Member Info for KonarA

Let's not lose sight of the fact that they may actually be there to talk about what the abstract title describes - the trial design. There may not be any new data or any new RNS. Short term hyping on the hope of an RNS has consistently resulted in a greater slide back than any gain forward.

Vulpes assessment - extremely strong science, need more dedicated commercial experience.
This message board's general consensus - extremely strong science, need more dedicated commercial experience.

Remember that when the doom-mongers tell us this message board knows nothing.

*repeatedly bring up the same topic, then find it boring when people reply on that topic*

"I honestly do not know which are in the gang and which are the sheepy ."

Have you considered that it might all just be made up in your head?

what's that got to do with it?

oh ok, so now i get it - you invested on the say so of someone on here.. and lost a bunch of money you couldn't afford. Now you are bitter for not doing your own research and want to blame everyone else?

the first mile stone payment is on genmab product definition. That was disclosed at the AGM. Could be any day. Milestone payments tend to increase at each milestone, so i would imagine this milestone will be for more than the upfront payment.

It would be highly highly unusual for milestone payments to be related to post approval sales afaik. Milestones are typically "development milestones" with royalties on sales.

or hit some of the milestones on the £680,000,000 deal they did.

I think the more likely scenario is Lindy knows the milestone dates in the Genmab deal.

The original collaboration agreement with Genmab was Sep 2019. Or at least, strongly suspected to be. I'm not sure the company ever fully confirmed Genmab was the 2019 collaborator. Assuming it is though, then the work has been going on for a lot longer than 6 months! Milestone payments sooner rather then later hopefully.

The actual quote from the expert in the field was "very encouraging". It was the Scancell RNS title that nerfed that to "encouraging".

the number i just picked was obviously off the top of my head.. only scancell will know what they value the product at. Its more the approach of accepting a lower total value for more cash up front.

It's generally considered that when selling a biotech asset, the price and the deal reflects the balance of risk for both the buyer and seller. The biotech may look for more money, and the pharma would look to back load the milestones to balance the risk.

Given the amount of assets and possible products in the Scancell pipeline, isn't there an argument for doing a smaller cash-up front deal on one of the glymabs?

£50 million upfront with no milestones or future royalties could transform the security of the business and prevent future dilution. It may feel like giving away an asset, but we are not exactly short of them, and cash in the bank without dilution would provide the market with a lot of confidence.

correction that should say "The one patient that we know to have shown tumour shrinkage"

In the expansion cohorts so far, the majority of people recruited have been Ovarian patients (as per the interim report). These patients won't ever have been on a checkpoint inhibitor as they are not approved for this indication.

The one patient that we know to have responded, has previously disclosed that they were on a CPI prior to starting this trial. Could it be that despite having stopped the CPI we are still seeing some synergistic effect? I don't know how long the effects of the CPI would stay around for, but it could be an explanation.

Sure makes the Combo-therapy arm results more anticipated.

See you for the next RNS, where I will be sure to post only puff piece interpretations and we can all smother each other in likes

OK, let's not discuss or consider the results we do have.. I mean that not what a message board is for. Let's just sit here in silence and wait for the next RNS. *sigh* witfp

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

I literally said in the very next sentence... "whilst not comparing like for like"

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.