Member Info for RuckRover

Violin,

I thought the same. Following surgery, there was no sign of spread. The metastatic tumour only appeared 4 years after surgery. If and when SCIB1 is approved it needs to be used in this scenario as well.

C11,

There was an interview with a patient and melanoma specialist on BBC Breakfast featuring the story. Anyone else see it?

"Good grief - on one board I'm slated for being risk adverse and negative and here I'm pumping SCLP"

A negative pumper? That must make you a sucker then! :)

"Exceptional results from the first 13 patients receiving SCIB1 have already been demonstrated, with an objective response rate of 85%."

Could be taken either way but I wouldn't say "strongly" on one or the other.

The term "ALREADY been demonstrated" is a teaser

already been demonstrated....... and we have some more positive data

Or

Already been demonstrated....... and we're going to tell you the same again

Which is more likely?

"Bermuda is feeding you balls"

Yes, yours probably.

Chester, posts crossed so that explains the timing as well.

No, I never thought of that so thanks for the explanation.

If it was nearer to April 6th I may have twigged. I'm a bit slow. .

Anyone got any thoughts on why someone would sell fairly large quantities at sub 10p?

Especially when so much (hopefully good) news is anticipated.

Ray,

Very true. We are good mates don't let the lively banter fool you into thinking. Otherwise.

Inan has been unwavering in his £8 per share prediction first made 10 years ago. We had had 4x dilution since then but on the other hand we have more products in the pipeline.

Personally, if everything is successful it could be worth £4 per share but that is a long way off and there's still a risk. Consequently, TD have a today valuation of 30p. I factor in another 1 billion shares issued to raise funds so the potential would be half of £4 which is (hang on while I get my calculator) ah yes £2.

If I was offered 50p next week I'd take it. That is purely a personal decision as at my age I'm running out of time to spend the winnings.

Who knows, Inan may be right. One caveat - he thinks you can draw a straight line between two data points and get a "normal distribution".

AIMHO

50p would be nice.

Chester,

Paradoxically, I think the BETTER the data, the MORE likely they will want additional funding. The further down the line they get, the bigger slice of the cake they will retain.

Personally, FWIW (and some say nothing!) I have allowed for another billion shares to be issued. At todays price that's only £100m so not a lot of money in this context.

Well with Sath raising his profile through presentations, being given share options effectively tying him to the company we can only deduce he is doing a great job and Scancell are VERY happy with his performance.

Ray,

"Ruck's level of optimism has always been directly proportional to the SP."

Good spot, but that's true of most of us isn't it?

TF,

"Ruck. You seem to (1) have gone so negative "

Not true, please don't confuse realism with negativity. After all, we have had great results and a 90% probability of hitting the 70% ORR target. In the absence of any supporting method I have confirmed that this is quite possible. So I'm confident we will (91% confident to be precise!) After all, stats and probability is my day job :)

"Your F1 analogy is totally unrepresentative of any aspect of Scancell. I can't understand why you are still here? "

I wasn't saying that is the case with Scancell I was merely using an analogy to make the point that "the science" (engine) is NOT the be all and end all.

Apologies if it came across differently.

Ray,

The science may well be "superior" to other company's. But you as often happens here you are focused on a single factor in typical "it's all about the science" mentality.

Well it's not, there are many other factors - having the funds to complete trials to a level big pharma will be prepared to invest, doing commercial deals, gaining regulatory approval, once approved selling the drugs, negotiating a good price or royalty.

The science alone won't get you into the fast lane any more than you'd get in formula one by putting the best engine on a chassis made of soap boxes and pram wheels.

Sorry TF, I didn't insult him as I deliberately omitted to name him. But you've done that now!

If you want to defend him, do so on ADVFN where we can all engage.

Jackdaw,

I agree, it is a very small sample. For sales forecasting I always use at least 24 months in order to at least get some idea of seasonality.

It was Scancell that came up with 90% based on the same data set. I just wanted to show where it may have come from.

Still, a data set of 11 is still better than a data set of 2 as advocated by the idiot over on ADVFN!

While it's quiet I thought I'd share an update on the 90% probability question I have been discussing on the other channel. It is quite long so if you find figures upsetting look away now.

Hi Inan et al,

I see you are desperate for me to post some workings, on the "where did the 90% chance of getting a 70% ORR in the next cohort of SCIB1 patients come from?" question

As I said in my last post, "I have never disputed the number given by Scancell but all I’m saying is I can’t verify the figures from the data I have. That either means I’m missing data or I’m too stupid."

Anyway, it turns out I may have been a bit stupid or at least slow.

In order to calculate probability (or chance), you need a data set. The published 82% is a percentage or ratio. It is a single number and cannot be analysed - merely projected forward which BTW would be an error. We aren't talking the throw of a die - in this instance the chances are fixed. You have a one in six chance of getting a one (on a six-sided die) and it will always be 1 in 6 regardless of the size and material of the die (assuming no bias)

So I followed the link you kindly provided to the January 2024 Interim Results presentation, page 10.

Here it presents the tumour size change percentages for each of the 11 patients:

68,-24,-31,-48,-58,-59,-69,-78,-81,-88,-94

If I was forecasting the next point it would be -51 (the arithmetic MEAN). But because of the large fluctuations the standard deviation would be high. So I'd only be 90% certain that the next value (patient) would be somewhere between 4% (growth) and -106% shrinkage. Of course, a shrinkage of 106% isn't possible. An increase of over 100% is, but a decrease isn't. So in this case we have a skewed distribution not a normal distribution.

So at this point I stopped looking - until today when I decided to revisit.

I arranged the results into groups -

above 0

0 to -29

-30 to -49

-50 to -69

-70 to -89

-90 to -100

The number of patients in each group is 1,1,2,3,3,1 - this looks like a normal (but skewed) distribution.

But the target is an ORR of 70%. So we can just take the top 70% (8 patients) and analyse the shrinkage data and variances of those. In this case we get:

Average shrinkage: 63%

Standard deviation: 22.3

1.28 SDevs (=90% probability): 28.6

Lower limit at 90%: 34.4%

Upper limit at 90%: 91.6

So a 90% probability of shrinkage between 34% and 92% - all within the PR/CR range.

There is a 91% probability of shrinkage between 30% and 90%, again all responses.

So, as far a the numbers alone go, it can be shown using probability and statistics that there is a 91% chance that a 70% ORR response rate will be achieved in future SCIB1 patients.

The one caveat is the sample size is very small. This will improve as data is gathered (and published!)

Bazookajr,

Excellent, thanks for the link.

My thoughts exactly Bermuda, best performance I have seen from LD, very upbeat and reassuring.

Me and Inan coming to agreement and AB getting 11 recs within a couple of days, who’d have thought.

Perhaps reality in finally starting to set in.

Word soup Ray? Must be Gaz-pacho.