Member Info for Scinv_temp

And at the end of the day I said "it didn't happen". Of course it didn't but the only way it COULD happen to the extent it would influence recruitment is if the doctors insisted. The truth is that the CEO is an incompetent communicator and she should let someone else do that job.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

That's just the extent of your comprehension.

Unless of course you think this happened prior to the launch of iscib1+ to the point that it affected recruitment of scib1:

Patient has metastatic disease, stressed and fraid

Doctor recommends SCOPE with SCIB1 + checkpoint inhibitors

Patient goes: "No doctor please, I want to wait for iscbi1+ because it has AVIDIMAB"

And the doctor says: "OK then, that makes a lot of sense. Come back in a couple of months and good luck with your metastatic disease"

"Thank you doctor, I can't wait to get avidimab"

Watch between the 8 min mark and 9 min mark and tell me if there is a doctor in the world who would recommend to an eligible patient to delay their treatment for months with a drug that already has encouraging data for another that additional patients are also eligible for. I know you are going to say "avidimab" but understand that if what the CEO said actually happened to the extent the CEO suggested (meaning the patients got a strong recommendation from the clinicians running the trial) it would be highly unethical. It simply didn't happen.

*inconsistent

You think reporting my comments is going to stop me from posting here? Think again.

It was a good interview (watch it yourself), but why on earth is the CEO blemishing good science with incosistent communication? She said that scib1 recruiting has been slow because all the patients were waiting for scib1+ which is outrageous and only recently she said it was due to screening failures. And you can report this all you but that does not change the facts

They forgot to change the tags on the internal document prior to publishing it 🤣🤣🤣

Minor relative to the big picture :)

Like I said before the trivial fool showed up

They paid for an exclusive research license. So they have negotiated terms which typically have the following format, first exclusive research license, then a success fee if the company moves forward (typically higher than the research license fee) and then milestones as it progresses. These are all preagreed. So in 7 months we will know.

The option to license (non research but a regular one) comes after the success fee. Most companies want this after the initial successful evaluation, but depending on how much money scancell asked for it may have exit clauses (for example a go/no go after phase 1) in which case, scancell collects all the milestones up until that point, and gets the rights back.

The idea that the 7 months came up because it is the end of the year is a brainfart. Scancell simply did not want to have it reserved for too long and they agreed on the minimum time to evaluate which more or less amounts to about 2 serial in vivo experiment batches + the time it takes to analyse t cell activation etc after culling the mice.

The option to license (non research but a regular one) comes after the success fee. Most companies want this after the initial successful evaluation, but depending on how much money scancell asked for it may have exit terms (for example a succesful phase 1) in which case, scancell collects all the milestones up until that point, and gets the rights back.

Like I said, they paid for an exclusive research license. So they have negotiated terms which typically have the following format, first exclusive research license, then a success fee if the company moves forward (typically higher than the research license fee) and then milestones as it progresses. These are all pregreed. So i 7 months we will know.

WTP imo almost certainly yes, there ia no reason why the large bio would want to pressure themselves as 7 months is just barely enough for a few in vivo experiments. So scancell must have tried hard (again I declare myself very surprised) to negotiate it down to 7 months.

It is the norm when large bio shops from small bio to keep the name of large bio secret as long as possible, as they don't want to reveal their plans/strategy

This has nothing to do with scancells credibility, the actual science is one thing and how the company treats investors another.

But how about we leave that discussion aside for the day?

*in this case it's for 7 months

Exclusive research license is usually for 1 or 2 years. I guess scancell did not want the partner to reserve it for too long as there are presumably other suitors, which is a suprisingly good deal, judging by how the rest of the company operates as a business.

Thank heavens!

Is this your personal diary?

And of course another guidance was given (early next year we will have 34 patients). It is now summer and we have 27, if that since the CEO isn't exactly reliable as the 21 from AGM November 2023 became 19 in November 2023 according to the poster they presented in May this year. But yeah, let's not bother them with questions and pressure them to formally update cause all is good. The aforementioned guidance is from 8'15" to about the 9min mark.

Https://youtu.be/say9mRBFzCo?si=xlAnPLtUrLwhbn8W

Listen from 8'5'' to 8'20''. "21 patients have been immunised so far"

How come 19 patients in November 2023 when at the same time (AGM) they said 21 had been immunised. Hopefully they'll sort the T cell assays (which admittedly are not straightforward) cause according to that data, that probably underestimates actual response, only 64% of patients would benefit from scib1 and that mostly is driven by TRP2 peptide so CD8+ cells (A2).