Member Info for crumbs

The CAR T documentary starkly showed me how treatments in that case of course CAR T targetting I believe CD 19 in blood cancers can have an effect indeed even actually work in as much as they do what they are supposed to but then fail... why? well once again Sean Marrett of BioNTech:
"cancer is extremely heterogeneous, there are many clones in the tumor trying to outcompete each other. What you want to address is that clonality."

"Because a lot of clones tend to be generated through random mutations, there's no one cure, or treatment, there can't be."

If the moditope mechanism works and there is as much preclinical indication it does as scancell can get then in some patients in some cancers I have no doubt will 100% benefit but others will not and this is why there must be a treatment regime involving many platforms some highly personalised some off the shelf for each individual patient which is where BioNTech are ambitiously heading and obviously the whole being able to know which patient will respond to what which is a huge expanding area when both converge we will finally beat the beast.

C7 yes ... so much is going on around getting the modi1 trial right!... And it really needs to be because it could be the one and only chance... sarcomas replaces by head and neck from project blueprint work.. the CAB now having an input .. and the reality of the fact that patients we will need in our trial will already be having other treatments and that that is not a bad thing the main thing is getting as much data as possible in as many patients in as many cancers as possible... And we should never turn away a potential combo partner either even if modi1 might actually not need the other theraphy :) real world means scancell needs deal/s!

Is:
'The focus on a diverse range of platforms is driven by the realization that "cancer is extremely heterogeneous, there are many clones in the tumor trying to outcompete each other. What you want to address is that clonality."

"Because a lot of clones tend to be generated through random mutations, there's no one cure, or treatment, there can't be."
Sean Marrett BioNTech....

Lindy Durrant, Scancell’s chief scientific officer, described BioNTech as “one of Europe’s new I-O power-houses,” while her colleague Cliff Holloway, chief executive, referenced other recent deals in the I-O space in explaining the commercial interest in T-cell therapies – Gilead Sciences’ (Nasdaq: GILD) $11.9 billion buy of Kite Pharma and Celgene’s (Nasdaq: CELG) $9 billion purchase of Juno Therapeutics.

“Through the collaboration with BioNTech, Scancell has a foothold in that landscape,” Dr Holloway said.

Scancell could even become a lead player in the landscape, if Professor Durrant’s optimism is well-placed.

“SCIB1 is in the clinic and it’s working,” she said. “Moditope is a different way of looking at things. In animals, it’s been amazing, but it needs to work in humans. It could be huge, it could be small – hopefully it’s significant.”

I didn't write to Cliff about the mouse data... It was more to do with there is a shift in the modi1 trial it seems it will no longer just be a complete mono therapy trial... the reasons why are now clear I think and make perfect sense in the real world we find ourselves in where up to now we have no big partner for the trial... so much hangs on the trial scancell are best covering all bases and getting as much data as possible and this it seems is what will happen....Of course the confusion came from RG who in the past told us someone had contacted scancell asking can moditope help them with their theraphy to which RG replied well it's 100% on its own ... which at the time was of course fantastic seems now reality is if anyone comes asking came we help them we should say YES!

A bit of furore on the modi1 being touted as a possible CI or indeed other treatment combo.....
Well I thought I'd ask scancell about and it seems now we have a CAB giving direct input the final design of the trial could be different than the one currently pencilled in... It does seem parts of the trial could well include combinations... the CI landscape is ever-evolving, for example, pembrolizumab was recently approved by the FDA for first-line treatment of patients with metastatic or unresectable recurrent head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), one of the proposed indications for our trial. Hence, I believe we need to keep an open mind as to how our products can be best applied within the current treatment paradigm, which may include combination with the current standard of care and also patients who are refractory to these therapies......

Also.... Cliff says 'As I’m sure you know, despite the spectacular mouse data this does not translate directly to humans, hence the need for clinical studies.' :))
That Is right ... And I look forward to the final trial design and its eventual commencing!... I am sure it will be done in such a way as to get as much broad data on modi1 in humans as possible much as the SCIB1 trial... And we already know a succeeding trial could rapidly be broadened into many more suitable targets making it potentially IMHO one of the most game-changing trials in onco immunology.

The final shape of the trial could be very interesting we already know that the replaced sarcomas could make a reappearance if the trial is going well and the moditope mechanism is proving itself... that opens possibility of even more targets and like I say there is a chance that patients being treated with CI and other products but having a poor response could also be dosed with modi1... so in effect it becoming a combo trial

I know its not personal... I was just saying that is the way forwards that BioNtech are moving with combining products it could well be moditope means there is not much need for other treatments ( we can but wish).... I suppose it is possible that part of the modi1 trial will include patients already being treated with CI's and other treatments but not responding well to them

I think it is more keeping the door open... CI being all it so anyone of the players coming to us we must let in and say yes, of course, we can work together :)
Also, I suppose the whole of what came from project blueprint and the fact that the way forward is going to be what BioNtech are working on which is a treatment regime for each individual patient which can be a combination of treatments some highly personalised and some off the shelf.... no ones cancer is exactly the same as some elses even if it is the same cancer... mutations happening all the time.

Shame no recorded Q&A's but a very positive and well-presented presentation by Cliff... Can only imagine the room was impressed... all seems positive on BiONtech TCR front too huh :)

Seatle genetics a $12.2 billion mcap company....

