Member Info for BuenaVista

Pubbore wrote "Can you explain what your reasoning is for 4 years into a trial and the SP being almost at its lowest level?"

This person thinks a company is valued by its share price! The pub bore thinks that a company with a SP of, say 400p, would be intrinsically more valuable than a company with a SP of 300p. No wonder this eejit is a failed trader.

"Libertarians such as American television personality John Stossel and editor-in-chief of Reason Katherine Mangu-Ward have advocated in favor of abolishing the FDA..."

What would they have instead of a regulatory authority?

What happens with the US health agencies is important to Avacta, an increasingly Americanized, but not yet an American company, wanting to do business in the US.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdIzcRvpAFE&ab_channel=MSNBC

Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=it3N0j9fw8k&ab_channel=MSNBC

Anyone who has read The Dictator's Handbook will understand this. Autocrats have no interest in the masses beyond them having a basic education that's enough to be able to carry out basic work (see the poor level of education in the red states). Trump said on camera that he loves the poorly educated ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpdt7omPoa0 ). It's of no interest to them whether they live or die or are healthy or not as long as they are able to work and produce wealth for the autocrat and his supporters, and if they aren't able to work then there will always be others to take their places.

They don't need to announce the AVA6103 candidate selection. Probably won't announce it as having happened and absolutely no reason to give details of what the candidate is as that is commercially sensitive information that's not likely to be made public until the patent application covering it is published.

'Donald Trump has just told the rest of the world that if they do not make their products in the US, they will face tariffs worth “trillions of dollars”.

'That would have to be the much-feared universal tariff affecting the rest of the world.

'“US will be the world capital of AI and crypto… come make your product in America, but if you don’t it’s your prerogative, but very simply, you will pay a tariff, differing amounts, which will direct hundreds of billions of dollars even trillions of dollars into our Treasury,” he tells the Davos elite directly about their biggest concerns.'

So, slap tarifs on any imports from the US into the UK and let's see what that does for their exports. Needs coordination and cooperation with the RoW ex-USA, and not a bit of guts to face him down, which I doubt our politicians have.

Some words in defence of Simon...

He's not got the best of products to flog easily - pre|CISION and Affimers are new, hence unproven in the clinic. Avacta is still at Phase 1a with the lead candidate - again unproven in the clinic as a realistic option. And the people he's dealing with are, for the most part, very conservative and prefer to safely follow the crowd to get a bit of the latest ADC, etc. action rather than stick their necks out, both personally/professionally and as a company, by investing $bns (fees to Avacta plus development costs) in unproven platforms*.

This situation should change dramatically when Phase 1b data start to become available and then by Phase 2 data, if Avacta gets that far without being taken over, Avacta will be holding the upper hand in negotiations if we are correct in our reading of how effective the pre|CISION platform is. But when investing $bns, big companies need to be assured that it is a good investment with a good return. Consequently, Simon's work produces nothing until that deal is finally agreed. His job is to get the best deal by smooching the interested parties and playing them off against one another.

Secondly, his background is in biotechnology, so hawking a diagnostics business around is outside his area of expertise and, more particularly, his network.

* For those screaming "It works, so it is proven!", it has not been sufficiently proven yet in the clinic (if you think it has, why no deals/takeover yet?) and, just as importantly, Avacta has not presented the full Phase 1 data nor has anything at all been published in a peer reviewed** paper in a reputable journal.

** For those screaming "It's been peer reviewed by world leading oncologists such as Tapp, etc!", just go and look up what 'peer review' actually means and what role it plays in scientific publications.

That said, I'm as frustrated as anyone with the glacial progress of the scientific and commercial sides of the business, but this is the nature of clinical development for a small biopharma company and I'm finding it very slow when viewed from the inside rather than objectively and dispassionately from the outside.

Very needy WM

Thanks for taking the time to respond in detail Bigears. Good stuff.

The Machine Stops, E. M. Forster, 1909.

