Member Info for GIVMESUNSHINE

Nice one Violin Many Thanks for taking the time

Hi All - is theris a new post ? - cant find any update on the forum

I have been looking through the PEA and I think the assumtion that the 10% NPV Discount will erode any gains is not correct .
My Logic Below
The $246 post tax PEA valuation is discounted @8% not 5% (looks like and RNS error)
in the PEA about 85% of the cash flow is in the first 5 years due to the heavy wieghting to the North
PEA only take into account M&I 14.4 mt - conversion of any of the 16mt inferred could add to the year 5 plus cashflow.
Alost every metric is up from PEA - Currency and LT prices.
I think when you add all these up and the massive drilling campagn - the additional 2% discount is irrevleant, and i personally think we will get quite an uplift in the NPV for the reasons above ..??

Hi Nomlungu
Apologies - I thought it was 8% not 5% Below taken from the PEA, but i see the RNS says 5%
Project Economics
The project shows robust economic results with a pre-tax NPV at 8% of $341.6 million and an IRR of 68.2%, and an after tax NPV at 8% of $246.7 million and IRR of 55%.
Project economics are based on a 14-year mine life with a 1.5-year payback period.

Hi Shaz / Lewis - Not the busiest BB.s is it !! Agree though with *** packet After payment in Dec and the upturn in MAFL other investments NAV was about 28p - an that's with zero on the put option.. I think we will get a resource upgrade anyday from assendant,.. how much of it will make its way into the NPV over Mine life remains to be seen .. but good the see that the LT concensus on the current NPV is rasied to $319 million ..

One good thing, Now thrail trial has found citical mass of cohorts to reach 8 week, we could be in for a period of news .. in theory 12 week monitoring results of the first 14 will follow through within a couple of weeks - we know that this is when the second scan is conducted

Hi Chester

Fair point - you are right - there are load of AIM dogs that get ramped and TBH I prefer to buy before you have a 1000,s post a day .. however as I’ve only been here a short while I don’t think I have any reason to judge a ten year holder !! - I suppose my only key doubt about SCLP ties into your post above . How can a company do small come up with something that isn’t easily within the grasp of multi billion companies and if it works and is advancing well in medical trials the wording of an rnS is irrelevant as PI won’t bring out the value .. but I do need to catch up On history .. with scancell there’s a lot of it .. I remember this used to be a Tom Winnifrith fav ?

It seems like the next year could be a pivotal moment though

Not sure why the focus is Ona single word - doesn’t change anything and at the it’s not the point of RNS to ramp the price .. there is plently more that could be said , the results are for 8weeks - we have so patients that are now approching 5 month+ of treatment and we know at 12 weeks one person had 55% reduction - but this isn’t about ramping for traders , we will get another timely update as the trail get thicker and level .. the RNS was good and reflected the first 8 weeks for 14 cohorts - adding Very in the title doesn’t change a thing IMO Cheers

Great Thread .. Thanks for taking the time.. some very knowegable and commited Shareholders on here.. makes refreshing a change from nutters all over LSE and ADVFN ..

I would have thought Tumors vanishing is way past any endpoint expected.. compared to pallative care on the table for many people on the trial and in this terrible postion, stable alone is better than anything currently available on by some margin ..

Many Thanks Bermuda /All - Thats really clear

Hi Bermuda
What you are saying makes perfect sense - I was sure i read in an RNS/post somewhere , but checking back I must have misunderstood.
CH1 looks to have been 3-6 patients ..I am curious how CH1 tie into the RNS Efficacy statement. I think the below is all we have to go on .. Its certainly not easy to work out - total vaccines to date 55? Cheers

Cohort 1 of the study confirmed the safety profile of a low dose of two citrullinated vimentin peptides. The objective for Cohort 2 of the trial was to assess the safety of the two citrullinated vimentin peptides plus an enolase peptide at a higher dose. Based on the safety data from Cohort 2, the ModiFY trial was expanded at this recommended Phase 2 dose for Modi-1 monotherapy in all four tumour types. In parallel, Cohort 3 is recruiting patients to receive Modi-1 plus a CPI. To date, 23 patients have been vaccinated, 18 with HGSOC, two with TNBC, two with SCCHN and one with RCC, with 55 doses being administered in total.

