Member Info for WeTookPelham

"...and at some point it needs to realise value for the main assets".

This. Otherwise what is the point?

To be fair though it seems like people/connections are in now finally place. Just please get a move on please Scancell!

For those of us with less patience, isn't the fact Sath wasn't offered (?) shares or options a good sign i.e. indicates a closed period?

Https://oxfordglobal.com/biologics/events/biologics-2024#speakers

It seems Scancell's Poonam Vaghela was in esteemed company at the Oxford Global event, a lot of the big pharma names also speaking.

Apologies Dracula1, I got you confused with Violindog. My repsonses are in reply to your questions.

Contninued from my previous post*

...I'm not sure where i read it, on here most likely, but some were under the impression all approaches from external parties (i.e. offers) had to be relayed to shareholders via RNS. But we know this is not the case because Richard Goodfellow I belive(?) said that they had an offer but it was rejected many years ago.

So we may have had multiple offers but we would have no idea. Scancell may have been forthcoming telling this information at recent AGM's but i guess no-one asked the question?

Hi @Violindog - RE other pharmas and the amount of different products... I'm far from an authority on the matter but I dont know of others (of similar size & market cap) that have the breadth of portfolio that Scancell has. It's often been said on here Scancells portfolio rivals that of" much" bigger bio's.

RE: "With so positive Trials results so far. If any major are seriously Interested In branching out, how long do they wait to make a move?. IMO."

This is the key question IMO. Personally I wouldnt be bothered with a pre-emptive strike prior to more comprehensive results being published, although it would mean less value. It deeply frustrates me that there are huge deals for pre-clinical products, yet Scancell seem to be bizarrely unique in this matter?*

If the on-going and recent comments & RNS 's, I think Scancell are (still) rigidly sticking to this mantra and hence no pre-emptive stikes (yet)?:

"Working closely with the Board, and Executive team, Sath will be instrumental in driving us towards realising the potential of these treatments for patients, while creating and delivering significant long-term value for our shareholders."

So looks like they are waiting out on a huge amount/value? The price Scancell/Redmile want for their wares or the whole company better be worth the wait!

RE that last Genmab comment about acquisitions, the existing agreement/deal with Genmab should mean that Scancell are front and centre on Genmabs radar.

...You'd think? Or is the existing agreement the pattern they are pursuing?

"The solid financial footing also has Genmab on the acquisition hunt to further bolster the portfolio, specifically in search of molecules in later stages of development."

We may know a company that fits the bill here?

Thanks all with the replies, makes more sense. I was more wondering what it may or may not have implied with regards to timing of deals? I.e. implications of joing the board (for any company) and having the (possible) inside scoop on potential deals.

P.s. Sath does seem like a bit of a find then by all accounts.

Surprised there's not been much said about the RNS? Is it not an especially big deal then? Just wondered the implications, if any, that could be read between the lines etc.?

Is this a big surprise or not?

I like this bit:

"...as we continue to build SIGNIFICANT momentum and approach a number of important clinical milestones, anticipated later this year, including further data from both the SCOPE and ModiFY trials."

"Konar,

I hadn't picked up that Lindy was making an oral presentation at AACR so thanks for that."

Likewise, wasn't really paying attention, so thanks for pointing it out.

Also as mentioned with a presentation title of "Cancer Vaccines: Ready for Primetime" it does seem quite a significant presentation for Scancell and cancer vaccines in general.

Https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nuQvsDvh8BA

Metastatic Melanoma Care: Guidance on Using PD-1/LAG-3

Https://www.scancell.co.uk/scancell-attends-and-sponsors-the-annual-melanoma-patient-meeting

Https://www.diyinvestor.net/what-does-the-healthcare-sector-hold-for-investors-in-2024/

re ultimovacs/initium, poster sci102 did try to warn others at the time:

"08/3/2024

15:00 sci102: it was obvious from the data the company already had that it wasn't going far.

some comments when that guy from uv came to the board. i did warn..

"sci102 - 08 feb 2024 - 10:30:26 - 186 of 257

msrcus

since the pfs/os data is terrible, the orr doesn't even matter anymore. it just doesn't work well enough.

sci102 - 08 feb 2024 - 10:24:17 - 185 of 257

3n. looked at the latest co presentation. as suspected, that 27% risk reduction is complete nonsense, sorry. look at the os ****** graph there is basically no difference and it is not statistically significant. far from actually. i hope that is not the data you were counting on. also there is no difference in pfs by blinded independent central review while there is some difference when assesed by the investigator. this is exactly the kind of company i would never ever touch.

sci102 - 08 feb 2024 - 07:24:31 - 180 of 257

27% risk reduction is not a lot. what is the p value/ci? do you have a link to the presentation?"

How many conferences/presentations is that now?

A silly question, what does this role requirement tell us about state of play RE the trials and possible deal statuses? Any inference to the FDA?

Now that is interesting.

An interesting article indeed IMO.

https://www.oncologypipeline.com/apexonco/aacr-2024-preview-cancer-vaccines-primed-underwhelm

AACR 2024 preview – “cancer vaccines” primed to underwhelm

7 March 2024

Madeleine Armstrong

"Projects from the likes of BioNTech, Transgene and Scancell will feature, but still have much to prove"

"More promising, on the face of it, were data last year on Scancell’s SCIB1, which also has a slot at AACR. Last November the company announced an 85% response rate among 13 first-line advanced melanoma patients in its phase 2 Scope trial.

However, there are reasons to be cautious. As well as the small number of subjects, patients also received Opdivo and Yervoy, and the study is uncontrolled, making it hard to ascertain SCIB1’s contribution. A phase 2/3 registrational trial is being planned."