George Frangeskides, Exec-Chair at Alba Mineral Resources, discusses grades at the Clogau Gold Mine. Watch the full video 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
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.
Afternoon Ratty,
Fair enough .Krafty asked a question and I responded.I asked you and WW ( who obviously has a serious issue with TD) and you have not responded.People can draw whatever conclusions they want to and our expectations may be more similar than what you think but it suits your personal narrative to try and paint others as having a negative view which as Bermuda asked you both to clarify but again no response was given.
I draw a clear distinction between saying some poster used to be a nurse/ businessman/banker which you deem personal etc than your good friend who chooses to highlight info that clearly identifies me specifically.
As you know I make little attempt to hide my identity and that means you can readily check what I factually post. Contrast that with you and your friend on the other side who seek a non de plume status and seek to hide behind an anonymous personna so that you can bang away in best keyboard warrior style.
Nothing wrong with disagreeing at all as surely that is what a balanced board is about.
So OK Ratty and WW what are your current valuations of SCLP based on current DTH response?
Then we can have a balanced discussion based on “ expectations ” so that the neutrals can get a much better idea on what we think SCLP is worth and then everyone can decide whose perspective is more likely.
ATB
Hi Krafty,
With the obvious caveats about it depends on the nature of the solid news so confirmation of more partial and/ or full tumour regression in a significant proportion of patients will lead to a much higher SP target than just a real demonstration of stable disease which in itself is extremely positive.
Plus the general not a great idea to predict SPs by me or anyone else but you did ask so I will give you my thoughts but as always personal view only.
I would say within a range of 40-60p in terms of just very good results not stellar ( that would mean imo 75-100p)
However that is without any deal and the Modify trial is pivotal but not only in validating Modi 1 but in predicting the future.in terms I of the future potential here.
I look upon a successful trial as very likely to drive a great commercial deal and tbat us where the big bucks imo will be made.
The risks are of course that a deal may or may not come as we all remember the compelling SCIB1 results plus of course we know there could be a capital raise in next 6-9 months so that will potentially effect SP depending on timing and of course whether SCLP can finance moving forward with another Glycan deal which will remove this particular threat.
Anyway only my musings and more than happy to be wrong
Morning Bermuda,
As you say I don’t see anyone trying to talk it down and if you took the trouble to read the posts they are overwhelmingly positive and are not reflective of the current SP.
The only variance is the level of expectation with some of us preferring to wait until solid news is released by SCLP in an RNS which we do expect and others who judge the SP should in multiples of where it is now based on current dara
Very much agree WF and that is why I recommended Rays post as it highlighted your point of the universal DTH response being a great start in the race towards being a very successful trial.
I was just trying to countenance the view that some seemed to be pursuing that the presence of DTH meant the gold medals were already decided lol
Evening WF,
My understanding is that you can measure DTHs and agree that LD is the perfect judge of their significance and to include it is very positive.
To try and clarify my thoughts I would add two points.
1As we were not given specific data it is hard to draw too many wider conclusions about how they will translate into into CMR.
2. They are reflective of a very early stage in the journey rather than the end of the journey so for eg the primary clinical endpoint.
When I discuss CMR I deal with proven responses so truly measurable and the only times I discuss anything related to cellular responses like DTHs is in a different context so not looking at cellular immune responses in a positive way but more soft tissue damage so very much in a negative way usually as a result of certain adjuvants.
So as I say the inclusion of DTH info in the RNS is very positive but there is a long way to go to achieve “ proof” if that makes sense.
Nice balanced post Ray.
As you say the DTH though very encouraging is not a true measure of a CMR but merely a step along the journey.As WW has said the CMR response will be measured much more accurately as a primary end point I recall 12 weeks after final treatment.
The 2ndary endpoints do contain symptomatic/ clinical endpoints and I suspect it is these that will determine the SP here within a much quicker timeline.
Agree Bermuda,
TD get their info directly from SCLP so to me there is some really useful data regarding expectations from within the Company itself if you prepared to look for it. Any report is only reflective of a moment in time but comparing it to previous reports helps you get a much better understanding of direction and speed of travel.
Hi Ruck,
We can all agree that a positive DTH will likely increase the chance of success and hence “ valuation”.
However all brokers like TD as Bermuda has highlighted use standard industry criteria which are objective and in fact they raised the target price based in the last update.
What they won’t do is raise a target price based on subjective assessments so it is pretty obvious why their may be some discrepancy between their current target price and done SH expectations.
Better imo to remain patient and wait for those “ expectations be realised rather than blame the broker for getting it wrong.