Member Info for inanaco

Well i think the ERG in the conservative party are getting a little annoyed with the PM. You need to get a vision from that group of how this will all move forward, but PM is trying to put a square block into a round hole and IMHO is a little out of her depth, naive, personally i think we will adopt Canada plus plus ..or walk away, but Brexit thinking MPs must take control, as trying to glue yourself to the EU as a vassal state is very dangerous and does not fulfill the REF result of taking back control

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0b7xg7t/the-brexit-lectures-series-1-jacob-reesmogg-on-brexit

Nomlungu, its well known on here that Scancell have in the past had close ties with Conservative MP George Freeman what most have not done is actually looked at his CV

For the seven years prior to being elected he was Founder and Chairman of the specialist translational medicine consultancy 4D Biomedical Ltd. Prior to that he was CEO of Cambridge start-up Amedis Pharmaceuticals, and before that the Director of Early Stage Ventures at Merlin Biosciences. Straight after university, Freeman worked in Westminster as a lobbyist for the National Farmers Union.

Now I appreciate Sarah Wollaston mp on the health Com. gets a little excited that the world will end for patients etc next year however this is not the case, indeed once free of EU strangulation we can thrive again with dynamism

THE European Union held back the booming British biotech industry with its “anti innovation regulations” and prevented the UK from taking its scientific expertise onto a global platform, a Conservative MP said.

George Freeman, Conservative MP for Mid Norfolk, hit out at Brussels and accused the EU of behaving with “regulatory hostility” towards biotech.

Arguing that there exists an “anti-science” agenda in Brussels, he said: “The growing hostility of the EU to ‘biotech’ has had a hugely damaging effect on the EU Bioscience Economy over the last five years.

“Just as the genomic revolution has been starting to offer untold opportunities across medicine and agriculture, the EU has been developing an increasingly hostile regulatory framework which has undermined Europe as a hub of biotechnology.”

https://www.georgefreeman.co.uk/content/why-we-can%E2%80%99t-let-eu-regulations-hold-back-uk-innovation

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/974825/brexit-news-eu-regulation-science-innovation-george-freeman-tory-mp

I hope that helps, the EU is not the premier place for a dynamic economy its way to inward looking and you only have to look at the Balance sheet of the ECB that QE has got a little out of hand it will be interesting how they unwind Trillions ...

Any APC that has strayed into the path at the point of injection is also fused with DNA directly from the electroporation device, other cells that have been opened up by this process are also "infected" they are then programed to release antibodies with are the "immuno bodies" they then lock back on to the APC (dendritic cell) and give it another set of instructions, so the APC is effectively on the war path, as its now received 2 distinct set of instructions that these Particular Antigens are a threat. which is why you get such high avidity t cells produced. So this cross presentation effect can only be achieved at present from the electroporation device when used with an immunobody vaccine, now this damage as i have pointed out before induces cytokines that flip the APC to produce high avidity and pro inflammatory signals to the T cells that engage with it.

now the binding route via the FC receptor is part of the patent

The invention relates to the use of a polypeptide that comprises i) a first portion comprising the part of human Fc that binds to CD64, and ii) a second portion comprising one or more heterologous T cell epitopes for stimulating a cytotoxic T cell response. The polypeptide may be an antibody that may be used to stimulate a cytotoxic T cell response against pathogens and tumor cells in patients in need of such treatment.

really this one could actually be run as a joint program with Scancells project ie £40m with both groups working together so as to stop over lap of data collection.

Dissecting the tissue specificity of cancer drivers
Lead: Professor Stephen Elledge
Grand Challenge: Tissue Specificity
Countries: The Netherlands and USA

Professor Elledge's team want to generate a comprehensive map of cancer drivers and their specificity to different tissues. This has the potential to improve our basic understanding of cancer, and provide information that will impact therapeutic choices for patients.

This team is made up of geneticists, clinicians and bioinformaticians.

You only have to look at the mandate for the Grant

Cancer Research UK's Grand Challenge is the most ambitious cancer research grant in the world - a series of £20m awards seeking international, multidisciplinary teams willing to take on the toughest challenges in cancer - providing the freedom to try novel approaches, at scale, in the pursuit of life changing discoveries.

then compare Scancells efforts to the other 9, of which most are trying to map to give them scope to develop further projects or spin offs from that research

So scancells is really the only one that has the research already developed, and wants to move that on to the most efficient way of targeting the most difficult cancers to treat to a Position of "cure" rather than a position of maintenance of a chronic illness

movement into ISA ?

who mentioned your IQ ? you yourself admitted your joke had failed.

read what is actually written ...

