Member Info for Ivyspivey

Evening,The debate that has been seen on here today clearly highlights the differences in finest SCLP tradition.
Good that the cash position is great and burn maybe not as bad as feared.Lots s of great potential advancements like the SCIB 1 plus and the fact there are 5 Glycans in the frame now plus other initiatives.
However that is the dilemma when many of us simply want them to generate the data as early as possible rather than fine tune the science to potentially bring about more potent results.
We can all see the logic of SCIB1 plus and the better delivery system but everytime they change part of the product make up then you will lengthen the trial process and hence delay results.
Now looks like the CLN extension which was a positive move now looks like a necessity as apart from the Covidity studies it does not look like any efficacy data will come through in 2022 and that is necessary to rerate.
Yes the Glycan platform could produce great results but again there was no update on the 3 already being worked on and that seems strange seeing that certainly one was brought in house to accelerate its development and monetise it.
So again questions as well as answers and again no mention of AGM which surely will be announced next week.
Today’s news looked a comprehensive update but very little was really said and lloked suspiciously like the old SCLP

Hi Crumbs,
Depends on when due to expire as happened previously.
They may pause the SCIB1 Combo trial if they are going to revamp product and delivery system and recruitment continues to be difficult.
Leaves Ichor in funny position if changing delivery systems as Dont they have shares still

During the period, the Company has also been developing iSCIB1+, an AvidiMab™ modified version of SCIB1, which is expected to increase both the potency of SCIB1 and extend patent life. The modification also includes multiple epitopes so it can be used to treat all patients rather than be limited to the 40% of patients who have the appropriate HLA type for treatment with SCIB1. Given the significant improvements in potency, utility and patent life with iSCIB1+, the Company is currently evaluating its strategic options for the current SCIB1 programme which could include changes to the product, protocol and delivery system and will update the market in H1 2022 with regards to its strategy.

Crumbs could be but whole future of SCIB 1 will be evaluated given the work on SCIB1 plus enhancement

Morning Crumbs.
Cash burn just looks in line with expectations so no surprises there and still over £41m at end of period

Each to their own JB but if I was as angry as you and I needed to fly to Dublin to vent I would be on the plane.
So rather than just carp on to others I would seize the day and actually do something rather than just post negative thoughts on an anonymous BB “talking” to folk I knew nothing about.
Much rather deal with real people,ask real questions and judge real answers but takes all sorts :)

Evening Elrico,
As you say we are all anonymous posters so we can claim whatever and whoever we want to be abd no one can dispute it with total confidence.
Therefore we have to make a judgement call on who we believe or disbelieve and whose opinion we trust or trust within limits or simply distrust.
Personally I am happy to make such calls and measure it against what I already researched here and see if their claims match my understanding and knowledge.
If there is a big divergence then it is natural to question their motives but no matter as I have already stated we all have individual responsibility and accountability.
I also look for consistency and must admit when I see certain posters consistently asking others to ask CF questions and to voice criticism at him I think well if those posters are so exercised by why don’t they attend the meetings and ask CF direct.
CF is happy to appear at many investor events so why don’t these folk avail themselves of such opportunities but instead seem to prefer to call him out on public BBs and encourage others to attend and criticise on their behalf.
Why do they seem so keen to bully others into submission but lack the moral fibre to fight their own battles.As I said we all have to decide for ourselves but certainly my experience in life has usually meant the ones that make the most noise have the least to shout about and the ones who are most dogmatic usually have the most closed minds.
ATB

Great post Bermuda summing up the position succinctly and as you say has to be really good news backed up by the very points you make

JB each to their own.
If you don’t want to hear anything the CEO of any Company says when you are heavily invested in then that is your affair but personally I want as much information as possible from whatever source positive and negative so that I can make a balanced judgement of whether my investment here is something I am comfortable with.
We all have to make our own judgements on the voracity of what is said and I do recognise that CF has been guilty of over enthusiasm with some of the timelines for spin offs etc.
However working in the industry I readily understand some of the pressures and challenges outside anyone’s direct control so I am prepared to give him more time to deliver as long as the fundamentals are improving which is pretty obvious from the results so far.
I am not seeking to influence anyone else as I consider we all make our own judgements however I always find it odd when certain posters repeatedly try and be very personally ultra negative/ positive on someone like CF or ORPH on the pretension of saving us from ourselves.
I can assure you I am very thoroughly researched here which given the level of my investment I see as a sensible course of action rather than switching off any opportunity to learn more about it’s progress.
In fact I would go as far to say it would be very unprofessional and a dereliction of my investment here if I sought to know as little as possible about ORPH.
Of course he cannot say anything material without releasing an RNS but if you lack the ability/ knowledge or experience to join the dots then please don’t pretend that others may possess the same outlook

Evening just checking in and Green a great post and underscores much of what is good here.
Will be good to get feedback from CF meeting next week and any news which is due on a number of fronts.
Still very confident here especially from these levels with the spin offs providing great reasons to maintain/ grow our holdings imo.
Once these are done the core business will be in a great position to be taken out by another CRO or merged with a US CRO for a dual Nasdaq listing.
ATB

To become a shortlisted entity a company’s score must be higher or equal to a certain threshold.

Some categories will only take into account a company’s scores for a specific attribute, others, such as the Sector Excellence awards will look at a company’s scores across the board.

We use a scoring system in order that the case studies under consideration are judged on merit and not on the reputation of the companies involved.

Thanks WTP.

Bit more on protocol

https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/pharmaceutical-technology-excellence-awards-2021-guidelines/

Note but about excellence needing to be demonstrated for short listing

Thanks Looed.
Bit of hope but long way to go

Kashdog.
Brilliant post just wanted to respond in case it gets taken down.

Nice discussion and thanks for clarification Crumbs.
The amount of money available to CEPI is so much more than the GC and we can probably understand/ compare the different “competing entries” if SCLP have applied easier than the diverse range of projects last time.
I am pretty confident that no unique approach that CEPI thinks offers great potential will go unsupported whereas with thecCRUK sometimes the money not enough was available to support all of the promising effirts

Morning Crumbs,
Not sure it is the kind of project where you formally present or even apply but we do know that CEPI having quoted the SCLP Approach in an early tweet and then highlighted the need for targeting the Nucleocapsid protein in Johnny’s excellent post shows they will be very aware of SCOV2.
So great timing of AGM to get a formal update or at least ask the question

WTP A big pharma if it wished to let SCLP develop its own science would likely just take an equity stake or set up a JV rather than a take over.
A take over would involve a high degree of integration of all of not most of SCLP

Hi Bermuda,
Although safety is the usual big question to be answered in a phase 1 trial I think that we will be able to get a good indication of safety pretty quickly based on even general comments like you state.
Reactions to Vaccines are usually very quick and mild so any deviation from this will be likely revealed fairly early on.
Any longer term implications like the “ brain clotting issue” with the AZN Vax won’t be revealed until much later and it is nit like they are going to be testing the trial lists with LFT tests etc which we have to wait fir the results.
However any efficacy results will be intriguing to see and again I feel that we can interpret much from general comments like strong T cell response rather than %%ages which simply are not stat significant due to cohort sizes however they must be big enough to choose which delivery system to take forward

Hi Elrico,
I want to take this opportunity to thank you for yesterday’s interview which I thought was very informative.I want to devour every chance to evaluate CF and ORPH in order to decide what the future holds here.
It certainly reassured me about the future and gave me additional confidence in the likely outcome.

Evening Crumbs,
Yep but mentioning strong binding vs Delta in pre clinical.If that is replicated in humans that could be significant