Member Info for emptyend

Yes that is correct.

And, as someone pointed out earlier. the 90% probability figure is meaningless once the actual results start coming in. The actual results may be better or worse than implied by the high confidence figure.

“ Just matching the results of a personalised vaccine with an off the shelf solution should be enough.”……

…..correct. Very clearly we are not yet at the point of being able to compare like with like but it seems to me that achieving tumour shrinkage in unresectable melanoma is at least as relevant for treatment as an increased expectancy of non-recurrence of a tumour that has been removed. Especially if the costs are lower and the elapsed time to end of treatment is shorter.

Bermuda,

It should have been totally obvious to you that I was drawing a comparison with SCIB1 and its potential effectiveness. 🙄

Plainly if “the only game in town” offers some smallimprovement, you would take it.

This is the lead story in The Daily Telegraph today. A 49% improvement doesn’t sound enough for a personalised vaccine to me. Lets hope that one of the reasons for Scancell’s recent quiet period in RNSs is that they are preparing a blockbuster update - together with attendant front page publicity!

Burble,

Re closed periods:

1. Directors and other key staff are unable to deal in the shares (including award or exercise of options) for two months prior to the publication of financial results, because they are deemed to know what those results will contain.

2. Directors and other key staff may also be instructed not to deal when the company is in possession of material, price-sensitive, non-public information. For Scancell, that might include situations where there has been an agreement reached for a material deal which has yet to be announced - or it may include a scientific discovery that has been made but not yet announced (or patented). And it would include good or bad new trial results being known internally.

I would expect a company like Scancell to be in a close period for about three quarters of the year, on average.

A case has started in the High Court today in which Moderna is suing Pfizer-BioNTec for royalties on Covid vax sold after March 2022. The gist of the case is that Moderna claim that targeting of the spike protein is their IP, whereas P-B claim they made an inventive step with their vaccine. The case is expected to last 20 days.

I suspect the outcome may have a bearing on who is seen to be leading the mRNA field……and who may be left looking for an edge of their own.

Ruckrover,

“ Yes, that would make sense. It says 27 enrolled and 24 dosed. So 3 enrolled but not dosed”

Not necessarily. iSCIB1+?

27 patients enrolled and 24 have had SCIB1. And the other three?

Six weeks from dosing to surgery was the plan.

Interesting that Panmure have put their hands up for the business. I suspect this suggests a significant corporate deal is in the offing - why else make such a big upgrade to the adviser roster?

Perhaps a spot of M&A, given the imminence of a probable Modi victory in the Indian elections?

Given what was last said about the antibodies, it may well be that one of the five possible deals is now close at hand.

It is also interesting to ponder whether the raise late last year was accelerated, due to an expectation that they would be unable to raise during 2024 due to close periods relating to continuing discussions on multiple fronts (as there very well may be at present, given the two trials and the antibody possibilities). Whatever the cause, I see no reason whatsoever for assuming the hiatus in newsflow is negative - and would take a strong view to the contrary.

The same thought has occurred to me, because little is being said (and nothing, so far, that is new - despite the ongoing trials etc). There is no obvious reason for them to be in a close period, especially after the raise a few months back - and so I suspect that “things are going on”.

I didn’t say the patent was delayed. I was reminding you that they deliberately held information back whilst they got enough info to support the patent application - and I am suggesting that similar commercial considerations may be behind the hiatus in updates

It is now nearly nine months since the trial expansion I mentioned below was announced - and they should have had some sort of readout within two months or so of dosing the first patient in that resection cohort. So I repeat…..what do these assessments show?

There will be a process. Host country awareness is normal practice.

I have no idea how far advanced plans are. It may not be impossible to cover off a number of unknowns in one RNS - though I’d agree it is questionable.

I have another holding (PHAR) where there are a number of outstanding, but linked, issues (rig contract, rig availability, well cost, drilling plan, timing…..and partnership/farmout). I’m expecting those all to be resolved in one RNS - and it might be similar here, given that the licence issue will have been known about in advance.

BS,

i know they were. And after a considerable delay, due to a discovery.

If I knew the answer to your question, I wouldn’t b3 sat here. Who knows what, if anything, may have been discovered. in (or alongside) the trial? For example, it would be reasonable to assume that at least one or two tumours have now been examined after being removed six weeks after being treated……so what did they discover from this?

This is what they said at the end of July:

“ Additionally, recruitment into the neoadjuvant arm of the Modi-1 trial in combination with CPI was also approved. This study will recruit 30 patients who will be randomised at diagnosis to receive either two doses of Modi-1 three weeks apart or two doses of Modi-1 plus one dose of CPI. Tumour biopsies will be taken prior to immunisation and from the tumour resection 6 weeks following the initial vaccination. The two tumour samples will allow the extent of T cell infiltration and activation pre- and post-Modi-1 vaccination to be assessed with and without a checkpoint inhibitor.”

….so what do these assessments show?

CP,

I remind you of my comment yesterday. Nothing can be said without being in the possession of written evidence.

And there is the additional question of whether any RNS would contain further info about forward plans, well timings etc.

I don’t know about the latter, but would be interested to see such info.

I agree with Ray. We are dealing with a platform technology. If the principle of targeting cancers via citrullination expression is established, then it becomes a matter of tweaking the epitopes for maximum impact.

IMO the reason for lack of recent newsflow on the Modi trial may well be connected to keeping patent opportunities under wraps for now.

The “Universal cancer vaccine” comment refers to a process (citrullination) which is common across a number of tumour types. Hence if you target the process, you can address different types of cancer and target T-cells at them.

The distinction between personalised vaccines and “ready made” alternatives is, IMO, somewhat different. But, either way, the vaccine has potentially got a broad range of applications.

Hello CP,

Long time, no see.

I’d just observe that the process will be:

1. Licence issued to the operator

2. Operator informs Aminex

3. When Aminex has confirmation in writing, an RNS would be issued

I’ve got no reason to doubt the reports and obviously don’t know - but it isn’t unreasonable to speculate, based on the source.

I listened to that live and thought it was fair enough, especially the plans re 125……where I wait to see if Vinnie’s expectations are met.

I had a look at the Q&A write-up today, and imagine the company execs ripping their hair out at some of the lobotomised nonsense therein. For the avoidance of doubt, none of the questions were mine - I’ve had no contact with the company for several months.

But news on 125 should be a rerating catalyst, one a parter and firm well slot can be finalised.