Member Info for BuenaVista

.

Derek desperately wants to be in a gang. Pathetic little weasel.

You're pathetic

Bore off Junior

yes. they're just a bunch of pathetic ******s, long past their best before date.

Anyone who gives the three amigos credit deserves all that's coming to them.😂 The pre|CISION platform was proven a long time ago when the dipeptide was shown to be exquisitely specific for FAP. Now, it's all just playing out with new IP to logically extend the pipeline.

Just a litany of lies there from the pub bore, as usual. Too tedious to refute.

Looks like Derek's self-dosing with Tedium as well.

That quote should be cut out and framed at the top of the AVCT chat board.

OK, so when did Avacta last fail to hit a deadline?

You do know, don't you, that Avacta are not Gods and that there are events that are beyond their control?

Correction... like a continuous, but decreasing, bolus straight into the TME - as if doxorubicin were being infused directly into the slow-moving fluid in the TME.

Good explanation yeboha, just missing the pack of crayons, scribble board and stack of coloured cubes.

Interesting fact: It takes about 20 seconds for blood to circulate around the body, so in an hour blood and everything in it makes about 180 circuits. That doesn't mean that everything in the blood goes to every part of the body every 20 seconds; it doesn't, as shown by the schematic illustrations I posted yesterday - blood going to the head doesn't go to the legs in the same circuit, blood going to the liver doesn't go to either of the kidneys, and so on: https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/human-circulatory-system-diagram-circulatory-system-main-parts-labeled-vector-illustration-great-small-human-198513035.jpg

So kidneys and liver (both of which metabolise drugs and are the main routes for excretion) only see a fraction of the body's blood every 20 seconds.

Pharmacokinetics is actually very complex, and AVA6000's two-stage PK to release doxorubicin particularly so as it acts like a repeated, but decreasing, bolus straight into the TME.

No Avacta presence showing on the SABCS site and Avacta wouodn't announce that they are going just as attendees.

It looks like a really important gathering with the big farmer players strongly represented, but maybe a year early for Avacta. The big players will already know of Avacta's breast cancer 'franchise' but the data isn't properly available to talk about yet.

^ means dox does what dox does when it comes to killing dividing cells.

So there are "many multiples of that amount of dox circulating in the blood for pure dox delivered intravenously", and that doxorubicin is doing what? Diddly squat other than causing damage to healthy organs?

Erm... "dox is dox" means when dox does what dox does it comes to killing dividing cells.

An idiot wrote: "Your post just proves my point regarding the huge difference in half lives and therefore exposure to dox in both scenarios."

Question to Google: "What is the half-life of AVA6000?" - https://www.google.com/search?q=What+is+the+half-life+of+AVA6000%253F

Response:

The half-life of AVA6000 is approximately 30-90 minutes in plasma. It is a first-generation pre|CISION® peptide drug conjugate (PDC) designed to be rapidly cleared from general circulation.

This short half-life is intentional, as the drug is designed to circulate in an inactive form until it reaches the tumor microenvironment (TME), where it is cleaved by the fibroblast activation protein (FAP) to release the active doxorubicin warhead. The released doxorubicin then has an extended half-life (by about 40%) within the tumor tissue compared to conventional doxorubicin, which reduces systemic toxicity and focuses the therapeutic effect.

The elimination half-life of both AVA6000 and the released doxorubicin are measured during clinical trials to assess the drug's safety and efficacy profile.

- - - - -

"The released doxorubicin then has an extended half-life (by about 40%) within the tumor tissue compared to conventional doxorubicin, which reduces systemic toxicity and focuses the therapeutic effect."

An idiot wrote:

"After 35 minutes A has approx 95% dox dose circulating in their bloodstream. B has 50%.

"After 70 mins A has approx 90%. B has 25%.

"After 1 hour 40 minutes A has approx 80%. B is now around 6%.

"After 35 hours B has the square root of f*ck all. A still has 50%."

- - - - -

I asked Google: "If A is reduced in concentration from 100% to 95% in 35 minutes, what is the half-life of A?" and the answer was "approximately 472.97 minutes"

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=If+A+is+reduced+in+concentration+from+100%25+to+95%25+in+35+minutes%2C+what+is+the+half-life+of+A%3F

- - - - -

I then asked Google: "If A starts at 100% and has a half-life of 472.97 minutes, how much is left after 1 hour 40 minutes?" and the answer was "approximately 86.37%"

https://www.google.com/search?q=If+A+starts+at+100%25+and+has+a+half-life+of+472.97+minutes%2C+how+much+is+left+after+1+hour+40+minutes%3F

- - - - -

Finally, I asked Google: "If A starts at 100% and has a half-life of 472.97 minutes, how much is left after 35 hours?" and the answer was "approximately 4.61%".

https://www.google.com/search?q=If+A+starts+at+100%2525+and+has+a+half-life+of+472.97+minutes%252C+how+much+is+left+after+35+hours%253F

- - - - -

The half-life of B is clearly 35 minutes - 50% left after 35 minutes, and then half of that, 25% of the original 100%, left after after a further 35 minutes.

So I asked Google: "If the half-life of B is 35 minutes, how much is left after 1 hour 40 minutes, and after 35 hours?" and the answers were "approximately 13.8%" and "a minuscule amount, approximately 8.67 x 10^{-17}%"

Of course, 2 x 70 minutes is 140 minutes, or 2 hours 20 minutes, not 1 hour 40 minutes and the answer for 2 hours 20 minutes was "1/16th of the original amount (or 6.25%)"

- - - - -

Not that I have the slightest idea what that half-life mumbo jumbo was intended to prove. But I do wonder what the % proof was in the booze that fuelled those calculations.

Only 33 shopping days till Christmas!

An idiot wrote "This is why they had to improve the half life of AVA6000 in the next drugs in the pipeline."

Says the man who claims a degree in what everyone else just takes as a module!

And still no understanding of the circulatory system?

I suggest everyone else gives those circulatory system diagrams a good look to see exactly where the blood flows to when an intravenous infusion, whether AVA6000 or doxorubicin, is given.

Yes, you're right. It is far more complicated than even I know.

But this I do know. There's no 'probably' about intravenous doxorubicin having to pass through the heart before reaching the tumour site. And what you need to know is how the circulatory system works.

So, schematically in summary: https://www.shutterstock.com/shutterstock/photos/2225383989/display_1500/stock-vector-blood-circulation-system-stylized-heart-anatomy-diagram-human-circulatory-system-human-2225383989.jpg

Schematically with some detail:

https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/human-circulatory-system-diagram-circulatory-system-main-parts-labeled-vector-illustration-great-small-human-198513035.jpg?ct=jpeg

And schematically in more detail, excluding capillaries: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/29/Circulatory_System_en.svg/500px-Circulatory_System_en.svg.png

The capillaries are where the ends of the red and blue lines are and where the blood perfuses tissue, giving up oxygen and nutrients (and drugs) to cells - the end of the red line - and taking back carbon dioxide and other waste products - the start of the blue line.