Member Info for Scinv_temp

Nonsense. In other words, bring it on.

Going by LD's words, what do you think the 25 weeks she clearly mentioned in the previous agm means?

And that, like it or not, LD has intentionally misled investors?

Exactly Bermuda, all your "expertise" comes from LD which makes you objectively unable to evaluate what she says. You could have given an honest reply when I asked you (100 times) if you are an expert in this field but you failed to provide one.

Listen to the AGM, it is week 25 and beyond that matters, per recist guidelines you need mininum 2 confirmations to claim ORR, which is why they chose 25 weeks as a minimum (3 scans). I explained all back then providing links to the actual guidelines. But all you care about is what LD tells you. Will you admit now that you are clueless?

*of how it works for scope

This is what properly filled in trial records look like

https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT01783938?term=Checkmate%20melanoma&rank=17

https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT01927419?term=Checkmate%20melanoma&rank=15

They properly describe the timeframes for ORR. Scancell put 2 years, ergo my initial assesement of it works for scope.

The truth is you are clueless.

Also, not my fault that company put 2 years as the timeframe of ORR when it should have been 25 weeks, which is exactly what the checkmate trial did.

So you still insist that results from Nov 2023 are banked?

Any dignity Bermuda? OK didn't think so.

Btw, as I said in my previous comment they did not know how to fill in the trial record properly, it should have said 25 weeks under ORR timeframe instead of 2 years. They modeled the trial after the CHECKMATE melanoma trial, and it does clearly say 25 weeks under ORR in their verion.

But then again, I explained all that back in June, but the "expert's" (read dishonest fool) back then was what you see below with the rest of you contributing with insults.

So do YOU have any integrity C18?

"Bermudashorts

Posts: 12,776

Price: 9.65

No Opinion

RE: Morning9 Jun 2024 18:42

Scinv_temp

From your 13.34:-

'At a subsequent scan, a patient that was previously a responder could have progressed, so the ORR would be lower at that later timepoint'

Surely once a patient has demonstrated an objective response they will forever be classed as a responder. Even if they progress at subsequent scans they have met the criteria for an objective response and it's the duration of response and progression free survival results that are affected, but not ORR. So ORR can only go down if newly recruited patients don't respond to treatment."

"Bermudashorts

Posts: 12,776

Price: 9.65

No Opinion

RE: Morning10 Jun 2024 07:06

.......and nowhere on the clinical trial record does it state that ORR has to be maintained until the last measurement given in the timeframe section. The timeframe is simply the period of time over which the measurement is taken.

To be absolutely clear to those who you may have been concerned to read Scinv's comments - once an objective response has been recorded it is in effect banked as far as the clinical trial results go. Even if that patient subsequently progresses at a later scan it will not affect the ORR of the overall trial as he/she has already demonstrated a response that meets the criteria laid down in the trial protocol. He/she does not have to maintain that response for 2 years in order to be counted and the objective responses shown so far by the 11 patients can not be taken away."

I guess we'll pretend that you and everyone else did not insist that the announced results were "banked", or the timeframes for confirmation scan that we discussed back then. Very mature of you.

Spider plot of the agm presentation clearly shows second scan is week 19, third week 25 you delusional fool

The second scan is at 18-19 weeks you fool, third one at 25.

Sci102 26 Oct '24 - 05:34 - 542 of 543 Edit

0 0 0

I did warn on several occasions starting 10 to 12 months ago not to focus on iSCIB1+ too much because that could bring unecessary disappointment if they had to re focus. It's exactly what is happening.

This will impact mostly how high it could go following announcement of scib1 resulta and of course the valuation at the next raise. Hopefully no impact before that, but who kmows. Sucks to be in an avoidable situation.

Hopefully scib1 data will still have enough impact for a respectable exit...

Sci10226 Oct '24 - 05:59 - 543 of 543 Edit

0 0 0

By the way.

