Member Info for inanaco

The major advantage of the Immunobody® technology is that the Fc component of the engineered antibody will be recognised by the high affinity CD64 receptor present on dendritic cells

No synergy exists between SCIB1 and Keytruda ....

the synergy only exists between T cell and keytruda

scib1 has synergy only to the dendritic cells ...

Crumbs ...

debate my points ...

i cannot debate ""Unforeseen"" ... if you dont agree with the science of how i have laid this out says so ...

but we are not debating if the trial is halted by "yellowstone" blowing up .... which if that super volcano did .. it would halt the trial

so your all seeing Buys at 10p .... failed the crystal ball test ... Ruck ?

Ruckrover ....

keytruda is approved ...

why are you arguing with the FDA and EU regulatory authorities

Pembrolizumab is a therapeutic antibody that binds to and blocks PD-1 located on lymphocytes. This receptor is generally responsible for preventing the immune system from attacking the body's own tissues; it is a so-called immune checkpoint

A lymphocyte is one of the subtypes of a white blood cell in a vertebrate's immune system. Lymphocytes include natural killer cells (which function in cell-mediated, cytotoxic innate immunity), T cells (for cell-mediated, cytotoxic adaptive immunity), and B cells (for humoral, antibody-driven adaptive immunity). They are the main type of cell found in lymph, which prompted the name "lymphocyte".

so are you saying .,.... that keytruda does not have """synergy""" with T cells (for cell-mediated, cytotoxic adaptive
immunity)

despite being approved for that very reason

its the catch you out Post crumbs / Ruck .........

because its actually proven in trial

Keytruda has "synergy with T cells" its approved ...

so you now have to prove that SCIB1 does not engage with T cells ............ and that is easy .. it does not

it engages with Dendritic cells ..... by cross presentation ..........

its the dendritic cells that engage with Natural T cells .............. thus ... keytruda must have synergy ..

because in any adaptive immune response against cancer .. professional antigen presenting cells have to be involved

Professional antigen presenting cells (APC) and MHC II complexes. Professional antigen presenting cells (APCs) are immune cells that specialize in presenting an antigen to a T-cell. The main types of professional APCs are dendritic cells (DC), macrophages, and B cells.

some started to argue that it was a possible "requirement"
its NOT ...

On the discussions about adding a Check point to Moditope ....

""""""Moditope® deploys certain tumour-associated peptide epitopes as immunotherapeutic agents to overcome self-tolerance and eradicate tumour cells, with no requirement for blockade inhibitors."""""

The PCT patent application which has a priority date of 7 August 2012 was published on 13 February 2014 as WO2014/023957.

Now before folks talk about ... "obsolete" .............

immunotherapy is not new science

Early Work
William B. Coley, MD, now known as the Father of Immunotherapy, first attempted to harness the immune system for treating cancer in the late 19th century. Having noted a number of cases in which patients with cancer went into spontaneous remission after developing erysipelas, he began injecting mixtures of live and inactivated Streptococcus pyogenes and Serratia marcescens into patients’ tumors in 1891.

about 100 years passed .............. Scancell

I refer back to .......

inanaco

Posted in: SCLP

Posts: 29,951

Price: 7.50

No Opinion

RE: Just 04 Sep 2019 11:50
Scancell is skilled in the art of "avidity"

all about the "binding" ........ always has been

avidmab
immunobody
Moditope ...

The Primary Hope is Immunobody ..
1/ It has clinical Data
2/ It works by generating a "high avidity t cell" which is a """""natural normal T cell""""" programmed perfectly
3/ Keytruda works on T cells .. not the cancer and has proven it self to lock on to "natural T cells"
4/ So synergy ""has"" to exist ... in theory

other wise

which trial Failed

SCIB1 or Keytruda

and before any body says ... blah blah blah its all risky we don't know ....

i will repeat again .................. what is the possible mechanism of failure ????? that would thwart ""Synergy ""

Einstein predicted Gravitational waves .... if space time is a fabric .... then gravitational waves """had""" to be there

100 years on ........ discovered

so basically you have answered your own question ....

sorted

Ivy you posted

as a later stage drug development company which again was a stated aim of RG has been made over the last 4 years.

you mean a phase 3 trial ? maybe you best explain ..

and who are you addressing your question to ??

Thanks

Ivyspivey2

what was the reason that you wiped out your history ?? ......... Ivy Mark 1 ... obsolete ? welcome Ivy 2 ?

Bermuda ...
I know the point i made .. our Mcap .. is undervalued to the IP ......... Diggles thought so to ..

trying to complicate it with some sort of "sentiment" value is exactly why its undervalued

or try it another way ... if Scancell failed the administrators would achieve fair value .. probably way higher then the current SP because of the potential for multiple bidders

REDX compared ....

Moljen .. no chap, just quality replies .. don't need childish actions .. like throwing things out the pram

"""I was trying to highlight the underlying value that may be hiding behind Scancell's pathetic share price performance """

""""You can't compare the valuation of a company through market cap with the valuation achieved for the sale of IP, they're two completely different things. """""

surely we are trying to value the Ip to generate a more realistic SP

clearly in Red X case like you said MCap $20m or zero ................ administration sale $40m ....

did the Stock market get it wrong ?????

which highlights my post perfectly

which you claim ........ "You can't compare "

'so if an "unkown quantity" is worth $40m .............. why is scancell at 7p ....... ???'

Moljen ...
If you think the science will be superseded by advancement of the science then i do agree with that ....... history dictates
but that also applies to scancells technology that could be superseded by scancells technology

ie Mark 1 SCIB1 .......... Mark 2 SCIB1
Ichor to nanovesicle ..

but to have the worry of a future "unkown" technology that might over take ... suggest that really you should wait to invest in that technology ... but of course when that appears ... something else might over take that and so on ...

best put into a building society while your waiting ...

the issue was .... not that i thrown into the debate the miss match between

'so if an "unkown quantity" is worth $40m .............. why is scancell at 7p ....... ???'

its that "pounced on it with you "YOU CAN'T"

by posting

""""You can't compare the valuation of a company through market cap with the valuation achieved for the sale of IP, they're two completely different things. """""

which kills the discussion ...

now you are claiming ....

"""I was trying to highlight the underlying value that may be hiding behind Scancell's pathetic share price performance """

which is contrary to your first post of

""""You can't compare the valuation of a company through market cap with the valuation achieved for the sale of IP, they're two completely different things. """""

sorry i will again post to you ..........

"""I do not understand the first post ... which now conflicts with the second ""

but your not identifying that technology ... ???