Member Info for KonarA

In pre clinical, tumor regression was seen in 4 days. I have high hopes that once modi 1 is in humans, we will generate good news very fast.

Being purely speculative...

The Clatterbridge Cancer Centre is a specialist hospital for cancer care. It does not (as far as i know) have an intensive care unit. As a novel treatment, I believe protocol dictates that a patient needs a preserved bed in an ITU before they can receive a dose. I wonder if it is this that is holding up the trial? If limited beds are available due to covid, priority on those limited beds could go to the trial needs of the acute hospital, rather than for the cancer hospital over the road.

Thanks for derailing my thread with your petty squabbles AB

@c7 yes at the moment I feel really let down by the BoD

I am honestly both surprised and disappointed, that having initially set the expectation that covidity recruitment would be no problem and Moditop would be recruiting around new year, only to dash both of those against the rocks at the interim, that the company doesn't feel a significant obligation to keep the shareholders more up to date than they ordinarily would. The fact that they haven't even given us a single update since then is staggering to me.

I never thought I would be tempted to divest, but the temptation is creeping up.

Day 1 is the day on which they administer the first dose.

Doesn't the UoN also still hold shares in Scancell? Sorry if this has already been brought up.. but why would they not utilise a platform they would benefit from being successful?

I think it's fair to say none of us on this board are "trolls"... some are just beyond frustrated with this company. A shareholder is well within their rights to question the board and their approach, without being written off as "trolls or troublemakers". SB has a fiduciary duty to the shareholders - whether they are big or small.

I certainly knew when I investd in CICC that it was high risk - but that doesn't give the company the right to be opaque and to treat small private investors with contempt or derision. We deserve to know what has happened to our investment. We invested, and invested long in the CICC portfolio, based on a series of claims and statements from SB. Apart from the temporary listing of CIC Gold, then nothing has delivered a return and we have been locked in for years. Even with the temporary listing of the CIC Gold shell company, it still failed to deliver on any of its prospectus. The only way CIC Gold could be considered a success is to whoever trousered all of the money that shareholders put into it.

They say the clearest indicator of the future is to look at the past.. in that context, it would be reasonable to think that Innomedtech will (at best) list as a shell company for a matter of months, before delisting.

That's just my point.. if they are the same class as shares, you can't pay out some and not others.

Do those 22 that have been contacted hold a different class of share to the rest of us? Otherwise I am fairly sure it would not be legal to selectively pay dividends

am i reading this correctly?? Cic are now selectively choosing which share holders to issue dividends to?

I suppose the two other factors to consider here are:

1) The size of a batch of DNA Vaccine versus MRNA vaccine. My understanding is DNA is easier to manufacture but would be interested if someone has the numbers

2) The global capacity to manufacture MRNA vs DNA now. I expect MRNA capacity has gone through the roof, comparatively speaking, in the last 12 months.

According to latest figures, there are 438 people across the whole of the UK in ICU with Covid. That's about half what it was at the beginning of the month, and 1/10th of its peak at the beginning of 2021.

We were relatively recently told by Lindy that the Modi-1 trial was anticipated to start before the end of 2021. Then we were told this was delayed due to lack of available ICU beds - or at least the concern that Omicorn may drive up ICU bed utilisation. Given that hasn't proven to be the reality, the question has to be - what's the hold up now?

Where are you seeing this Roses?

Couple of points from me on this thread:

1. The allocation is randomised and parallel according to trial protocol. So in the 16 we should have patients in either arm of the trial.

2. The outcome measures lists "The induction of a functional immune response by COVIDITY [ Time Frame: From enrolment through end of study; approximately 26 weeks ] - so they will have started measuring the immune response from day 1. Whilst the study might not be able to report on most of the 40 until June, the safety and immune response data for the 16 should be starting to build. Question is if its enough for the MHRA to approve a UK trial.

sounds pathological to me

I agree that expecting trial data today was expecting too much, and that mid February was always more likely.

My big frustration here is that:

1 - We weren't told about this sooner. Its been nearly 3 months since we were told 16 patients were recruited, and the suspension of recruitment is significant.
2 - The BoD must have known this was the last date that they could push out disclosure of this materially significant news. Why did they not have a pre-booked interview with the likes of pro-active, to explain the situation and what they are doing about it? To me it just seems like they have kept this information hidden, and then failed to explain it or justify it.

I imagine I am like a lot of shareholders, I am getting increasingly frustrated by the continuous moving timelines and the failure to deliver meaningful trial data (whilst also being sympathetic to the global situation). Take this line for example:

"The Directors believe that the Company is well-funded and its diverse pipeline, based upon its proprietary platforms, is on track to deliver multiple value inflection points over the next 18 months."

This statement (or a version of it) has been in every financial update for as long as I can remember! Way past time to actually deliver on this - imvho.

An example would be something like Injection Site Inflammation and Soreness. Is it a side effect? Yes. Is it a safety concern? No. It is a common reaction when injecting someone.
To me, a safety concern would be something unexpected or something that could lead to long term harm to the person. But as I said in my original post, Burble would no doubt be able to advise.

Either way though - no safety concerns is very significant.

@RW - "No safety concerns" is indeed positive and not to be overlooked. It is a major positive outcome of a phase 1 trial. But afaik "no safety concerns" isn't the same as "No side effects" which is what you seem to be implying. Burble may be able to clarify.

How is scib1 first patient dosed news?? It happened in November