Member Info for KonarA

1: Advisory and Investment business was together under one company.
2: Advisory and investment businesses were separated out into two companies. CIC Capital offering advisory services and CIC Fund offering investment. Shareholders owned shares in both.
3: CIC Fund is now dormant and voted to be wound up. What happened to the money within that business, owned by the shareholders?
4: CIC Securitisation gets spun up by Bromley
5: CIC Capital expected to buy up CIC Securitisation.

So Bromley has wound up one investment vehicle with no sign of a return to shareholders, and has now separately created another company, owned by himself, that he plans to sell back to us.

You ok with all that?

So CIC Fund (which we all owned shares in and was supposed to be the investment vehicle) - is being wound down, and being replaced by CIC Securitisation which is 100% owned by Bromley.

Another point of note.. the UK arm is to be on SCOV2 but the initial doses in South Africa are to be on SCOV1. Presumably they feel comfortable applying for UK SCOV2 trial approval based on initial safety data from SCOV1.

That explains it. Thanks for clarifying.

The UK arm branches off at the 3 month point in the graph. Not sure if that is intentional or not.

I'm more concerned about why they are now saying the trial application is only submitted, when the RNS said it was approved.

Furthermore, I have been contributing to this board for a hell of a lot longer than you have. In fact to put it into context, that article is nearly as old as your profile. So the whole lecture on contributions won't wash with me.

Bill.. you picking a fight where there is none. I was merely highlighting the fact that the article was 6 months old. You lead with a line that says "scancell are calling for funding" but think its OK for people to dig into the article and read the date on it. I think in those circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to highlight that it is 6 months old. If anybody needs to reign in an attitude then I would suggest looking no further than yourself.

I'm not sure I can break my point down any more but I'll try...

"It's 6 months old"

This is 6 months old.

Interesting that they haven't just wound it up. Suggests the reason for departure wasn't zakari related and that it still has a purpose.

Some form of delivery will have no doubt been approved for the SA trial.. what that is, is yet to be seen. Despite being expedited through approval, I still expect that Scancell would have had to provide the same level of detail for application as they always will have. Can't see them getting approval on anything with "tbc" in the delivery method.

I'd be very keen to see the published details of the trial though.

Agree that no RNS has come out saying manufacturing complete, but knowing Scancell I'm not expecting one either. I'm just reading between the lines.

Wouldn't - i really should proof read before posting

I could be wrong, but I would thought you would be able to apply for and get approval for a trial if you hadn't even manufactured it.

Is this a clue to the timelines?

https://twitter.com/chrisdenning42/status/1421501101334007810?s=19

This has been discussed before when the AZ/Oxford found similar results.
Antibodies are just one aspect of the immune system, and as we all know, Prof Durrant puts far more stock in T-Cells. The very strength of the immunobody platform is that it produces high levels of TCells, in addition to also producing the antibodies, and this is seen to be the key to lasting immunity. Why on earth would we skip trials and not gather the data on our USP?

I firmly believe this research, backed by AZ/Pfeizer/Biontech, is all about trying to take focus away from T-Cells and back onto antibodies, as that is all their vaccines do. They are trying to take the spot light off the missing piece of their product and shine it on the one part they do well.

why do people on this message board start a post with "I want to keep political opinions off the board" and then proceed to post a lengthy political opinion?

Have a few repeat offenders for this.

RR - isn't the point being, that if you run a trial with stage 4 cancer patients, during a pandemic (that is particularly lethal to people with pre-existing conditions) then you run the risk of your trial patients dying from the pandemic rather than the disease. Thus giving your medication an unfair trial. You could condemn the whole platform with a poor trial result, which would have been avoidable any other time.

Thanks for the updates on the US patent Bermuda - I was referring to the core european patent application in my initial post, but you are correct to highlight that there are parallel processes in other jurisdictions, particularly for divisionals.

A further significant milestone on the moditope patent approval journey. No objections have been received in the 9 month objection period, meaning the Scancell land-grab faces no challenges.

As a reminder, the patent is already granted - this was just the objection period.