Member Info for Ivyspivey

Vascular more old info but illustrative of the huge progress that has been made by SCLP.

Back in 2015 RG said at the AGM how proud he was to be welcoming shareholders to a £30m market cap outfit. Although the SP was very similar look at the market cap now to see the outstanding success that has allowed SCLP to become such a major player with unlimited potential.

CW it could be licensed out but it is an entirely different market so SCLP would need to prove it and after they abandoned the Covidity Vax it would imo moot be worth it .

As I said the oncology space is much harder to achieve success in and the SCLP assets are absolutely first class and are the absolute priority for SCLP.

Some may disagree but myself and a few other posters have always felt the science here is compelling and increasingly it has become obvious that the potential here is indeed extremely high. Yes we may have traded a few more on the spikes than maybe some of LTH but please do not see that as a sign of lack of confidence here just reacting to how we think the market behaves and of course we see other attractive stocks in the market.

Again we may disagree with some of the touted valuations and the concept of risk and none of us can predict those with certainty but please just accept us as having a different viewpoint on the journey of travel and final destination as some on here rather than some binary disagreement about the fantastic situation SCLP find themselves in .

Enjoy B/ H all

CW the Oxford Ebola Vax is based on their ChAdOx technology which uses the Chimpazee Adenovirus as the Vector to get the Glyco protein into the body. Very similar to their Covid Vax which had no connection to the SCLP approach which uses different technology.

We know getting Vax to work vs Cancer targets is more difficult that infectious disease and that is why I consider SCLP is focused in that area rather than have any connection you highlight

Value inflection

Morning Chester,

Really good to see the recent increase in SP and plenty more to go.

I do think it is likely imo they will go it alone and I understand that is what RM would prefer but of course it depends on the value of any deal.and will be pharma interest and see GSK are looking to oncology as a big strategic focus.

Like you I would prefer a payout now but appreciate others may favour waiting another few years for val

Enjoy Thailand and a nice response.

I do think the chances of success in the phase 3 are very high given p2 results and general levels of confidence but as Phil said there is still risk albeit relatively low and of course there are many other shots at goal.

I guess like many I would prefer a deal and can decide to move on and focus on the other assets but obviously if SCLP go it alone then the potential value is much higher and the timeline of course is much longer.

Very similar a mining share I am in after a 10 year plus journey do you take the deal for a very nice return or do you hold out for the mega pay off which may or may not come.

Personally I prefer the bird in hand and leave some for the ride but we all want different things

No worries EE and the flash update was probably already posted and fully understand you wanting to see more detail.

As an aside and I do think Frank G s question was very interesting why don’t you give him a call and I certainly have spoken to him and found him very responsive. obviously within the strict limits of being a retail investor but he is a big fan of SCLP and I find his views relevant.

My understanding as well is that most of the US funds like RM prefer the assets to be developed until the full value inflection point but of course a blockbuster offer could change all that

EE TD have updated

https://www.trinitydelta.org/research-notes/h126-solid-iscib1-data-underpins-planned-progress/

They also updated after the FDA news but above is after interims

Https://www.investegate.co.uk/announcement/rns/scancell-holdings--sclp/research-update/9218344

Morning CW perhaps I can add something here as have been involved in selling the Melanoma Vaccine in Dogs for a long time and also worked for Merck for many years.

The market sizes are totally different in terms of size and scale and imo there will no interest in the Veterinary Market.

By coincidence I once met Richard Goodfellow son who is a Veterinary Oncologist

Moonparty

Is there a lot more detail in the report on SCLP site than what was reported on 11th Sept as I thought there was but can easily be wrong

Just the fact date has been confirmed and offers an opportunity to find out a lot more and just surprised there has been no comment when the matter was discussed a few days ago.

I have always found the AGMs to be a good source of update and a guide to the confidence levels andvtonget more flesh on the bone of news in report which was RNSd ion 11th Sept

Specifically AGM date

Sure you are all avidly reading report but surprised no comments on here so far.

Nice thst the reply from Lindy confirms your earlier comments.

“ As I said, it's recruiting all HLA types and looking to confirm cohort 3 findings.”.In fact her words in terms of confirming Cohort 3 findings are almost exactly identical to yours”.

Agree that the difference will be the different delivery method and dosing protocol rather than aHLA typing.

Agree Bermuda I was just trying to highlight one of the crucial differences and you highlight even more.

Add in the pivotal one in that any immune response an Infectious Disease cannot be directly compared with what will happen in a cancer setting.

As you point out the main benefits to Covidity you highlight but let us not forget it was part of the great Scientific response to a crisis situation and was in fact originated from a discussion From Lindy,Janet Daley et Al as to how best respond

Morning SCI,

I was quite happy to leave this and I can assure you I am certainly not a “ poster boy” in the eyes of many on this chat but I do refute any attempt to deliberately mislead.

I simply pointed out that the SCLP approach was to target both a humoral as well as a cell mediated response rather than the more singular approach of majority of others.

As you are also very well aware it is the CMR which is a major conduit of T cell activity rather than B cells which play an important part in the humoral response.

I will leave it there as sure we are boring others

Absolutely Ray that is why SCLP approach was so different and offered a better chance of success as it covered both Spike and Nucleocapsid part of Virus.The T cell bit is potentially more potent than the Antibody response and of course with the Covid virus the N part is the most conserved therefore more likely to offer more universal protection against other varieties like MERS/SARS and later antigenic strains like delta and omicron.

Y to

Agree SC but from what I saw the whole comparison was about responses to the S element of the Covid Vax which is much more about a humoral response.

Covidity took a different approach where it targeted the S and the N component where as you know the T Cell response is much more relevant.

Hi SC,

Have not read all the posts in detail but AFAIK you can’t directly compare the T cell response in Vax vs infectious disease as compared to cancer and especially when you are trying to measure the impact of Avidmab.

One eg would be your comparison of the Spike - specific response which we know would only include the Protein and Glyco protein response of the S part of the Covid virus.This does make sense in that I understand the mRNA essentially effects the S part whereas Covidity affects both S and N component.

As I am sure you are aware the overall T cell response is much more affected by the N part as it is generating CMR rather than the AB response more associated with the S component.