Member Info for BuenaVista

sad that the ****'n'all (fc) chants are still stuck in the 1970s.😂😂😂 city all the way from this weekend

@Ceesor's "For all those Wyn-bashers out there, can you please note he just made on non-Fud statement?"

No idea what that was as it's on filter but I can guarantee it's only spewed some 'non-Fud' because it has bought in and wants to see the share price rise. I'm surprised you are so naive.

I dont't care. I see you've posted and I know it will be unintelligible. Lay off the dope pal. On filter you and your gibberish go.

Icecool is part of the FUD crew. Everyone should filter the twunt. A total waste of time that adds absolutely nothing to the BB.

The story: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68983741

US market on a roll. Stock market today: Dow pops for 7th straight day as S&P 500 climbs back above 5,200: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/stock-market-today-dow-pops-for-7th-straight-day-as-sp-500-climbs-back-above-5200-200020212.html

Nasdaq biotech stocks flying yesterday. Aim biotech rising today. Have we just passed peak fear?

Nice one Bella! Women's intuition solves the mystery again.

Given the stretched out timngs of the first doses for Q2W C1 with just 3 to 4 weeks for each patient (assuming any problem would be showing up by the end of the first week after the second dose) I suspect patients 1and 2 had both completed or very near comleting their two doses by the time patient 3 was dosed. My understanding is that if there were a DLT then another 3 patients would need to be recruited (so we would be talking about a long delay) but if a patient (patient 3) dropped out without a DLT then just a replacement for that patient would be needed.

One of my questions at the recent IMC presentation was about extending the trial sites (back) to the UK - when and why the decision to do that was taken. Hopefully this will get an answer when the Q&As are published but I somehow doubt it. I think it was VERY remiss of Avacta to limit trial sites to just the two US centres when they were being extremely picky about the inclusion criteria and, as I pointed out here at the time, the US healthcare system is very expensive and really not conducive to giving an experimental drug (OK, a new form of the standard treatment for those wanting to be pedantic) as first line treatment if the patient can't afford, or the health insurance companies won't cover, the hospital fees. I think AS was very badly advised by people with US healthcare experience who should have known better or were just looking out for their own or their sponsor's interests. Those people are not 100% Avacta people. Just saying.

@LL&P, there are 2 parts to reach cohort study: safety & tolerability, with efficacy showing during the second part.

The safety part is 2 doses followed by a two week observation period and then SDMC review. It doesn't matter when the first patients were dosed for Q2W cohort 1, the important dosing was patient 3's first dose as, so being well, the end point for the safety evaluation would be 4 weeks later. That we are now 7 weeks later strongly suggests, given the importance of completing this trial in the project timelines, that there has been a problem with one of the patients. Although incompetence in not arranging a SMDC [sic] review can't be ruled out.

The multiweek surveillance is part of the second part and is to monitor the patient, including measuring tumour sizes.

Be fearful when others are greedy and greedy when others are fearful.

Nigb. Sorry, autocorrect.

Nigh, the business has evolved and now needs leadership with different attributes, namely extensive pharma experience and contacts.

Agree with you Goldie, but on "To those who are invested in Avacta, remember why you invested in the first place. Was it because of the science, management, or the fact that you could be investing in a company that could save millions of lives. Either way, it’s your decision", people should not invest just because they want a good outcome. If that's the only reason then they should give to an appropriate charity and let that charity invest in new therapies, palliative care or whatever.

Companies House register says he resigned. Don't know whether that is 100% believable - is 'Sacked' an option?

Probably a bit of a biased view as the AI bot draws heavily, almost exclusively or totally, on Avacta source material! That is a consequence of Avacta having put nothing out in the peer review universe and of no one else writing independently about the application of Affimers in cancer therapeutics!

Boosters! Putting themselves out there, telling people what they're doing and advertising their progress!

I'd love to see Avacta start to do Nasdaq-style detailed quarterly reporting.

Calm down dear!

I just love women's intuition!

Not necessarily. Patients can drop out of the trial for any number of reasons, but including a DLT of course.

The third patient was dosed on 20 March in the US. The two week observation period after the 2nd dose would have ended on 17 April in the US. We are now 19/20 days on from that. That's more than enough time to hold a SDMC meeting. If there isn't an announcement of a dose escalation this week, then...

You remember WAG, them sitting around for weeks waiting for the EU to approve the LFT only to be told on Twitter that the third party contracted to do it had forgotten to send their application in? Do you remember the Block Listing Six Monthly Return eleven days ago? Did you notice that the abstract for AACR 2024 said 51mg/m² not 54mg/m²? And many more examples. Hopefully the new regime will tighten up on this poor oversight. One can only hope that official submissions to the likes of the FDA don't have basic errors like these in them.

Hopefully, but their lack of oversight I wouldn't be surprised. I always remember this from a professional development session at work:

It was a job that anyone could do but everyone thought that someone would do it so in the end no one did it.