Member Info for Scinv_temp

From scancell's point of view it is to maximise value, I'm sure they'd buy it right now but at much lower price that scancell does not want.

Tough call. If someone buys the glymab platform, then they absolutely need modi to work well or they have nothing IP wise.

More likely they wait for evidence of efficacy in the clinic before they do anything. More likely to happen during or after the phase 1, assuming they get it that far and see some evidence of efficacy as is often the case during safety/dose escalation trials.

That is very authoritative of you c11 :)

I often say the same, except more efficiently, just one or two words to say the same :)

*could not

Could listen for more than 5 min. Stand up comedy for toddlers. It isn't that she isn't great in her work, is the general theme of scientists simplfying things to the point where they are wrong.

Better to lose completely the lowest common denominator than use misleading simplifications.

*toddlers

CAR-Ts are notorious for having rather terrible side effects, not so gentle though that was the hope initially. Sadly the past 15 years scientists talk as if they address lobotomised todlers, outside conferences.

No, the problem is you are foolish enough to think

1. POLB is not a scam

2. If you spread nonsense about HVO, people are going to buy POLB

You are a garden variety fool

He doesn't hate HVO, he thinks all the HVO investors should move over to POLB, which is, quite literally, a scam. That is the extent of his intellect. Still out with no intention to re enter due to a change of focus in my investment strategy. But I still see a well run company.

Sorry, wrong thread. Ignore previous

*The doubt was how they would get funding to run...

The doubt was whether on how would the get the funding to run p2/3 not how to get to the readouts that would allow them to investigate all options. As recently as less than a couple of months the company was saying that current funds will get them to that inflection point.

What happened now is that the company diluted again to fund the extended timelines yo get to that inflection point. So the doubt about how will phase2/3 be funded is simply moved to around Q4 2025, so not dealt with per se.

CMC relates to process development, that is manufacturing of biologicals. Probably to a large cdmo/cro or another large company that does process development internally.

I would argue that often people have the tendency to fo foolish things.

Happy to be proven wrong when I say that private groups that are advertised in public forums are all about pump and dump, often assorted with garden variety scams by the "gurus" who run them. Often said gurus have female names as to appear more trustworthy (a psychological thing), Tony is also quite common though I never understood why lmao

Stay away from private stock tipping groups you fool

You are both fools. But the worst part is that you think others are bigger fools than you are. You are wrong.

xxx

Scinv

It would only be possible with DNA PD1. There are companies doing that but as far as I know they are using virus (AAV or Lenti) or LNPs/other delivery vectors. None of that is compatible with the device they said they are goong to use I think.

So if you want to bother, look for a company that plans to use the same or a very simiral device.

But in my opinion, not worth it. That is because if you have a DNA PD1, you want to go after the big factories (muscle) not the dendritic cells.

Too much obscurity right now...

They probably considered it from the start. But I think the decision was made after they saw the first results in the non A2 population and it wasn't as good as they expected Now if they bothered to tell as what they DO have we could then see what good enough ahould be.

They said it needs to be better, this tells me they have an IP issue and that it does not look better at this time (or even just as good as scib1 is in the A2 population).

I know LD said they ddidn't have any patients at 25 weeks yet but

1. They must have one or two based on when the cohort started

2. They could have communicated what they do have. Them pretending before that prior to 25 weeks is final, does not mean they can not report data before that timepoint as long as everyone is clear what the actual protocol is.

Until they clarify all this, we are all in the dark.

One more note Bermuda, that last part you mentioned would only make sense for a vectorised PD1 (DNA encoding the antibody) so you can combine them both in one shot. They are still using a device for the intradermal iscib1+, not a syringe. If PD1 it's an injection, it doesn't matter at all since it is still injection + device.

BOJO, in case of protein/small molecule drugs intravenous vs subcutaneous is a matter of convenience, of you can get them to work subcutaneously.

In the case of DNA drugs, it is a matter whether you want to target the muscle (better "factory" than skin but fewer dendritic cells) or the skin, to get to more dendritic cells.