Member Info for BuenaVista

@D-G's "Why not licence an animal version of AVA6k (call it something else) to a pet chemo company to do their thing with."

Good idea. AVA6000 is the research code. It will soon have a generic name. When it is marketted as a formulated infusion it will have a brand name. The research code stays the same, the generic name can vary, e.g. paracetamol in the UK is called acetaminophen in the US, and brand names are trademarks/IP (and capitalised), e.g. Disprol, Hedex, Medinol, Panadol for paracetamol. Definitely different brand names for AVA6000 for use for humans and animals!

Well said seethreeIPO, although I'd take issue with one point. Trading the overbought peaks and oversold troughs is OK by my book but what is not OK, what I regard as despicable, is deliberately trying to influence the share price up (with baseless enthusiasm) or down (with FUD) for personal gain.

@Bella, why do you think there might have been? In what way was this one materially different from any of the previous R&D Spotlights?

Could it have been Liz Truss? She seems to be responsible for everything🤷🏻‍♂️

It's the pub bore's goose. Delicious!

Yes Bella, I'm pretty sure they'll be scrambling around desperately trying to understand what is happening. Is it a temporary or a permanent change in cell physiology? Is it a cure? Are there effects elsewhere in the body? Is it an innoculation against further cancers, a vaccine? Would be great if these were true but only time and study will tell precisely what is happening...

The absolutely amazing finding, both here with the AVA6103 in vivo model and in the clinic with AVA6000 for SGC is, as CC noted, that there is no relapse after treatment stops... That is P H E N O M E N A L !!!!

OK, thanks. I've had a look and have discovered how to get at the wistia pages (on a Windows laptop), although only the latest one of the ones I've looked at has a transcript:

Open the R&D Spotlight page, start the video, right-click on the video and select 'Copy link and thumbnail'

Paste the link into a text editor such as Notepad and select the coded bit at the end of the https://avacta.com/rd-spotlight-series-episode-8/?wvideo=kbn3w56eye link and paste it at the end of https://avacta.wistia.com/medias/

Hi, where/how did you find the https://avacta.wistia.com/medias/kbn3w56eye link?

It is far better than the only one I can find on the Avacta website as it includes a transcription as well.

TIA

Re big farmer finding the money to invest in research into immunology and genetic cures for cancer: see my comments previously on CEOs and the company as a whole choosing to run safely with the crowd rather than strike out on a new but potentially more prosperous course. It will be interesting, when the first deal is struck, to see whether room is left aboard for other farmers to join the ship.

...with lessons for this BB.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9h0Yy2QdmM

Unless it is extended, the IP protection for the -(D)Ala-(L)Pro- dipeptide that is the core of the pre|CISION technology will expire in 2035 and only patent applications for new drug candidates that are filed before then will get exclusive Avacta (or follow-on company) IP protection. That is my longterm timescale. I don't necessarily expect to be around to see it.

It should be remembered that pre|CISION substrates (PDCs certainly and AffDCs also to a large degree) are low tech - cheap, quick and easy to make and with universal, off-the-shelf applicability. That is in contrast to ADCs. Vaccine approaches are likely to be high tech, with a correspondingly high cost, at least initially, in order to recoup the original investment and return a profit. Who would get them? Would they catch all cancers? Would they cure late-stage cancers? These questions have not been answered, or often even asked. A method of universal certain cure for all cancers would be great for humanity but we are a long way from there - and also, some may say fortunately, a long way from an epidemic of truly epic proportions of dementia in the elderly who have survived never succumbing to cancer.

Well the collaboration is to explore the possibilities for developing vaccines, so a long way away from a product, if ever.

Getting posts such as the one earlier today removed does a disservice to all BB members as it prevents direct rebuttals, leaving only the impression of a threat to Avacta in the minds of those who read it. It's a really unintelligent, almost zealous, thing to do.

And a word to whoever reported the kahmooner's post to get it deleted: it is far better to fight misinformation, disinformation and awkward news here with facts rather than censorship as censorship can, on occasions, suppress importnt news that we need to be aware of - sticking your head in the sand is not a sensible defence to being kicked up the jaksie.

I don't know precisely which agreement you were referring to as you didn't quote any source (tut-tut) but if it was this one from yesterday, then it is not a "3 year collaboration ... to develop vaccines" but rather "to advance the understanding of how cancer develops, which could inform future development of vaccines to prevent cancer." So... not as immediate a threat to AVA6000, AVA6301, AVA7000 or pre|CISION as you, with your poor understanding of the development process, made out. Or did you deliberately not quote your source so that people would take you at your word and worry about an imminent threat without checking for themselves (a classic basher's technique - tut-tut)?

https://www.cancer.ox.ac.uk/news/oxford-and-gsk-launch-ps50million-immuno-prevention-programme-to-advance-novel-cancer-research

"The safety profile of Enhertu in DESTINY-Breast06 was consistent with previous clinical trials of Enhertu in breast cancer with no new safety concerns identified."

A.k.a. still got the same side effects profile.

@Bigears, to me, it suggests only that they have enough funds to start Phase 1b (for all three stated indications? - I don't have good access to the slide deck at the moment.) This is what was expected - a cash runway into at least 2Q25.

Nah, it was an obvious move. More frequent doxorubicin dosing had already been shown to be more efficacious. If Pfizer is to be believed.

Oh I think the FDA are open to new technologies. Do you have any evidence that they aren't? And to new methods such as Project Optimus and to expedited approvals. How does MHRA compare on those? And don't forget it was the FDA that called out the Chinese LFTs that the UK was buying hand over fist and said that they should all be put straight in the trash.

Do these 'libertarians', you or anyone seriously think that a new regulatory body would be any different? Maybe different vested interests and I think that could be the aim. Trump is a grifter and I'd be amazed if grift and outright full-on corruption isn't a defining feature of his administration. He admires how Putin enriches himself as the head of a kleptocracy but just look at the corruption, incompetence and failings in Russia.

I do think though that the US population would benefit from tightened food regulations but Trump is pushing the other way, for the EU to relax regulations on GM foods and toxic and carcinogenic ingredients.

Try Virgilio.Sacchini@ and variations until you don't get a delivery failure message. When doing this I also specify a read receipt.