Member Info for Wigwammer

While I definitely park the idea there is NO risk here - competition is clearly one - I also park the idea that the description of something as risky carries any value unless some attempt has been made to quantify it. “Is the risk plausible?” - that IS a good question. This is what LD said about moditope - “There WILL be a cohort of patients that respond really well to this vaccine that have high levels of autophagy and high levels of citrullination..” LD seems a very serious and capable person - and she isn’t suggesting there is a lot of plausible risk attached to her conclusion.

Raypointer - that is an excellent post. It appears a similar process to the “anchoring” effect seen in behavioural finance. Participants feel it is less risky to emulate the strategies of others, rather than step out the box, hence the battles are fought out in a limited but well defined number of areas. Presumably at some point, a large and well resourced pharma group will have to accept defeat in these battles and look elsewhere - a very difficult and drawn out thing to do - at which point, immunobody may appear a very attractive alternative. Here’s to hoping anyway :)

“so yes Scancell has Human Cytotoxic CD4 T cells capable of eliciting a response to citrullinated peptides..” interesting post, many thanks.

Thanks bs, interesting. Yes, I have seen the interview with Tom. From memory, he did take some issue with the Trigrid administration, but the overwhelming impression he left was very positive. I can see how oncology candidates can demonstrate earlier in trails a reliable efficacy signal because of the lower placebo effect, and also hopefully the QOL advantages of Scancell tech will be apparent early. My issue with Scancell is less about trial risk, though of course, it exists - but more about this being a competitive field. Even if it works, will it get there in time and will it be better than the alternatives. I have great hope it will - partly substantiated by the quality of the research collaborations they attract, and partly by LD’s words - “in 30 years I have seen nothing this potent..”

BS - absolutely understood. There may be a measure of placebo effect, and the FDA requires placebo controlled trials. But my point is 1) the placebo effect is likely to be far less impactful than in disease areas where a high degree of subjectivity is involved in assessment 2) the FDA may demand placebo controlled trials but that doesn’t mean investors can not anticipate that the placebo impact is likely to be lower in a late stage oncology trial 3) there is little reason to believe that the administration of either scibs or moditope meaningfully impacting quality of life, in the context of saving the lives of very sick people.

Regarding quality of life, I can see little reason why the administration of scib or moditope would significantly impact this. I suppose trigrid treatment is uncomfortable, not sure about how modi will be administered.

Thanks again bs. Posts crossed. I can see there may be room for a measure of placebo effect, and I can understand a scientific culture that demands RCT’s. But in a disease area where the end result can be measured pretty objectively -it either destroys the tumour or not - it seems the placebo effect is likely to be pretty small, relative to other disease areas. Could explain the willingness of pharma to deal at earlier stages in oncology, though I have no evidence to back that up.

If there is no placebo effect then surely we already have all the data required to make a comparison? It is simply the result from SOC.

Thanks BS. I was assuming SOC + placebo as control, sorry if unclear. Trying to get my head around the purpose of an (soc+) placebo controlled trial where the placebo effect must be pretty near zero.

“There WILL be a cohort of patients that respond really well to this vaccine that have high levels of autophagy and high levels of citrullination..” LD on moditope, 2018. I am 100% behind the view there is risk here - but there is a big question mark over how much. One thing I don’t quite get is the need for a controlled trial and am interested in people’s views. It is difficult to see why there will be a large placebo response in a late stage cancer trial, so why is a placebo controlled trial deemed necessary? :)

To suggest a share carries zero risk adds little value. By the same token, to suggest a share carries risk but with nil attempt to probability weight the risks or the valuation outcomes similarly adds little value. The more interesting observation is not what each camp are saying - but how many posters are sitting in each camp. It is unusual for a funded biotech with an 18 month cash runway and a path into the clinic across multiple candidates to have an entire board obsessing about risk. Or for a more positive board concentrating on the opportunities to be constantly at war with itself. In the meantime, liquidity is created and I keep buying. So for that - I thank both parties :)

Interesting reading through the development history of Kite Pharma, which was recently purchased by Gilead for $11.9bn. The most valuable assets emerged from a collaboration with the NCI established in 2012 - not through a commercial partnership. This highlights the scale of value that can amass through such partnerships and at speed - Scancell evidently has some high profile partners... http://amda-2v2xoy.client.shareholder.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=852506

Btw you are a total thickzoid. The article you attach suggests 1 in 10 trial drugs gets to market. Your claim is that 1 in 10 phase 3 trial drugs gets to market. You a bit thicky :)

My average entry price here is just below 75p. I’m making money. Interestingly, despite your protestations to being a great trader, you have evidently missed the recent 50% rally. You have lost a sack of money here over the long term but lack the requisite character to point the finger at yourself. Hence you have spent a couple of cathartic years pointing the finger at others. I get the type :)

Great article Cadbury, many thanks.

“I think about 85% of clinical trials fail at stage III.” I think we both know 85%+ of what you post here is utter drivel. Btw I dare assume, in fact I KNOW.. you have lost a great deal of cash here and it’s time to move on :)

“I was a strong believer In Reneuron...” So looking at the long term chart you lost cash here hand over fist. You sold at a heavy loss, and have had a cathartic year or two laughing at others who have made a similar mistake. I get the type. Are you now going to tell us you traded in and out and made a profit on this black run - then you’ll really match the stereotype? :)

There was no assumption of FDA approval? Derrrr... read your qn again d1pshit.... “What's the best anybody could hope for here with FDA approval?”

Oh dear. A burnt ex bull. See this thing called bitterness, usually follows a big loss. I’m 50% up here in weeks. To briefly point out the inadequacy of your post - you “assume fda approval” in the first and claim “there is no product” in the second. See the inconsistency? Whoops - added a question mark - when really I have no interest in your response whatsoever. Hope that helps :)

A 5 bagger would mean a market cap of £150m. If the CTX treatment gets FDA approval it will be the only approved product for chronic stroke disability - the leading cause of death and disability in the western world. Sales estimations of $1bn+ at high margin would appear reasonable. What is the thinking behind £150m? This is also prior to valuation of the hrpc assets which are currently under exclusivity with a well resourced US player, and the endosome assets which are becoming increasingly valued. This reminds me a lot of HVO at 20p, which I also had a large position in - now largely out - it’s in the wrong ball park. IMO