Member Info for BuenaVista

Troll

According to Avacta's anticipation, the SMDC is due to review this first cohort before Wednesday. Of that doesn't happen it will mean one of two things:

At least one patient has dropped out.

Or Avacta can't be rs'd to organise ahead of time a SCMD meeting within 2 weeks of completion of the cohort

I reckon the 'funding to not be bothered about' was the sale of Dx, which then didn't happen in time.

AS is an opportunist and a scientist. We have no proof that he is a good scientist. And we have adequate evidence that he does not have the commercial nous to run a pharma company. He should not continue in his current position.

TG also has no pharma industry experience and his financial acumen is questionable to say the least. He needs to be removed.

Third patient was dosed in the US on 20 March. Second dose would have been 3 April. Two week observation period would have finished on 17 April in the US. We are now 8+ days in the UK on from that, 30 April will be 12+ days. We'd better hear by the time of the interims that Q2W C1 has completed beacause if we don't it would mean either there was a problem with one of the patients or they're not serious about scheduling the SDMC meetings to facilitate the quickest running of this trial.

Btw Timster, if you are going by the 21 March RNS, Avacta made a basic mistake: "the Safety Data Monitoring Committee ("SMDC")". Obviously no one proof reads their blurb before releasing.

In a break from tradition, Doris has bought a packet of Ginger Nuts instead of the usual Hobnobs. Expect to hear significantly fewer expletives on Tuesday as the Team manipulate these superior dunkers.

"The phase 1 trial aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of AVA6000 in patients with FAP-positive solid tumors, focusing on targeted delivery and therapeutic outcomes."

So, not your normal tolerability and safety Phase 1 trial then. Stopped reading after that.

Could those believing this is a peer reviewed article please explain their reasoning, preferably by interpretive dance for my added amusement.

Doxorubicin can be dosed weekly, but at a third of the 3-weekly dose, 20 vs 60.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3786819/

Why do you think partnerships are a long long way away and that there's no guarantee still that the science works Rob?

You've made the statements, so justify them and enlighten us please.

Or hide and be filtered by everyone with any sense.

All well and good, but pre|CISION does seem to work...

Lol. I doubt it. With my baiting I don't even last a day!

I was calling out Ra-Ra-RAH! here as the cheerleading fantasist he is when others were lapping up his 8.9x nonsense. I'm not surprised to hear what the Avacta TG group is like. I've joined and been booted off two TG groups, one run by British fascists and the other by Ukrainian fascists, and both just for challenging their propaganda and lies with logic and a few home truths. I think I can live without an Avacta TG group. Peace.

"At least no one can be booted. We are all free to disagree and hurl abuse at one another."

'Robust' is, I think, the apt - unfortunately apt - description of this BB.

@Andershow08, re "Is my understanding correct that when/if these patients reach 16 weeks treatment the disease control rate may move up to 85%+ (13 of 15 patients)?"

The data aren't totally clear to me because of the multiple counting, but I think that must be the correct interpretation.

I have no faith in the CEO or the CFO. Neither has pharma industry experience and it shows in the poor decisions the company makes and in timelines that are rarely if ever met, resulting in loss of credibility, running low on cash and the consequently tumbling share price. Every LTH who has similar concerns about the quality of Avacta's management needs to include a question about CEO and CFO resignations. If the management receive enough, and particularly if they are deluged with such questions, then they will not only be fully aware of PI feeling and but will have to respond. Won't they?

Brown envelopes?

TG clearly not the best qualified person to be Avacta's CFO. Not good for LTHs and not good for Avacta.

"Unless there’s a very good explanation for the circumstances surrounding the shocking raise then AS simply has to go- confidence and trust is shot. His position is untenable unless he has a very good reason why we weren’t to worry about funding to then deliver one of the worst raises I can recall"

If we were on Nasdaq, the vulture law firms would be circling the company, looking for disgruntled SHs wanting to sue.

Https://www.marketwatch.com/press-release/precision-biosciences-announces-return-of-programs-and-conclusion-of-collaboration-with-prevail-therapeutics-47613652

I think you can see the process with AVA3996.

The substrate will need to be shown to be inert (not metabolised into something active) except for cleavage by FAP (and only FAP) and the leaving group wil need to be shown to be non-toxic. The warhead will also need to be shown to be substantially active only in the TME, and the more toxic the warhead, the more substantially it needs to be active only in the TME. If the warhead has not been through trials itself then its metabolites will need to be shown to not cause substantial side effects.