Member Info for WeTookPelham

@ab1234 - you can take my post/implications however you want, but as dalestar said, another opaque, vague RNS followed by a somewhat contradictory interview, the company will be fully aware of this pattern you'd think. I was wondering about Prof. Durrant options also. All IMO.

Also Douve87's post, like Dalestars, sums it perfectly.

@dalestar, agree. I wonder how deliberate this is though?

Thanks 👍

...about the situation regarding Prof. Durrants options and the July date.

Does yesterdays RNS have any affect?

So how many companies do Scancell have direct links with now, is that 7 or 8?

Taken from Marcusl2's post from the other side:

When talking about GenMab :

"

She also touches on progress in the relationship with Genmab (CSE:GEN) since signing a commercial licensing agreement last year, and clarifies that Scancell is continuing to pursue other such deals: "We've just signed an evaluation with a new company... and we're in current discussions with a second company about another potential deal."

"

So how many companies is that now? Are those the same ones mentioned in the RNS?

@ab1234

Do you "hope" the wider market interprets Professor Durrant closing (and argubly mandatory/obvious) interview comments about funding as negatively as you have?

AB124 - so that's the one thing you took away from the interview?

Lol why I am not surprised.

On that particular subject what about the potential income from other agreements?

I somehow(!) glossed over this, but separately, and perhaps more importantly:

"....The platform has generated revenues and the antibodies continue to yield compelling results which have led to a new 6-month evaluation by a leading Biotech company."

Who could this be? Is 6 months typically long enough to make an appraisal/bid?

Either way, Scancell/Scancells products are clearly (and have been) in the rifle scopes of big pharma.

P.s. which 'cell therapy company ' do we think this is? Did someone mention BioNtech? Or GenMab?

"Additional in-house data has illustrated the potential of our antibodies as chimeric antigen receptor T cell (CART) therapies providing the data for a deal with a cell therapy company."

I've had to re-read this a few times:

"...providing data for a deal"

Not a "potential" deal, not a proposed deal, not an interested party wanting to assess, but an actual deal with a specific cell therapy company? There is no ambiguity there, is there? Are they saying once data is delivered, and assuming it's good, the deal will be done?

"Additional in-house data has illustrated the potential of our antibodies as chimeric antigen receptor T cell (CART) therapies providing the data for a deal with a cell therapy company"

IMO the key statement in today's RNS.

"10/7/2023

08:57 chillpill: I thought this part was interesting. Looks like we can expect further licensing deals here:

The platform has generated revenues and the antibodies continue to yield compelling results which have led to a new 6-month evaluation by a leading Biotech company. Additional in-house data has illustrated the potential of our antibodies as chimeric antigen receptor T cell (CART) therapies providing the data for a deal with a cell therapy company. These results along with updates on SCIB1 and Modi-1 will be presented at the AACR-CIMT meeting in Milan in September 2023."

"10/7/2023

09:00 markingtime: One point on that. I read that as being a 6 month investigation of the whole platform, not just a component."

So that conference in Milan, either way looks to be a significant one and does it imply a the deal will coincide at the same time too?

@c11...lol... Yes very quiet from certain quarters. They must be struggling to find a fake narrative this morning.

RE TF's comment "Re. this - "I’d also note that an important function of today’s RNS is to cleanse management of inside info prior to option exercise." Monday is an unusual day for an RNS and I am wondering if there will be another RNS re. options tomorrow?"

Yes it does seem unusual? Have Scancell released an RNS of this nature before? I vaguely recollect similar following AGM's but not out of the blue.

P.s. as someone else (?) mentioned, a much more commercial sounding Scancell now.

Perhaps 44% is very significant after all?

...but yes I agree it would be good if UK gov looked closer to home first of all

Had Covidity had more government support I think it would have been transformational for the company, at that particular point in time.

However right now, I think Scancell "should" have enough private big pharma interest to move along a private route. Whilst government interest would be good it doesn't really change the trajectory, does it?

But also, as mentioned, Scancell are still an early stage pharma and should not necessarily compared with BioNtech and the fact BioNtech have already worked with UK gov and other world governments.

Again all IMO.

Tf - my sentiments exactly.

IMO there will be plenty of other big pharma's interested in non personalised solutions, and those who don't have a vested interest/locked in to the mRNA approach.

I.e. there are many multiple competitors to Modern and BioNtech, and who will be interested in a different approach so focus should not be solely on them, or the mRNA approach, again IMO.

The fact there are already multiple tie ins with medium/big pharma via the mabs products, i.e. Genmab for one that we know of, existing links with BioNtech etc, Crosserys appointment etc, I find it highly unlikely that Scancell are not being courted as we speak. It would explain the extended radio silence for one thing.