Ruckrover, unfortunately i do take investing serious, hence my desire to explain the science at great lengths to those that are interested, as Scancell is researching an area that inflicts enormous damage to peoples lives ie people actually die, your attempts at comedy should be put into context to all intent and purposes they are not even funny ... however some low IQ individual my smile if presented with your text and a banana

is that addressed to me ?

and if so what have a posted that you feel is not correct

look you have spent now two days arguing with yourself about something i did not post ....

somebody posted this recently

""" I am all for letting everyone express an opinion but uncomfortable with the targeted attacks on individuals"""

and it was not Rolls Royce ... RR

it is actually the bigger picture, you are already seen the Grand Challenge play out with Modi1 as the players gear up for the trials with signed agreements in place

so Modi1 has an agreement to use ISA Amplivant technology

BioNtech has an agreement after the collaboration to take an option on the modi1 epitopes. for personal vaccines.

The Grand challenge adds another layer the "investigator led trial "

What is driving the need for IITs? Clinical trials are not, and cannot be, designed to determine all the potential uses for a medication. IITs expand product knowledge, including safety. Physician researchers often identify new ways of using existing treatments, thus improving the health of numerous other patients. And there is always greater weight attached to non-industry sources of data. Even large pivotal randomized clinical trials are done by academic research organizations, e.g., Public Health Research Institute (PHRI) or Duke Clinical Research Institute (DCRI).

On the face of it we must have more investigator initiated trials. The usual practice is to design global clinical development programs (with the help of researcher-clinicians) and then place studies in countries where carefully selected investigators execute the study under the oversight of clinical operations. The principal investigator is sometimes reduced to being a pure implementer. At least those clinicians who participate in protocol development meetings get the satisfaction of being a part of cutting edge research and not merely being the executors.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3530977/

Now as we have already seen CRUK engage with SCIB2 there is a clear direct path for continued CRUK support on the modi3 program even after the research has been completed and a trial progressed.

Clearly CRUK does see Scancell as a very serious player

so really its all about how best to develop the Moditope Template to be able to achieve 100% success in patients using various routes to treatment this will be made possible by individual sequencing of the tumour and the condition of the patients immune system.

It has to otherwise scancell cannot get access to the money its that simple ... the money has to move onto scancells balance sheet to pay the bills ... either in arrears or upfront

as scancell has described it as non dilutive funding ..... scancell itself will be a beneficiary

i really do not understand your argument as set out below

""""CRUK are a charity, there are no tax implications.

The £20 mill will be spent by them, either directly or indirectly, it will not be given to Scancell, and will not appear on the balance sheet, simple as that.

Furthermore, not only is CRUK a charity, any work done on the trials will also be deemed as being R & D for an unmet need.

Scancell aren't spending the money CRUK are. """"

the problem is nobody actual reads what is written ...

my post

"So in effect its £20m of committed research funding which indirectly sits on scancells balance sheet." which = no dilutive funding

Now Tosh keeps arguing with himself that i said this ............. when the only party to say it is Tosh ...

""The statement that i take exception to, is the one that the £20 mill will show on, and bolster Scancells balance sheet, this is absolutely not true.""

all day yesterday he kept on and on about it, which is why this BB is so bad, folks are twisting whats written to create an argument

https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/5342afbc-c9d3-4a2c-8bb4-c0ab9214db68

TF as i said Tosh statement is polar opposite to mine

""""CRUK are a charity, there are no tax implications.

The £20 mill will be spent by them, either directly or indirectly, it will not be given to Scancell, and will not appear on the balance sheet, simple as that.

Furthermore, not only is CRUK a charity, any work done on the trials will also be deemed as being R & D for an unmet need.

Scancell aren't spending the money CRUK are. """"

yet you posted we are all correct ....... ?

not sure how balanced your fence is ,,, But

even separated Toshs points .... as an Accountant TF just give your opinion as those points are Toshs argument you cannot select bits of toshs post to try to make a neutral statement that both points are correct when they are polar opposites

now this is what Tosh Posted

CRUK are a charity, there are no tax implications.

The £20 mill will be spent by them, either directly or indirectly, it will not be given to Scancell, and will not appear on the balance sheet, simple as that.

Furthermore, not only is CRUK a charity, any work done on the trials will also be deemed as being R & D for an unmet need.

Scancell aren't spending the money CRUK are.

the consortium

calm down ...

now this is what Tosh Posted

CRUK are a charity, there are no tax implications.

The £20 mill will be spent by them, either directly or indirectly, it will not be given to Scancell, and will not appear on the balance sheet, simple as that.

Furthermore, not only is CRUK a charity, any work done on the trials will also be deemed as being R & D for an unmet need.

Scancell aren't spending the money CRUK are.

no i did not

I posted

£20m of committed research funding which indirectly sits on scancells balance sheet.

not my fault you cannot read ONW

i even clarified it further by posting

""""How its drawn down directly affects how its sits, Upfront would mean cash is on the balance sheet or in paid arrears

but both ways fit into the "debtors and creditors" which sits on the balance sheet. It has to otherwise you cannot account for anything,""""