Member Info for Ivyspivey

Good to speak with you Saint but we can all be happy with our decision to be in here with so much potential news coming down the pipe.

Yep Saint opinions will always be split on these posters with big followings but at least Myles always posted really comprehensive research to back up his views.
One thing all 3 quoted Company s have in common is they have all had game changing capital raises and when you have that in bio pharma like here it really gives you confidence to buy around that level as puts a floor under price,removes any need for further raises for a very long time and of course if you get the endorsement of great funds like RM that us great for confidence.

Cheers Saint,
May be it just appears that way as both 3 Month charts exhibit similarities but fluctuating in a range of 97-130 rather than 12-15p may give impression of being more reactive to news.My main point is that one respected guy like Myles can really help publicise a share when it went from 15-200p albeit being helped by the Covid bubble.
Have not been in for a couple of years but again presume there is a large TG group which may be pretty active.

Agree Burble but would add one additional point.
Whilst we all want avoid being “ ramped” by some well known individuals and I want to be clear I am not talking about anyone on LSE or ADVFN but certain people who frequent other SM channels who pick upon usually not very good shares( which again is completely the opposite to here) and have lots of followers so you get the spike and immediate fall back.
However there are also a number of respected commentators who also have a large number of followers who can influence the SP in a much more positive way and often they may be involved in retail favourites like AVCT and likes of Myles McNulty if still in it.
I am only aware of one of these type of guys involved in SCLP but again don’t frequent the BBs and tend to only promote if news which they have done in past.
Only my thoughts but most of influence on any AIM stocks does not correlate with BB posts.

Hi Ruck,
As others have said the SP reaction is purely down to this is not a retail favourite like AVCT and as such does not get the same level of exposure and noise.
It is one of the vagaries of AIM that no matter how good the fundamentals then “ sentiment” which often manifests itself outside of BBs is often much more important in moving the SP.
If the science/ data is clearly monetised then that wider sentiment is easily attracted and if you recall the really big rises here were on the initial mention of a Covid Vax at a time when anything Covid tekated was getting huge attention and the w/ end with great coverage in Press/Sky etc which does cast a much wider influence.

Personally I pad am not worried about it being a competitor but is a retail favourite so does attract a lot of interest.
The beauty here is the number of platforms and multiple shots at goal.The potential of all the platforms whether Affimers (AVCT), Aptamers and many other approaches by many Companys remains just that potential until they are monetised or Approved and that is the same throughout they will fail or succeed by data.

Morning WTP,
I am sure the messaging on the RNSs is not to keep this under the radar but simply a historical SCLP tendency like many bio pharma who have scientists scripting them to be conservative, factual and maybe understated.
What I find most useful in these RNSs is to read the comments of LD who in fairness usually accompany’s them with a comment and watch what language she uses.
Although there is much more work to be done in this trial and news to come including the more important potentially transformational bits,the RNS imo was significant in that it confirmed there were no safety issues with the first use of Modi 1 in humans even if very low numbers.
Given the trials and tribulations of KD getting this into the clinic I think her words reflected the relief as much as anything.
It may have been “ expected” by sone based on pre clinical work but I would not underestimate that this was not guaranteed to transfer into humans and of course any bad news re the safety would have been a major negative so let us just be pleased they have delivered whether the wider market see this or not.

Morning,
Yep depending who announced partner may or may not be will be a major determinant factor of how successful Covidity will be in terms of promotion and communication and of course pricing across the globe.
All SCLP can do is produce stellar results and the scientific logic fully supports this possibility and of course will gain tremendously for any pharma deal.

As you say Bob having excellent pre clinical results is of real benefit but you can never be sure of how they translate into humans.
The fact that they have produced the initial proof that there are no safety issues in humans is a big milestone and yes we need more data but this is excellent and should be a good inflection point.

Rich,perhaps the first patient in 2nd cohort has only just been confirmed.
As SCLP are not dual listed I don't think it is due to US market but anyway is a real milestone so should be celebrated.

https://www.investegate.co.uk/scancell-hlds--sclp-/rns/first-patient-dosed-in-cohort-2-of-the-modify/202208161400062138W/

Hi Rick,
Maybe they are struggling to produce a “ universal Vaccine” but it is just a different approach so just adding valencies in a very efficient way can be very effective in combatting Covid.
It is all about finding your edge or niche big or small in any market and there will be many different approaches and we all look forward to coming news about Covidity.

Hi Ruck,it is really good news as mankind needs all the options vs Covid it can muster.
One of the beauty’s of mRNA is the relatively quick and easy way to add valencies to counter newer variants like Omicron.
They will already be tying up huge Govt contracts and the arrival in due course of Pfizer/ Bion Tech will do the same.
At the same time many people are working on a universal Covid Vaccine and again this would be a real breakthrough.
Will be great to get an update from SCLP as they will need great data,then news of a good partnership deal in order to be truly confident if them being able to move this forward.

Afternoon CW,
Some really good links and totally understand why the logic of a potential partnership between Bion Tech and SCLP but their are extremely big strategic considerations that will weigh very heavy in the equation.
Sales of the mRNA Vaccine is likely to total $70bn in 2921 and 2022 plus then add in all the extra mRNA Covid variants plus the potential Flu and RSV Vaccines that Pfizer currently has in development.
There are collaborations and partnerships throughout pharma for very good reasons but signing a deal with SCLP based on a phase 1 trial with limited numbers for a Universal Covid Vax when themselves and Pfizer see mRNA as their flagship Vax platform moving forward risks that current partnership if they do a deal with SCLP so I personally just can’t see it happening when so much is at stake for Bion Tech in their current Pfizer deal.

