Member Info for Scinv_temp

To the moon, right? 🤣

To the moon 🤣

Well apparently full results are out. If the numbers don't add up, it's because they excluded patients.

Yet they immediately reply when they are called out. Did you sell, while at home or elsewhere?

By the way Bermuda/Burble. What kind of person are you when you have been the most eloquent "experts" on this, NOT showing up today. There is justice you know. And there is a way. Tick tock.

And one the video, listen from 47min 10sec closely. They are clearly also excluding everyone who progressed before the 13 week timepoint. That is not per recist and DOES NOT COUNT as proper clinical readout . PERIOD.

At least listen to the CMOs response at the Q&A for heaven's sake

The said very clearly and on several occasions that they excluded

1. All the patients that progressed during the first 13 weeks

2. All the patients that did not match the biomarker they just "discovered". Another violation of the protocol. As you have to report on all and then do sunsets.

The problem with the immunobody platform is that it's not very immunogenic. Same issue with covidity, they had 4 doses, everyone else had 2. Same here, they need those 13 weeks and multiple doses to start producing a significant response. That does NOT mean it was OK to exclude patients that progressed before 13 weeks since not only that is a violation of the protocol but also a violation of common sense. You can't tell a first line cancer patient that they have to be on treatment for 3 months+ before the treatment actually starts to do something.

No it doesn't. They have excluded patients that progressed during treatment. That is NOT per recist and it is disingenuous to present it that way.

That's not correct actually. It did have screening, it just did not exclude recruitment by HLA type.

It wasn't excellent. That's the problem.

The studies they are comparing to, did NOT exclude patients if they progressed within the first 13 weeks. They basically excluded several patients that would have counted negatively towards both ORR and PFS. And NEITHER do the large mrna vaccine for melanoma studies.

How would that work anyway? Tell the patient that for the next 3 months you are basically getting standard of care, and if you don't progress by then you might get a benefit?

Like I had promptly said, cohort 4 is an act of desperation and also a carrot. They need to point to something to get more money out of individual investors is my opinion.

So the fact that they aimed for 70%, yet they had to cherry pick patients from one cohort and combine it with another (this is garbage and direct acknowledgement that avidimab is useless in this setting) to get to 69%, is irrelevant?

*bojo

Hey boo, so it doesn't ring any bells that they identified a subset of patients, and only reporting on those in the rns, and that this is going to bring the jam tomorrow?

I'll go get myself some popcorn and leave you to it :)

69% overall and they didn't break it down. As expected avidimab makes no difference. Good luck :)

It means it has nothing to do with genmab, if that was the case they would have kept the first company which was dissolved after genmab got involved. Why would genmab change their mind now?

Nah. Those are just the ones who are out to get scancell. You know, the same ones that promoted many other vaccines (moderna, biontech, AZ, JJ, novavax etc etc) instead of covidity, because they are out to get you :)