Member Info for Scinv_temp

"

Hey Bermuda, you enjoying this? I may not know or care about who you are, but I know what you are.

And what happened to all the hla a2 patients waiting for iscib1+ to the point that it delayed scib1 recruitment Bermuda? Not a single a2 patient in iscib1+ yet as they are waiting for scib1 to complete recruitment.

*4 patients + the one that progressed

Did you read what you wrote?

Now you are just playing dumb.

Of course it's good to see response at any timepoint, but it is 25 weeks after first dose that matters (3 scans), therefore results from Nov 2023 are not banked except for 4 patients.

Hey Bermuda, come over and add something (whispered to you by LD)

*SurpriiiIIIIIIiiiise

I guess I can do whatever I want. Supriiiiiiise!

By the way, at minute 34 to 34:30sec (youtube updated), LD clearly says strictly speaking we have to wait 25 weeks for the final data. I guess she wasn't speaking strictly when she telling the useful spoons by email that data from Nov 2023 were banked lmao

Ah it's the same from May. With patient 7 missing there too. Effing mess.

OK I'll give you something to talk about.

If you compare the spider plot from the agm with the spider plot from Nov 2023, it is supposed to be on the same patients, but it's not. Some easter eggs in there that might make you happy (for example it seems there is another CR but the first one not shown anymore and patient 7 is missing) and also some not so great stuff.

I won't waste any more time on that plot, I'm here for investing not effing treasure hunts.

How about Lindy giving the shareholders who supported the company a proper update even if it is an interim one?

They didn't mind giving back to back updates prior to the previous raise, another one a year later surely is not too much?

Needless to say, this is not speculation or opinion. It's just how it is with recist 1.1

Also note that per protocol, on this trial, once PD patient can no longer be dosed with scib unless the clinician justifies (case per case) why they should continue AND the patient agrees.

So if at 25 weeks there is 30% reduction (PR) but then at 50 weeks there is 100% reduction (CR) -> complete response. But if at 13 weeks it's 30% reduction but 25 weeks it's 20% over base scan -> PD. If it then falls again, the n the irecist protocol kicks in and although I've asked, they did not clarify how they plan to handle irecist scenarios.

BOJO, best scan refers to a timepoint after the 25 weeks following the first dose.

Note that the multiple scans is a requirement for phase 2 open label efficacy studies, not phase 1. Also, in cpi combinations alone it is due to new lesions that about 1/3 of the patients are not shown as responders.

Recist 1.1 says minimum 3 scans (1 + 2 or more confirmations), week 25 is the 3rd scan.

Then again, they no longer mention "per recist" under the graphs in the latest presentstions, which would also mean they would have to indicate patients with new lesions with an asterisk.

So yeah, typical LD.

The fact that you don't like me posting but can't resist to taunt is a testament to your intelect. Not that we didn't know....

*recent agm