Member Info for inanaco

ray scancells success in the combination trial is valued by differential ...

that differential is how much we improve efficacy over the current standard of care .... i have based this at 25%

so 30% pd1 alone ... 55% in combo

so its that differential is what will drive the Capital payment higher it goes the less risk in a phase 3 the lower the more risk .....

miavoice ... look back at the history of the Phase 1/2 scib1 trial that may give you a clue as to how scancell will report the SCIB1 combo and Modi1 trial

No i am showing the potential commercial aspects of a $1 billion of sales that big pharma could get based on passing at 55% efficacy a phase 3 trial ... and what it could pay to license that asset from scancell if scancell achieves that sort of efficacy in a phase 2 trial ...

I have shown how i get to $1b in sales
I have shown how the science works using third party data as well as scancells

no idea what you are doing as Scancell is not playing the Big Pharma "model" ..... and you have not shown a mechanism of failure

really is pointless playing your games .. let's leave it t that,

So your "pages" of posts "proving" a $1B turnover are all for nothing?

you really are an idiot ..... sorry but i have no choice but to ignore you

If you based it on those numbers .. you would probably get to around £1.5 dividend stage paid ... with an ongoing $100m a year income from royalties ... = which would be an sp of about £3 a share after receiving £1.5 per share

(less the ichor agreement and how that is structured ) as that included shares already in issue etc

let me repeat again

Scancell is not running a phase 3 ... so it will probably never see the $1b plus sales .............

what it might see is up to a $1b in stage payments with a 10% royalty on sales if the efficacy comes out high ie about 55%

Ruck you are boring me senseless ............

The industry profit figures include all the current Research and expenditure figures ...

we are valuing just the commercial element of SCIB1 .... at phase 2 based on a market potential of a $1b in sales

i really don't need your help ........ as from your posts you thought the industry worked on a 5% profit margin !!! you had not even bothered to research ..

i really am not sure what you are trying to achieve .. ?? you confuse people because of your lack of commercial awareness

your moving to far ahead ....as you are now assuming scancell is going to run a phase 3 ..

what you should be asking what is the share price if the SCIB1 improves the current standard of care . at phase 2

will it be higher then 8p ?

not in a position to give you that ruck ...

what i can give you is ... i cannot find a reason why we will not get the expected data ..

""" so you can bet that a problem exists that you cannot identify """

""""iI bet that no problem exists because i cannot identify one """"

and that is the difference between us ...

the share price is based on How and who will take on the phase 3 trial ... and how its structured,

the point being if you have nearly doubled the efficacy of the current standard of care ... you cannot then argue its NOT commercial ...

then the market has a clear decision to make ... is SCLP worth 8p ?

its how your maths get there Ruck ...... you can generate 8 from many calculations

16 divided by 2 = 8

yours came from a fictitious 5% of the market with profitability set at 5% .... = 8

i have laid out fully how i get to $1b turnover ... ATB it took me a few pages to explain it ... not 1 line

it targets the same cancer but a bigger group ... so this HLA ... range will increase

Part One and Part Two:

HLA-A2 positive.
Positive for HLA-DR4, HLA-DR7, HLA-DR53 or HLA-DQ6.

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01138410

the design of the new immunobody is incorporated into SCIB2 ..

To broaden the application of this vaccination strategy, 16 NY-ESO-1 epitopes, covering over 80% of HLA phenotypes, were incorporated into the IB (SCIB2). They produced higher frequency and avidity T cell responses than peptide vaccination

put that into context

SCIB1 immunobody ......... targets 45% which has a clear market point worth a $1b ...
SCIB1 immunobody mark 2 (same structure as scib2) ... targets 90% doubles market point to $2b ,,,,

scib2 is in effect will be trialing the mark2 scib1 ... design

Merck's results for Keytruda in melanoma were released Sunday during the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research. ... Bristol-Myers currently earns between 14% and 20% of its U.S. sales of Opdivo from the drug's indication in melanoma, while roughly 15% of Keytruda sales come from that cancer type.16 Apr 2018

Keytruda sales surged 89.2 percent to $1.67 billion. per Qtr ... so x 4 for 1 year

so just in melanoma ... thats a $b dollar market ... for keytruda

and opdivo ... is about the same .........

so that's a $2b market already created from a standing start in melanoma ... of which scancell could increase the efficacy in at least 45% (hla restrictions) of that market by doubling efficacy ...

so SCIB1 has a proven market of at least $1b ,,,,,, because that is the price of failure of PD-1 ... ie that 25 to 30% success in patients gives us a 70% failure rate .. which is paid for by hospitals and scancell reduces that number substantially if it gives the efficacy ...

and here we are, about to enter into trials ... with a Mcap of £30m ... with a possible sales market of a $1b ....and that is based on actual figures generated by PD1 ... not forecasts, but real $

all we have to do is show synergy .. that % differential is what drives the pricing structure ...

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/melanoma-skin-cancer/treatment/

What is the current standard of Care in melanoma ?

well the majority its now Keytruda and Opdivo

lets explain that .......... companies do not grab market share because the salesman bull shits ...

The FDA does it for them ... so you trial against current standard of care as an End point ...........

if the FDA awards you the badge .......... You become current standard of Care ..

could raise that PD1 rate from about 25% to 55% ...............

you now have proven value of SCIB1 being as equal to a PD1 .. in medical terms of efficacy ... which links back to Pricing of the product .

understand is % ......... it thinks because Modi1 is late its worth less

what its no doing is looking at the market size

so 4 years ago ... Modi1 was targeting 70% of patients

so 30% would fail, the Hospital in effect was funding Failure so that gets priced into the product

Modi 1 .. now targets nearly 100% ... so that potential "pricing in of failure" has been removed

now this equally applies to PD-1 treatment

so lets say success rate of 25% is acceptable .. so you are pricing in at $ 150,000 at a failure rate of 75%

in other words you can price in a Cure at about 4 x $150,000 which is why TCR and Car T can command those $500,000 price tags .....

this is what Ruck and Ivy are not even considering with back of a Fag packet economics ...

point of all this ..........

VIM and ENO in the Moditope .. range via two forms Citrullinated and Homocitrulline

are in 17 major cancers

so the trick is not just to accept that 35% of patients can be treated across the board

its to target 100% across the Board ...

to do that you have to bring the patients immune system and stress on the cancer to a level that sparks a response

TCR works on the patient ........... adjuvants and other techniques work on the cancer ....

gets even more complex because the cancer can lose expression of an antigen ...