Member Info for greenshaw

I'm guessing he's lumping in new agrarian

I've reported your post as containing personal data moon, hopefully they removing it and you can post just the bit you meant to.

In the mean time here's an abridged version of o3's (AI) response to scinvs recent posts. (AI is sometimes wrong):

"51 % “doubling” in a primed population is not obviously worse than 80 % “detectable” in a naïve cohort; the assays, cut-offs, and baseline immune status differ too much for a head-to-head verdict.

The critic is right that COVIDITY’s 51 % T-cell boost looks modest next to mRNA-vaccine numbers, and peer-reviewed CD64-binding data are still absent. But the comparison is apples-to-oranges, and a patent-disclosed SPR study plus the melanoma SCOPE results show the AvidiMab-ImmunoBody concept is biologically active in humans. The jury is still out on how much incremental benefit AvidiMab will add to SCIB1, but COVIDITY’s outcome does not on its own negate the potential for iSCIB1+ to deliver clinically meaningful gains in melanoma.

"

Oh and Scinv, that doesn't mean I dislike you, someone with your level of awareness might actually enjoy the challenge of spotting when and how the ego tricks you. Not many achieve that..

GF, he said he might buy back in. He's here because he's interested in SCLP because it's his wheelhouse and he doesn't want to miss out. He also doesn't want sentiment too high otherwise he might have to buy back in higher than he sold out (due to a grudge with the 'liars' at 'Scamcell'). He's a bit ethically deficient, he uses similar language to grandiose narcissists, calling everyone here idiots and talking up his own abilities. Grandiose narcissists do tend to be manipulative and exploit other people so it fits that his main goal right now is to lower sentiment even in quite ridiculously obvious ways like suggesting a string of higher price trades are sells, but his main MO is to use his knowledge of drug trials to cast doubt, despite the main reason him selling out being a feeling of being deceived intentionally. In reality that was likely down to him misjudging the situation - such as assuming he was deceived (as that's how he himself behaves) when in reality it's much more likely there's an innocent explanation he's overlooked.

It's irritating to have to keep on top of his BS as he does have the capability to point out real issues, but so far it's 100% manipulation.

I'm assuming in a folder or database scinv. I think the better question is why would they lie about that in the knowledge that the lie would be revealed at a point in time when surely they would not have wrapped up the massive fraud you seem to imagine? It seems like a very convoluted and unlikely explanation to me. A far simpler explanation is that they haven't released every single piece of data they have into the public domain for a variety of different reasons.

It does seem that you only ever grasp at minor details as you become aware of them and see an opportunity to cast doubt - like the idea that a string of higher price trades are really sells - rather than have substantial concerns. Why are you are so openly and heavily biased regardless of whether it is about Scancell behaviour or just neutral ticker data?

The 2nd part of the AI response:

"

What would settle the question

Surface-plasmon or BLI traces of SCIB1 vs iSCIB1+ Fc binding to recombinant CD64 (monomeric and multimeric formats).

Flow-cytometry or confocal uptake of fluorescent ImmunoBody proteins into primary human dendritic cells ± Fc-block.

A risk-table or spider plot in the upcoming translational-data poster comparing T-cell priming with and without Fc–CD64 blockade.

If those appear at ESMO-IO 2025 (the next obvious venue), we’ll know whether the CEO’s statement is borne out.

---

Verdict with the new context

On the narrow point the critic raised (“no in-vitro data made public”) – they are right as far as CD64 binding is concerned; none has been released.

On the broader insinuation that the claim is necessarily false – that is unproven; there are plausible molecular reasons and patent examples suggesting the company may indeed have achieved stronger functional engagement with CD64, but they have yet to show their work.

Until Scancell publishes the kinetics, the safest wording is:

> “The company claims that iSCIB1+ binds CD64 more avidly than SCIB1, but has not yet placed supporting data in the public domain.”

"

AI generated response (o3):

"

What the CEO actually claimed

In the Citeline “In Vivo” podcast released 9 July 2025 Phil L’Huillier said that for the next-generation melanoma vaccine iSCIB1+ “we’ve been able to enhance the strength of the binding to the CD64 receptor and then the antigen presentation and improve T-cell activation and immune-memory function.”

Bottom line: *There is still no publicly released SPR, BLI, or cell-binding dataset that directly compares CD64 affinity or avidity of iSCIB1+ with the original SCIB1. Every document in the public domain stops at qualitative wording (“binds strongly”, “targets CD64”).

Why the CEO’s statement could be true even without new affinity mutations

1. Multivalent avidity rather than per-molecule affinity.

The AvidiMab patch encourages Fc : Fc self-association once several ImmunoBody molecules have latched on to a dendritic-cell surface. Multiple IgG1 Fcs presented in a lattice can give much slower dissociation from CD64 by avidity, even if the intrinsic KD of each individual Fc–CD64 contact is unchanged.

