Member Info for emptyend

They’ve hired an awful lot of people over the last year or so. Anyone might suppose that successful trial data is expected soon……😏

This looks to be quite an interesting study involving some other cancer vaccine:

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/world-news/scientists-say-cancer-vaccine-blocks-30104418

The idea that a cancer vaccine works better if given at an earlier stage, because it blocks tumours from progressing in the first place, seems unsurprising to me.

One suspects that would particularly be true if a vaccine proves capable of clearing advanced and metastatic tumours.

Any deal for PEL94 will likely include a cash payment for GBP’s back costs. That would scupper those who think a bargain-priced raise is inevitable. A farm-in in Q4 looks likely to me - then they can get on with Juno.

Yup - that 1.25p is about right. And still cheap at the price once you consider the scale of the potential upside.

As I said below, chelsea:

…..if they are investigating (with PR hoo-hah and some expense) how to turn 50% success rates into something higher for melanoma and a few other cancers……and then along comes some “surprise” news just after their assessment project has started that (say) 85% of patients respond to another melanoma vaccine…..then that is something which simply cannot be ignored!

Thanks for that link. The project partners are listed at the bottom and the composition of the Scientific Advisory Board tells you exactly who is in the driving seat……as I suspected!

Nevertheless, you are plainly correct that we should all hope the project is successful……though we might well find that many of the major answers emerge from elsewhere before the project itself concludes…… 😉

“Currently” is the date of the report not the end of the period. But your conclusion is correct in any case, even if the total is incomplete.

Chelsea. It might. I’ve asked. But the focus on personalised treatment makes me very sceptical, as does the sources of financing for the project.

Whatever the facts on that front, if they are investigating (with PR hoo-hah and some expense) how to turn 50% success rates into something higher for melanoma and a few other cancers……and then along comes some “surprise” news just after their assessment project has started that (say) 85% of patients respond to another melanoma vaccine…..then that is something which simply cannot be ignored!

Well yes, Bermuda, it is indeed an important project. But be in no doubt that being part-funded by big pharma…..and by the NHS which is already totally in the pocket of big pharma (eg the personal vaccine trial, whilst a universal off-the-shelf alternative approach remains ignored)…….is not a plus.

My concern is that (unless the project considers the full range of potential products, including Scancell’s) the results will be ….cough…..sub-optimal.

I just watched Dominic Hughes’ report on BBC news. The Francis Crick Institute is centrally involved in this and Hughes’ reported that the goal was to work out exactly why some patients respond to immunotherapy and others do not - and to achieve ‘truly personalised treatment” for cancer.

A figure of 50% “not responding” to treatment was quoted, with the reasearch goal being to find out why that is and to to offer the most appropriate treatment for each individual.

I would imagine that a response rate of 70/75/80/85/90% should attract Dominic Hughes’ attention against this background……assuming that the BBC is actually interested in patients, rather than promoting multi-national drug companies.

This seems to be part of big pharma’s efforts to make treatments with many side effects more competitive and to shut out more effective treatments. Wes Streeting needs to stop the NHS colluding with these people and their efforts to continue rob the taxpayer.

Thrashing about at the beck and call of the usual (mostly American) big pharma suspects is not going to lead to better outcomes for patients or lower spending from the public purse. They should be expediting Scancell’s research instead.

That said, it would be a good week for Scancell to advertise the progress being made…..

No it isn’t. The first part of the resolution covers the giving up of the pre-emption rights for issues of up to 20% (which is a standard resolution for all companies and as previously, I think). The part you are referring to pre-authorises a larger issue, in which pre-emption rights are to be preserved.

The disapplication of pre-emption rights is always limited to 20% or less. If a Company wishes to issue more then they either need a fresh specific authority or they must give shareholders a right to buy more shares pro-rata to their existing holding.

Just to add one point on this resolution: passing this resolution would shorten the timeline for any issue, because it provides prior authority for a share issue within its terms.

So, when it comes to decision time at, say, the February board meeting (after the exclusive, pre-negotiated MAb deal is done or not), the Board can either take a deal on a third party funding of the registration trial for iSCIB1+ or SCIB1 (and Modi-2?) or they can decide to go it alone…….and they can walk out of the meeting knowing that Redmile, Vulpes and the rest of the Board have committed to back a rights issue and thus ensured its success.

The Board would therefore be perfectly positioned to make the optimal decision on the best way forward for the 2025 trials.

Came across this article. Last time I visited Margao, about ten years ago,

I was told that power thefts were running at about 18%:

https://www.daijiworld.com/news/newsDisplay?newsID=1050366

…..what is the status of their plans, does anyone here know?

No - that is wrong, CrustyPete. There are only two basic ways of issuing equity. One is using the disapplication (of pre-emptive rights) authority that every AGM provides. This typically allows issue of up to 10% (sometimes 5% or 20%) without existing shareholders having pre-emptive rights. This covers small placings, whether or not they are accompanied by an open offer.

The other (traditional) way of issuing shares is an offer to all existing shareholders, allowing them to pre-empt any new investors and maintain their stakes. This applies to ALL shareholders and is explicitly what is provided for in this resolution, in order to strengthen management’s negotiating hand by providing a genuine alternative way to fund trials.

The key point with that is that the two-thirds authority would only exist in the event that existing shareholders had pre-emptive rights to maintain their stakes. This is totally to be expected, given that Redmile and Vulpes would likely want to stand their corner in any raise.

What this does, however, is give a self- financing option if the company’s board decides to self-finance the Registration trial (and Modi-2, for that matter). It is an essential element to achieve a decent negotiated deal if a partnership option to finance the trials presents itself.

I’m not really bothered about the share price short term. I just find it rather odd that it was plainly driven up by determined buying that appears then to have stopped. Obviously external factors (elections, wars, Budgets etc) may have a big bearing on some individual decisions, but none of that detracts from the potential of Scancell’s products to deliver effective, superior, cancer treatments.

We’re nearly there, remember.

With the Iran attack on Israel, the promised Israeli response seems focused at either or both of Iran’s oil and nuclear facilities. Political analysts interviewed on Bloomberg think that such attacks may prompt the Iranians to take out “other oil facilities in the region” (code for Saudi Arabia) and indeed the UK Foreign Office has put out travel advice warnings across the whole region (including Oman and 17-18 others).

If that were to happen, oil prices would move substantially higher - and the search would be on for investible opportunities outside the Middle East. There really aren’t many of those - and there are even fewer that have potential oilfields of global scale. Other than the basins off SW Africa, Pharos’s Block 125 will be one of very few opportunities that could be rapidly explored and developed……so maybe Exxon will come back for another look?

Probably correct, C11. Certainly Reeves is casting a long shadow and there will be a lot of people tax-planning.

But I suspect something else has also been going on.

Ivy,

Yes…..absolutely normal practice to have a Board meeting on the same day as an AGM. Practice varies between companies. I suspect most have the Board meeting before, but some certainly have it after. It is fairly clear from the timing that Scancell’s board meeting will be before - but I don’t expect any news at the AGM……

…….only Kwasi Kwarteng is stupid enough to try to make market-sensitive announcements on a Friday. 😉