Member Info for Lemmyy

The longer we wait for news, the more speculation there is—myself included... ;))

It is known—and has been discussed here—that Scancell was not represented at ASCO 2026. A search of the ESMO 2026 website yielded no results.

Scancell was not represented at ASCO 2026 and will not be attending ESMO 2026 either. Participating in ESMO this October would be an excellent opportunity to present new data and progress, just as was done last year. Why not? Perhaps because a takeover of Scancell is already a done deal?

Hi Violindog, I don't think it was "scouts" who discovered Scancell. Rather, the members of the advisory board are the ones responsible for the contacts. They all have excellent connections to major pharmaceutical companies—Eric Rubin, in particular, is worth mentioning here. The network is sensational for a small biotech company, and the outstanding scientific data is already on the table. Whatever the negotiations yield, the outcome will be excellent for both shareholders and cancer patients.

Hello Violindog, I don't think Scancell is being overlooked by the big pharma companies. I have invested a significant amount by my standards and am extremely eager to see when the results of negotiations and financing arrangements are announced. The scientific facts are on the negotiating table—including those we don't know yet. In this situation, I don't care who is currently buying shares or at what price. Once the board has made its decision—whatever it may be—the share price will skyrocket. Good luck to all.

Hello Cleanerworld and Debs1, thank you very much for your posts and the links. Richard Scolyer was an amazing person with an outstanding scientific legacy. However, the way he handled his terminal illness also commands the utmost respect.

It is also interesting to read that he worked closely with Georgina Long. Both were honored as "Australians of the Year" in 2024. It speaks well of Scancell that they were able to secure Georgina—an outstanding figure and a globally recognized melanoma expert—as a scientific advisor!

Hello everyone, I would like to share some thoughts regarding the promising vaccine candidate Intismeran—which, in my view, also indirectly affects the prospects for the success of iSCIB1+. I am quoting from a German publication featuring comments from leading melanoma experts. Please bear with me regarding the translation, as I am using Google Translate.

"In Germany, malignant melanoma is one of the most common types of cancer, with well over 20,000 new cases annually—a figure that is on the rise. However, should it gain approval, the therapy would be an option for only a few thousand of these patients, said Thomas Eigentler, head of the Skin Tumor Center at Berlin’s Charité hospital.

It is questionable, in any case, whether approval will be granted at all. A closer look at the figures raises doubts. ... 'The figures presented now merely confirm what was already known,' he said. 'But the big question remains: Is this truly relevant?' In other words: Can the combination actually save lives? 'That remains to be determined,' the tumor immunologist noted.

DKFZ expert Halama sees many unresolved questions regarding the published study. 'Hopes had been pinned on much greater differences,' he said. 'The current study has not yet clarified the picture.' The question of whether the combination therapy can prevent a significant number of deaths remains open. 'One might well be skeptical about that.'

In the event of approval, further questions would arise: Is there sufficient capacity in Germany to manufacture patient-specific vaccines promptly—that is, within a few weeks—following tumor removal? And what would the therapy cost?

Carola Berking of Erlangen University Hospital explained the complex manufacturing process: 'For each patient, tumor tissue would have to be individually collected and shipped, and the vaccine produced,' said the director of the dermatology clinic." "The complex logistics and strict manufacturing guidelines make the therapy very expensive—there is already talk of very high prices exceeding 300,000 euros per patient."

I don't think Scancell needs to fear this competitor. However, it would be good to finally hear some statements regarding Scancell's financing. In the meantime, I wish everyone a nice weekend!

There must be good reasons why Prof. Long is involved with Scancell.

Thanks Wildforce for the link!

Here our advisory board member Prof. Long presented: "I am pleased to present these updated brenetafusp data at ASCO. Patients with advanced

Melanoma who progress on anti-PD-1 therapy have limited options, and seeing meaningful

Disease control in heavily pretreated patients is genuinely promising. These results support

continued evaluation of brenetafusp in advanced melanoma,” said Professor Georgina

Long, Medical Director, Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney"

Hello Wildforce!

"The only reason I can fathom is .. they don’t need to ??"

I completely agree with you. However, if Scancell were represented there, they would have to engage in discussions that they no longer need. The silence observed over the past few weeks has a significant reason—one that is confirmed by their non-participation.

Perhaps the news is scheduled for after the conference?

Given the leadership team's excellent connections—and the top-tier scientists assembled within the company—word of the potential of Scancell’s products has likely already spread among the major pharmaceutical companies. In light of the substantial funds generally required to ensure liquidity during the second half of 2026—and not merely for the study itself—the path to securing financing must surely be clear by now. In my view, everything has already been finalized. It is also conceivable that the partner company simply does not wish for the deal to be made public at this stage, and that the delay does not lie with Scancell.

