We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
I'm not "guessing wildly".. I'm taking figures from the RNS and other scientific papers, and I've said from the very outset that the figures in the RNS aren't enough to form a conclusive view and that only wider studies will answer that question. I mean jfc
what we don't know is how much more protection (from either infection or serious illness/death) is gained by additionally eliciting a T Cell response (when compared to the MRNA vaccines which don't).
What we do know is that the antibody response from MRNA vaccines seems to be significantly greater than Covidity.
"A study of the Biontech vaccine booster in November found that Omicron BA.4/BA.5 neutralizing antibodies increased 13.2 fold from pre-booster levels for the adults 55 and older, compared with a 2.9 fold increase in older adults who got the original vaccine. For adults ages 18 to 55, neutralizing antibodies were 9.5 fold higher than pre-booster levels."
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/11/04/health/pfizer-covid-bivalent-booster-omicron-data/index.html
When compared with covidity - "RBD neutralising antibody titres against the Beta variant doubled in 44% of subjects and NCAP antibody titres doubled in 42% of participants."
So although not directly comparing like for like, the vnab response to the mrna was much stronger.
But the main difference between covidity and the rest is the production of T Cells. The Immunobody platform is specifically tailored to produce T Cells.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
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.