet. Turns out around the 280nm 'signal' I discovered an error I had introduced. I had accidentally made an error when copying and pasting my data into the spreadsheet and unknown to me had not copied the whole dataset from one of the scans which resulted in my dataset moving up a few cells. Then continued pasting the rest of the datasets without discovering this mistake. This resulted in a 'signal' appearing around the 280nm mark which happens to coincide with UV absorbance of two amino acids (Tryptophan and tyrosine). So a whole afternoon was wasted trying to repeat an experiment to find out what was causing this signal....when actually it was a plotting error caused by yours truely.

It's easy done, especially when dealing with large quantities of data.

Dracula - firstly, IMHO no question is stupid! So ask away.

Mistake in print is completely possible - depending on how data is reported to the company it may be copied into your statistics software. So copying and pasting errors can happen. Especially if you have multiple people plotting the same graphs in different spreadsheets - its very easy for humans to make mistakes. I know for one during my PhD, I was working with such large datasets, that it was easy to introduce errors and you had to be on the ball to catch them.

In this situation, I do not think that a patients cancer is acting eratically. Somebody will have had to make those scans, interpret them, input that data and then plot that data. The scan wont lie, but interpretation, data inputting and plotting introduces a chance of human error. Especially if you are going back and re-measuring lesion reduction or somebody else within the team is revisiting data.

Violin

Yes I agree entirely, but it really is important for me as an investor and as a scientist to look at dat with a critical eye. I'll fire off an email and see whether I get a response. There may be some very logical reason behind it, but if it's not flagged then we're still in the dark.

Seems that LSE doesnt allow the less than sign!

Apologies.

Here should be the full post.

I am confused.

If you compare the 19th September data (https://www.scancell.co.uk/Data/Sites/1/media/docspres/230919-phase-2-scope-trial.pdf) on slide 6, with the data that has been presented on the October poster (https://www.scancell.co.uk/Data/Sites/1/media/publications/posters/2023/sitc_scope-study-poster_october-23_final.pdf) there are three patients who don't match previously published data. Confusingly, the data presented on these two do not use consistent colour schemes for the patients which makes this slightly more confusing to compare (I'll refer to colour as September:October)

Patient 4 (Green:Grey). September had a 50% drop in lesion size at point of scan (12 weeks). October this data is presented as having had an additional unscheduled scan less than 12 weeks with no change in lesion size at this point. But then a drop.

Patient 7: (Red:Green) - September had a ~55% lesion decrease at week 12, then a further drop to ~70% by week 25. Additional scans have shown 40% drop sometime before week 12, followed by static at week 19 before a further drop to ~70% by week 25.

Patient 8: Orange:Yellow - September had a ~80% drop at the 12 week scan. Followed by no further improvement at week 19. Yet in the October data, this shows the patient had a ~10% drop at the 12 week scan, followed by a drop to ~80% by week 19.

Patient 11: Teal:Orange - September showed 95% lesion decrease at week 12, slight growth to week 19, then another drop to week 25. Yet the October data shows a 95% lesion decrease at week 12, static til week 19, then slight increase in size to week 25.

My curiosity therefore is two fold - why is the data not consistent. Is this interpretations changing or data being revisted? I can understand being sent further scan data that may have been taken outside of the trial and not reported at the time. But why is presented data changing? The key one for me is patient 8. Why was it reported previously that they had a massive reduction in lesion, for this to then be revised to hardly anything at first scan? Is this clinician error or is this a plotting error?

Sorry for some reason this was half deleted

I am confused.

If you compare the 19th September data (https://www.scancell.co.uk/Data/Sites/1/media/docspres/230919-phase-2-scope-trial.pdf) on slide 6, with the data that has been presented on the October poster (https://www.scancell.co.uk/Data/Sites/1/media/publications/posters/2023/sitc_scope-study-poster_october-23_final.pdf) there are three patients who don't match previously published data. Confusingly, the data presented on these two do not use consistent colour schemes for the patients which makes this slightly more confusing to compare (I'll refer to colour as September:October)

Patient 4 (Green:Grey). September had a 50% drop in lesion size at point of scan (12 weeks). October this data is presented as having had an additional unscheduled scan

I am confused.

If you compare the 19th September data (https://www.scancell.co.uk/Data/Sites/1/media/docspres/230919-phase-2-scope-trial.pdf) on slide 6, with the data that has been presented on the October poster (https://www.scancell.co.uk/Data/Sites/1/media/publications/posters/2023/sitc_scope-study-poster_october-23_final.pdf) there are three patients who don't match previously published data. Confusingly, the data presented on these two do not use consistent colour schemes for the patients which makes this slightly more confusing to compare (I'll refer to colour as September:October)

Patient 4 (Green:Grey). September had a 50% drop in lesion size at point of scan (12 weeks). October this data is presented as having had an additional unscheduled scan

Interesting.

