Member Info for inanaco

well Ruckrover it did not take you long for you to Rubbish the "alternative view"

typical .

Clearly Boom you are not reading what i have posted. instead you have just quoted generalised statements which is exactly what i have just been discussing ... systemic v non systemic

if you group all active compounds you will get a slewed Statistic ...

The posts i have made are not confusing, as they include very sound reasoning ...

Your issue now is, you have rejected industry "norms" with this post you made which contradicts

SCLPInanaco17 Jun '18
It's promising, it's positive and it can only help with the change in sentiment towards cancer vaccines . However, it's a different vaccine from a different company against different antigens in a different cancer (and HPV at that) with just 8 patients responding

Is it proof that there is no risk here? Of course it isn't. Is it proof of synergy between SCIB1 and Keytruda? No it's not. It's encouraging that human trials in other vaccines support the preclinical research carried out by Scancell but it's no more than that at this stage.

generates a response that Attacks healthy self cells (the systemic risk)

or

It does not work, ie generates weak T cells or an incorrect target ....

that's it ...

so SCIB1, has proved it does not attack self and proved it generates the correct T cells to the target

now PD1 MAB's are a systemic treatment ie ... they interact with whole body function with the immune system

so from a risk perspective of trial failure .. a systemic treatment is far higher, a lot more avenues exist for problems.

do you see my point Boom ?

C7 i do not have a clue what you have just posted in reply to my post, i have not mentioned short term targets indeed i won't for the simple reason that i have invested for the long haul ie past 2 years, from trial starts Modi1/scib1/2 etc.
which is why i consider an £8 target realistic with what will be known by then.

boom the active side is T cells .... scancell does not manufacture T cells in fact we are even disconnected from them as our target is the APC's ... they take the instructions from the vaccine and decide to engage a t cell and bind with it, they are the party that generates the exact MHC class molecule to engage

the Problem is C7 the process has already been in human trial, and shown synergy the issue is, why has the market not understood that. which is why i referred to any science that could dispute that synergy.

i welcome any alternative view that would "demonstrate" that SCIB1 may not synergies with PD1 ...

has any one actually noticed Modi2 .............

Modi-2 targets multiple solid tumours (including oesophageal, gastric, colorectal, breast (non-TNBC), cervical, prostate, liver, renal, endometrial, bladder and thyroid tumours) and pre-clinical development of selected epitopes is planned during 2018. The Company expects to characterise its Modi-2 development candidate and begin GMP manufacturing in H2 2019.

have any one any idea of value if that is successful ?

That one vaccine can hit more targets than any pd1 has shown to date

so basically refined is ... finger in the air Rule .. which way is the wind blowing ?

whats interesting within 6 months is ...

it falls into two windows

the Grand Challenge result and the potential commercialising of moditope TCR

Both potentially having huge effect on the balance sheet which will be massively strengthened to allow non dilutive research with the grand Ch. and the potential up front payments, stage payments, and royalties based on 3 epitopes with Mod TCR

then we have 3 trails starting, and about to start. ...

try and look at this TCR another way .........

if a deal is done ........ it proves the moditope epitopes which de- risks the actual modi1 trial, the science in effect is getting two pre clinical testing rather than the normal one, not only that, this testing is actually carried out on human blood, not mice.

said this many times, Scancell only activates the immune system its not in itself an active drug, which is why you must never compare to standard industry rules of potential trial failures etc.

The elevated risk was back in 2012 .... today ? would love somebody to actually show that the process of synergy of PD1 and SCIB1 could fail ... give us something of interest, some sort of reasoning ...
Because as yet there is No alternative views, apart from "unrefined statements"

what i said was ,,,

The injection site causes minor injury which causes an immune response releasing cytokines that influence not the way the immunobody is locking on to the dendritic cells, these cytokines primes the Dendritic cells to generate a pro inflammatory T cell programmed by the immunobody epitopes. Its seems to have a similar effect as the Amplivant adjuvant that is built into moditope which also primes to pro inflammatory

My point being switching to a nanovesicle delivery because of the sore arm is not as straight forward as it would appear, because the sore arm is an integral part of the way the immunobody vaccine works

Your getting close Ray apart from C.

If a CD8 comes into contact with a PD1 ligand its turned off,

which is why its called the escape phase

the speed of that escape phase is still controlled by the immune response which is why so many patients have unpredictable outcomes

question is do you need it ?

should be

do you need to know any more ?

https://www.immunology.org/public-information/bitesized-immunology/cells/cd8-t-cells

When a CD8+ T cell recognises its antigen and becomes activated, it has three major mechanisms to kill infected or malignant cells. The first is secretion of cytokines, primarily TNF-α and IFN-γ, which have anti-tumour and anti-viral microbial effects.

IFN-y is interferon gamma

Cd4 helper also release IFYN-y but its also doing loads more including activating clonal expansion of the CD8 the CD4 is the conductor ... of a symphony its a highly complex engagement

question is do you need it ? the reason why i say that is because scancell only activates, it does not have to control this immune response other than get the right t cells switched on and primed for pro inflammatory then nature takes over,

however the PD1 Group are trying to control that environment

which is why i keep saying the Trial will be a success .... because the "process" of both are proven ...

the vaccine will activate

and the PD1 group can control ..

Ray ..

Interferon gamma is released by activated T cells ... this up regulates PD1 ligand on the cancer, a t cell detecting that ligand is turned then OFF suppressing the inflammation

The T cells are binding to the epitopes displayed by the cancer ... this activates them to kill the cancer cell its detected.

so the cancer has hijacked a method to stop t cells attacking ...........which is why its called the escape phase

TECENTRIQ is part of the group of MABS that target the PD1 molecule on the cancer or the t cell by blocking its action of turning off an immune response.

SCIB1 is a targeted vaccine to a cell mediated response to the adaptive immune system that once activated produces proven T cells capable of engaging cancer.

as such Synergy exists between ALL the products in the PD1 group (those that have proven in trail )

Genentech clearly have links to BioNtech and are joining in with the Grand Challenge

However on what commercial basis, we have no idea. .... answer that and you solve the SP puzzle .. because if they announce a tie up ... we are suddenly linked to a $100b plus company possibly on both platforms.

sorry scib2

Ray Tecentriq. is a synergy product with SCIB1 ..

Tecentriq blocks PD-L1 - an important ligand found on the surface of cancer cells that camouflage them from detection and destruction by the immune system.

Clinical data showed that people with NSCLC treated with Tecentriq (atezolizumab) lived a median of 13.8 months, 4.2 months longer than those receiving standard chemotherapy, while also experiencing less side effects.

“We are delighted that NICE has revised its decision, meaning that people living with this devastating form of cancer will now have access to a much needed treatment," said Simon Eayrs, integrated franchise lead at Roche Products Ltd.

interesting when researching the science you do not know if the research will throw up a negative or a positive to the science of Scancell

what i can say, no negative has been thrown up

like i said ... as long as you can activate .. the immune system can do its own thing independent of scancell

which is why understanding Process rather than specifics is as important, because then you can apply that to

synergy of SCIB1 and PD1 ...

sent on the 21st june Boom ...

will have to find the link again, but the copied text is pretty well explanatory ...