Member Info for inanaco

they are not evaluating the science of building a TCR vaccine, that has already been done.

To this end, we have developed a proprietary platform technology for high-throughput cloning and characterization of naturally selected TCRs. Our CAR and TCR platform is fast and flexible and allows for TCR isolation from single T lymphocytes of patient samples in as little as 11 days. With these features, the platform has the potential to become a mainstream tool for truly personalized and broadly applicable targeted immunotherapies.

what we are doing is

"""" to discover and characterise T cell receptors specific for citrullinated epitopes from vimentin and enolase""""

So evaluating which epitopes are immunogenic has already been done, and is different to identifying T cells that are immunogenic which is what they are doing, but Lindy has told you, we have this science already.

its like car counting on a motorway, so your only counting the red ones, sub groups would be model and age

ie your not evaluating the Red Cars your just counting them which is exactly what they are doing.

characterise = """ describe the distinctive nature or features of.""""

.

They are not evaluating ..........

Under the terms of the agreement, Scancell and BioNTech will enter into an initial research collaboration to discover and characterise T cell receptors specific for citrullinated epitopes from vimentin and enolase

Lindy has already explained the science of identification in the Feb Vid for Calculus.

BioNTech will have the exclusive option to enter into a licence agreement for the development of cell receptor based therapeutics that are specific to Modi-1 epitopes.

Its not up to scancell to develop TCR vaccines, as Lindy has already explained that they can identify down to the individual T cell that has gone active to the moditope epitope, Then the science of identifying and cloning out the TCR is BioNtechs.

As this is done in human blood not mice, scancell has shown that the moditope epitopes are immunogenic

otherwise you would not get an "activated t cell"

The fact that Genentech and BioNtech which are the drivers of TCR and have signed up to the Modi3 program subject to the grant is a clear indicator that the Modi1 TCR program is on track.

This applies to Moditope as well ...

2016 i suggested "Can we stress cancer" further sparking some debate, but that real debate did not take place until the full extent of the adjuvants came into play

so again the science moved on, it did not slow down as Scancell hunted for something that most efficiently stressed cancer ...

well that was the TH1 CD4 T cell promoted by Amplivant technology ... from ISA Pharma

so the original Modi1 evolved over time as understanding gathered pace.

so the science has not slowed its accelerated

This has a dramatic effect over time on the Bottom line ...

1/ we can treat more patients effectively, and that is crucial ... no health service wants to pay big bucks for a treatment that only works in a small percentage of patients ...

so how does that relate to the SP ...

its reacted to that inversely ..

TF

"""My own thought train is that the science expanded massively and that has inevitably put the Scancell project into a different order of magnitude and as a result, maybe progress in any one direction has slowed."""

It not that the Science has expanded massively which has caused a slow down, its that scancell has adapted its model because of that understanding

so for instance PD1 has shown success in the adjuvant market

SCIB1 has been tested in trial in the adjuvant market and has shown clear benefit

so lets look a bit more closely at that area

so we know that PD1 has efficacy in both the aduvant and advanced stage of decease however it still has a level of toxicity that has to be considered.

we know that Synergy exists because I have shown "process" of that synergy is pretty clear cut.

so lets look at the market again,

Adjuvant stage can be split into two groups

those given SCIB1 and those given SCIB1 plus PD1

it really simple now because

The collaborative study, which also included a team at the University of Nottingham, developed a method using a panel of seven tumour associated autoantibodies to predict disease recurrence in patients with resected Stage III/IV melanoma treated with Scancell's SCIB1 immunotherapy. Whilst Phase I/II trials with SCIB1 have been highly encouraging, this additional information potentially enables the identification of patients prior to commencement of therapy who are most likely to respond to treatment in future clinical trials with SCIB1.

so here we have over time the development of biomarkers that will decide how we treat melanoma patients to a far high degree of precision and indeed as time goes on further additional products that are able to interact with the immune suppression environment will come into play .........

so the science is NOT slowing down, over time the bigger players have accepted this view, which is why so many are trying to prove compatibility with PD1 ...

This really is the only way the Immunobody program can be rapidly commercially exploited in the short term.

so that efficacy level is critical in the mass market applications of SCIB1 and PD1.