Would be good to put our heads together and pull together a list of all the events that we know SCLP has attended and the subject area presented this year alone. I would be interested to see whether we are seeing an increase - whether related to more data or just a more business orientated mindset.

*haven’t fared well

‘why do Scancell, and quite a few posters seem to adhere to the "data, data, data " mantra, when as we agree, there are so many preclinical deals?’

A lot of this in my opinion is based on hesitancy with regard to DNA vaccines. Historically they haven’t failed very well in the clinic due to poor delivery systems. If you look back at mRNA vaccines these also were dismissed for many years but really only came into vogue during the pandemic.

As such, I think that’s most likely part of the reason why SCLP has been passed over before. What we aren’t privy to is whether there’s ever been a low ball approach and LD et al. have dismissed it.

When you look at other preclinical deals being done, they’re generally for known modalities - be that small molecules, antibodies etc. this is because pharma know how to get these through trials, regulators, manufacturing, formulation etc.

IMHO I believe indirectly covid and mRNA vaccines have changed the landscape for us. People can see nucleotide based drugs work, they also can see where mRNA drugs fall down. Hence I think actually this will play well and strengthen our hand in any negotiations. Especially if the SCIB1/SCIB1+ data looks as good as it does.

SCIB2 has been on and off for many years now. Further details can be found in historic RNSs for example https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/SCLP/scancell-and-cruk-provide-an-update-on-scib2-4q0hnirc12010rm.html

This confuses me.

WRT iSCIB1 there is a quote saying ‘extending the patent life by 15 years to 2031.’

Surely the 2031 must be wrong? If not, that’s worrying because a phase 3 trial could take a number of years and by then it would be off patent.

Oh no nightmare Chelsea! I hope it isn't too vicious with you, there definitely is a lot of it circulating around at the moment. Fingers crossed it passes quickly and with no long lasting effects.

Something has to change. I think politicians are naive to think they can just ignore it and hope that adjusting the mRNA vaccination each year will work. The other problem we have here at the moment is the lack of willingness to allow under 65s to be vaccinated. Myself and many others are not able to have it, yet we're the life blood of the economy. If we continue to have to take days off work due to repeat infection, with increased risk of long covid, things could get quite difficult economically too.

Anyway, take it easy and look after yourself.

1. Do we accept and hope for the best.

Accept the current vaccine - yes. Given it's the only protection we have against this and I suspect currently the view is similar to that of the flu vaccination. I think governments around the world are hoping that Covid turns into a seasonal virus and so vaccines once a year would help - downside is unlike flu where we can take an educated guess as to the serotype, with covid, we're always on the back foot. Identifying new mutations in strains already circulating and then trying to make a variant specific mRNA vax.

2. Is there a DNA based alternative.

Currently I believe ZyCoV-D is approved for Emergency Use in India. This is a vaccine containing a plasmid DNA (similar to Immunobody) expressing the spike protein from the Alpha strain of Covid-19 along with an IgE signal peptide. Results from the Phase III trials suggested efficacy of 66.6% against symptomatic C-19 and 100% against moderate or severe disease. It has not been approved fully globally.

3. If 2 is negative, why is COVIDITY not being pursed more actively.

I believe a number of reasons - firstly, the world was keen to open up, therefore as soon as approved vaccines became available, any political impetus to pursue other avenues dried up. To many around the world, vaccines would solve everything, we'd get back to normal and that would be the end of that. But sadly this is not the case.

Finances - to pursue a larger trial takes finances, without state backing I don't think moderna/pfizer/az etc would have moved so quickly. As such, smaller vaccines whilst they may be better, lost that race before they even started.

Politics - we see the government throwing money at mRNA based therapies, for many they see this as the way forward. But at times they are blinkered and fail to see the bigger picture. mRNA has it's advantages, but it also has many disadvantages that people brush off and say 'well we can solve them at a later date'.

I could go on. But time will tell if Covidity is being actively worked on with others under the radar, it wouldn't surprise me if it was, but also given what the company has told us, wouldn't surprise me if it's chalked up as a learning experience and parked. We learned about avidimab, we learned about needle free delivery and we learned that the platform works for other target indications. That is money well spent in my eyes.

Dracula,

AIM is not for the faint hearted. Aim all share is down again, it's at the lowest it's ever been. There is talk about potential for a recession, there's political instability in the UK, pharma being a high risk stock is out of favour at the moment. It's really no wonder that even when we have positive news, things seem to be static share price wise.

I believe our time will come. When, unsure, but I dont think it's going to be as far off as people think it is.