Member Info for BuenaVista

😳😂😂😂

What planet have you been on Bella? Trump is in Putin's pocket.

There are specialist databases for clinicians, as well as the clinicians having their own personal networks and professional contracts.

The acknowledgements on the poster are Avacta, Cancer Research UK Convergence Science Centre, ecmc and NHS National Institute for Health Research

ecmc, The Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre initiative, is jointly funded by Cancer Research UK, the Little Princess Trust, the National Institute for Health and Care Research in England and the Departments of Health for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

https://www.convergencesciencecentre.ac.uk/

https://www.ecmcnetwork.org.uk/

https://www.nihr.ac.uk/

So quite an involvement, albeit unspecified, from Cancer Research UK.

😂

Preliminary (adjective/noun) describes an action, study, or remark that introduces, prepares for, or precedes a more important, main event or decision. It often refers to initial, exploratory steps, such as "preliminary findings" or "preliminary rounds" in a competition, serving as a foundational stage.

Usage Examples: Results/Findings: "Preliminary results show the vaccine is effective", "Preliminary efficacy data will begin to emerge".

Note that 'efficacy data' is not the same as efficacy. It just means data from which efficacy—or non-efficacy—can be determined (and the first data will be preliminary data/findings).

😂

So funny to see trader Aldebaran playing the role of FUDster here in order to support his trading agenda when this is what he writes on the Avacta board — and I recommend you follow the excellent advice:

"😅😅

Trying to get in on the conversation or just spreading FUD to support its own trading agenda.

You know what to do guys... IGNORE"

People liked your post Rich because they don't know what's going on. And that's the reasn the likes of wyndbum want to spead their FUD here so that unresearched people will get scared and sell and drive the price up so that people like wyndbum can then ...hang on, that's not right. Ah, so that's why wyndbum is such a useless trader!

Specifically on Phase 1a data please.

it's an amazing effort considering he always says that what's written here has no affect on the share price.

so is he a ****** or a ******?

"Doxorubicin is chemo-refractory, there are no studies showing it works against SGC in isolation but in combination with cyclophosphamide and cisplatin it's shown modest enough effects to be used in some circumstances. AVA6000 has come along and tamed advanced metastatic SGC cancers delivering Doxorubicin alone, controlling disease in 90% of cases and far exceeding the PFS of those combo protocols that are the best clinicians have to work with currently."

If faridox can achieve real results — disease control and PFS — in early to late stage SGC and could even be given as a maintenance dose/yearly booster, then that would show what doxorubicin is really capable of when the side effects and cardiotoxicity are removed. It then wouldn't be the boring 50-year old legacy chemo that it is currently being dismissed as, it would be a whole new chemo ball game. And then everyone can start thinking what other cancers it could treat, and then what an unfettered exatecan can really achieve. And then... and ...

I have managed to obtain the PDF of this poster from an old work colleague now working at ICR and I can reveal ...that it doesn't contain anything not already known from the images posted on Prof Banerji's LinkedIn account.

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7452729146000084992/

Obtuse or dim, it doesn't really matter. No one bothers with what wyndbum writes about the science ...or anything else for that matter.

Just a load of hot air.😷

Companies carrying out oncology trials are not obliged to state that patients have died from disease progression. Such information wouldn't be revealed until detailed trial data are released, typically at conference. Is Hemogenyx due to present trial progress at conference any time soon?

Thank you Touk.

You seem focussed on share price via dilution and disregard share price via increased demand.

There will be many ways to cook this bird and I certainly hope the management would be wary of shortchanging shareholders with dilution not matched by share price increase — surely something they could ensure by judging the demand for the price they set for ADRs on Nasdaq.

Here's an example:

0.02% of £500m is the same as 0.01% of £1bn. Both are £100,000 or 100,000 £1 shares and the company raises £500m on Nasdaq to fund continuing clinical trials (and pay RTO costs if not paid from a separate pre-RTO raise).

