Member Info for TorquayFan

A repeat of Cleaner's 08.36 on 22nd :-

"Scancell Ltd Granted United States Patent for Anti-fucosyl-gm1 Antibodies - PHARMACEUTICAL | Fri 20 Feb 2026 Alexandria, Feb. 21 -- Scancell Ltd has been granted a patent for Anti-fucosyl-gm1 Antibodies. This invention was developed by Durrant Linda Gillian. The patent application number is US202017639467 20200902. The patent publication number is US12552876 (B2). International Patent Classification codes are C07K16/28 and C07K16/30."

Thanks Cleaner. Comments anyone please ?

Thanks Botski, so over there, Scancell's MCAP shows at £145 trillion ? My brain hurts but does that equate to approx. £140,000 per share ? I think Inan's long term guess is certain to be closer to the mark, in the final reckoning. Very funny!

Re. Burble 18.30 - here's the 'mention' :-

"British Company, Scancell, interim update highlights continued momentum for iSCIB1+, with Phase 2 SCOPE data showing strong progression free survival and durability alongside checkpoint inhibitors, and regulatory clearance supporting a planned global Phase 3 trial starting in 2026".

Yes EE. I agree with all of that. I too don't expect to see a deal for the whole Company but a few deals including a Partnership on iSCIB1+ which be transformational SP wise. Roll on the day !

Yes WF - whilst Phil says discussions (plural) that could of course, refer to successive discussions with one Partner, but I think we can take it as read that Scancell are having a discussion with a number of different Parties, on diffrent subjects.

It would surely be very unlikely that one Pharma is discussing all of iSCIB1+, SC134, other Glymabs and Modi 1, Modi 2 etc. It's also possible that one or more of these is being discussed with more than one Pharma.

The clear implication in the last year or so from all recent updates has been that there is a lot going on i.e. discussion proceeding with a number of potential Partners . . . .

So we wait on . . . . . and on ?

And Inanaco 26232 posted this link - might be relevant to discussion in this thread !

https://www.londonstockexchange.com/stock/SCLP/scancell-holdings-plc/company-page

As Quoths' 22.19 points out - SP 14 pence ? Roll on Monday . . .

From Chilltime 26227 - Melanoma market circumstances :-

"We entered 2025 with 2 competitors listed by Scancell, Biontech and Io biotech in the advanced stage 3/4 unresectable market. Biontech had their vaccine in phase 3 with a checkpoint inhibitor, it failed in late 2025 and was abandoned. Io biotech, highly suspect phase 2 early claims ended with a rejection by the FDA in phase 3.

The company most affected by the patent cliff/revenue is BMS - BMS also had a phase 3 trial running Opdualag in a combo in an adjuvant (post resection trial) that too failed in 2025.

So in 2026 the list has been reduced to just Scancell in the running. BMS most affected by loss of revenue and the hope of Opdualag in the adjuvant setting failed. Biontech failed. Io biotech, which may have been of interest to Merck (they were providing Keytruda free) is also a fail.

Moderna/Merck are under threat (courtesy of Scancell) with their personalised vaccine plans. The buyers of Scancell stock know this, and will know all the relevant majors are in talks with Scancell."

For those not looking in over there, I thought this was useful.

Thanks Chilltime - your posts are much appreciated here too !

Building on concern's re. the FDA and Marcus' post here on the 11th, (15.16), here's some emphasis from Chilltime 26213 over there.

"Vaccines, the FDA - The FDA caution is on mRna vaccines for infectious diseases. Vaccines given to healthy people to help with symptoms for a virus they may catch. The FDA Moderna refusal was due to poor efficacy and serious side effects over and above an existing flu vaccine.

Cancer vaccines like Scib are about trying to help terminally ill people recover, a better quality of life, live longer etc.

A virus vaccine as a prevention method v a vaccine that may cure a seriously ill person, bear no resemblance to each other at all. There is no way they would give checkpoint inhibitors to healthy people.

Comparing a virus vaccine to a cancer vaccine in terms of FDA risk is nonsensical."

Plenty of appreciation for that one !

Thanks Burble for that link - it's interesting to see Moderna receiving less enthusiasm at home than abroad. RP, yes I've been worrying about that aspect. Of course, it's hard to rely on anything USA wise atm BUT the FDA have approved Scancell's IND application in a timely manner. So maybe we can hope/expect a continuing positive attitude of that ilk,at the FDA - or not.