The difference between complaining and moaning is that, if you're complaining, you're also stating what you want to happen, what remedial action you want to see.

So, @Bigears, what do you think CC should have done in the past 9 months, and what should she be doing now?

Rather than arguing with your egos like handbags, why don't you argue with facts, or at least with information presented by those who know far more than you will ever do about the subject?

Comprehensive analysis of fibroblast activation protein expression across 23 tumor indications: insights for biomarker development in cancer immunotherapies

https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/immunology/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2024.1352615/full

"Introduction: Fibroblast activation protein (FAP) is predominantly upregulated in various tumor microenvironments and scarcely expressed in normal tissues.

"Methods: We analyzed FAP across 1216 tissue samples covering 23 tumor types and 70 subtypes.

"Results: Elevated FAP levels were notable in breast, pancreatic, esophageal, and lung cancers. Using immunohistochemistry and RNAseq, a correlation between FAP gene and protein expression was found. Evaluating FAP’s clinical significance, we assessed 29 cohorts from 12 clinical trials, including both mono and combination therapies with the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab and chemotherapy. A trend links higher FAP expression to poorer prognosis, particularly in RCC, across both treatment arms. However, four cohorts showed improved survival with high FAP, while in four others, FAP had no apparent survival impact.

"Conclusions: Our results emphasize FAP’s multifaceted role in therapy response, suggesting its potential as a cancer immunotherapy biomarker."

And just a reminder that Avacta scientists are becoming experts in FAP.

Have you emailed Chris to ask whether the Avacta Philadelphia office is her kitchen table?

1. Native doxorubicin is limited in use by a) (lack of) susceptibility to treatment and b) toxicity.

2. AVA6000 is limited in treatment use by a) (lack of) susceptibility to treatment by doxorubicin, b) (lack of) upregulated FAP in the TME and c) upregulated FAP elewhere in the body.

1a) and 2a) are not the same. 2a) is different due to native doxorubicin's toxicity precluding treatment responses and AVA6000's much greater targetting to the TME.

2c) would be on a patient-by-patient basis due to individual circumstances.

The TAMs of the two are different. I'll leave it to the experts to put dollar figures on AVA6000's TAM and potential actual market.

Full details behind those trial results LLP:

'FDA approves datopotamab deruxtecan-dlnk for unresectable or metastatic, HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer': https://www.fda.gov/drugs/resources-information-approved-drugs/fda-approves-datopotamab-deruxtecan-dlnk-unresectable-or-metastatic-hr-positive-her2-negative-breast

Note the long list of side effects. This antibody-directed drug suffers from the same problem as the other ADCs, namely falling apart outside the tumour and causing off-target toxicity.

Now, if only there were an anti-cancer drug carrier that DIDN'T fall apart outside the tumor microenvironment, maybe more of it could be given more frequently and for longer...

"Our mission is to advance a new class of in vivo gene editing medicines for cardiovascular disease that target three key drivers of high cholesterol - LDL-C, remnant cholesterol, and Lp(a). Verve's medicines are designed to lead to lifelong cholesterol lowering after a single treatment. 2024 marked a year of crucial progress, with ongoing proof-of-concept data in humans demonstrating that we can use base editing to turn off the PCSK9 gene in the liver and durably lower blood cholesterol after a single intravenous infusion," said Sekar Kathiresan, M.D., co-founder and chief executive officer of Verve Therapeutics.

So, so much for that 'they're keeping you on drugs' conspiracy argument.

"I read a tweet earlier that said Pfizer have been in business for 175 years, and have not cured one disease, not one..."

Interesting. What is your definition of 'cured'?

Ignore the bore

First para: "one partial response in 10 salivary gland cancer patients."

The data are interim data as treatment is continuing, so could well get better, for example the 74 yo male MR patient who only started treatment last September. Also, the RNS didn't help Avacta by not stressing that the cancers had metastasised, although that is implicit with this being a Phase 1a trial.

LSE is one of the crappiest sites on the interweb. Designed by amateurs.