Member Info for emptyend

“ Worth remembering on partnering deals they generally take 6-12 months from start to finish.I think they are several months in to the process. Cohort 4 data in December is a big milestone in negotiations as it has the potential to materially increase the value of any deal.”

Correct. They are well into the process (note that all the conference outreach activity was done in 2024). As I pointed out in my upsum of the AGM, they are in active discussion with multiple parties (though some of these will not be concerning iSCIB1+). It would be helpful if the company published the AGM slides, which may offer a little more context. My read on partnership timing is February/March at the latest, because they are going gangbusters right now on regulatory filings and are seriously accelerating plans.

This is where the concept of “the data maturing” comes into play, Crusty…..the longer the PFS period, the more the divergence between the steady and stable result that Bob refers to and the declining picture offered by the existing standard of care.

This is also about ticking pharma boxes. I am pretty sure that if this picture remains the case at year end when cohort 4 early data is announced, we will also get news of one or more deals and of solid plans for more trials (probably involving the CVLP). And that, in turn, will finally produce a sustained share price rerating.

No surprise to us in there, of course, but it is worth noting two additional important points:

1. Cohort 4 data is due in a few weeks, which may support earlier treatment and head off cancer progression risks.

2. They can identify, via a pre-treatment test, exactly the c.80% of patients the treatment will work on.

Would anyone care to speculate why the AGM slides haven’t yet been published on the website? I’m particularly interested to see a couple of them again…….

On a discussion board for another company was this comment:

Advanced Drug Delivery Becoming Top Priority

The pharmaceutical sector is at a critical turning point as it becomes increasingly clear that even the most powerful cancer treatments depend on how effectively they reach tumors in therapeutic concentrations. Many promising oncology drugs underperform not because of inadequate mechanisms of action but because only a small percentage of the administered dose is absorbed and delivered to its target.

Traditional oral and intravenous approaches often suffer from poor solubility, rapid metabolism and uneven distribution within the body, forcing higher dosages and exposing patients to unnecessary toxicity. This challenge is especially evident with mTOR inhibitors, kinase inhibitors and vascular-disrupting agents, where dose-limiting toxicity can halt development despite strong preclinical results.

In response, the focus across the global oncology space has expanded from discovering new drugs to perfecting how those drugs are delivered. Nanomedicine, the science of engineering sub-200-nanometer carriers, is emerging as a leading method for overcoming absorption barriers and minimizing off-target effects. These nanoscale systems not only protect compounds from early breakdown but can also release them in a controlled manner, directing drugs more precisely to cancerous tissue. Market analysts project that the nanomedicine sector could exceed $500 billion by 2032, with oncology driving much of that growth through breakthroughs that substantially improve drug absorption and targeting.

In oncology specifically, nanocarrier-based delivery has gained momentum following key regulatory milestones such as FDA approvals of nanoparticle chemotherapies and RNA-based treatments. These technologies are not minor enhancements. Rather, they can transform underperforming compounds into highly effective therapeutic candidates. As precision medicine evolves beyond genetic targeting toward delivery optimization, companies with superior bioavailability platforms are poised to reshape the competitive landscape.

“ anyone know exactly what is meant by the strap line “ india’s metering overhaul signals a structural reset””

I’ll hazard a guess at that. I’m going to be in Goa for a few weeks from this weekend. On my first visit (over a decade ago now) i was reliably told that power “losses” were about 17-18% of the total energy supplied, mainly due to theft etc. The smart meter roll-out represents an opportunity to reset the integrity of the power infrastructure.

That is correct, Vascular. I could not have been clearer. As I pointed out, inan’s £8 figure was picked up……so flooding the internet with pie-in-the sky stuff skews the “knowledge base” of AI systems.

I’m not going to bother posting for a while - whats the point?🙄

If they haven’t yet acted, it is too late.

I’m making the opposite bet at present. I think that bad news is already in the price because the footloose have gone already. It won’t be long before the market starts looking through the short term and we get a major rally in small caps and AIM stocks (on top of which I expect a much bigger move for Scancell as their fundamental achievements bear fruit).

AI is of course a useful tool. So is a chisel……but you don’t hammer it through your own feet…..

TF is 100% correct. Scancell is operating on the cutting edge of science - a field in which AI has no information or context (but, very very dangerously, presents “advice” as if it has)j.

