Member Info for RayPointer

"Sat here at 5p, we know that the only thing that will lift it into the teens is trial data. This looks unlikely to come before well into 2020. In the meantime, this will languish below 10p."

I do not quite agree here. A deal or deals will also lift the SP. But I will not predict to what level or when it will happen.
And with Biontech we have had a 6 month delay that was explained at the AGM. We may or may not see further delays
when the viral vector is handed over to Biontech but do know they will want to play with it.
A big reason for low sentiment are the unrealistic timescales put forward by CH in early 2018. Some believed them but I didn't. So we are now in a position where the CEO has lost a lot of credibility and indeed lost more credibility recently by misleading the market.

"Sentiment was high and it was this that drove the sp as no one had looked at the real financial possibilities."
Yes, I agree totally with this, in 2012 the SP got way ahead of itself. Also the timescales to develop a drug were totally ignored.

So, given we are now at 5p we ask
"Is the converse true? "

Now that is a question for the individual to answer. A BB can help by debating arguments and counter arguments but in the end it is for the individual to decide.

Yes, I agree there are valid reasons for not buying or even selling.
As always, it is up to the individual to do research on pros and cons and come to their own conclusions.
Personally I see more pros than cons.
Others would take the opposite view.

Ruck
Exactly why I later stated that the obsession should be with the science (beer).
I know we are not cancer research scientists but that doesn't prevent doing research not only on Scancell's science but also our competitors.
I would suggest that it is more logical to buy NOW than it was when the SP was briefly in the 50s back in 2012.
Sure, we have had 100% dilution

But ........

1) Great SCIB1 trial results
2) Modi1 about to be trialled (we hope)
3) Avidimab breakthrough
4) 2 possible pre-clinical deals
5) Multiple endorsements from the scientific community

It is still a risky buy but we have never had as many mitigations.
But I do agree that “Psychologically” the low SP will put many people off.

and another making it 0-3.
GL to the Chelsea youngsters tonight.

The Vulpes investment certainly came at an opportune time.
The big hope is that other IIs have taken note are are currently running the sliderule over Scancell.
The other hope is that the Diggles are giving CH coaching sessions on how to attract investment LOL.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6382/1355.full

IMO, here is a quite brilliant article by 2 great scientists.
Let's not forget that one of these great scientists was on Lindy's GC team.

C7
I was so absorbed in the BB that I didn't notice.
CH out and Sean Dyche in LOL

Ivy
Yes I too sympathise with people who have suffered in this way.
I have come to the conclusion there are 2 Scancells. The Scancell of science (always evolving) and the Scancell of waiting for data.

We are away to Watford today.

You make some good points Bermuda.
CH was hailed as the "dealmaker" 18 months ago on proactive.
To me, he is anything but.
How can Moderna attract such huge sums of money with technology that they themselves say is probably 20 years away from fruition?
Scancell are about to trial a product that has attracted the attention of many top scientists. It would seem to me that CH should have an easier job attracting investment than the CEO of Moderna.

I'm sorry Ivy but IMO there is too much of an obsession with the SP.
Either Scancell has the products to have a big impact on the fight against cancer or it hasn't. That, to me, is where the obsession should be.
The SP will follow with deals and/or compelling data.

I see your ex-manager has got off to winning ways.

Sorry 8% invested in the UK

My thoughts are that for a tiny company such as Scancell II investors are hard to come by.
Take the Framlington Health fund for example. Only 5% invested in UK companies.
What are the chances that the fund managers even know about Scancell, let alone have researched it in any depth?

Of course, if the Modi1 data is excellent, then they will take an interest, and IMO we will see those IIs investing.
In the meantime, doesn't this lack of interest play into the hands of well researched PIs LOL?
Of course, there is a fair amount of "confirmation bias" in a lot of our discussions and the risks are still there.

https://www.trustnet.com/factsheetpdf?url=https:%2F%2Fdocumentscdn.financialexpress.net%2FLiterature%2FEDEAB7911B932F89AD17D829B2F68E43%2F119710986.pdf&Citicode=fr45&Universe=O&Fundcode=undefined&Sectorcode=undefined

What this talk shows clearly are the 3 pillars of Lindy's work

1) A target widely expressed on a tumour but not on healthy cells
2) High avidity whether binding to an APC or the tumour itself
3) A killing mechanism - in this example multiple possible killing mechanisms

This may have been posted before

https://vimeo.com/155954442

It is Lindy talking about Gylcans Mabs and how they can kill cancer cells.
IMO Lindy speaks with great clarity and confidence.
Her talk also gives an insight into the different killing methods that Mabs can utilise.

Remember also, that this talk took place pre Avidimab.

But I'm not an accountant - thank God

I think I understand both sides of the argument.

Royalties flow through whether or not you have ongoing costs. You don't have to do any further work to earn them.

Because of this "free" money you can concentrate all your efforts into producing new products, running trials etc, plus all the other costs of running a company. There is no effort involved in manufacturing or marketing the product for which you are receiving royalties.
In effect, all the costs are investment in new products.

If you owned the company outright, you could indeed decide to stop all activities, fire the workforce and have no costs whatsoever. You just live off the royalties (minus any tax of course) without doing anything.

This, to my mind, is different to the situation where you have costs manufacturing the product, marketing it, etc. To keep receiving the revenue you have to keep spending on these items.

All very interesting but I would suggest that Moid1 action is an example of entropy decreasing.
Temporarily of course.

I am mystified whether entropy and evolution has any relevance to fighting cancer.
Please explain.

I see Isa Pharmaceuticals and Polypeptide are represented

https://neo-antigen.com/speaker/willem-jan-krebber/
https://neo-antigen.com/speaker/trishul-shah/

You are right Inan.
I should have added the word "personalised".
What Lindy specifically wasn't keen on was the approach of Genentech/BionTech

https://www.gene.com/stories/advances-in-the-cancer-immunity-cycle?topic=epigenetics