Member Info for BuenaVista

Touk, has the share price ever gone down because of the science?

The rest of your post just reads like an aimless broadside. Please reiterate to make your point(s).

I've read you having a go at Aldebaran on the HEMO board Saint.

I'd say it goes both ways. Aldebaran is another manipulative trader with no integrity, supportive here, disruptive on HEMO, just to suit his own agenda.

And trader HurstBot just posts weird word salads with a "you'll be rich soon" feelgood subtext that, unsurprisingly, appear to gain a lot of favour.

Fair enough in a music, football or even political forum Saint, but not so when someone is trying to enrich themself by impoverishing others.

Savvy investor, my rrrrse. Eggy was endlessly trying to negatively effect sentiment by attacking the science, first as NDN until he was exposed as being in the pay of TW, and then when he came back as Thornogson.

So, the science. There was never anything wrong with the science but he used spurious arguments, repeated endlessly, to try to confuse and demoralise investors who didn't have a full grasp or appreciation of the science.

Eggy is the lowest of the low. Completely self-centered. No morals. No scruples. No integrity.

Good call HurstBot, 2,000 sold @ 81p

RSI just moved above 70 so going into overbought territory. Without news, I reckon 82-83 by end of the week, maybe a bit higher, then fall back.

But isn't that expected now because the Phase 1b cohort is totally focused on patients that are expected to respond? Anyway, time will tell and good data is good data and reratings will come.

Yes Bella, I was a week early.😂

I'd love to see a rerate on good Phase 1b data, but isn't good data expected for SGC? - and it's a small market - so how much of the 'Good News' is already in the share price? Without news of a deal that provides funding and comes at the same time as or soon after the Phase 1b SGC data, I can see a market reaction like the recent one for news of ImmuPharma's patent application - https://www.hl.co.uk/shares/shares-search-results/i/immupharma-plc-ordinary-1p - a big spike and then settling down to a new, raised, level

Phase 1b data will be good for the share price but funding would be better. Phase 1b alone is likely to just cause a spike and I'd be surprised, pleasantly surprised, if we get the data by 12 December. Funding news could come at any time and, really after all this time, it can't come soon enough.

So? That's a really crass response. AVA032 is no longer in the Avacta pipeline and it's not going to be funded by Avacta, so... What is the relevance of Mystic HurstBot's post?

HurstBot can respond, you know, with computer code, source of its information, or whatever.

What am I missing here? Mystic HurstBot posts a word salad that means absolutely nothing and explains nothing and four, now ten, idiots give it a rec. Do any of them know what AVA032 was? Do they know how these cryptic 'Japanese friends' are going to put AVA032 in their shopping basket. Santa Maria del idiota!

Aye aye aye! Marmalado!

Https://avacta.com/pipeline/

😂 Maybe the four recommenders would like to explain why the recs... And what exactly AVA032 is...

For that matter, maybe HurstBot could explain wtf that post was about?

50% chance of an RNS tomorrow

No pedro, it is just the common behaviour of narcissists.

STS had been the low hanging fruit until circumstances changed. When the facts change, Avacta's leadership change their mind. What do you do, moron?

You're a moron aren't you eggy.

CC gave the reason very clearly. Maybe someone can quote exactly what CC said and when but in essence she said that the PFS bar for doxorubicin in sarcoma had been raised by results from Boehringer Ingelheim's trial of their brigimadlin (aka BI 907828) oral MDM2-p53 antagonist candidate.

"[162] Patients with advanced or metastatic dedifferentiated liposarcoma (DDLPS) received one intravenous infusion of 75 milligram per square meter (mg/m2) on Day 1 of each 21-day cycle (q3w) until a maximum cumulative dose of 450 mg/m2 (approximately 6 cycles).

"Median PFS: 7.16 months (Inter-Quartile Range: 2.63 to 11.33 months)"

https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05218499?tab=results#outcome-measures

This means - and this was the reason given by CC - that a much longer, and hence more expensive, trial would be needed for STS as opposed to SGC. There may have been other supporting or even more convincing reasons to pivot to SGC, such as agreements in principle with big farmer, but so what? CC is going for the quicker win for Avacta's first faridoxorubicin registration.

- - - - -

Incidentally, brigimadlin has since been dropped by Boehringer Ingelheim: https://www.oncologypipeline.com/apexonco/another-false-dawn-p53

It's worth noting that clinical trial stats are influenced by the classes of drugs where significant numbers of failures or successes occur. In this case, the failure of so many p53 'reactivators' is making industry-wide Phase 3 stats look worse.

5. Phasing in the use of non-animal derived antibodies and affinity reagents

Antibodies are proteins with high specificity for their unique target and have been used as crucial tools for diagnostics, therapeutics, regulatory procedures, and research to investigate molecular and cellular pathways. Antibodies are generated by repeated administration in an animal of an antigen to stimulate the production of antibodies which are then harvested by blood sampling. Large numbers of animals (including rodents, rabbits, goats, sheep and chickens) are used in antibody development and their utility is subject to debate due to issues of specificity and reproducibility. This is especially true for polyclonal-type antibodies (pAbs) which have significant batch to batch variation and often uncharacterised cross reactivities.

Several alternative technologies to traditionally derived antibodies exist, which do not use animals in their production, and which offer unlimited supplies of reagent with limited batch to batch variation. This includes recombinant antibodies (developed using phage display technology), affimers, aptamers and multiclonal antibodies which have all the advantages of pAbs and none of the drawbacks. Adoption of these non-animal alternatives has been limited, within the academic research community, by lack of awareness and education in their utility, commercial availability, and drivers to encourage their use.

In 2021, the ASC made several recommendations with respect to project licence applications proposing the use of animals for pAb production. This included the need to more thoroughly consider whether non-animal alternatives are valid and appropriate before approving future applications.

Target: We will aim to replace the use of animal-derived pAbs by 2030.

Just to be clear, the invention of a self-immolative linker, assigned to both Avacta and Bachovchin's Tufts Uniiversity, pre-dated CC joining Avacta as a NED.

Avacta may have been trying to use that linker to pre|CISION-enable bortezomib, as might be suggested by that slide 13 from 28 Sep 2023 and CC may have said wtf are you p'ing around with bortezomib for when you could be using exatecan, but I'd be surprised if that idea hadn't already occurred to the chemists (chemists know something of the clinical side, clinical people know nought about the chemistry side) - so maybe the chemists pushed CC to push for it? Who knows? We may never know.

Indeed she has Sandy. But she has also made it appear in early presentations that Avacta discovered AVA6000 rather than just developed it.

Just how brilliant the chemistry team is will become clearer when the in-process patent is published and can be compared to this patent assigned to Avacta and Bachovchin's Tufts University: https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2022094262A1/en (Application filed 29/10/2021, Priority 30/10/2020 in the US). This patent application has been abandoned but that almost certainly means it is being superceded by a later one with a later expiry date - maybe the one CC has talked about? Avacta and Bachovchin continue to work closely together?

Excerpt: "... L2 is a self-immolative linker (e.g., which is metabolized or otherwise eliminated after FAPα cleavage to release the free therapeutic moiety) ..."

I remember being very confused when Alan presented a slide with a schematic of the pre|CISION substrates they were working on represented as:

Capping group ----- dipeptide ---|-- linker ----- warhead

This was during the presentation of the Interim Results, 2023 on 28 Sep 2023: https://avacta.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Avacta-Group-plc-Interim-Results-and-Business-Update-Sept-2023.pdf (slide 13 - The pre|CISION™ Platform)

I was confused because, cleaving at the '|' indicated above, the linker+warhead would be inactive and I questioned that here on this BB.