Member Info for Scinv_temp

I don't need to. And they lie anyway :)

And you should also note that they stopped referencing "RECIST 1.1" on their data slides more than a year ago. The evaluation will be under RECIST 1.1, but the slides they show are not necessarily following that protocol, in any case they have stopped referencing it on data slides. Tick tock.

To be fair, this would be more accurate:

In the same trial there are 25 patients and the PFS follow up is for 97weeks per published trial protocol. There are about 20 censoring events on the PFS curve prior to the 97 week time point. What can you tell me about estimating the PFS and how the trial is progressing.

Try this follow up then.

In the same trial there are 25 patients and the PFS is supposed to be calculated at 97weeks per published trial protocol. There are about 20 censoring events on the PFS curve prior to the 97 week time point. What can you tell me about estimating the PFS and how the trial is progressing.

Also tell the AI there are 25 patients in total in that group, and 21-22 censoring events when the trial is not complete yet :)

PFS rate is stated in % and actual PFS in months

MPFS is the actual calculation for PFS. PFS rate is mostly stated in the interim. What I did is try to predict the actual PFS. Why don't you type the above in to your AI and see what it says. By the way, it is obvious you primed the prompt to say that I am wrong, this is evident from the response you got. But you know all that, you have explained it very well before.

That interview took place on 26th of June, and it is just repeating the same old

https://scancell.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/scancell-corporate-deck-fy-25-interims.pdf

pfs curve. mpfs is calculated with ******-meier, not arithmetically. this is in part because you have to take into account censoring events (end of trial with no event, lost to follow up, quit thr trial etc). from 6 months exactly (where they calculated the 80%) there are multiple censoring events (i counted 22) that have not been explained, total duration for each patient is supposed to be around 2 years (97 weeks) for pfs. this changes the mpfs calculation substantially but impossible to do without the details. ld did mention previously (when 72% was announced) that there was different patient selection in the beginning of the trial but nobody called her out on it. tick tock.

Except they didn't keep it in house

Is it?

...IF it works

Just a quick reminder that scancell neither owns or discovered the idea of antigenising antibodies to be used as vaccines, nor the epitopes in the scib melanoma platform. They also do not own the idea of combining vaccines with cpis. It is your superficial understanding on how patents work that leads you to believe that scancell has a viable platform in scib. It's just a vehicle for the company to raise money from investors, the only viable part is original scib itself that has orphan status in the US.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6173154/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1286868/

Doesn't matter whether they get granted. Not all patents can exclude others from doing something so similar that it is essentially the same. Most of them are about freedom to operate, rather than exclusion of 3rd parties

Bermuda, that's nonsense. Scib was discovered 35 years ago by a US university. Saying that scib + cpi is NON obvious is garbage. IMO.

Well if they know it works, they WILL do a phase 3 trial, and due to scancell data, they would only need a small safety then straight to registrational.

You think someone gambling money on CFDs is a threat to anyone but themselves?

By the way, it is nana who keeps banging on about short positions, not me.

Just to add that scancell has licenced the epitopes non exclusively, and in general there are many options around for melanoma epitopes no less because of the recent explosion of t cell therapies. In other words, if avidimab does not give much better results in the same population to prove that it works in this setting, iscib1 is useless as a second generation scib.

The problem with iscib1+ being the same as scib1 is that scib1 (or close variations of the same concept) will very soon be available for anyone to develop AND they can use scancell data in addition to their own to apply for IND to the FDA. So even if iscib1+ has a extended patent life, it is pointless if you can do the same job with the previous version.

It is also worth noting that Trinity is a marketing shop.