Neither AI nor TA charting has any predictive application for a company like Scancell. Both rely on massive amounts of information being readily available to “the market” and that is demonstrably untrue with cutting-edge science.

By the way, just on Ruck’s point about valuations, broker research isn’t necessarily any better as a guide. I remember some of the broker research in the 1980s on Microsoft, in 2000 on Google and in 2010 on Tesla (before a piece of JD Power research changed the game). The transformative potential of disruptive technologies is frequently misestimated - in both directions.

My takeaway from that AI effort is that Inanaco’s persistent postings are an input into that answer. Whether that leads to a better AI answer - or a useful one! - is highly debatable!

But many of us would think some of the scenarios suggested are very plausible - because such expectations are the basis on which we invested. However, I suspect the answer would be similar if you substituted £1 or 50p…….which simply highlights the point that asking AI such questions is pointless and misleading.

So, Google, “ when will Scancell's proven science make the shares worth £8 each?”

A share price of £8 for Scancell (SCLP) is a highly speculative, long-term potential and not an expected outcome in the near term based on current analyst forecasts. Analysts currently have an average 12-month price target of around 31 pence (0.31 GBP), with a high estimate of 32 pence.

Achieving a price of £8 (which would represent a significant increase from its current price of around 9-10 pence) would likely require a series of major, transformative events over several years, including:

Exceptional Clinical Trial Success: The company's key products, such as iSCIB1+ for melanoma and Modi-1 for solid tumors, would need to demonstrate not just positive, but groundbreaking results in advanced (Phase 2/3) clinical trials, far exceeding current expectations.

Major Commercial Partnerships/Trade Sale: A valuation of £8 would likely necessitate a significant licensing deal with a major pharmaceutical company or an outright trade sale of the business or its key assets for a very high premium.

Regulatory Approvals: Successful navigation of the entire regulatory approval process (e.g., FDA, EMA) for its drug candidates, leading to market launch, which typically takes many years (Phase 2 trials for SCIB1 are expected to complete around 2026, with Phase 3 potentially extending to 2030 or beyond).

Significant Revenue Generation: The successful commercialization of its products would need to generate substantial revenues, potentially in markets valued at billions of dollars annually, to justify such a high market capitalization.

Current analyst sentiment suggests a more modest, though still significant, potential upside to the 30-32 pence range within the next 12 months, contingent upon continued positive data flow from ongoing trials. The £8 price point is discussed in public forums as a highly optimistic scenario, not a standard forecast.

……some would take issue with the “far exceeding current expectations” claim…..and would also respond “SO?” to the claim that “A valuation of £8 would likely necessitate a significant licensing deal with a major pharmaceutical company or an outright trade sale of the business or its key assets for a very high premium.”

Start your own board then, so that your AI models can talk to each other! As I said to Cleaner the other day, my concern with AI is the “Chinese Whispers” effect, in which stuff buried on the internet is picked up, used out of cpntext and THEN distorts reality.

There are very clearly some good uses for AI, such as the automation of mundane tasks - but the risk of abusing it to help formulate speculative theories about the unknown and intrinsically unknowable (and then publishing the output on the internet) is that fiction becomes accepted as fact - and that is EXTREMELY dangerous for everybody - including shareholders.

Use AI yourself by all means, if you can’t think for yourselves……but do NOT publish the output and start a false feedback loop.

no i am not a fan of pointless bull****.

FFS! 🤬😖🤡

Chelsea,

It is the job of directors to ensure that investors have a fair impression of a company’s prospects. The comment was in response to the suggestion from the floor that nothing was happening - and was intended to indicate that is wrong and that developments can reasonably be expected.

Chelsea,

“ One thing that puzzles me is that if Genmab have now started manufacturing, why no RNS to confirm they have reached that point in the lifecycle of development / commercialisation?”

The answer is very simple. It is not a material matter for Genmab, so they won’t RNS it. It is they who control progress, not Scancell. Neither have Scancell received an official notification (though they clearly expect plans to be confirmed as part of the formal annual update from Genmab, which is due in the next few weeks). And it would be reasonable to think that Genmab’s next annual report will include all material plans for 2026.

And, from our perspective, if they correctly answered Balerno’s question, then one would assume some milestone payment is in the offing shortly.

Thanks, Balerno. 👍

No 🙄

Absolutely, Bob!