Well there was a question in the OP:

"Question: This sounds like a very cheap way to get a Nasdaq listing via a distressed US company (preferably with some useful IP and/or facilities and/or optimal location) so, apart from the cost of the acquired company's shares and the transaction costs and any costs associated with retained facilities, what other costs would be involved when following this expedited route to Nasdaq?"

So now's your chance to shine. Take off your pompous head, put your educator head on and learn us class of idiots what else is involved in a RTO in the way of costs. Go on, go for it. There may even be a Gold Star in it for you.

A reverse takeover (RTO), or reverse merger, is a method for a private company to become publicly traded by acquiring a majority stake in an existing public company, often a shell company. This enables the private firm to go public faster and cheaper than a traditional IPO, skipping lengthy regulatory processes.

Key Aspects of a Reverse Takeover:

• The Process: A private company (the acquirer) buys a publicly listed company (the target). The private company's shareholders swap their shares for shares in the public company, resulting in a change of control.

• Why "Reverse"? Legally, the smaller public company is the buyer, but commercially, the private company is taking over, resulting in the private company owners gaining majority control.

• Benefits: Faster, cheaper, and less disruptive to management compared to an initial public offering (IPO).

• Risks: Often carries higher risks related to management, auditing, and lower long-term performance than traditional IPOs.

Common Use Cases:

• Going Public Faster: Private firms use this to gain access to capital markets in as little as 30 days, compared to the 1-2 years for an IPO.

• Shell Companies/SPACs: A private firm may merge with a "shell" company that has no active operations but holds a listing.

• Market Entry: Foreign companies may use RTOs to enter the US marketplace.

- - - - - - - - - -

Note the last line — a way for foreign companies (Avacta) to enter the US marketplace (Nasdaq). Also the access to capital markets in as little as 30 days.

Question: This sounds like a very cheap way to get a Nasdaq listing via a distressed US company (preferably with some useful IP and/or facilities and/or optimal location) so, apart from the cost of the acquired company's shares and the transaction costs and any costs associated with retained facilities, what other costs would be involved when following this expedited route to Nasdaq?

Could Avacta just be waiting for the right opportunity to appear? One such as BioAtla?

• 02/03/2026 https://ir.bioatla.com/news-releases/news-release-details/bioatla-announces-formal-process-evaluate-strategic-options

• 31/03/2026 https://ir.bioatla.com/news-releases/news-release-details/bioatla-announces-share-consolidation

• 31/03/2026 https://ir.bioatla.com/news-releases/news-release-details/bioatla-reports-fourth-quarter-and-full-year-2025-financial

Daiichi Sankyo has postponed its annual report by two weeks to allow for additional time to finalize the financial figures. The main reason for the delay, according to the Japanese pharma, is the need to review “the supply plans for its oncology products portfolio and development pipeline in light of rapidly changing business conditions.”

“As a result, additional deliberation is required to reasonably estimate the amount of loss provisions to be recorded in connection with contracts with contract manufacturers,” the company said in its April 24 announcement (PDF).

Simultaneously, Daiichi said it has decided to unveil its new five-year business plan together with its fiscal year 2025 earnings report on May 11 rather than separately on May 19.

Daiichi’s annual report will come several weeks after President Donald Trump unveiled a 100% tariff on patented drugs and ingredients. Under existing trade deals, products from the European Union and Japan are subject to a 15% tariff. The administration is also open to offering exemptions under “most favored nation” drug pricing deals, similar to those already signed with 17 large pharmas.

Daiichi currently operates two in-house manufacturing facilities in the U.S. in Ohio and New York. As part of its global manufacturing expansion plan for its core antibody-drug conjugate business, Daiichi is reportedly investing up to 56 billion yen ($351 million) to build additional facilities.

