Member Info for Ivyspivey

Not like you Erik to try and wind folk up thought you left that to Coggy on Tsbs lol
Hope all is well and could we finally get finally be making some sort of progress.

Morning surprised no discussion on todays RNS

Hi Botski if I recall correctly then I do think the SCIB 1 results were superior however I wonder if this quote from the link is relevant.

The study is “important because it’s the first randomized study of a cancer vaccine with a clinically meaningful endpoint: stopping tumors from coming back,” said Dr. Margaret Callahan, research director of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Immunotherapeutics Program, who expressed cautious optimism about the findings.

“This is an exciting advance in the field of cancer vaccines, an area notoriously tough to make progress in,” Callahan said.

The use of the worlds first “ randomised” may highlight the difference as I never understood why the compelling results of SCIB 1 never seemed to get external traction and I recall a suggestion that the trial lists picked were not randomised and of as you say smaller cohorts but welcome any other views/ comments.

Lots of coverage of cancer Vax which can only hugely lift the profile of SCLP

https://t.co/Bxrck6jOMl

https://t.co/jrb71bkdTO

Talk of a big shift in cancer treatment towards Vax at AACR

Bojo not sure if you were around in 2015 when the original meeting with KF occurred but it was a real feather in the cap for RG/LD to attract interest of KF and JW to act as trial investigators for SCIB 1.
The inability to get the US IND was a major disappointment based on the fantastic efforts to get such high profile individuals on board.
If they were to announce something as significant along the original lines for Modi 1 then we really will be at the races ( no pun intended whilst Grand National is about to start)

Hi TF,
Not particularly a great find as only a simple google search.I did notice KF name on the AACR programme and building on what others have highlighted about his importance it reminded me of the RG/LD breakfast meeting which led to the SCIB 1 interest and proposed US trial etc if I recall correctly.
I recall the description of the meeting which lasted much longer than expected and the obvious interest from KF.
It highlighted the importance of attending these events and although AACR is huge if you wanted to make a big splash then at least trying to arrange a Meeting with KF in advance would make sense.Anyway I am sure he would be very interested in any Modi trial results from a purely scientific view and even if a Meeting was nit planned these events can offer a great opportunity to advance the Science and when you have 2 recognised global experts who already know each other it seems that the chance of some type of discussion even informal makes sense.
As I said it may or may not be planned as LD May have a different perspective as a Scientist and a CEO but it would be of mutual interest between both parties even if there could be many more demands in both of their time

Morning CW and BS,
Yes Keith Flaherty a huge name from the last and we remember the breakfast meeting which if I recall correctly was “ opportunistic”.
Well KF is editor in chief of AACR and a Fellow as well as his numerous other accolades.
Given his obvious respect for LD and her team it would seem “ likely” that their paths would cross this week abd would love to be a fly on the wall

Afternoon Razzle,
No idea unless people are linking this with Dechra news but totally unrelated.

Afternoon.
Fully agree RR and AB the Vulpes note is imo well balanced and gives a good insight as to the undoubted potential here and it is nice to see their views expressed in such a way.
The note does highlight a bit of their frustration again shared by many on here that SCLP need to put as much weight behind the commercialisation and monetisation of the science to truly reward SH as they have in developing the Science.
I think it is refreshing that a fully invested and well informed party can come up with a comprehensive and balanced report which they seriously conclude should be reflected by a much higher SP.

Great find FD and their thoughts chime with many in here

Hi TF
Did you also see the below link which is contained in Burbles article and gives some idea of CEPI approach re future Virus Vax which you asked about

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/apr/07/covid-vaccines-golden-era-pandemic-techology-diseases

Morning TF,
Personally feel that SCLP are redirecting their effort away from infectious disease and back to their core strategy of oncology and again is partly evidenced by non appearance at World Vaccine Congress currently going on where likes of CEPI have a big presence.
Makes a lot of sense in terms of risk/ reward and priority of resource allocation within SCLP both in human and finance terms so fine by me and of course some of the wider lessons learned by Covid trial such as use of Pharmajet and Avidmab will imo prove invaluable in helping SCLP move forward in oncology trials

Looks like their platforms are a really good way of getting DNA Vaccines into the patient and that SCLP has made a very good choice.

https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/11/2/280

https://www.fiercebiotech.com/biotech/fda-floats-oncology-authorization-shake-pitching-one-trial-model-accelerated-and-full

Yep TF,
I am not suggesting a CH replacement as in a CEO just someone who has the relevant commercial experience and expertise.Their exact position can be decided by mutual discussion but needs to be a Senior appointment

Morning TF,
Chester raises a point that some of us have thought has been needed since the departure of CH ie the need to recruit a more commercial oriented senior appointed person to not only help negotiate commercial deals but provide a better balance between the science and commercial side/ ease LD workload etc.
I do think that SCLP can easily afford this type of appointment and you can always skew the package towards share options if you were concerned about cost.
However I think it is more a question of SCLP cannot afford not to strengthen that side of the business for a whole host of reasons.

Hi TF,
Understand the wish to move on and happy to do so as we have mainly expressed our views and as you say there are two different viewpoints both raising valid points which have been discussed ad infinitum.
I was simply responding to WF question out of courtesy but fully appreciate these differing views can often lead to personal spats as they quickly escalate.
Good that polite people like yourself intervene to stop that from happening and remind us there is so much positive stuff to comment on

Morning WF,
As you asked the question and as someone who agrees with Bermuda and Burble about not discussing this specific case on this forum, I did look at the MM forum.
This was simply to acquaint me with the facts so that I would be fully aware of any points of discussion where “ facts” may be disputed.
However I do not support discussion of any individual case unless officially RNSd fir 2 reaisns.
1. The patient in question highlighted that they did not want to have their posts dissected and discussed on Social media or wider non MM forums which serve an entirely different purpose to discussions here.
2.Any one individual result must be taken in the context of a much wider trial population and we have seen how uniformed opinion can lead to all kinds of “ speculation ” when all we need to do is await official news from SCLP.
To repeat I am very positive about the Modi trial but simply want to remain patient and await news rather than guess the results in advance by unbridled speculation about the results of one patient .
ATB

Morning,
A positive RNS for me in that it says the manu of the Omicron model is complete so ready for the characterisation study assuming regulatory approval etc.
Vaxart news was released yesterday for very good reasons and good that postponement means that will not affect 2023 forecast and of course opens up another slot which is more likely.
Getting Vaxart to co develop model and “ cancellation/ delay” fee backs the sound operational way that HVO operate and am comfortable that HVO will fill the slot on even better terms.

Morning Cleaner/Ruck,
Very interesting article and very reflective of big pharma at the time which fully recognised they needed to change their model and likes of Eli Lilly and Merck specifically targeted MBA Marketing students to try and redress the balance as they recognised the need to move from a product,to a selling then a marketing approach.
They put equal emphasis on the commercial as well as the science and this has proven very effective and many small Biopharma like SCLP can gain much from outside experience in order to fully develop and commercialise the Science.