Member Info for Scinv_temp

Not to mention that they only animal data on iscib1+ are complete garbage as a comparator to original scib1 and therefore unreliable.

Scancell certainly did not mind shouting results from the rooftops when only 11 (82%) and 13 (85%) patients had data readouts. Or to insist that those results were final, when in fact they weren't. And I was the the only one pointing that out back then too, wasn't I. On how many patients do they have data on iscib1+ cohort by now do you think?

So yes, I'm rational and you are just holding an imaginary fort.

You don't, just holding the "fort" ;)

That's the spirit :) Hopefully you can sustain that 2 months from now. I know I will 🤣

24th of July in particular? Seriously "Chester"? 🤣🤣🤣

Dickie played you and won. I guess the people who used to praise him and "protect" him from any negative comments all the time for how smart he is were right. It's all relative anyway 🤣🤣

So I would imagine that the likely scenario is this, when ID starts recruiting there will be an RNS showing lukewarm iscib1+ data and a super hopeful tone about the new cohort that it is going to be soooo much better. You know the drill :)

My opinion is that if it is not by end of this month, that would mean iscib1+ is not working as hoped. In turn, that would mean that you will have to wait for ID iscib1+ which hasn't even started recruiting yet, so early to mid 2026 for a chance of positive data.

You did not mind at all and that is why you bothered to point it out. I'm sure the CEO has a great day every day 🤣

Judging by the balance of upvotes it seems CW overreacted in pointing out he posted first, given that posting very public info, especially old new, doesn't really have much value beyond cheerleading. I do agree.

That's what he does, he steals other people's posts🤣

Yes they are.

It's about the melanoma week/month/whatever awareness . They also did it last year and the update they issued was that sun exposure causes melanoma 🤣

🤣🤣🤣

Thank you for your comment Bermuda. It seems these awards of best European biotech/technology sponsored by Liberum (scancells broker and advisor), Cavendish and other mostly UK brokers/institutions who are awarding UK companies (read catwalking their wares) have nominated at least two companies from your portfolio for an award, angle and scancell.

Well done 🤣

You do realise that the nominated companies paid for that nomination, right?

*controlled trial, but not *placebo* controlled obviously.

For example, what if this increased cpi activity removes the brakes to the extent that now scib/other immune drug becomes toxic. I'm not saying it's likely, just giving an example of why the rules are how they are.

Scientific rigor. Just because it makes sense, it does not mean it does not need to be tested. It wouldn't be a huge hassle I imagine as it is the same cpi with another delivery method. A small scale placebo controlled trial perhaps. But no point discussing this since it appears sc is equivalent to iv, with a slightly better safety profile I think.

The reality is, if anything, scib would have to repeat some of the trials if SC cpi has different outcomes than IV, but I think they are similar.