The Ohio plant performs fill-finish and packaging duties for ADCs. Additionally, Daiichi produces the monoclonal antibody components of its existing ADCs in the U.S., but not the linker parts of the medicines, Ken Keller, who leads Daiichi’s U.S. branch and its global oncology business, told Fierce in January. “We feel it’s better for us to look at ways to onshore things, but we’re still developing those plans,” Keller said at the time.

Daiichi uses CDMOs as well. The company suffered a setback in 2024 when the FDA rejected its Merck & Co.-partnered HER3 ADC, patritumab deruxtecan (HER3-DXd), because of problems with a contractor’s manufacturing facility. The pair has since withdrawn the application after a phase 3 miss on overall survival in EGFR-mutated NSCLC.

The ongoing Iran war is also pushing up energy costs and complicating logistics.

In Daiichi’s earnings update in October 2025, the company expected a 11.3% increase over the previous fiscal year ended in March 2025.

By 2030, the company aims to have at least four ADCs on the market, namely AstraZeneca-partnered Enhertu and Datroway, plus HER3-DXd and Merck-partnered CDH6-directed raludotatug deruxtecan. As Enhertu continues to make headway in HER2-positive breast cancer, Datroway faces a pivotal test with the phase 3 Avanzar study in first-line NSCLC, which is expected to read out this year.

https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/daiichi-pushes-back-annual-report-citing-reviews-amid-changing-business-conditions

Can Trump’s deal with the UK become a model for similar drug price agreements?

President Donald Trump has struck a deal with the UK that exempts prescription drugs imported to the United States from tariffs for three years. In exchange, Britain’s National Health Service will pay 25% more for new drugs. The question now is: Can the U.S. negotiate similar deals with other countries?

In this week’s episode of "The Top Line," we examine the drug pricing agreement between the UK and the U.S. Fierce Pharma’s Kevin Dunleavy explores the issue with Jeffrey Gerrish, who served as deputy U.S. trade representative for Asia, Europe and the Middle East during the first Trump administration.

They break down the specifics of the UK-U.S. partnership and whether the deal could be applied to other countries to bring drug prices more in line with those in the U.S. They also discuss Trump’s other attempts to use America’s economic power to secure drug pricing agreements.

https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/can-trumps-deal-uk-become-model-similar-drug-price-agreements (discussion starts at 1:40)

This 'Panmure Liberum CEO Video' interview with CC that was released on or just before 13 March last year: https://fast.wistia.net/embed/iframe/jhkzsr4536

@10:00 — CC talks about AVA6000 and AVA6103

@15:12 — CC talks about beyond chemotherapy (transcript below):

Q: "The precision technology's clearly got very broad application. Can you expand on the other potential uses it has?"

CC: "So, one of the next medicines that we're looking to make is a targeted therapy. So it's not just chemotherapy. I know the first two have been sort of traditional chemotherapies but... pathway inhibitors, for example, have been very effective in a number of diseases but they also can carry some very high toxicities and so therapeutic index with pathway inhibitors is also a problem. We hope to see one of those coming soon to the clinic.

"We can also use — if I take the peptide [picks up her mouse] — we can also use the two ends of the peptide. We attach this [end] to the drug but we can attach that other end to a biologic. It's sort of the third box of intellectual properties that the company has. So, we are working in the background on biologic drug conjugates, our Affimers. We can also use it with antibodies and so it's sort of has an advantage over traditional linkers used with ADCs in that it's very specifically cleaved only in the tumour and so you would lose some of those toxicities that we talked about: lung toxicity and liver toxicity, ocular toxicity that we see with the number of the ADCs."

Somewhere between doing the investigative work and putting that post together, the focus of my thoughts got diverted.

Beyond the Topoisomerase inhibitors doxorubicin and exatecan, the chemotherapies that Avacta is taking to market, there are possibilities to affect the intracellular pathways of cancer cells, either pathway agonists (such as STING agonists) that work by binding to specific cell receptors and activating them to produce a biological response or pathway inhibitors (such as proteasome inhibitors) that work by binding to enzymes and reducing or blocking their activity, effectively controlling cellular metabolism, slowing down specific chemical reactions, or stopping the function of enzymes. These last work by either binding directly to the enzyme's active site (competitive) or to a separate site that changes the enzyme's shape (allosteric/non-competitive).

