Member Info for RuckRover

"Crumbs understood what i was posting ...
You did not …"

Crumbs has said exactly what I have said.

Inan,

"just your interpretation of "staging" "

I haven't mentioned staging at all. I quoted some numbers (like you did but yours were wrong)

I worked out that the death to case ratio for melanoma is 10% and pancreatic cancer is 80%
From these numbers I deduced that pancreatic cancer is HARDER to treat (FOR WHATEVER REASON)
I never mentioned staging, but I think everyone who has had first hand experience of cancer (themselves or close family) knows that early detection is key. The earlier it is caught, the better the chance of survival and cure. When caught late, after it has metastisised, it is HARD to treat.

Even so, melanoma is of a type that does respond to immunotherapy well. Who knows, prof Durrant and team MAY develop a treatment for pancreatic cancer - let's hope she does.

The whole point of my point was to show that Scancell may be able to develop something unique and therefore more valuable.

perhaps you should have a lie down for a bit?

"Now you seem to be back peddling ... "

What are you talking about??????

Inan,

"what you are confusing"

I'm not confusing anything. If I were, then Prof Durrant ("hard to treat") and Dr Cheng ("difficult to treat") are equally confused:

“Keytruda is already an established treatment option for non-small cell lung cancer, and today’s approval in small cell lung cancer demonstrates our commitment to bringing forward new treatment options for patients with advanced, difficult-to-treat cancers,” Dr. Jonathan Cheng, vice president of oncology clinical research at Merck Research Laboratories, said in a press release.

Inan,

"its treatable like melanoma if you catch it early ... "

This is true of most cancers. Surely you are not trying to argue that pancreatic cancer is NOT harder to "treat" than melanoma?

"you can have cancer but die of something else
heart failure ...
its how its recorded at time of death …"

Your point being?

Here are some numbers, estimates for 2018 rather than 2019 (USA)

Melanoma - cases 91,270 deaths 9,320
Pancreatic- cases 55,440 deaths 44330

The ratio of deaths to new cases are
Melanoma 10%
Pancreatic 80%

Would this not suggest that pancreatic is "Hard to treat" ?

Inan,

"43, 0690 will die in 201."

do you not even read what you cut and paste?

Inan,

".... the ones you dismiss ... "

I don't dismiss efficacy as an important factor in the calculation.

"2019, it is estimated that there will be 96,480 new cases of melanoma in the United States and 7,230 deaths from the disease."

Here's a question for you...

Does that mean that Scancell will only be able to target the 7,230 people where current treatments are not working?
How do we know that the 7,230 are so bad that even Scancell won't treat?

Inan,

"Ruckrover ... they are all hard to treat ... !!"

Not according to prof Durrant. She uses the term "hard to treat cancers" when referring to pancreatic and some others. This implies that some are "less hard to treat"

I thought it was fairly obvious that the "hard to treat" or if you prefer "harder to treat" ones would therefore have less competition, therefore whoever cracks them (hopefully) Scancell will get a bigger market share if not all!

Dracula, it is a reasonable question and one that I'm sure all investors here have asked at one time or another.

I know these sort of deals are highlighted in a "that could be us" euphoria now and again (Tilos, Juno, Kite) but the truth is there are thousands of small bios only a fraction will succeed and only a fraction will get one of these mouth watering deals.

Believe me, if Scancell were to be offered anything remotely like these, they will grab it with both hands.

The fact is, Melanoma does respond to immunotherapy quite well. These are a number of companies with treatments. Maybe this is putting off a big offer from a big pharma, too much competition?

I think the value from Scancell will come from the hard to treat cancers, but these are years off. As I said last week, Scancell are progressed on SCIB but pre-clinical on MODI. They should have flogged SCIB lock stock and barrel to fund Modi (in my opinion)

Many look to a mega-deal as a way of getting instant returns. I look longer term and if a deal comes sooner, then great. If you prepared to wait ten years, buying at 6.7p could get you a 50% per annum return if all the treatments are successful.

Crumbs,
“Ruck you're supposing scancell become a big bio”

I’m really not. This is what I’m not getting through. It doesn’t affect the intrinsic value of the Company’s products whatever model is used. Either Scancell put up 100% of the required revenue (through share issue) and keep 100% of the profits, or someone else puts up the money and takes a percentage of profits (leaving Scancell with less)

Of course the big difference is in time. If a deal was done next week, we may see an immediate return in terms of share price. If we have to wait until Scancell become a big pharma it will be 10 years away. Of course, the most likely is a combination of the two in which case we could see 50p in the next couple of years.

Inan,

“market can withstand "billions" .”

What does this actually mean. We all know the oncology market is worth billions no one is disputing that. The question is how much of that market will Scancell treatments grab, how much of that revenue will end up in Scancell coffers, how much of that will be left after costs (net profit) and how much of that net profit will be returned to share holders as dividends?

There is a lot more to this than you think or care to admit. This is why you resort to technobabble and meaningless sound bites like “the market can withstand “ rather than producing an arithmetic calculation.

Crumbs,
I’ve really struggled to get this point across: there is no such thing as non-dilutive fund raising.
You either raise cash selling shares (placing, OO) OR raise cash by selling a stake in future earnings (“a deal”)
Both result in the same thing. This is the bit that most here seem to have failed to factor in to their SP targets. I have. This is why I get £1.50 and not £8 that has been banded around.

The mythical “£8 ticket is still available”. You can buy plenty for 7p and may be able to sell it for 50p or £1.50 if you are lucky.

C7, crumbs,
I too am a member of the 14.7 club!

The other encouraging thing about the DE investment was not only does he understand Scancell, he understands the sector and what it takes to be commercially successful in it.

C7,

I agree, I think the severe news drought is over. Even a steady trickle of news could hold us at the current price and maybe get us into the teens.

Dalesteer,
Not as sobering as a good nights sleep lol.

“I simply could not put a value on it.”
That’s a shame, it would be interesting to get your expectation.
Estimates are based on assumptions. As I do forecasting professionally, I suppose I’m less noncommittal. The first thing you have to understand about forecasting is you can never get it right. Why? As you say, there are too many variables. What you have to do is be as accurate as you can, based on the most realistic assumptions.

Inan,
So have you revised your £8 target or are you sticking with it?

Ray, I have considered “Inan’s” model. What do you think it is worth in £s ? (Realistically)