Member Info for Ivyspivey

Thanks C7,
Nothing as serious as your own situation but spent a total of 20 days covering 3 different visits and so different from my one and only prior NHS stay 30 years previously.
But yep recovering fine if slow.
BW

Hi C7,
Must admit had not noticed the 700k black trade so that definitely has increased the volume to a much higher level than normal so that us more interesting.
So next few days could be very interesting especially if we hit news.
Glad your hospital trip went well and agree with your comments re nurses/ doctors.
Part of my time absent from the board was spent in hospital where I noticed exactly the same as yourself.

Evening interesting discussion.
I do find it hard in todays bear market that the MMs will hold large stocks of any share but especially relatively low liquidity ones like SCLP.
Equally if they had a known supply they would simply have done a combination of gently increasing the bid to encourage small but steady buying but then dropping the bid to clear the bigger buys if they needed to.
So looking at the size of the trades I concur with others that they are not significant in terms of moving the SP hence see it as a pretty normal days trading on AIM though agree taking in combination with last weeks movement that it it sets up a very positive outlook for when news arrives.

Would depend on who the partner was and whether they would be sufficiently interested in the oncology platform. I suspect the “ Immunobody being sold off as an entire platform’ is not likely
as the Covidity data will likely be out first and you complicate by saying to any prospective partner well can you wait until the SCIB 1/Combo data is ready.
The Covid Vax was always not part of the strategic core of the business so I would expect any partner deal done then SCLP would be happy to let them take on the lions share of the work moving forward and then see what interest lies in its more general infectious diseases application.

Morning Bojo,
We have the funding to complete phase 1 which with the expanded patient numbers and assuming positive results should be enough data to convince a partner to take it forward.
That was always the plan and SCLP will not fund Covid Vax without a partner.
So with the Innovate grant and current cash it should not take much out of SCLP resources to fund and none of other programmes will be affected.

Hi Chester,
That thought had occurred to me and sure their must be provision in the agreement for that event and notice they do refer to takeover possibility in the detail.
Equally say if SCLP find a buyer for Immunobody or even simpler do a very good Glycan deal so they pay RM off in cash for the CLNs rather than shares and say the SP stays at say 15-16p.
That is a very big risk for RM in that scenario for very little reward as for all their CLN amount they get 3% interest which is neither here nor there and if the cash paid was either at 13p or prevailing SP it hardly generates the type of return an extremely professional and experienced healthcare fund would be looking for after risking so much money.

From original RNS

On the Redemption Date, the New Convertible Loan Notes are convertible into Ordinary Shares at a conversion price of 13 pence per Ordinary Share, at the election of the noteholders. This conversion price is subject to customary adjustments, further details of which will be set out in the Circular. Conversion is also subject to any Takeover Code restrictions that may apply at the time of such conversion. No conversion can occur prior to the Redemption Date, save for in the event of a takeover offer being made to shareholders of the Company or upon a Nasdaq listing;

Hi Chester,
From the initial RNS it was clear that the CLNs will revert to shares rather than any option for SCLP to pay them off in cash at redemption date.I would imagine that any attempt to pay cash would be covered by RM having the option of receiving shares instead and if they paid cash at what price would it be as I just can’t see RM agreeing to any deal that involved a vague future price and they held the ship hand at the time.
As RM also agreed to extend the CLNs they have to imo have the option of being paid in shares

Hi. Bermuda,
Absolutely we should not forget the concerns raised by certain big SH about the original 2022 CLN redemption date and they have been proven correct to have done so.So yes very good news when they were extended and your point re CH in bringing RM through is very valid.
We are in a much better position now and we look forward to some great news in the coming weeks

Will sign up for a poetry course.
Recovering from a routine op but doing fine and all good with me.

Hi Coggy,
Trying to improve Mapps poetic effort.

I knew a friendly poster,one of the best,
Always pearls of wisdom even on the nest,
We all invested in FRR and tried to Ramp it,
Sadly it turned we did not become Jed Clampit,
Now we have lost our shirts ,we are sat here in our vest.

Hope all is good everyone.

PS Chester
The move away from electroporation is not about imo it working better just to improve a awful delivery system and improve trial recruit numbers.