2. IgG1 baseline is already “high-affinity.”

Wild-type human IgG1 binds CD64 with KD ≈ 10 nM. A modest two- to four-fold tightening achieved through clustering could fairly be described in a podcast as “stronger binding,” but would be hard to pick up in a single-cycle SPR experiment unless the multimeric complex is recreated on the chip.

3. Internal, unpublished experiments.

L’Huillier may be referring to dendritic-cell uptake assays done in-house—e.g. side-by-side flow-cytometry of fluorescent SCIB1 vs iSCIB1+ showing higher mean-fluorescence or longer surface retention. Nothing obliges the company to publish such data before a partnering discussion or a regulatory filing.

Where things stand for an evidence-based investor or scientist

Bullish interpretation Patents plus the known AvidiMab mechanism make it plausible that iSCIB1+ demonstrates tighter functional engagement with CD64 in cell assays, which could boost cross-presentation and the stronger T-cell read-outs the company has hinted at. The data have not been shared, peer-reviewed, or presented at AACR/SITC; so far only the CEO’s podcast remark attests to an actual measurement.

Bearish interpretation Until Scancell discloses side-by-side kinetic or uptake data, the claim remains marketing, not evidence. All published AvidiMab work focuses on antigen-side avidity and is explicitly FcγR-independent. If no real CD64-affinity delta exists, the ImmunoBody platform is still viable (IgG1 already binds CD64 well), but the incremental edge of iSCIB1+ over SCIB1 may be less than investors hope.

"

On your last point nano:

" I even wonder whether a debate will emerge about whether artificial intelligence, especially when it's embodied in humanoid robots, deserves basic rights"

I personally believe that conscious awareness is not something that AI can possess. I think in a simplified way these large language models are a bit like a mind specifically without conscious awareness. It's we who provide the awareness. It's the conscious awareness that is the source of what is good in a relationship, it is the thing that requires rights. Animals have it, AIs don't. I think that because I don't think consciousness is computational (therefore not possible on any computer). There's some interesting interviews with Roger Penrose on this topic. I don't know if it could ever be possible with quantum computers but I think it's either impossible or something very very far away from current technology. However, that's not to say people won't mistakenly believe the AI's are conscious and try to argue they deserve rights.

The problem scinv, is that there have been a number of occasions where you have misread what's right in front of you. Like calling me a stooge paid for by a major Scancell investor, calling me an FX trader, and all sorts of other strange claims that are unproven. So when you say X said Y or A didn't publish B, I don't trust you. But I do have a tool that can check relatively quickly if it's given the right information. If it hasn't got the transcript of the interview of course it's not going to have that context...

Scinv, you asked for the AI response to your prompt and then complained that that is what you got 😂

Of course I don't understand everything it's responding with! I never claimed to have expertise in anything. I am simply interacting on a public forum with someone who is upset with scancell and some people who are upset about someone posting AI content.

Are you referring to the comments in the recently posted interview? I'm happy to check and provide that context to the prompt.

Chelsea, I'm fine with being filtered if scrolling past some quotation marks is traumatizing for some reason. Saying that because I don't understand everything AI writes means it's pointless and of zero value is your opinion and I disagree.

TF if you don't want to see me quote AI then filter me. What's the benefit in posting a message telling me what to do and telling others what button you just clicked?!

Scinv, I have no desire to deceive and am not afraid of whatever is true. Here is the AI response, I left the first little section out as it's in an awkward table format that doesn't display well here.

AI:

"Why the critic’s new claim falls over

1. Conflating two platforms.

The line about “targeting CD64” belongs to the ImmunoBody vaccine concept; the line about “AvidiMab modification increases potency” is on the next bullet and refers to an additional change made to iSCIB1+. The bullet list does not say that AvidiMab alters CD64 binding.

2. Published data say AvidiMab works without Fc γRs.

The 2022 PEGS poster explicitly concludes that the enhanced avidity of an AvidiMab-engineered CD40 antibody is **“independent of Fc γ receptors.”**

That would make little sense if the point of AvidiMab were to strengthen FcγRI binding.

3. Structural geography doesn’t match.

CD64 docks primarily at the hinge-proximal CH2 surface; the AvidiMab substitutions are nearer the CH2/CH3 interface used for lateral Fc–Fc contacts. They are on different faces of the Fc, so altering one does not necessarily change the other.

So—do we have in-vitro evidence of improved CD64 binding?

No public dataset has been released showing that AvidiMab mutants bind CD64 tighter (or longer) than wild-type IgG1.

Equally, Scancell has not claimed in any poster, paper, or slide deck that AvidiMab does enhance CD64 binding; their own data emphasise FcγR-independent clustering.

Balanced take-away

The critic is wrong in stating that “there is no in-vitro data” for AvidiMab—multiple datasets demonstrate the intended avidity boost at the antigen-binding end.