Good find again Cleaner. Feb 24th. Interesting that the first name listed is Merck !

Well see . . . . . .

No EE not that one. LOL

Bermuda 08.20 thanks for that - some good discussions too . . .

Are we pining for the days of Tony Benn c. 60 years ago ? - "Benn was promoted to Minister of Technology, which included responsibility for the development of Concorde and the formation of International Computers Ltd. (ICL). The period also saw government involvement in industrial rationalisation and the merger of several car companies to form British Leyland." (WikiP).

At least in those days the Govt. seemed to try. My old Dad was President of one of the Teachers Unions and was a great admirer of Benn.

Coming back to present days, it might prove to be a shame that Starmer is currently disabled in the mire - some months ago I recall him possible alluding to Scancell science ?? Sorry can't recall the occasion . . .

It is clearly outrageous that the UK supports mega-rich Moderna and BioNTech against homegrown science that is actually far superior.

A suitable case for my namesake Liz - "appointed Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology"?

Yep ! Pigs might fly !

If Scancell's science goes to China I would personally be mortified !

EE - I think Starmer will hang on - I dread the alternatives. An Election is some way off given the majority.

Violin you are being 'glass half empty' as usual.

Marcus I agree with those positives - the advantages oScancell's science will surely triumph.

Crusty - very hard to guess what might happen over the pond IMO

Fair enough EE. Moderna have lobbied powerfully in the past and there was the 'Agreement' reached with the the UK Govt. in 2022 for a new manufacturing facility for mRNA vaccines at Oxford was projected- (I'm not sure whether the Tory Govt actually committed any funds to that).

Agreed it's concerning to see focus on the 'personalised' approach again yesterday in the new 'Cancer Strategy' - "Creation and roll out of the next generation of personalised treatments".

Hopefully drum rolls as Scancell progresses to iSCIB1 Phase 3 with a Pharma partner, will soon consign mRNA to it's appropriate place. Re. Starmer I'd say, "be careful what you wish for". He and his Govt have made awful mistakes but I shudder when contemplating the alternatives ! ATB

Hi EE. I agree totally with para 1 and 2 of your 23.55.

Regarding para 3, it's worth remembering that the admission of iSCIB1+ to the CVLA happened under the present Govt. and to me, it seems that in recent times there is a refreshing amount of interest and awareness in the matter of advances to cancer treatments.

I agree that "big pharma lobbyists", (and the professional lobbying industry generally), are a widespread and significant problem. But let's hope the right things happen with Scancell's science. My own feeling is that Scancell will get fair play from whichever Govt. is around, because simply, the case looks so strong . . . .

Nice post Chester.

I won't be the only one here hoping that a lusty bid or a deal for part or the whole of the Company arrives at some time, maybe tomorrow or this year anyway. I'm ageing fast lol and it would be good to be able to put matters Scancell in order!

Yes it's important that Scancell have and show the substance to 'go it alone' but looking at the wider good for Patients, it's not possible IMO for Scancell to take all these arms of their amazing science to fruition, as fast as some major Pharma could.

Lastly, we don't hear much of Professor Lindy these days. Her genius and brilliance is there for all to see, (despite the higher profiles of the figures we see more often now). And how much longer will Prof. Lindy want to drive such a workload as she undeniably does at the moment?

God bless her I say !

Hi Violin. Thanks for the edict old Pal but actually, we just dont know do we?

Wait and see . . . . . . .

LLass - Joaung's quote, "I’ve read that Phase 3 trials have a 50%-60% success rate in the US".

Scancell reported "PFS 74% at 16 months", about a 24% uplift and almost a 50% improvement measured against the SOC.

In passing, I wonder what the average PFS is in the mix making up the average 50-60% success rate for Phase 3 trials?

I'm with Moonparty when he says our Phase 3 has a "much higher chance of success, due to high statistically significant results in phase 1 & 2 that are a long way above standard of care".

It's hard to see why Phase 3 for iSCIB1+ would fail - 'success' is likely, particularly if we get the Partnersip or Deal hoped for . . .

BTW, I'm not sure exactly what you were asking or if my comments helped at all. ATB

EE enjoy HH. I'll be waiting later for comments from the 'Meet' - around 11pm I guess. Then off to a wedding at 7am on Friday. RNS with the interims tomorrow? Maybe more?