Our competition is only other vaccine designers we do not need to compete with other inhibitors of suppression or immune stimulation because effectively we have synergy

this platform is not the place to ask for news flow ... why would you think it was ? Its nothing to do with Scancell, and indeed why would the Directors follow this page as some sort of Guidance ? Yet again tomorrow they are presenting to Scancell investors. What more can they do, the RNS system is not a publicity platform. Its the place that any thing that may affect the share price is announced. As Scancell has stated its in discussions with third parties, what more information can they give ? do you want to be like parliament that feels 600 odd MPS can negotiate directly with the EU ?

Pi deserve a better news flow ?

how does that work ?

Is Stingray on the TV ? lol

risk is always personal ..

so how can i change ?

ie how you see it ......

the risk is all in the science, if the science is good the risk evaporates, its that simple, the bigger the divergence from standard of care, the greater the value, it really is all about the science .. the only way you can fully appreciate my statements is to get up to speed to the level i have, or accept when i say to folks prove a statement and they cannot, then that statement IMHO is either flawed or i then have to prove it is, which is why so many get upset.

leas post cannot carry weight against that statement as he has not researched scancell, You asked why is the SP so low, well Leas and others have yet to quantify, even thou they have been around the share for years... He actually has highlighted why ...........

You can still base this current SP value just on SCIB1 ... as regards commercial aspects .. you don't even have to consider moditope or scib2 in any equation ... at 12p ... its a Mad SP ....

"" but does that mean it will definitely be commercialised? ""

i suggest you read that link from goosed you posted this morning and try and work it from that

C7 you cannot compare your portfolio with anybody .... why would you ?

and mine is completely different to yours and Boom i suspect, because of the commercial property element.

what this is about, is a continuation of the moonparty posts really about risk analysis, binary events, etc .... what to buy etc.

Leas posted he has not researched scancell science, as such its not in his portfolio ...

the post includes that statement ...

"" its not that Leas bought and sold and made profit etc, """"

lets try it another way boom as the last time you got confused in discussions.

My history in scancell has been all about the science ..

"""SCIB1 combo will be a success because i have been unable to disprove process of synergy """

so that is a clear statement of risk analysis ...

now if i am wrong it really does mean i have lost the plot and have seriously missed something.

now if an investor does not understand the science your in effect gambling .. quite simple

ie the fact that you sold IMM = you did not trust the science to deliver ...!!

Now your name was not mentioned in the original post .. so why are you taking this so personal ?

the trial failed ... i assume you understand that ?

you must be bored ONW

its well documented ONW ie most knew about the proposed split and the discussions. If you feel the importance of this issue is so great research it yourself.
At the AGM it came up in the questions and answer section, so not part of any resolution. The fact that you have mentioned it to C7 regarding DE supposed comments indicates it was not propaganda which is what C7 implied by using the word theory.

so i am not exactly sure what your pontificating about ... ?

ONW i was at the 2012 AGM .. along with the other 8 shareholders approx .. so don't tell me what was discussed unless you have factual evidence, the reason why they did not split, was because of the Tax position would be extremely complex

so as a point of order, your more than welcome to write to scancell and ask Richard for confirmation, the important part, this was not made up propaganda.

but he then replies with this .......

leas
Posts: 4,435
Opinion: No Opinion
Price: 12.30
RE: leasThu 21:29C7 I am looking at buying in but as I have said before I would be more comfortable with investing on momentum. I know that will conflict with many but I don't understand enough of the science to do otherwise. (Lack of research)
I would be comfortable losing a few pennies missing the bottom. Trust me finding the top will be hard.

C7 thank you for your comments, I' am totally chilled on my hols and tbh happier that your health has improved.

"""""clearly indicating he does not have sufficient understanding to invest """"

so while you are promoting parties that actively supported IMM science that failed in trial .... i question your judgement C7 its not that Leas bought and sold and made profit etc, its the fact that they got the risk analysis wrong in the first place to buy in thus it became a Gamble rather than an investment.

leas has failed to make a Risk analysis of Scancell science .......so really is not in a position to even pass comment.

By the way the Buy one get one free was not a theory it was actually discussed at the AGM Scancell BOD suggested the split ...

reads like the labour party

we don't want to be in The Single market, we want to be in "A" single market
we don't want to be in The customs union but we want to be in "A" customs union .

what part of my post don't you understand ?

do you agree that A "t cell" is the active component or not in an immune response ?

you seem to be making the point that you don't understand even that statement

can you explain ?

the problem is nobody can prove cuckoo land for another "2 years after trials start" which i suspect will be Dec 2018 .. so Dec 2020 is my anticipated target date ....