Member Info for KonarA

Thank you - this was the point that I was trying to make yesterday. Initially the seroconversion rate seemed worryingly low when compared to MRNA, particularly given that this is supposed to be the avidimab boosted version. However, when you break it down, it does look like they have come to that number based on a sample size of 3 patients. Which kind of renders the number meaningless (in which case why include it!?!) I suspect what would be of more interest would be why did the third patient who had all 4 doses of the vaccine still not show a response rate. Is there something in the testing of that patient which may indicate why they didn't respond? We need to see the published study for that I guess.

infection = in fact

5am autocorrect

I've also read what inan has to say on the other board.

He doesn't "invite me to discuss it over there" infection he suggests other people need to "come and sort out my negative drivel" and accuses me of trading the share.

In response I would say I have not "traded the share". My holding today is exactly the same as it was a month ago. I have remained invested in Scancell continuously for over 7 years.

My reviews of the science are based on my interpretation of the data and I invite others to discuss them here on every occasion. I do firmly agree with the view that being as honest and realistic as we can be about the science and data provides a better springboard for long term SP growth than short term happy clappy overhyped pumping, to try and drive a short term SP rise.

Finally I would happily engage Inan in polite discussion on the science on this board, if it weren't for the fact that he is permanently banned for being argumentative and abusive. Something that I see he hasn't learnt from with comments like "someone needs to come and sort me out"

Hi TF. I believe I was trying to make the same point above in my 16:31 when I said

"Now the counter argument to this point is that the high avidity T Cell response specific to the Nucleocapsid Protein could be providing far greater immunity than the antibody responses of the 1st generation vaccines. That argument probably has a lot of relevance - that's why I would be keen to see a larger scale trial of real world implications of the vaccines."

Having said that, the realisation that the 67% seroconversion figure may have been calculated come from 2 patients that responded from 3 that completed the course.. then my points around seroconversion could be utterly meaningless.

@burble - yeah I think that is the source of my frustration. The numbers appear to deserve a larger trial, its just whether or not they will get someone to bite. I would hate for it to be left on the shelf as a result of bad luck and global trends.

@burble what are your views on the actual numbers?

hi Chester.. in fact I think its worse than that.. is this where the 67% figure came from????

"However, three seronegative participants completed all four immunisations without becoming infected with COVID-19; two subjects had vaccine-specific T cell responses specific to RBD and/or NCAP, and two had a four-fold increase in RBD neutralising antibodies."

The other take on this is that in a 1st generation vaccine that is designed to lower death rates and pressure on healthcare systems, then a vaccine that offers low levels of protection to the greatest number of people is acceptable. But in terms of breaking the cycle of transmission, what you need is about 70% of the population fully immune. If SCOV2 can provide sterilising immunity to the multiple strains, then it could yet be a key player.

It would be interesting to see the % of dosed patients that didn't catch omicron versus the population as a whole. From that we could probably infer if Covidity is providing some infection prevention.

I should add that what wasn't clear from the RNS was whether the 67% seroconversion was from a single dose, or from the full 4 dose course.

@Krafty - no that is a totally different measure entirely, and nothing to do with the point I was making.

The seroconversion rate is the % of people that have a measurable antibody response to the vaccine (see link below)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seroconversion

It has nothing to do with patient hospitalisation rates or death.

SCOV2 seroconversion rate is 67%. As in 67% of the people that took it had a measurable immune response.

A study of 3,610 healthcare workers found that 99.5% and 97.1% seroconverted after a single dose of BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1, respectively, and that higher quantitative immunoglobulin G (IgG) levels were achieved in previously infected individuals. (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-021-00947-3)

Now the counter argument to this point is that the high avidity T Cell response specific to the Nucleocapsid Protein could be providing far greater immunity than the antibody responses of the 1st generation vaccines. That argument probably has a lot of relevance - that's why I would be keen to see a larger scale trial of real world implications of the vaccines.

I am just concerned that in a world that has been taught to think antibody = immunity, then a low seroconversion rate could see us stuck in the blocks.