But the critic’s specific CD64 objection is a straw man: AvidiMab is not advertised as a CD64 enhancer, and the available evidence suggests its mechanism is largely orthogonal to FcγR engagement.

Unless Scancell later publishes a head-to-head CD64 binding study (none is public today), the fairest reading is:

> *AvidiMab improves antibody-antigen residency through Fc : Fc self-association; ImmunoBody exploits the innate IgG1–CD64 interaction to deliver vaccine epitopes. These are separate, complementary tricks, not one and the same.*

"

At the risk of being filtered by more people!

The following is an AI generated (o3) response to scinv's message:

"Actually, Scancell has published in Cancer Research (Vankemmelbeke et al., 2020) that introducing their AvidiMab Fc changes cuts the dissociation rate by up to ~100-fold and boosts avidity in vitro. They’ve also shown slower off-rates and stronger functional activity in a CD40 agonist poster and in their SC129 programme slides, and state the effect is FcγR-independent—so it isn’t contingent on the CD64 binding surface. There’s still more validation to come, but there is public in-vitro data."

Sources:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7611157/

https://scancell.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/pegs-avidimab-2022-poster.pdf

https://scancell.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/agm-presentationnovember-2022_final.pdf

He's just nervous us idiots may do better than he will with all his insight and specialist knowledge, since there's now significant buying above the price he sold out.

Scinv that's more evidence you're unreliable from my perspective.

The site has a simplistic and error prone code to split buys and sells.

The first 6 trades today are all marked as sells. In fact 5 are buys (at the same price) and 1 is a sell. I know because I'm one of the smaller buys.

The last link was cut off..

https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.16182

I think one interesting route to this being a very successful endevour that I haven't really seen talked about much is to do with what we may soon learn more about animals due to AI and machine learning.

It's worth bearing in mind that as recently as the 1980s, 6 month old humans were considered not to be conscious, not be sentient, and therefore unable to feel pain. For this reason they would be given only muscle relaxants to stop them moving during medical surgery, and no anaesthetic/pain relief. Now many people consider that horrific, but still most people only ascribe sentience to a select few animals if any. Sometimes it's just the animals that can recognise themselves in a mirror, etc. which the ones we prefer to eat typically do not do. Many people still think animals aren't conscious at all.

I personally suspect that consious awareness is a core part of at least most if not all animal life, and many different species have complex languages and cultures that we remain ignorant of. I don't want to get in to the evidence of this or have a debate on it unless you're a PhD studying it, but there's lots of evidence available if you're interested - primates using medicine that we don't understand, certain corvids having advanced problem solving skills and culture, and marine mammals having complex language and societies.

Where I'm going with this is I think if doctors didn't know young humans were conscious 40 years ago, there's a good chance the average uninformed person on the street is not far beyond that level of awareness when it comes to what life really is, what animals are. So, what happens if AI and machine learning provide revolutionary, definitive proof in a few years that all of these different animal species have language that we can actually decode and understand - a sudden realisation that animals are consious and potentially experience a range of emotions, pain, joy, and spend time thinking about other beings they miss from time to time. There's evidence all of these things do in fact happen, as many pet owners realise. When there's hard evidence about what animals are and what they experience available for the general population, how many people will decide they don't want to eat anything that was at one point experiencing the same sense of awareness that we all do? I don't think most of those people will find it easy or desirable to switch to a plant based diet - eating meat is too culturally and hibitually ingrained.

I've not been concerned about demand, but thinking about these topics alongside food security, I'm starting to think demand might actually end up strong enough to enable commercial success at higher production costs.

Using AI to decide animal language:

https://www.goodnet.org/articles/using-ai-to-decode-animal-language

Using AI to understand farm animal emotions:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/02/250221125552.htm

Understanding chicken vocalizations and emotions:

https://arxiv.or

I'd rather have JM caring about it in multiple ways. If for no other reason than it means this project will receive more ongoing attention. More attention means more opportunities spotted and more potential issues spotted.

I found it amusing he talked about it not getting AI sort of returns. I suppose it's also better to hear him say we're not getting AI level returns and this or that portfolio company isn't great than to get meaningless optimism that can't be trusted.

That's very biased EE. See this study by MIT showing increased neural network activity when participants first used their own brains to do work and then used AI to review and improve their work.

https://www.media.mit.edu/publications/your-brain-on-chatgpt/

AI only makes you stupid if you use it instead of thinking. If you use it to free up time to think about more complex or rewarding problems or use it to better inform what you will use your brain for then it will be a benefit. Ignoring it will only make you ignorant - and I'm tempted to avoid pointing out the correlation between ignorance and being against allowing 16 and 17 year olds to vote because that is fully off topic for this forum..

I'd suggest using AI to review your own posts (and other work) for bias and mistakes. But EE likely won't see this as they stated they had filtered me - despite the fact I always clearly quote AI when I do use it.