So...

3. should really be headed 'Pathway agonists (STING agonists, etc.)' rather than 'STING agonists & other classes of agents acting off-target'.

and

4. should really be headed 'Pathway inhibitors (proteasome inhibitors, etc.) rather than 'Checkpoint inhibitors'. There are many pathway inhibitors, including inhibitors of tyrosine kinases (VEGFR, EGFR, ALK), the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway, the MAPK pathway (BRAF, MEK), and the Hedgehog signaling pathway as well as the ubiquitin-proteasome pathway. This last one is the pathway inhibited by bortezomib (Velcade) and our own bortezomib analogue, AVA3996.

There are also pathway antagonists, which work by disrupting specific cellular signaling pathways that drive disease, such as cancer growth, inflammation, or overactive metabolism, so why not include them in Avacta's development plans? These act as "off-switches" (so the opposite of agonists) by blocking key protein receptors or enzymes, preventing natural agonists from sending messages that tell cells to divide or survive, thus stopping pathological processes.

5. now becomes 'Pathway agonists, inhibitors or antagonists paired with a complementary warhead (or two)'...

So, in summary, even more possibilities than in my original post!, which was prompted by rediscovering a seemingly forgotten interview that I'll link in the next post.

I doubt we'll get any clear idea of what they have planned, certainly not until they've tried it and patented it, but here are what I think could be some very interesting developments in pre|CISION drugs.

1. Spontaneous release of triple warheads

If the two in AVA6207 are possible and the drugs work—which they seem to do—then three should also be possible provided the chemical structure isn't sterically hindered. The chemistry should have been covered in the dual warhead patent as it is obvious to anyone skilled in the art. I'll just say ortho, para, ortho.

2. Cascade release of multiple warheads

Rather than using a self-immolative linker that spontaneously falls apart releasing the attached warheads at the same time, a cascade arrangement of self-immolative linkers would first release a warhead and a second self-immolative linker which would then release a different warhead and a further self-immolative linker, etc., etc. This would also be a way forward if triple warhead agents are sterically hindered.

The point about the self-immolative linker concept is that it is stable whilst covalently attached but once detached (initiated by cleavage from the D-Ala-L-Pro pre|CISION dipeptide) it will rearrange itself into a more stable form by expelling, in our AVA6103 case, the warhead molecule and, in the cascade model, a further self-immolative linker as well.

3. STING agonists & other classes of agents acting off-target

I don't know what other classes of agents there may be as I have no expertise in this area but, from reading about STING agonists, there are drugs which would be very effective anticancer therapies but are not realistically usable because they act throughout the body — their mode of action is not limited to tumours — so the site-specific targetting of the pre|CISION platform would solve that major problem.

4. Checkpoint inhibitors

Very similar to STING in that they activate "cold" tumours to become "hot" tumours that the immune system can then attack. However these agents, which include PD-L1 inhibitors such as pembrolizumab (Keytruda) with its major patent cliff starting in 2028, are very much on the market.

5. Checkpoint inhibitors in dual warhead drugs

If the AVA6207 dual warheads work and pre|CISIONed checkpoint inhibitors work, then checkpoint inhibitor plus resistance pathway inhibitor is an obvious route to go down since, whilst being initially very effective, the effectiveness lifetime of checkpoint inhibitors is only a couple of years before progression starts again.

- - - - -

There's a lot there and it would be a multi-year development plan to do it all — and they'll probably have completely different things in mind anyway — but it all goes to show we are sitting on what has been, and hopefully continues to be, an ever increasing gold mine of opportunity.

On that usage of British/American English, I got told by my American colleagues to remove/reword "whizzing" on the global intranet site. It was an accidental mistake, honest guv.