I was right about the BS that "patients were waiting for iscib1+" as they clearly said not a single hla-a2 patient on iscib1+ yet

And I was also right about 2 scans not being enough for ORR in a phase 2 trial, since they clearly said that evaluation is at 25weeks. Which means that in the data from Nov 2023, only 4 patients of 13 had been evaluated per protocol. So much for "banked"

And of course they played down the early approval BS, 4 year minimum to commercialisation

"Sci102 21 Jul '24 - 12:11 - 425 of 542 Edit

0 0 0

Scancell said by email they use the checkmate [melanoma] trials as a benchmark.

They evaluated ORR at week 25, so ORR in this case requires 2 verifications minimum after the first response at 13 weeks, in line with recist 1.1 guidelines for multiple verifications in phase 2 trials.

In a subsequent checkmate trial, they evaluated ORR until progression, change of treatment or death (standard r 1.1). If none of the above, they report the best response. If PR but then more than 50% growth from nadir, then PD. Up to 20 months.

So, whichever the case, we do need to know how (at least) some of the patients they have already reported on are doing + early PFS data + the results from the patients they have recruited since Sept 2023.

PS: they did not know how to properly report this on the clinical trial register lmao

Sci102 12 Jun '24 - 13:19 - 423 of 542 Edit 0 0 0 The "screening failure" excuse became "patients were waiting for iSCIB1+" today. The CEO hops from BS to dangerous BS. https://www.lse.co.uk/media/SCLP/scancell-founder-says-the-company-is-ready-to-commercialise-novel-medicines-to-counteract-cancer-9rchotyoqgbk24e.html From 8min onwards"

What is the most irritating is the sheer stupidity of the lies. They have a good product. All they had to do was NOT BS and it could actually go near the pps some people dream about after data release. Now it will be limped, hopefully not a lot.

PS and again "*I* don't patent the technique on how *I* make them" sigh..

Give a break EE.

Up to September 2023 we had 15-16 patients recruited and the trial had been running for more than 18 months. So all these generic things that you mentioned were true back then and still remain true now. The question is since they already knew the approximate recruitment rate up to September 2023, which was 16 patients iirc in 18 months, what was the informed and honest hypothesis back then that led them to believe than in the following 3 months they would be able to recruit another 27 patients to reach 43? Even at the extreme assumption that they would stop the trial when 27 patients show response, which takes minimum 5 months including comfirmation (more imo but that's another story), what was the reasonable and honest hypothesis in Sept 2023 that they would have recruited another 16 patients (27 -11) AND treat them AND done first measurement AND confirmed so that they would be able to stop recruitment by end of 2023 and, technically, complete recruitment?

(And by the way, given the latest recruitment numbers, there is no way we get results on all 43 patients this year, in fact it is unlikely the trial will be fully recruited by end of year).

*10 months late

Good morning. You are impossible to talk to so I am retreating back to my "chamber" as you call it. Unless you think recruitment has been completed, we are now 13 months late. In fact we are not late, the recruitment rate has been more or less the same since the trial adopted the current protocol. Company lied back then because they needed to raise cash.

Bye now

Joaung Inconsistency, for example that in the September 2023 RNS she said that the scope trial will be fully recruited by end of 2023. Had I checked the guidance from previous years (she had said something like that before) and the fact that the trial at its current protocol had already been running for more than 18 months with 16 patients recruited in September 2023, it would be obvious that she lied about getting to 43 in 3 months. It was in fact impossible to fully recruit by end of 2023 but I did not connect the dots then, sadly.

The research was focused on the data alone relative to field. As I was involved in a company at the time as a consultant (last year, now part of the executive team) I didn't have enough time to do my usual dd beyond the data that was available then. Live and learn.

It saddens me that you think you said something smart but no more than the 10+ "recommendations" you are about to get. It means I was drawn into an investment with you lot.

It would be a fantastic PR move to announce at an in person only meeting that is for shareholders, 90% of which will not be able to attend.

A genius must be running the company. I guess I was wrong 🙄