Hopefully Scancell have enough evidence to support the T Cell argument.

Single dose results for BNT162b2

"Serological blood tests were performed on 1898 participants following first vaccine dose; 81% were tested on day 21, before receiving the second dose (mean age 47.5 ± 12.45; median 47.7, range 18-90). Positive serology was found in 92.7% of day 21 tests."

I believe these numbers went up to 99% after full course.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34702617/

Been travelling for work this morning and only just seen the news. The old adage of "Better Late Than Never" springs to mind.

This morning's RNS is a bit of a mixed bag for me. I see a lot of comments saying this "validates the DNA platform and Avidimab", yet the seroconversion rate of 67% in vaccine naïve patients is way down on what the MRNA vaccines are achieving (roughly 99% afaik). The big question now is, does the inclusion of a specific T-Cell response to NCAP provide additional protection above and beyond single vector MRNA vaccines, which in turn could provide some sterilising immunity? Why else mention the 50% of people that didn't get covid after vaccination? I'd love to see the data from a challenge study with SCOV2 vs MRNA, but that would require a partner to take forward. I'm worried that the 67% seroconversion will scare away any potential partners.

@emptyend.. if this was just a one off or the occasional missed date, then I would be much more inclined to just chalk it up to unforseen circumstances. However, I have been invested in Scancell for a good few years, and I don't recall them ever hitting one of their self-declared timescales. They should really consider the impact this has on market confidence and the resultant SP.

actual serious question..

At what point does consistently missed targets stop being "Blind optimism" and start being "Misleading investors"?

I would also note that the best way to take the focus away from the one patient that the company has provide some results for, is to publish the (further) immunogenicity data that they advised would be coming in H2 2022.. and the covidity data whilst they are at it.

I'm not sure how that is good news.

The companies that were hived off from CIC Capital for the purpose of financing listings has been shutdown, replaced with 2 private companies that Bromley is the sole share holder of.

In terms of "what next" - one thing I haven't seen discussed here is the timelines for Genmab defining their Antibody Drug Conjugate using the MAB they bought from us. Lindy described that they would be fast-tracking the development of the product. Definition of this product would presumably trigger another milestone payment. I wonder if anyone has any knowledge or experience of the length of time it might take to get to this milestone? Given that we know Genmab were granted the permission to analyse and validate the MAB before purchasing, then I would hope this could be quicker than normal.

@JohnnyB1 I totally agree something has changed. To go from "Late Dec/Early Jan" to "Q1 2023" for release of results, and already be into Feburary.. it does suggest something has changed. I really do want to believe that it is because a pharma is looking to buy it.. and the longer it goes without reporting makes me believe it more. But I just don't know.

I raised a bit of an eyebrow at the "as previously disclosed", because I don't believe they have previously stated this in this way.

This from the previous set of financials -

"Given the large size of later stage trials, the Company intends to partner this programme once it has generated proof of concept data from the Phase 1 trial."

Now there is now no mention of partnering, just that they won't be taking it forward. Had the previous statement said "Scancell will not take this programme forward unless a partner can be found" - then i would agree that it would be "as previously disclosed".

Of course, the line from this financials could be interpreted as "a partner has been found that want to take it forward themselves without Scancell" and that is the optimistic interpretation, and not entirely impossible. Its why I am so keen to see the trial results, because this may suggest one way or the other. Can we read anything into the fact that they haven't yet released the results? Maybe they are holding onto the disappointing news? Maybe they are in discussions with a company to buy the programme?

All just "imho" as always.

LL - as per my post the other day, and quoted directly from the RNS

"As previously disclosed, given the large size of later stage trials and the competitive landscape the Company does not intend to do further trials and will focus its resources on the oncology platforms."

100% confirmed by the company that they themselves will not be doing anything further with Covidity. The pessimists will believe this is because the results themselves weren't great. The optimists believe this is because someone else will take it forward without Scancell. I'll let you decide which camp you are in.