Member Info for emptyend

Ruck sets his bar far too high…..

AI is really dangerous, ruck.

I discovered that two years ago via a chance conversation with a proper AI expert. One of the reasons for that is that people are very easily beguiled by the convenience. You’ll find a letter from me in the Telegraph reporting that conversation.

100% correct, chelsea……though it still puts pointless and misleading guff into the public domain, so that the untruths can still circulate.

“No it’s not, they are the same. You can’t accuse AI of churning out BS when it comes to trivial morsels of investment related speculation and then say it’s spot on for complex bio-science. The machine learning applies the same principles.”

Total rubbish, ruck. It is the difference between asking sensible questions, which AI methods can provide a steer on, and ridiculous questions which AI isn’t remotely equipped to answer! Asking AI questions about Scancell and its products is futile and potentially destructively misleading because the vast majority of actual useful information about them is PRIVATELY HELD (mostly within the company).

Other than RNSs, patent registry data and conference papers etc, there are only a few other useful public sources of opinion…..one of which used to be here! 😡

Eh?🤷‍♂️🙄

cleaner,

using ai analysis of complex genomic and biological data mountains in order to sift out better candidates for reasearch is one thing. spreading meaningless bull**** is another - especially when it doesn’t start with a clear statement of source (enabling those with a brain to pass over it).

Ruck,

Your comment is fair in relation to people who seek to make money from active/frequent trading, because people trade on all sorts of delusional nonsense (such as misapplying TA to stocks like this) Throwing one more piece of nonsense into the pot (and pretending it adds value) simply makes the process of self-delusional investing easier.

It is utterly irrelevant as far as I’m concerned, save that throwing pretend facts into a relatively useful discussion board is degrading the quality and usefulness of this board and making it much less likely that anyone sensible would use it. If any of us are desperate to know what AI chatbots “think”, we can all ask them ourselves.

I don’t doubt that AI has clear uses for timesaving and drafting purposes on all sorts of things…..but asking Chat GPT or whatever to write a research comment on a specialist single stock is literally a mad misuse of the technology. You’d get more useful advice by praying. 🙄

TF, I think “going it alone” (with all the existing IP and shareholders) is not going to happen. Since the larger shareholders are no keener to be diluted than we all are, that suggests part of the IP will be hived off for cash - and that looks to be Glymab Therapeutics. But I very much doubt they would sell all of that and, in particular, they would retain a licence to use Avidimab in products that Scancell produce (whilst potentially GT would take the upside from third party licences).

It would be interesting to see a piece of updated “sum of the parts” research soon, because there have been material developments. What is 30-40% of GT worth, with two already-signed deals that might generate $1.3bn+ in revenue?

Meanwhile, back in the real world, the question is…… who has been on the buy side of the large trades at the end of Friday trading?

I am simply saying that AI posts generate utter cobblers and that ANY offer that Redmile, Vulpes and the Board choose to accept will be a fair price in the circumstances - and that there is zero chance of a hostile bid succeeding (which is the scenario “envisioned” by AI). It is garbage - and I’ll be blocking everyone who posts AI responses from now on.

They aren’t being offered a 10x return!!

Yet.

See my prior response. I haven’t read the rest but there are certain to be more. 😡

…..and this is a clear case in point, of the misleading rubbish that AI produces!:

“ That undervaluation makes Scancell vulnerable to a low offer for the whole company”

It doesn’t at all!! For the very simple reason that Redmile, Vulpes and the Board between them have got nearly half the shares - and also have a clear commercial understanding of the value of the whole company as well as the value of its parts. The above quote is a generic comment that applies to large, widely held companies in which shareholdings are both small in % terms and “loose”.

I absolutely loathe people using AI to post on bulletin boards, because it can pick up rubbish and present it as fact - especially on such specialist interests as an individual share. This makes these boards like a game of Chinese Whispers, in which repetition of mishearings and half-truths eventually distorts reality - possibly on a wealth-damaging scale!

As Trump’s visit starts, I note the expectation of a number of deals in the “technology” space:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/uk-us-sign-multibillion-dollar-230734260.html

The thought occurred to me that Scancell would be pretty attractive to private equity…..or perhaps Glymab Therapeutics? Perhaps we may find that Redmile have put together a few US private funds to take a stake in Glymab Therapeutics, with the expectation of either a corporate deal or a Nasdaq listing in a few years time? That would be an interesting way to get outside money into Scancell without raising money at group level.

And, I wonder, if Redmile might take a stake at the Glymab level too….and whether that might require trimming their stake at the group level (as they have just done)….

Just congratulating a former colleague?

Final point on GT: They were asked several questions about the GenMab milestones - and commented that a “recent” communication leads them to be more confident that development of the two Glymabs is on track.

As I recall, when this topic came up at the AGM last year, they said they got “regular” updates and inferred they were expecting one in December. For me that meant updates in December and possibly in June…..

….not in August.

I think there are active JV discussions, which are likely to conclude in 2025.

Re the confidence from Phil and Sath, I very much got the impression that they were laying it on with a trowel. SERIOUS discussions etc They’re well aware that in times past management could reasonably be accused of having undersold the potential for market-moving news…..and they seem to have firmly decided that is not going to happen this time. There are definitely deals in the works - and they seem to be very far-advanced….indeed near-term.

In that context, Sath was surprisingly-cautious on the timeframe for Glymab milestones (sometime in the next 12 months)…from which I conclude there is a bigger deal in the works, that would turn Glymab Therapeutics into a JV.

I’m pretty sure that Glymab money will come in during 2025, via one type of deal or another. I suspect that the deal size and Scancell’s financial obligations for the registration trial next year will be closely correlated ie they will only sell as much Glymab upside as they need to to complete the 2026 trial programme (which may be wider than just iSCIB1+ registration).

Burble…..”I’m curious what they mean by partners. Is that Pharma? Or is that manufacturing and clinical trial delivery partners?”

I think one of the partners will be the NHS CVP. More widely, the partners will be the source of finance.