Member Info for Scinv_temp

BS. Aren't you in finance? Why don't you stick in what you know.

*you managed

RW if we managed to articulate a coherent question, I might be able to answer.

No changes can be made. If that was the case they would have notified and discuss with the regulator beforehand and also they would have to RNS it. That's just how it works.

One note that some here don't seem to take into account. It isn't just the 13 week scans that matrer. All subsequent scans matter. ORR is estimated at every scan and it's not like if we only had those 13 patients (for example) until the end of the trial the ORR would be 85% pepretually. At a subsequent scan, a patient that was previously a responder could have progressed, so the ORR would be lower at that later timepoint. Similarly, another patient that wasn't a responder previously, could then show a storng enough response so that ORR would be higher at that timepoint. So when we refer to updates, it isn't just for new patients, but also how the ones we already have previous data on are doing.

The truth is all the relevant media covered scancell when they released data in 2023. The reason they haven't been covering scancell the last 6 months, despite attending all these conferences, is that they have nothing to say. Almost a year ago is old news.

This has to do with alternatives for nucleic acid delivery to viral vectors and lipid particles (like moderna/biontech/many others are doing).. Interesting they are looking at alternatives to the current delivery method. PEG based delivery vehicles are usally the first step into entering this field (not patentable).

Pretty much everyone relevant to the field knew about this data already from last year. The only thing that sclp managed to do by attending several conferences this year with the exavt same data of an *open label* trial was to dissapoint them.

I hope we all manage to have your courage and your clarity to focus on what matters. GL to you as well.

Thanks for your comment Chelsea, you have my best wishes as well by the way, I did not participate in the other thread because I felt I don't really "know" as a newer poster here.

To the point, it takes 2 to tango. If you actually looked back, you'll see that my tone was different but posters here decided to counter facts with bullying. I did not start this.

Take care

A troll twists fact. Where exactly have I done that?

How can that happen when the company is trolling us?

They said they were excited to present their "progress". More like twisting the knife. At AACR where they gave them a spot for a presentation with a Q/A in the cancer vaccine symposium we were the only ones that were not mentioned in the relevant high profile media after the event, because we were the only ones presenting data from last year.

I guess they made it because it is only what the oncologist says that matters 🤣🤣🤣

Let'swait for the full data in Q3/Q4 2024, after all the CEO is honest about their predictions 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

🤣🤣🤣🤣

Oh yeah, how could I forget about the FCA?? They are doing a great job in preserv8ng the integrity of AIM and they will definitely care about this🙄

What exactly is the buffoonery you mention?

The company intetionally misleads investors and you care about scoring points in a BB. Are you invested here?

And I'm the troll?

🤣🤣🤣🤣

I was talking about scib1. If I made a mistake there, while I was the one shouting about then MAYBE you would have a point. But even in that case, it's not like the company informed us and I failed to read the RNS or the presentation. No. The company yesterday had another meeting that they "forgot" to update us about which was in person, and one of the attendees gave the update. Yesterday.

And now you want to take that that and weight it against formally disclosed information that someone else who disagreed with me was not aware of.

But you know what? Here have one point. I guess now scancell is trustworthy🤣

What exactly is the smoke?

But it is great the company informed all investors about recruitment in iscib1+ with an rns instead of in a meeting that not everyone could attend.

Oh wait...