Yeah not suprised:

'We collaborated with university research groups and companies such as Seattle Genetics, OMT and Invivogen to look for the potential clinical usage of our mAbs. For e.g., ADC and generation of human antibody. These three mAbs are potent direct cancer cell killers. In addition to ADCC and CDC, the antibodies also cause direct cytotoxicity to cancer cells.'

https://uk.linkedin.com/in/jiaxin-chua-261b6aa4

RG might be in some very important talks :) or under a giant sunshade sipping ****tails

Of sharesmag event

https://www.sharesmagazine.co.uk/video/scancell-holdings-sclp-dr-cliff-holloway-ceo

I think 10p was always going to be a profit-taking marker seeing as we have been under and for a little while well under it for seemingly an age already... just need to break through it now and with buyers around we well could... onwards... a nice bit of newsflow would not go amiss either surely the diggles money is being put to good ends .... still a very over sold share with pretty much nothing from SCIB1 trial survival results to SCIB2 free ride into clinic to glycan MaBs to modi 2 appearing to moditope having TCR potential not priced in... and potential of commercial action any day

Having said that... It may well be that the science part of the collaboration has concluded:) we just do not know until we know ... I do know to be close to BioNTech would be a great place for us to be and we have plenty to offer to them and others.... If only we had a Sean Marret though huh :) it seems like he can walk into any room and come out with either huge amount of investment money or a deal!! How??? ... that is the niggling scancell question which is why the whole Evans conversation is worthwhile and revealing and hopefully with Vulpes a real corner on that issue has now been turned and maybe TF even could be right in potential future BOD changes with Diggle taking on a bigger role ..

Well it was stated back at the time that part of their 2018 $270 million raising would be used to improve their TCR program by bringing outside tech/s... they have not done that yet and only thing we know they have which indeed began right after that raising is our collaboration with them... so really if it is a licensing of modi1 tech to support their TCR program I see no issue in them doing it anytime it will be more to do with has the collaboration worked out and those TCR candidates finalised.. so to my mind it will just be a case of Sahin says yes or Sahin says no... the rest as in the financials of such a deal would be up to Marret and our BOD it is not like scancell would be asking for the full $270 mill lol ... We just have to hope it comes off the recent PDF pretty much tells us it is still ongoing despite it due to end in June though that is hardly a suprise seeing as the science involved is all new so it would be hard to put an accurate timescale on it and this is scancell after all so timelines are meaningless :)

Article, just before their most recent raising.... You have to admire Sean Marret for his abilities ....The future of immuno oncology is far from over but you have to say it looks like BioNTech will be a part of it.

'“That can mean in some cases we make an individualized, tailor-made treatment for a patient, in other cases we may take things from off the shelf, that we are developing."

"We have a clinical pipeline using mRNA, we're entering the clinic this year with a unique CAR-T, we have antibodies that we're developing with GenMab, we have a small molecule program, and all of these platforms allow us to really tailor-make the treatment to the patient."

The focus on a diverse range of platforms is driven by the realization that "cancer is extremely heterogeneous, there are many clones in the tumor trying to outcompete each other. What you want to address is that clonality."

"Because a lot of clones tend to be generated through random mutations, there's no one cure, or treatment, there can't be."
https://www.thepharmaletter.com/article/800-million-ipo-just-one-option-for-personalized-oncology-specialist

'Glycoscience fuels a new breed of cancer immunotherapy'

https://cen.acs.org/pharmaceuticals/oncology/Glycoscience-fuels-new-breed-cancer/97/i29?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=CEN

This ones naughty.... As I agree the cut'n'pasting between boards is not bringing anything..... Though in this case I think it is justified ... A lot of our conversation and worries about scancell center on the issues involved...
So I'm cut n pasting from 'other place' And the reason is it is an Evans post who sadly due to some LSE rule cannot join us here in heaven... but we can converse through magic:)

'Ivy - just to correct you I did not say they had never bought shares as there were some token investments in one of the placing but I think the quantum of commitment is relevant. Berm - I have highlighted this before but I felt we lacked any strength in depth in terms of networking at the highest levels in the industry - a weakness on my part as I was more diagnostics than therapeutics. With the change John brought with him the experience of two successful pharma exits and a wealth of general experience. However I have just been taken a look at the Adaptimmune Board ( whose science in my view was inferior to Scancell's) and you can judge for yourself the depth of knowledge and network that sits around their Board table. Whilst good data is an imperative it will always be open to interpretation and that is when the people you have around the Company/Board Table can make a difference as people buy people. I think RG soldiered on without very much support around him. Time has moved on and I am sure the recent Board change will make a difference and it would be a huge plus if they could another NXD with a significant commercial network. It would help signal to the "marketplace" that known names are prepared to back the company and put their reputation at risk.'

So Evans bought himself a million extra shares on the Diggles coming in after a long time trying and failing there could be shifting towards getting what are all here for... deals deals deals!!!....hopefully another blue week ahead and some coming positive newsflow.

Article for the weekend.... https://fortune.com/longform/abbvie-humira-drug-costs-innovation/
Well worth a read:

'Now facing the specter of dilapidated pipelines and imminent competition, legacy firms are looking to insource the Next Big Thing from leaner, science-driven outfits (with varying degrees of success, as AbbVie’s failed Rova-T gamble shows). “These companies became like great big record labels: reliant on talent spotters going out and finding new artists,” says SVB Leerink analyst Geoffrey Porges. (Indeed, just before this issue went to press, AbbVie announced that it was adding another “artist” to its roster, cancer immunotherapy startup Mavupharma, for an undisclosed price.)

Jenkins, the industry R&D vet, says a long history of misaligned incentives—including many companies’ failure to adopt new technologies and business models—has led to the current status quo. “What pharma did was what it’s always done over the past 20 years,” she says. “They’re entirely short-term focused. Quarter to quarter, year to year. That’s not the best way to leverage innovation.”

It’s also, fundamentally, not good for shareholders. The NYSE ARCA Pharmaceutical Index has delivered a total return of 5.2% annually over the past five years, compared with 10% for the S&P 500.“Without access to talent, without access to technologies, big pharma companies are just pouring more and more money into the same old R&D. All they’re judged on is one big win,” Jenkins adds. '