Member Info for inanaco

depends how many patients are involved in the lead in part of the trial ... that short safety "watch .. and at what dosage and stage of increase ...

problem is we need numbers now to get the data ... because is it Keytruda doing the work or SCIB1 boosted by keytruda ?

so you need to exceed that 30% CR/PR response rates

I said the ability to market scib1 in the adjuvant setting has changed its more difficult, unless you prove synergy ... which is what we are doing, appreciate the late stage treatment of melanoma is more difficult than the adjuvant setting so it stands the reason if we get synergy in the current trial, the adjuvant trial as a combo will also be successful

so the £8 ticket is still available but under different conditions .. we are linked to the success of keytruda/SCIB1 to give immunobody the push start in the market

back when i did the £8 value did NOT have any competition in the adjuvant setting ... it has now ... Keytruda ...

so head to head trial is now needed against Keytruda ... but hang on ... we have synergy with Keytruda so why run a head to head trial when they can run a combination 4mg (half dose) scib1 combination trial with Keytruda

4mg in adjuvant setting
8mg in unresected

again the valuations have changed because of market conditions ... but IMHO for the better .. because any competition now has to compete with an approved combinations that are synergistic SCIB1/Keytruda

what is

The CR rate for SCIB1 and Keytruda
The PR rate
stable decease time scales ? can they turn it into a long term condition ? = progression free rates
Over all survival rates compared with keytruda alone ...

so what your trying to do is guess . what i did was used the failure rates that the NHS pay for patients that fail Keytruda ... ie would they use this failed money to fund SCIB1 ... if so use the 55% estimated mouse model figure as a basis for the estimate .. gives us some numbers we can play with

it still gave us from memory $1 billion of sales ..

i could be wrong but without trial data ... you cannot compute QALY's ...

ratio was bad enough ... i tried to explain the enormous variable on the values by the efficacy achieved as per NICE QALYS

i tried to explain this to you recently but you completely ignored it ...

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/psb.1562

your back of a packet valuations that you keep pushing are worthless ... !!!

because efficacy value multiplied by some 20 odd cancers can have an enormous variance on the sp ..

so Novartis can charge £266.000 because it cures 85% and is free if it fails ...

compared to Keytruda that does not cure 85% and is sub £100,000

so to put any accurate number on the vaccines value you need the efficacy data in Humans

I did not pluck figures "out of the air" Ruck ...

what i am not prepared to do is run through the two days of posting that i did again, to explain it ... you clearly didn't get it the first time so you want me to try again .. who are you T May ?

the issue C7 .... is the "change" .... to any vaccine design sets a "new pre-clinical path" of years ... which is why its so important to get the basics spot on ... before you start the regulatory path ..

I will leave you with "the self promotion of Ruckrover" .... the Number 1 valuer ....

who bought into the VAL dream

C7 ... Scancell is not manufacturing its own drugs ... this is not about smaller quantities, the costs involved are really in Compliance and certification of purity ...

the vaccine had no "shelf life" how could it ... ? it was the first time it was ever manufactured and it did survive in tolerance for 7 years odd ...

what you have to ask is what does Checkpoint inhibitors do like keytruda ?

unleash T cells from the constraints of the cancers ability to turn them off ............

the Killing of the cancer is T cells in this instance CD8 ... all Proven by Keytruda allowing them to work

so T cells are proven by millions of years of evolution

all scancell does is program proven Cd8 t cells to identify a target to kill and Cd4 T cells to help .......... Immunobody ... the difference is Scancell recognised only high Avidity T cells are good enough to engage cancer so it concentrated on the best way to build a vaccine to selectively program them

Moditope is a new class ... it programs CD4 to kill ........... they are also proven killers if you know where to look in research papers to find them ...

but "NO" vaccine has "ever" been built for them ....

Scancell is the first !

this time it had to build a vaccine that produced a very specific CD4 ... High Avidity Th1 ....

which is way Lindy never rushed ahead with the first Modi1 vaccine ... but continued its development and incorporated ISA adjuvant and linked it directly to Hydrophobic peptides hence the difficulty in manufacture of this very advanced vaccine .... and the subsequent delay ...

the market did not like delay ................. hence the sp fall ........... because it did not understand the reasons why Lindy delayed .... it does now, the result is 100% mouse survival ...

that will translate into the SP eventually ...

Ruck i am not playing your games ....

its you that suggests unrealistic expectations ... without any quantifying what that means

Keytruda ... 30% res-ponders across a few indications .. have to check but 4 or 5 ?

Moditope potential 90% response rates using mono, combo (with other moditope vaccines) and TCR .... across a min of 17 cancer indications ...

folks just don't get it or don't believe it ...

i think most just don't understand the importance of this first trial ............... which is why Scancell has formed this advisory Board ... if it works the "Industry" for Autophagy begins here

The CAB comprises: Professor Robert Coleman, Emeritus Professor of Medical Oncology at Weston Park Hospital and the University of Sheffield; Professor Christian Ottensmeier, Professor of Experimental Cancer Medicine at the University of Southampton; Professor Poulam Patel, Professor of Clinical Oncology at the University of Nottingham and Honorary Consultant Medical Oncologist at the Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust; Professor Iain McNeish, Professor of Oncology and Head of the Division of Cancer within the Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London; Professor David Miles, Lead Clinician for breast cancer at Mount Vernon Cancer Centre; and Professor Stephen Chan, Director of Clinical Trials in Breast Cancer and Gynaecological Cancer at Nottingham University Hospital.

If your nervous at investing on the stockmarket ... why do it ? makes no sense, it is those that are nervous by selling at the wrong time that lose the most .. and the main reason why they are nervous is because they don't fully comprehend what they are buying into ..

explain what is "realistic expectations" .......... when something like keytruda is worth Billions ?

The issue is we cannot estimate a burn rate .... just to many variables now ... for instance the cost of manufacture of Modi1 ???

i have no idea

https://www.adaptivebiotech.com/adaptive-biotechnologies-to-enter-worldwide-collaboration-license-agreement-with-genentech-to-develop-personalized-cancer-cellular-therapies/

to understand ... but actually its really complex stuff what BioNtech and Scancell is doing ...

https://www.pnas.org/content/111/49/17576

the targets have already be proven "pre clinical"

"I am very pleased to be investing in Scancell at this exciting time in the company's evolution. Vulpes has been conducting scientific and commercial due diligence on Scancell for a considerable period of time. We have concluded the company's unique and innovative approach to fighting cancer is compelling and under-appreciated. At Vulpes we are always searching for overlooked companies that have the ability to make significant advances in medical science, with a view to supporting their development over the long term. We believe Scancell fulfil these criteria perfectly."

Birds eye view from a major Bio Investors ..

has still not sparked the recovery to the previous OO value .. and indeed some small traders are active sellers despite a major RNS due ... how odd is that ...

"overlooked companies"

£10 ?

the brain gets convinced by what it sees as value when in fact it has not .... this constant focus on the SP is actually bad for you because it generates a bias of expectation which is really completely unrelated to actual real deals in the market place

Nobel Prize stuff