Hi Chester/ Violin Dog,
The awful market at the moment means we are where are are and even pharma like MXC which this morning released very good news had a very nice rise due to traders but fell back a lot due to market nervousness.
Chester we do differ in terms of trial protocol changes as normally they are submitted by the sponsor so SCLP who may have an insight into how it may improve results but the trial regulators would not play any part on the changes as they are totally independent and would not seek to provide any “ endorsement “ or otherwise.
Also frankly they are not bothered about the outcome and they simply seek to ensure any trial protocol changes are valid and don’t infringe the integrity of the results.
I believe that SCLP decided to change things on balance of probability rather than any regulatory body also the decision to use Pharmajet fir SCIB 1 would have been made imo before the Covid Vax results as they would need time to pass any regulatory hurdles and sort out commercial arrangements with not only Pharmajet but Ichor as well.
ATB

Hi Chester,
Thanks for thoughts and as we know there are lots of potential shots at goal and the expectation of some important clinical data to provide a catalyst for a rise in SP.
You are correct in that as far as the vast majority of PIs are concerned it is a series of what ifs and maybes and that appears to be the case for SCLP.Effectively let us continue to develop the science and we will see what the data brings.
Personally I like to know what their strategic plan is and pathway to monetisation which is an integral part of all pharma Company's whether big or small.
A couple of threats which are obvious .
Firstly ,we have no idea whatsoever if the data will be positive and the first data to be released will have a major effect on the SP up or down.
You quote Approvals.Well the Covid Vax has always been intended as a booster as so many people have already been Vaccinated there is little market for primary courses
The move to needle free of SCIB1/CI is a very welcome move and yes SCLP May be confident it works just as well but until we have actual data we simply cannot be sure.
How do you know for certain that the trials are producing early positive data ,that is an assumption but there is little evidence to support that .The numbers of trial patients is very small and you simply cannot draw any statistically significant conclusions about whether it is positive or not.
There is no interim trial analysis even and yes we can reasonably conclude that the Covid Vax is safe but we have no idea about how effective it is vs Covid variants even if we have some basic immune response data.
Again with a Odx you simply cannot directly extrapolate mouse data into humans especially on basis of a possible handful of patients.
Looking at the Glycan collaborations again we have no idea of how close “ deals” May or not be in the offing.
I am very positive about the prospects here but we must learn from past events like the SCIB 1 “ compelling data” well not compelling enough to get a deal etc .
In fact I think the Immunobody platform was put on the back burner until Covid came along and also the move away from electroporation so let us not get too presumptuous until we have real data.
That is why I want to know the strategic pathway as there is a history here of changing the goalposts and trying to improve the technology by say adding Avidmab to the other platforms or adding an peptide to Modi 1.
That is fine but I do wish they followed a specific but flexible plan like a commercially oriented bio pharma rather than a pure science play which occasionally seems more like the way an academic institution behaves of seeking the perfect science and ending up not assigning priorities to which of the platforms they should concentrate resources on.
To repeat myself I am very positive about the science but let us be under no illusions there are other AIM bio pharma where the PIs are just as enthusiastic about the prospects and where it may e

Good discussion and clear to me as others that it is only hard data that will lead to a rerate here and that is on line with what SCLP have been stating for years. What has happened in the interim is the increasing range of options as to where this data will come from.
I do believe that SCLP is still not well balanced between the undoubted real strength of the scientific expertise and representation and the less well defined “ commercial” aspects of the business.
I think that science bias places much more emphasis on the data to attract large numbers of new investors which in turn will help drive the SP upwards. This bias was fine when SCLP was purely a R and D focused business but I think with the range of assets in the portfolio they need to consider much more about strategic and commercial pathways towards monetising the assets.
Yrs the data will,ultimately decide on the outcomes here but I do consider some guidance on how SCLP see the strategic pathway forward re competing priorities in the way investor presentations used to include but do seem to have fallen by the wayside somewhat due in part to a scientific bias and of course no need to raise funds for a very long time.

Great summary Burble and the bigger the sentiment the bigger the jug and cream rises to the top

Seems very much like it and in my experience any increase in sentiment including potential competitors in a space like cancer Vaccines actually benefits everyone who operates in that space.
As SCLP has a major presence then I always welcome any increase in interest and always see potential competitors as positive rather than a negative threat.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/12/amazon-partners-with-fred-hutchinson-on-cancer-vaccine-trial.html

Hi All,
C7- as the posts seem to have disappeared I can’t remember your exact words or recall the posts you refer to but I totally condemn any comments by anyone along the lines you mentioned and those sentiments are completely unacceptable imo.
I hope that you are well but not fully aware of your current situation given your past history but nothing so important as good health and the efforts of SCLP in successfully providing answers to improve patient outcomes are even more of a priority than having a positive return on our investment.
The good news is that success in the first will inevitably lead to a nice monetary return for everyone here.

Hi Crumbs,
I certainly did suggest I hoped they were in process of recruiting an external “ heavyweight commercial” appointment to help take SCLP forward in a more balanced way after the recent strengthening of the Scientific side.
My criticism of bringing of RG back was purely if it was going to be a longer term strategy but since then we have found out it was an interim measure to help lessen some of LD burden and he is the perfect person to step in and as they have mentioned they are still seeking a commercial COO then I am happy apart from the steep drop in the SP here