Member Info for Chelsea11

Cleaner. I think you’ll find I agreed with Crumbs post, as in response…….

“Yep, a couple of the arrows have been fired and perhaps not hit the bullseye. However, isn’t it 95% there?”

95% good enough for me and I suspect many others. I was merely pointing out, that the Genmab deal is referenced in more than one place in the document, whereas your post, suggested to the reader, that it was not.

Call it what you like Cleaner.

I’d say it’s getting the facts straight :-)

Yep, a couple of the arrows have been fired and perhaps not hit the bullseye. However, isn’t it 95% there?

I’ll take that and agree with EE. No coincidence with the timing of publication.

It’s incorrect to state the Genmab deal isn’t referenced in the document.

It is. In two separate places. It doesn’t include the specific monetary value of the deal (perhaps deliberate if the perception is modest) but it is there nonetheless and so could be researched separately by anyone if needed.

“Multiple arrows in its quiver”

Indeed. What a swashbuckling adventure we are all on :-)

Relatively recent as Cossery included as Chairman

C7.

Off topic and personal but enjoy the match this evening.

KTBFFH

Try this Cleaner.

https://www.europeanpharmaceuticalreview.com/news/30781/melanoma-treatment-market-value-to-more-than-quadruple-to-5-64-billion-by-2023-reports-globaldata/

PS: The link is 7 years old.

Thanks for exchange.

Thanks Crumbs - am sure you’re right.

It’s made me wonder if Scancell might present in July also?

Ah hang on….that is found under the following link to the specific Head & Neck conference in July 7th-8th in Montreal.

https://www.aacr.org/meeting/aacr-ahns-head-and-neck-cancer-conference-innovating-through-basic-clinical-and-translational-research/abstracts/

So maybe the Submission Guidelines for that are different?

Help!

Looking at the official AACR website has left me a tad confused around what can, or cannot, be included on an Abstract.

I found this:

https://www.aacr.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/AACR-Abstract-Submission-Guidelines_2021-1.docx

Which includes this:

Each abstract should contain: (a) an introductory sentence indicating the purposes of the study; (b) a brief description of pertinent experimental procedures; (c) a summary of the new, unpublished data; and (d) a statement of the conclusions.

Which would seem to contradict the “no data” guidelines link posted here previously?

What am I missing here?

Hi Chester. I’ve rec’d your 11:18 but reckon the 21/02 RNS headline of:

“Encouraging early efficacy data from monotherapy part of ModiFY Phase 1/2 clinical trial”

Should compliment (or perhaps replace):

“We have received only the basic information so far about how the ModiFy Trial is progressing”

:-)

Awesome!

To be fair, we simply don’t know who else might be there representing Scancell, that can contribute to any pre/post presentation conversations. Cossery was put forward as a possibility by another poster.

Let’s hope though that whoever is there, smashes it out the park.

TF - the way I see it is that we don’t know if Prof O will even be there, let alone speak about Modi. His name is listed under Presenter/Authors and so he will be one, or both. I suspect one only ie. Author, as it appears the Presenter is listed in italics ie. Lindy.

Posted on Sunday - from the link provided same day by Crumbs.

What is not acceptable in a Trials in Progress abstract?
• It is improper and forbidden to include results or preliminary data; any abstracts that include such information will be rejected.

Sure Crumbs - agree with you. Knowing what is going on in the industry is of value. However I could post a gazillion links on that here, by spending just 30mins on a search engine and flooding the board.

We all want Scancell to succeed because we have a financial interest and also of course critically, what it would mean for patients and their families.

I’ll drop the topic now and move on but for the record, not once have I ever suggested someone stops posting. Not my style.

WTP - because I expressed a view that posting links with little or no connection at all to Scancell, doesn’t help anyone?

Nothing personal posted, in fact the only provocative post of “keep up” was directed to me by CW.

CW - nothing to “keep up” with there. Just another random, tenuous connection pull from the Web imo.

Subsequent posts on Scancell’s product line and AACR far more interesting (and of course, relevant).