The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
Hi Ray,
Was aware of that LD comment and someone could well come in and buy Immunobody as a platform as we already know it is validated in oncology which generally should be much easier to do than in infectious diseases but no guarantees.
I was wanting to separate out the likely different types of partner/ buyer who may be interested in Covidity as opposed to the whole platform.
Some big pharma like Merck may well be interested in a Covid Vax but not interested in the platform as they already have say have established Flu Vax.
Some may be interested in the whole platform and simply seek “ validation” it works in other areas like Covid and potential for others.
One of difficulties with the Covidity programme if you are interested in the platform is that it involves both Immunobody and Avidmab so hard to put a precise division between the two platforms in terms of which has worked best and by how much.That is immaterial if you want to partner on Covidity which seems SCLP preferred option rather than Immunobody as a whole which seems a complete sale is preferred option.
All things are possible but prime thing is to get good data and proceed from there.
Hi Ruck,
The two risks imo are firstly if the data is not good.However personally expect it to be fine.
The 2nd one is whether it is good enough and commercially attractive enough to attract a partner to progress it through to Approval.
I am not of the opinion that it will mean someone will be interested in the whole Immunobody platform as that has been validated in oncology but not infectious diseases,but again I think it will be.
However, it is Covidity which will be target not the platform imo and that has big implications to levels of interest in the platform
Morning,
I was actually at St James Park for 1st game but not Edgar Street to see the RR special (Ronnie Radford rather than Ruck Rover unless Robert Redford had a brother who played footy lol).
To me the main implication of the value of Covidity is it is paramount to securing a partner to develop the Vax further.If the results are not good enough or the market value cannot be realised then it is worth very little.
However,if results are very good which is what we anticipate due to great science and if we can demonstrate a universality then the prospects of securing a partner are much heightened and that is what will validate and establish true value in the platform.
Morning see all the previous posts have been taken down again.
Never mind todays RNS should get sone discussion going
https://www.investegate.co.uk/scancell-hlds--sclp-/rns/preclinical-data-at-the-euromabnet-annual-meeting/202209230700073799A/
See that Robert Miller does not list SCLP among his “ jobs” on his profile.
It could be that he is still employed as MD at SCLP as well as Dr Gilles O’Bryan-Tear who is now saying he is part time at SCLP whilst his main focus is in Australia so I would like clarification and great to see LD appears totally focused on SCLP as a fair few folk in Senior positions do seem to be in part time or interim positions.
Ruck completely agree.
I took your Tesco comment as tongue in cheek rather than a “ negative”.I share your thoughts re people excitedly reacting to a potential new PhD student joint or likes on a F/B page and then get accused by certain folk of being negative.
It is called balance and wanting to discuss both sides of the coin.
So let me pose the question?
Has the CMO announced 2 years ago ever been employed by SCLP or has he left or is he still employed.Don’t know what the going rate is these days but guess a CMO potentially leaving may be more much significant than a PhD joining.
Absolutely Drew some people join and some may leave as Bermuda says would be good to get a update.
For eg is the CMO still in a job as he does not include SCLP on his profile but I may have missed the announcement.
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjRiuqa2Iz6AhUGY8AKHVXwD2oQFnoECAMQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fuk.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fgillies-o-bryan-tear-4240776&usg=AOvVaw1vDdFlXs95-YngVZ0urX1V
Morning HL,
Depends how active you want to be and how much “ advice” you may require.
If you make most of your own decisions which I presume you do then I find HL as good as any. When you require their help then it is poor in terms of customer service but their access to trading is very good and minimal fuss but depends on how much you decide your own outcomes or not.
Morning Flakey,
Fully understand and glad your new strategy is working and one that seems to work for many.
I do feel this is a very good fit for your modus operandi as there are a number of potential good catalysts due with the possibility of a real game changer.
The involvement of RM and Vulpes takes away the threat of all these non revenue generating outfits in needing to raise until at least 2024 so we’ll worth the risk/ reward imo.
Thought about going to food festival yesterday but decided on local Pride event which was great day out.If you did go hope plenty of cheese samples.
ATB
Evening Flakey,
Hope your w/ end is going well- you can buy me lunch at Rookery Hall if this or NWF boat comes in.
Interesting to see Burbles point on energy costs which may have a short/ medium term impact but as Chester says the beauty here is the multiple shots on goal and we only need one to hit back of net as JVT would say to make us all happy.
The frustration you highlight is an ongoing one with SCLP that of only releasing news when something meaningful happens. This leads to much speculation as we don’t have regular updates from SCLP and it is hard to predict whether the news will be good or bad even if we have a lot of confidence in the science and approach.
Interesting article
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2204717119
SCLP traditionally like to do own recruitment and not use agencies.
The pool of people applying is relatively small and they can target those.
May well be a post doctoral student looking for a job as these are not particularly well paid jobs in first instance.
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiY-86VkO75AhX8Q0EAHS7RDZkQFnoECBEQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.glassdoor.com%2FSalaries%2Fnottingham-senior-scientist-salary-SRCH_IL.0%2C10_IM1183_KO11%2C27.htm&usg=AOvVaw1yASONKDDAfU2tY3111xoO
Morning,
Ray it does seem to involve a lot of translational stuff which is more domain of Oxford but is based in Nottingham which is good to see.
As trial recruitment steps up they will need additional resources and think it is prudent and planned step and not related to anything to do with early results.
More Kate Bingham
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/aug/27/kate-bingham-ex-vaccine-chief-covid-uk-science-superpower
Morning yes nice find JB,
Again not sure why Covidity is highlighted unless you out in very specific search criteria in your link but they appear to be a site as you say to link patients to trials.
In certain situations trial patients are paid to undergo trials and this may be where they can monetise this service or alternatively work via the CROs recruiting for the trials.
Find it strange that likes of Pfizer are associated with them as yes understand they would want to support the recruitment of patients for global Covid Vax trials etc but they predominantly work through CROs and patient advocacy groups.There are some very strong ethical issues in seeking to encourage potential patients to take part in certain conditions such as oncology where the eligibility and selection requirements are more complex and primarily led by lead trial investigators who need to consider the suitability of trial patients in a much wider context.