One thing I struggled to get my head around is the dosing and check points .. from reseaching the information posted by the brave volenterrs in this trial is that th information given in the RNS demstrates the significant lag in reporting untill majority of the cohort reached a certain stage. these are my assmuptions on how the trial is progressing ?

Cohort 2 each patient is given a vaccine every 4 weeks /month
Scans appear to have been done 8/12/24 weeks
Cohort 2 first patients have already had thier 24 week scan mid feb.
RNS only reports 8 weeks for 14 patients, which suggest one patient per week, but alot more data to come through as upto about 23 week gap from first to last of Cohort 2
possible 12 week results for first 14 could flow through soon.
Notsure where CH1 fit in at all .. It appear they migrate to CH2 which would be good news,

I agree - it think there is a huge amount of information to be digested by the trial team - Tumor size is great but is only a crude indication … the effectiveness and shape of the trial will come from a microscope and all those specific bio markers that build a complete picture. The Tilly story is amazing, it’s shows the potential for a new standard of care, more data will come .. looking forward to it

Hi All

I do find the update a little confusing.. Its lacks spcrfics around the cohorts 1/2 and nothing between the different cancers..but for me the words from Dr David Pinato are very important - Advanced agressive Cancers do not sabilise on thier own.. Looking forwards to the next update ..

From the Presentation using PEA resource = Current NPV US$247m @Spot price = US$389m @Long term concensus = US$314m

March 23 Presentation
One interesting take is that, they appear almost ready to issue the resource upgrade (end of feb early march) so that will give some numbers to crunch on the put option.. looks like that may drop any day

https://s21.q4cdn.com/765868678/files/doc_presentations/2023/03/2023-Ascendant-Corporate-Presentation-March.pdf

Looking forward to an update on the biopsy , could be big news

Durrant. Referring to unpublished data from an ongoing trial, she mentions that one patient has demonstrated a 36% reduction
in tumour size after just two immunisations (of a total of five).
Biopsies from this patient are
due to be analysed to confirm the presence and activity of immune cells.

Durrant says, “I can’t really believe that result yet; we need to get more.” Around 140 patients will take
part in the phase 1/2 trial, due to complete in 2026.

Should have put that in the RNS - we would be at 40p :0) ..When you look at the patient critera for the trial it puts into context how important stable and partial mean - some very ill people on this trial .. Having recently watched my mum suffer and die from bowel cancer, i feel that people at this stage of treatment really have not much hope left..only hope that it bring an extention of life to the cohorts, all very brave people. I dont think the significance on the first piece of data has been taken in

Agree - The thing is even best brains in the World havent fully worked out DTH Relationship yet..The below is link to a clincial trial into this very subject . Intro and final discussion are worth a but read..but TBH a Broker cant say much more other than cut n paste the RNS from the professor.. See BelowFYI

https://aacrjournals.org/clincancerres/article/6/4/1347/288151/Delayed-Type-Hypersensitivity-Response-Is-a
INTRODUCTION
The proposed end point of many initial studies of cancer vaccines is the ability to generate an immune response against a cancer antigen or the correlation of an antitumor response to some measure of immunity. At present, there is no standard methodology for measuring cell-mediated immune responses elicited by cancer vaccines. Recent advances in molecular tumor immunology have resulted in the identification of several specific tumor antigens defined by virtue of their immunogenicity in cancer patients (1, 2). Immunizing against a specific tumor antigen allows the comparison of methods to measure tumor-specific immunity and a statistical assessment of the validity of various means of cancer vaccine immunological monitoring. DTH3 responses are the most common, most widely available measurements, and one of the few measurements used to determine effective tumor immunization. However,little is known about the ability of DTH to actually reflect the development of systemic tumor-specific immunity in cancer patients after vaccination.