Member Info for RayPointer

Yes, what I should have said was that
Scancell's IND would have been approved once the Ichor IND was approved i.e. the package as you pointed out.

So, since Ichor's IND predated Scancell's, it may well be alive and kicking as an independent IND (or it may be on life support, who knows?)

One point was not made clear.

Scancell are withdrawing their IND but does this mean that Ichor also have to withdraw their IND because it is linked to the Scancell IND?

If the answer is NO then that begs another question:

If and when the Ichor IND is accepted, is there a fast-track process for re-instating an unchanged Scancell IND with subsequent speedy approval?
Remember the Scancell IND was approved and was only held up by the Ichor IND not being approved.

I commented that this was good news but my comment was also removed.
I guess you were posting communication with the BOD

TF you say

"Just MO but I don't think it possible to read anything into the early AGM and last week's news was not good - the SCIB 1 Combo trial seems to have been downgraded. "

I beg to differ, it is not bad news. I am assuming here that CH's definition of "Immediate" is the same as everybody else's.

The only thing we have lost, and maybe only temporarily, is the kudos of Keith Flaherty running the trial. But it is the quality of trial data that really matters. The person running the trial is secondary IMO.

Is Professor Poulam-Patel a worse man for the job than Keith Flaherty because he is not American?
I would suggest that the published league tables for doctors in various disciplines are a little bit biased.

"Sorry for the OT, but really it isn’t. Think about it."

Here's my take on Stokes innings

He first did the hard work taking over 50 balls for his first 3 runs.
Then when the situation demanded it he cut loose. My favourite was the ramp shot he played for 6 off the world's number 1 test bowler (Pat Cummins). How can you do that?

Well Scancell have also done the hard work to get to the position of starting trials.
Here's hoping they cut loose now.

One area of concern is captaincy. Joe Root IMHO is not a good captain. He does not bowl the right bowlers when the situation demands it. He should have instilled a much more caution approach in the 1st innings (8 of the 10 dismissals were unnecessary IMO)

What about CH. The Joe Root of Scancell?

Yes, we need to win this test and then it would be great to get a fit Anderson back for the next test.
As Geoffrey says
"(James) Anderson has a gift from the gods: he could swing an orange."

Yes, exactly.
But can we trust Cliff when he talks about timescales?
Let's see what Lindy says about the collaboration at the AGM.

Yes, but who told us it ended in June?

Joes Root has ordered a touch of rain to top up the puddles.

What, you mean the one that he skims off a puddle

Australia will have to face Jofra Archer in bowler friendly conditions

The paragraph on "data exclusivity" is interesting.

If I read it correctly, it means that from marketing a product

a) 8 years before preclinical and clinical data is released
b) A further 2 years before a generic product can be marketed
c) A further 1 year if significant changes have been made to the original product (e.g. SCIB1+)

So we certainly look safe for 10 years from first marketing of the product in Europe with a probable extra year.

http://www.bartleread.co.uk/article/patent-term-extension-in-europe/

Knowlesi's original concern was the patent in Europe I believe.
The above link describes a possible 5 year extension in Europe (similar to the US).
And remember we already have a 7 year extension in the US courtesy of our friends in the FDA granting orphan designation.

Back to your original question

"will use of the SCIB1+ mean a new Patent (sure it will), and then by definition add to the Patent life as discussed yesterday?"

I am pretty certain that a new owner of SCIB1 would look on SCIB1+ as evergreening (via a new patent) and possibly the same with nano-delivery. Then it is up to courts to decide whether it is valid if and when a generic drug manufacturer challenges it.

Yes, it does seem to be a grey area as this link describes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreening

Reading the first few paragraphs gives you some idea of the games that Big Pharma play to try to extend patents.

and another!

I've always wanted to say that!

I think all this is on a background of big pharma's seeming bias against cancer vaccines in the past.
We all hope that the bias is melting away as more scientists start to consider vaccines as a valid approach.
Quite how far big pharma's views have changed recently or whether they have changed at all is anybody's guess.
All IMHO.

Yes, I agree with you on that possibility.
But we all hope that the SCIB1 trial will add more high quality data to that already existing for the mono trial.
That may be enough to tempt big pharma, it all depends on how high SCIB1 raises the bar.
Who knows what the inflexion point for big pharma will be?
But I do agree on the principle that the more data, the better.

I would imagine that Scancell are sticking with 25 patients at present since they are still hopeful that a resubmitted IND will be approved in the not too distant future. So they may still expect that the 25 is supplemented by a US trial.