Member Info for RayPointer

You may be right Crumbs but doesn't the profit share only apply if Scancell choose not to buy back the data for a nominal fee.

a) 45% have the MHC antigen HLA-A2 and are therefore suitable for SCIB1 treatment - as Crumbs says
b) The patient population increases to 90% with SCIB1 plus
c) current Keyturda efficacy I quoted 20-30% so a bit more research required to get a more accurate figure
d) Lindy's target 55% (I quoted 50% from memory but Inan says 55%, Inan is generally correct on figures - especially when competing against my memory LOL)

Definition of efficacy in this context. Not had time to look at this but I would have thought (knowing Lindy setting the bar high) that this is being disease-free for a specific length of time. The green lines on the SCIB1 swimchart.

The other saving is, of course, the memory effect. With SCIB1, a disease free patient is much more likely to stay disease free. Another saving.

"Why on earth are we sub 5.5p?????" exactly Ruck, the SCIB1 swimchart alone makes this baffling. IMO it's the market not understanding Scancell.

That's interesting Crumbs

Chinese CI = cheap (or at least cheaper than American)
Immunobody = cheap

Not that I am trying to connect the two, that would be ramping.

The thing is this proposed method of delivery looks like it is for any RNA or DNA based vaccine.
Not just cancer RNA/DNA vaccines.
So another future land grab? Who knows?

Looks like Nottingham Uni School of Pharmacy.
But if the glycans platform is anything to go by, Lindy would pinch it for Scancell for a nominal fee were it to prove successful.
Another of your "BionTech on the cheap" initiatives.

Also yet another example of the Lindy's breadth of research. So whatever she used on the SCIB2 pre-clinical research (and she has stated that this is better than TriGrid) she is still looking to improve.

How many small bios do this? By that I mean choose an aspect that is not part of the product itself and set out to improve it.

Many thanks to Crumbs for finding this.
Lindy's getting involved in research into nano delivery.
Nottingham's "School of Pharmacy" is joint 1st rated best in the country for research.
A legacy from the proximity of Boots methinks.

https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/pharmacy/

https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/pharmacy/people/snow.stolnik

https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/pharmacy/people/pavel.gershkovich

The 2 scientists teaming up with Lindy for this research

And I suspect there is not a linear relationship between efficacy and what a pharma will pay.
But that's my opinion

Sounds simple to me.
So the one variable is efficacy as team ramp have been saying all along.

Agreed Rats
Only 2 things really matter
a) Does it work
b) How well it works compared to current standard of care

Although, I must admit I am not well up on "pharmacological disturbance theory" LOL

I'm pretty sure she said this at the AGM, but I will try to dig up exactly what she means by this.
I would guess this is the percentage of patients that hit the desired endpoint. The first figure is typical for KeyTruda on its own and the 2nd the target for the combo with SCIB1. I'm not sure what the exact definition of the endpoint is in this context.

If you look at Scancell's swimchart for SCIB1 on its own, 10 out of 16 patients are disease-free after 5 years, 4 have had a recurrence and 2 have died. Now that is for patients with resected tumours.
We know that SCIB1 efficacy is reduced by the tumour fighting back in expressing more PD1 and its associated ligands. So, on the face of it the SCIB1 efficacy would be increased by a CI blocking off PD1 and its ligands

https://www.keytruda.com/

The other aspect that SCIB1 brings to the treatment is the differentiation of some of the TCells into memory cells. So you get the ability of the immune system to fight any recurrence of the disease with further vaccination. CIs do not have this aspect.
I am living proof of the memory effect. I took the flu jab this winter and I have't had a cold or flu all winter whilst all my family have been coughing and spluttering at frequent intervals.

Thanks for that Tommy, I will ponder on that.
But another question whilst I ponder.
Are TD using a model that assumes Scancell are taking each of the products the whole way through so sales?
I ask because
a) That is a model in common use
b) But that is not the case with Scancell
So, given that Scancell are likely to look for either a sale or licensing of a product after a phase 2 trail, how does this relate to a DCF calculation.
An example of this would be useful.

Putting DCF to one side for now, to my way of thinking there are 2 very important factors
a) Chance of success
b) Increase in efficacy above the current standard of care

The first is relevant now and is, of course, highly subjective. A knowledge of the science and that of our competitors is useful but by no stretch of the imagination leads to an accurate figure.

The second only becomes available as the trial progresses. So, for instance, the SCIB1 combo trial, Lindy is looking to increase the current figure of 20-30% to 50%. Now, here is when it becomes difficult (for me at least) since I don't believe the graph of IP against efficacy is linear. Big Pharma will get excited and be more likely to add extra zeroes to the cheque as that 50% figure is well exceeded IMO. They desperately want to stay ahead of the game or, for some, to just get into the game.

Correct me if I am wrong Tommy, but doesn't a DCF come into play when Scancell are planning to carry a product all the way through to sales?

Yes, but it's not VAL

I am not using DCF since I am looking for an outright sale in the next couple of years.

But if we end up with a steady stream of successful products with some still to be proved in the clinic then I may change my mind. The powerhouse situation that inan mentioned.
But more importantly, it is what the BOD decide based on events unfolding.

Consider if the following happens by 2 years time

a) SCIB1 trial already finished and very successful
b) SCIB1 combo surpasses Lindy's target
c) SCIB2 combo ditto
d) Modi1 - blows the opposition out of the water (technical term)
e) Modi2 - first indications ditto (assuming in trial)

Best case scenario I know.
But it's all subjective and depends by how much current standard of care is exceeded (and we hope it does that in all trials)

So, a suggested list of subjective variables per product

a) Base valuation
b) Current chance of success (updated as events unfold)
c) Difference to current standard of care (for SCIB1 you may want to set this initially to positive on the basis of the
completed trial)
d) Dilution (none at all (BionTectech), small one to tide us over, or the mother of all dilutions)

Inan
Is it in your memoirs? LOL

We have different calculations.
I will stick to my calculation because it is easy.
I prefer the outright sale because I want the best pick of the champagne vineyards. I am keeping an eye on Crumb's holding for this reason.

But for what it's worth

My calculation at present

starting point $1 billion (subjective of course)
% chance of success 50% (again subjective and my figure will hopefully increase as the combo trial progresses)
The figure of $1 billion may also increase if and when Lindy's target of 50% is exceeded.

So $500 million

Then apply a dilution factor (again subjective but as inan says, applied over the full range of products)

NEW...... we should all be applying scooby's "chronic sensationalism" factor as standard.

There is a lot of subjectivity and a lot of unknowns, so it is not worth spending too much time on.

Morning Ruck

One way of valuing would be based on the savings the NHS would have on reducing "in care" costs.
So %age increase of cures is relevant, hence the cost saving.
Then extrapolate this worldwide.
Of course, the better the SCIB1 combo trial results, the bigger the figures will be.

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

Scooby, this may interest you.

Recent transaction experience include Acacia Pharma (Euronext IPO), Benitec Biopharma (US IPO), Adalta and Sienna Cancer Diagnostics (Australian IPO's), Medistem (acquired by Intrexon), Arana (acquired by Cephalon) , Domantis (acquired by GSK) and FVSystems (acquired by GoDaddy).