Member Info for inanaco

rephrase that ...

No point reading your posts

Ruckrover ..

I don't read your posts ..

so people looking at the Share Price would consider we have lost to pessimists ... and the optimists should just calm down ..

yet the evidence is on the side of the optimists ...

this applies to Scancell and the EU debate ..

the optimists will always win because they generate the leaders not the doom and gloom brigade

you cannot keep winning by threats alone .. Cameron found that out !!!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p076b7mk

gives you an idea of why i am so strong minded ...

lets say Moditope works and clears cancer in 40% ... but statistics show the other 60% have compromised immune systems caused by Chemo or Radiation which is an early intervention ... this data set will build up ..
so you can now argue a case that stop early intervention could actually improve the overall success rate

they don't have to change any part of the vaccine .. it would probably work in all 17 cancer indications .. the issue is response rates not functionality Scancell is fine tuning to get those response rates high ...

Response rate does not increase market size ..

it increases the price you pay so that you are not paying for failure

the problem is Newton was an expert on Gravity .. until Einstein came along

You keep pushing it from the Pd-1 or others dealing in the Check point class ...

these products need to work with an immune system that is compromised by the cancer immunosuppressive environment

scancells goes direct to the adaptive immune system and creates this new inflammatory environment which is allowed to continue with a PD-1 to overcome immune suppression

as such many biomarkers don't actually help only confuse in this instance

mentioned this before the Modi1/2/3 program target is the 17 Vimentin expression cancers, so you cannot look at one vaccine in isolation because they will all target this group from different approaches. These approaches relate to "Hot or "cold" status and stage of the cancer and its discovery,

which is why trying to value moditope Modi1 in isolation is not the way to look at this program ..

what you need to do is consider 17 cancer targets being treated by three vaccines that can work in harmony with each other

this is why I keep going back to "complete Response" and " Partial response rates"

keytruda and the main PD-1 checkpoints are a platform across many cancer indications this is why it commands such high value to the Industry, one product treating many cancers but its value is dictated by response rates

this is Why BioNtech are very keen on moditope .. they will have CD4 Viral Vectors to change human CD4 into killer cells across a range of patients and cancer targets, but again you must not look at the BioNtech as a Done deal. once they have signed up .. its NOT its the start not the End of this program .. so what ever price is set, its an indicator of multiples of the strike price not a standalone strike price but of course the deal done might encompass the whole patent not just the three epitopes under investigation.

Because of BioNtech upcoming IPO, funding for this project can be put forward at the IPO which is very exciting for us. especially if royalties are included in any deal.

Do I want a Row .. what on Rucks Valuations ... ?

here is one of Rucks Valuations (notice the 5% profit on sales, i think the salesman has a learjet to upkeep)

SCLPRE: Try and understand the21 Jan '19
>so efficacy of 3 patients .............. is the Green light to a £120b a year market …<

With a 5 percent market share and 5 percent net profit would value Scancell at £3 Billion (= £8 /share)

what real value or monopoly value ?

Room 101 ........ Ruck out

LOL ...

at least they are changing the law to a no fault position ..

C7 .. i agree "abstract" is not an art form i appreciate ..

its meaning less

because you are a subscriber to risk ...

what is the point of telling people the share will be worth X in 2025 ,, ???

what they want to know is what is the risk of holding until 2025 ???

your information .. from a commercial perspective is Useless ...

You did ......

"""" So whilst I am not a paid up subscriber to the "No Risk Here" movement, I am a member of the "No risk factor in my formula" club. """"

seems its all a bit to much for you ..........

you could not explain isn't

and now you struggle with risk factor ... despite being able to value from a "commercial perspective"

it's NOT my posts that get you into troubled waters

it's your own !!!

you make statements that just don't stack up ... and when questioned you reply in abstracts

why would nature produce in extreme viral events and extreme killing machine ?

a Cytotoxic cd4 slewed to TH 1 ??

why would it not just accept its own Cd4 helper cell / cd8 killer cell ?

which indicates Scancell has something ....

You said you are basing your valuations from a "" commercial perspective ""

i am now feeding you with information that is missing from your valuation from a "commercial perspective"

the issue is not that you cannot generate a number ......... anybody can

the point of my posts is clear "can you generate a number that is sensible" .. and sufficient to make somebody like me agree with you ... ??

Trinity using standard industry Norms is giving out data that the investment community can easily cross ref to

what we have done is go way deeper .... trying to prove a point of failure in the model from a science perspective ..

because that is what evaluates a risk profile in scancell not an "off the shelf industry norm"

Do you consider the existing efficacy data generated as a monotherapy is relatvent to the combination trial estimates of outcome ? because we are basing on predictions ?

Do you accept that efficacy drive sales but also controls the value attributed to each sale ...

so efficacy is very important as it has such an influence on outcomes ...

but before you start ... you have assumed Scancell runs to a phase 3 ... and you have assumed Trinity is wrong on the risk factor but correct on the sales volume ? can you justify those numbers

does your SP include upfront payments or just based on royalties ?

all my valuation posts included a huge amount of detail on the science .. which i assume you accept is that correct ?