Member Info for Chelsea11

This is from the AACR website, so obvs a very reputable source. The Immunotherapy section is particularly interesting.

https://www.aacr.org/blog/2025/01/10/experts-forecast-cancer-research-and-treatment-advances-in-2025/

Extract:

Another question that Balachandran is interested to see addressed in the coming years is whether cancer vaccines must be personalized for one or more antigens based on a patient’s tumor or if off-the-shelf vaccines for shared antigens common among multiple patients would be just as effective.

“We do not know whether a specific antigen class is superior or not when targeted with a vaccine, so it will be important to look at the science. The data that emanate from these trials will help us understand if both ways might work or if one is better,” he said.

Hi Chester - yes, fully agree with you.

The most recent Modi RNS is another small step towards that.

Cheers.

Not directly connected to Scancell alone but ballpark publicity all the same. Released on 9th Jan.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w3ct5xjg?at_mid=Z1xh0XlMdu&at_campaign=The_Inquiry_Are_we_close_to_a_cancer_vaccine&at_medium=display_ad&at_campaign_type=owned&at_audience_id=SS&at_product=sounds&at_brand=p029399x&at_ptr_name=bbc&at_ptr_type=media&at_format=image&at_objective=consumption&at_link_title=The_Inquiry_Are_we_close_to_a_cancer_vaccine&at_bbc_team=BBC

HAGW

Cleaner - a link to a meeting way back in October 2024??

So what?

DeAar.

Spot on.

VD - I’d suggest he’s not just going there for some Dim Sum in Chinatown

VD - do you not think he will be commenting at JPM, face to face with the great and the good who he is well connected with, rather than just words on a page??

Expect Lofas along shortly, with one of his how many jellybeans are in the jar SP guesses.

With regard to the question why other cancer types being targeted by Modi are not included in this update, I believe the answer is quite simply that clinical validation endpoints for those have not yet been met and therefore reporting on them, would be premature.

Whatever the short term impact on the SP might be is irrelevant. It is a super positive update and the heavy artillery at JPM next week will be firing that news.

EE - didn’t we only find out about attendance at JPM last year after the event and not before?

As a read across, a solid update from HAT this morning. Pawnbroking pledge book metrics meeting expectations. Retail in line. Hopefully RFX at least as positive.

HAT expecting a £2M hit from NI costs kicking in this year.

Tremendous news!

Well based on past dates, I’d expect the Interim Results end of this month and whilst that is to Oct 24, the highlights should include post period.

I’d expect notice of those results next week, so this will not be a month without news.

Researcher - no one here knows the identity of the / any seller. It might be Calculus but it might not.

Calculus added the following to their website as recently as early December.

https://calculuscapital.com/scancell-achieve-second-licensing-agreement/

Don’t think we should chastise Dracula for being worried about his stake 😂

Whilst the SP has remained flat, I’d say the Company made tangible progress in 2024 both scientifically and administratively. The evidence to support that view is within formal updates to the market. Worth reflecting it could have been far, far worse, as it has been for many companies.

Happy (and prosperous) New Year.

In rounds with the intergalactic ambassador perhaps.

HAGW!

EE - “disagree just for the hell of it”. Nope, wrong yet again. I’d simply expressed an opinion that didn’t align with yours and clearly articulated the reasons why.

Twice already I’ve politely said no problem my side with a difference of opinion and that time would tell re potential takeover. You however feel it necessary to impolitely come back with a response of “drivel”. No more that a smokescreen to being unable to accept a challenge to your opinion.

Embarrassing.

EE.

I’m not “claiming” anything at all, as you put it. It is you that is making the “claim” that Scancell are “firmly” in the group described by Peel Hunt. I’m just saying imo I don’t believe they are, based on the strict outline provided by Peel Hunt.

And no. “Likely” and “Not necessarily” are very clearly different expressions.

As I said to Roses in the same thread, no problem my side with a difference of opinion.

Glad you agree with Ruck though 😂

Ruck - you make a very good point imo around the recent offer and strengthening of institutional relationships, when considering the potential for a takeover.

(Seems a number of us are agreeing with Ruck recently - what is going on? 😂)

Well Roses, no problem my side with a difference in opinion.

Only time will tell who called it right.