Member Info for Scinv_temp

So they are more or less matching what the company already has + the 6M of the raise (if there are enough fools to participate) to then control 86%.

According to June results they had 9M cash + 2M receivables (tax credits?) + 6M from the placing (if it goes through) 17M. So TFG will add another 18M and own 86% of the company, including the funds.

There is no value, whatever SNG IP still stands is not even worth the 18M they are willing to pay.

Somebody bought at 2.50 🤣🤣🤣🤣

Explains why the others left, they had some smidges of dignity to preserve

The only question is whether you are willing to fund RM's lifestyle and retirement.

80% + 40% discount. So any future value you hold just dropped by 90%+

Yeah because so far they have been paying for the nice returns 🤣🤣🤣

The only gnome effer here is RM. Has a thing for happy clappy gnomes I hear.

Not bad, that should last until RM's retirement. Well done.

Says the fool who supports POLB, which is 100% BS.

I'll let Bermuda correct you about scib valuation since he is so good at that, 1.5B previously, 1B according to latest RNS.

Who is the BSter?

No that's OK thanks. Point still remains on the IP issue though.

It is the backbone of the immunobody platform.

So they used the antibody sequence (at the time they needed a licence for that) as the backbone of Immunobody.

Not that it matters, as the patent has expired. Even if it is a different one, still practically expired based on when SC got the first patent.

The point was that SC has very little IP wise if iscib1+ does not work out and that point remains.

Of course, since scancell themselves said in an RNS that they licensed the antibody for the immunobody platform, don't you think you need to be a bit more specific in your references for it not being part of immunobody?

Nah, I'm OK with drill I gave to yours.

*and honesty

****Scancell licenses antibody from CRT, Phil H (current CEO) provides comment as director of BD at CRT (the backbone was developed in 1994)****

GB00B39J5N6310 August 2010 Scancell Holdings Plc (`Scancell Holdings' or the `Company') Antibody Licence Agreement with Cancer Research Technology

Scancell Holdings Plc, (AIM:SCLP), the developer of therapeutic cancer vaccines, and Cancer Research Technology Ltd (`CRT') - Cancer Research UK's commercialisation and development arm - today announce that they have signed an agreement under which Scancell has been granted a licence to use a human antibody known as 105AD7.

105AD7 is a human monoclonal antibody that mimics the complement regulatory protein, CD55. The antibody was discovered and originally developed at the University of Nottingham with support from Cancer Research UK and has previously been evaluated in clinical trials for osteosarcoma. The agreement will give Scancell a worldwide licence to use 105AD7 for the development of new ImmunoBody® vaccines for any immunotherapy indication.

The licence will be restricted to the use of the antibody as a framework for future ImmunoBody® vaccines.

****Original work that suggested that variable regions of antibodies can be used to engineer in t cell epitopes**** (1993)

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7689626/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7524883/

****Epitopes licensed non exclusively from NIH****

https://www.techtransfer.nih.gov/sites/default/files/documents/pdfs/Licenses.pdf

Also,

"Scancell's IP position around SCIB1 has been further strengthened by the signing of a worldwide non-exclusive licensing agreement with the National Institutes of Health (`NIH'), an agency of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, for use of the melanoma antigens TRP-2 and gp100, developed in the laboratory of Steven A. Rosenberg, M.D., Ph.D., at the National Cancer Institute. These antigens will be utilised as key components of SCIB1."

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/SCLP/final-results-zcrh0gtru92tqpb.html

-----

Scancell mostly put existing parts together, they own neither the parts nor the method. That's why they need iscib1+ to work BETTER (avidimab helping with t cell responses qualifies as surprising and non-obvious as it is not what it was discovered/developed to do at the mechanistic level). That is why they have a hard time licensing the platform early, it is all about IP. Hopefully glymabs and modi save the day. I would focus on scib1 that has orphan drug in the US, not going to make SC a multibillion dollar company but it could at least fund the pipeline.

PS if iscib1+ does prove to be better, that's a different story. And it would add huge value to the avidimab platform as well, so not just about the scib platform.

But I wouldn't bet on that yet

How's that for constructive? Like I said, it takes some effort and intellectual competence to recognise what is contructive and what is not. The truth is yo

Hey Bojo, how is your synairgen miracle drug doing?

You know why you are worse? Because you knew exactly who I am right from the start. Yet you never argued the nonsense that was said here about myself.

So take your grenade and shove it you know where.

POLB is a downright scam

Of course, some posts require at least some working brain cells in the audience before they can be recognised as constructive