Member Info for Scinv_temp

Institutions and insiders. The question is which ones imo

Just remember who are the experts who convinced you it is a good idea to keep gambling your money here. Bermuda and Burble.

They also had 4 patients that were covid naive and they said doubling in thise patients. And there are studies that check t cell responses with mrna vaccines in previously infected as well.

Nobody took a singular approach. Humeral responses were "advertised" more in mainstream media because it was easier for the public to understand and digest. It was also much easier and faster to get the humoral readouts, but actually all the companies did aim for cellular responses and did quantify them.

And I didn't lose any arguments. Ivy is being deliberately misleading talking about humoral responses when I posted cellular response data specifically.

You can be happy all you want. I still have the right to my opinion. Tick tock

For now. Do you really think it's efficient to duplicate management and regulatory obligations unless one wants to sell the asset?

It's not all doom and gloom. Glymabs seem to be doing well. It's just a pity that it is no longer a scancell platform.

Which is why they decided to drop it due to competition? (Their words)

And what I posted is t cell responses, which look (from the very little they said) terrible relative to other vaccines. And that is a FACT. Scancell themselves said it wasn't worth it.

Hint: That dash in the first sentence is very characteristic of chatgpt in particular.

Spell and grammar and also to write the posts.

Nope. What I posted is T cell responses in particular.

Regardless of what the efficacy of those responses towards preventing/ameliorating infection, what we are looking at is the responses to the vaccine antigens, regardless of how effective those responses are.

Oh and by the way, covidity was 4 doses and the rest 2 doses.

Https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abj9853

Spike-specific CD4+ T cells were generated by low-dose mRNA-1273 and were maintained as memory CD4+ T cells. We observed strong T follicular helper (TFH) and type 1 T helper cell polarization of these cells, which is advantageous for antiviral immunity. Spike-specific CD8+ T cells were detectable in 88% of vaccinees and maintained for at least 6 months in 67% of vaccinees. Spike-specific CD4+ or CD8+ T cell frequencies were not lower in older vaccinee groups than in 18- to 55-year-olds, either in the acute or memory phase. Thus, 25-µg mRNA-1273 vaccination induced spike antibody levels and memory T cell frequencies at 7 months after vaccination similar to those observed for COVID-19 cases 7 months after symptom onset.

Here you go

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8121504/

As expected, the vaccines elicited strong T cell responses against SARS-CoV-2, with a median of 222 spot-forming units (SFU) per million cells responding to SARS-CoV-2 spike peptide pools after vaccination, compared with less than 3 SFU per million cells in the prevaccination samples.

So it's 3 in the unvaccinated vs 200+ in vaccinated, so 66x over background vs 2x for scancell.

Doubling over background as they tested on covid naive patients. The rest are more stringent actually

After a quick check the covidiry platform vaccines induced t cell responses specific to the vaccine in 51% of the patients. While moderna and several over covid vaccines induced t cell responses vs their vaccine in more than 80% of the patients.

I wasn't following scancell back then.

And it still doesn't explain why we can't take a look at avidity data with scib since so much is riding on this