Hi TF- yes thanks to Cleanerworld for posting the manu link but it does specify the whole plant is based around mRNA and that is where Bion Tech see their future in developing the platform for other infectious diseases and wider applications like oncology.
Looking at the timings of Approval 3/1/20 and first Vax production Feb 21 after purchasing site from Novartis in September 20 I think a lot of initial,plan was to use Pfizer Belgium facilities and then add capacity which Bion Tech have done.
But the mRNA is Bion Tech lead programme so unlikely to want to switch focus to a DNA platform imo.
Even though DNA is a relatively easy and cheap Vax to manu finding suitable facilities will be an issue as many are committed to Covid/Flu/RSV etc but until we have p1 results then will have to wait and see but agree with Bermuda any partner likely to be someone who needs a Covid Vax rather than Bion Tech who already has the market leader.
But if results are stellar then that opens up the field.

Hi TF/RR,
As you say still a few unanswered questions like what is exact nature of Bion Tech/SCLP which was based in TCRs but we know personal relationships is good.
I remember RG telling me that whilst major pharma readily understood DNA platforms they did not not always comprehend the complexity of newer approaches like Moditope so what we don’t know how what the reverse is ie Bion Tech familiarity and acceptance of DNA Platforms.
We know that SCLP developed Covidity completely seperately to any input from Bion Tech.We also know that the Bion Tech/Pfizer arrangement was a much wider potential co- operation than Covid 19 Vax.It was a way of testing mRNA technology in an infectious disease setting and getting Approval hence generating huge amounts of data and knowledge primarily for Pfizer.In fact at one stage the fact was that Pfizer would abandon Bion Tech and just develop the platforms themselves,something that seems to have changed.
Also don’t forget the need for the collaboration.
Pfizer needed Bion Tech to provide the creativity to develop the Vaccine and then Pfizer would provide the manu,distribution etc to complete the process.
The situation with SCLP is entirely different as it is an SCLP Vax and they have done all the science and creativity in developing Vax so the type of partner they need is someone who can manu the Vax which is very specialised and then use their existing logistics set up to distribute the Vax and finance through the regulatory process.
I really don’t think that is Bion Techs game and not even sure if they have Vax manu facilities.Most manu capacity is already fixed and set up years ahead and production is very specialised and long lead times.
So whilst I understand all the logic of a universal Covid Vax rather than simply adding a valency for a new variant this is about so much more than the science and the choice of a partner is limited.

Yep TF,
That is one of manifestations of what I mean.
Again I have no issue with RG as being interim CBO as he has a lot of experience and knowledge but only as a temporary appointment and my concern always is it becomes long term due to fear of appointing someone from outside/ no real internal drive to cozy nature of SCLP but the fact I don’t know for certain but just a feeling.
You need someone who sets a strategic direction,who attends international events to really press the flesh with the heavyweights in the industry whereas none of have any idea on how many days a week he is working , we never seem to hear about him meeting people at events like JPM and Jefferies and he never seems to do presentations promoting SCLP.
I don’t know why CH left and again not saying he was the ideal candidate but he did do some good stuff including largely getting RM on board and I would like to think that SCLP would attract a more commercially oriented person to do a lot of stuff he did as really putting lots of pressure on LD given her already very heavy workload.

Morning C7/Ray,
We are on completely the same ground in recognising the importance of Vulpes support but in particular the huge achievement in getting Redmile on board.That was transformational in many ways in removing the need for further raises and providing the finance to move all the trial programmes forward.
It also enabled a very solid floor for the SP at a much higher level than before and as you both say marked a transition from the more limited SCLP in terms of having the resources to progress trials as quickly as they would like to have done to have been able to hire many new staff and provide new lab facilities etc.
So yes you can draw a complete line between pre and post RM and we all need to look forward to the future and we are probably much closer than May appear.
The new resources have really helped at refining the science,building IP etc and developing the science and probably the only substantive difference between our positions is one of balance regarding our personal views on the breadth and commercial focus of the BoD and Senior staff.
I would like to have seen a specific commitment towards onboarding a very experienced deal maker/ corporate player who can deal with that side of things and maybe provide a counter balance to the Science bias which I believe currently exists at SCLP and is not fully reflective of the fact that as we all know SCLP has moved on since RM came on board.
I appreciate others will have a different view and that is fine but it would be good to discuss further without the presumption that anyone who supports this view is in any way trying to be critical of the current BoD but just seeks a better balance that they believe will provide synergy to current efforts rather than conflict.
ATB

Thanks for response Ray,
Think applying for the IND for US arm was important as don't forget the contacts like KF was huge in terms of potential deals if positive results and access to top oncology centres.
Agree that RM changed the whole dynamic re resources and goes back to a question I asked RG about the “ cosiness” of the BoD.
In fairness he answered it well by saying he understood where I was coming from in terms of maybe encouraging some external people but he was worried about it disrupting the small key team.
As SCLP gets bigger then they may just have to review their positioning on this matter but that is for them to decide.
PS Never was quite sure about exactly what JC brought to the party given the San Diego experience

Hi Ray,
You make very good pints about the finance requirement to fulfill your trial ambitions but is not just all about resources.
The SCIB 1 Combo was first agreed in late 2015 to treat 80 patients in 2016.However due a combination of running out of supply of SCIB 1, the ongoing issues with Ichor over the master file and the delay to finally getting the IND agreed with US and then finally having to abandon all plans for a US arm after 4 or so years then to me the BoD must accept some responsibility for their part in this matter.