The collaboration between Scancell and Riva is expected to drastically reduce Phase 3 costs. This should also influence financing options.

When I consider Scancell's network and the clinical data generated to date, I am firmly convinced that current shareholders can anticipate extremely high returns.

Thanks for the tip, Marcus!

Erik Scalfaro, CEO and co-founder of Rivia, stated: “Two years ago, we made a deliberate decision. We started with the scaffolding—building the foundational data engine first—before turning our attention to the agents. Today, this vertical progression from data engine to agents gives us a structural advantage. We have seen biotech companies conduct global trials on Rivia and achieve measurable results—ranging from avoiding issues that would have cost millions to gaining early clarity on which patients stand to benefit the most. With every new trial, our ontology library expands, making our system increasingly powerful over time. Our goal now is to scale clinical trials through workflows and AI, rather than through additional human effort.”

Rivia was founded in 2022 by Scalfaro and Tiago Kieliger, driven by the conviction that new medicines can be brought to market more successfully—and with a fraction of the capital currently required.

The company notes that regulatory oversight is intensifying, with recent FDA guidance requiring clinical trial sponsors to proactively manage risks and ensure regulatory compliance. This revised framework explicitly encourages innovation in the design, execution, and technological implementation of clinical trials.

https://www.rivia.com/success-stories

I was quite confused, but now I understand better. The German translation shows me Brese 18 for Chester 18 – please excuse me.

I ask for your understanding if I express myself poorly due to the incorrect translation. I enjoy being in this forum because most of the posts are very interesting. And like everyone else, I'm eagerly awaiting some news!

Sorry, my answer was for Chester 18...;))

Hello Brese 18, I was very surprised a few months ago to see that a British company with strong data from a Phase 2 trial was valued so low. As I've also observed, there was and still is no significant awareness of the company in the EU. Since I have no knowledge of the British stock market and no relevant academic expertise, I have to use other criteria to decide whether to buy Scancell shares. In my view, "credibility" is a crucial buying criterion in a high-risk industry. The FDA approval for the Phase 3 trial, the Fast Track approval, and the composition of the advisory board are all important reasons for me to consider Scancell's products and objectives credible. This seems to be the view of some scientists as well, because ChatGTP tells me: "Scientific validation instead of financial market PR. Interestingly, many of these people don't risk their reputation lightly. Especially:

Wolchok, Eggermont, Schadendorf, Weber

have enough standing to be very selective."

Not only the products, but also the approach and the involvement of experts show me that Scancell is doing excellent work.

I asked ChatGTP for their assessment of my thoughts and opinions. I now see my investments in Scancell shares as confirmed, although of course a risk always remains. Here is some information:

The composition is not "prominent" by chance, but covers almost the entire modern melanoma immunotherapy architecture:

Checkpoint pioneers

Vaccine specialists

Registrational trial designers

Translational immunologists

Global melanoma networks

Regulatory credibility

With the inclusion of Dirk Schadendorf, the cluster is further shifting its focus toward leading European oncology.

...

This KOL network acts almost like a "de-risking layer" for potential partners.

When:

Wolchok,

Weber,

Eggermont,

Schadendorf

engage with a program, the perception increases:

"This is no longer some obscure AIM biotech experiment."

This is important for:

Co-development,

licensing,

or future acquisition interests.

My overall assessment:

The current Scancell cluster is:

significantly above average scientifically,

exceptionally strong for an AIM biotech company,

strategically very consistent,

and clearly focused on global melanoma positioning.

The inclusion of is particularly relevant because it:

strengthens European legitimacy,

shifts the network from "promising UK biotech" towards a "global melanoma ecosystem,"

and indirectly signals that the program is now being taken more seriously than it was a few years ago.

I think that when we hear any news, it will be good news for shareholders and patients.

When my illness first manifested a few years ago, I desperately wanted to participate in a clinical trial to increase my chances of success. Unfortunately, there were always exclusion criteria. I was terrified, as I was already in stage IV. A doctor told me that if it came to the final stage, I would receive any medication—even unapproved ones.

I was in a German hospital, and what he said next is quite remarkable. Because of a certain threshold, I wouldn't receive immunotherapy in England! Yet I was living proof that immunotherapy works even below that threshold.

For me, this means that if I had lived in England, I would have died years ago. And for many English patients, it means they are excluded from treatment due to questionable thresholds—with fatal consequences.

(Translation with Google Translate. I hope you understand...)

This decline doesn't bother me. The pipeline and the scientific experts on the advisory board were the main reasons for my purchase decision. Waiting for news is a bit annoying, but it will be worth it.

Chester18 said: "A person with his background and expertise of oncology platforms, clinical trials, FDA regulations, raising capital and putting a company onto the NasDaq is only going to add his name if the science is genuine."

I say: And all the other excellent scientists on the advisory board as well.