Member Info for BuenaVista

Quite Timster. This collaboration's going nowhere unless Pathos AI is also included in the agreement.

You've got no idea have you

As usual HurstBot provides no source for all the 'facts' presented. This means not only that 'facts' can be picked and chosen to represent a particular view but also that board members are not able to check or read the full details.

'Zeneca etc recently signing up', for instance, is not true. The AstraZeneca collaboration is not new; it has been going since 2021: https://www.tempus.com/news/tempus-signs-expanded-strategic-agreements-with-astrazeneca-and-pathos-to-develop-the-largest-multimodal-foundation-model-in-oncology/ - And what companies are in the 'etc' that have recently signed up? - Can HurstBot name and give sources for any?

@B2H, investors and would-be investors need to decide whether to buy at these low prices before Phase 1b results are announced or wait and consider buying after. That is a value judgement based on belief whether: given all that is currently known, the results will be deal-worthy or not; there will be funding from some kind of deal in the meantime that will affect the share price or there will be a raise, likely at a lower price; and an assessment of what the gain on buying after the results are known might be compared to buying before they are known.

All this has got sud all to do with eggy who will no doubt continue to hang around here like a bad eggy smell.

Much better B2H to state the argument to the whole board rather than engage with eggy. Afterall, who gives a flying fcuk about what happens to eggy?

Or they. Legion.

Gotta say young Dougie is providing plenty of chuckles for the LTHs.🍿

And he's 'Here all weekend'! Busy, busy🐝

It's always the same. A few buy with enthusiasm when encouraging news is released that further answers the 'Does it work?' question but the big question of 'Where is the next round of funding coming from?' remains.

What treatment is King Charles getting? I think it's a State secret isn't it?

So this thread isn't about Eggy only getting 12½p per post?

@Bankrupt, what do you think Avacta will be doing as a business in, say 1 year's time?

@o_m, I have the 3 amigos on filter but do dip into their posting history occasionally when they seem, from others' comments, to be being particularly rc.

I am really writing/explaining for the benefit of those board members who want to learn and understand about Avacta. The 3 amigos have zero interest in learning and understanding, as witnessed by the FUD that they repeat ad nauseum to try to make money off other people's ignorance and fear (what incredibly sad individuals they must be to try to make a living that way).

I advise all board members to filter them, report their lies or dismiss their arguments without engaging with them.

On the half-life issue specifically... I have no opinion and am happy to trust the experts' opinion.

It is worth considering this thought experiment though:

Could the AVA6000 half-life be extended? Yes, using the chemical techniques that Avacta has recently developed, it mostly probably could.

Would an extended half-life improve efficacy? I've no idea whether that would statistically improve the efficacy - that's a question for the experts.

Would it be worth extending the half-life if that were to improve efficacy? Well, the experts seem quite (as in 'very') happy with the efficacy against susceptible indications as things are. To extend the half-life using Avacta's new chemical techniques would mean binning all the sunk costs, time and goodwill of developing AVA6000 and starting again from square one with a new research compound ...and THAT. AIN'T. GONNA. HAPPEN.

If you don't understand that, it's because...

a) You don't understand how long and costly the clinical development process is

and

b) You don't understand or choose to ignore the investment sentiment on AIM and the global market sentiment to the cash-hungry biotech sector at a time of high interest rates.

On whether AVA6000 works and why it doesn't work in all cases....

Well, 'working' is a two-stage process.

Firstly the drug, doxorubicin, needs to be cleaved from the peptide linker by the FAP enzyme, and only by the FAP enzyme. This is the core IP and it has been shown to work for at least three research compounds - AVA6000, AVA3996 and the chosen AVA6103 compound - and will have worked for others that Avacta haven't put into the public domain.

Then the drug, doxorubicin, needs to have efficacy against the cancer indications being 'treated' in the Phase 1a safety, tolerability and initial efficacy trial. The first part of this trial, the early cohorts, was to test and prove that the doxorubicin was indeed cleaved within the tumor microenvironment. To do this, the only important consideration was that there should be high levels of FAP present. Having proved this, the subsequent cohorts were orientated towards cancer indications that were recognized as being susceptible to doxorubicin and this targeting to where efficacy would be greatest was then enhanced by the collaboration with Tempus AI.

This thread, this 'argument' 😂😂😂 It's really very simple. Who would you rather trust and believe:

Some random anonymous prolific posters with no background in oncology or the pharmaceutical industry who constantly knock the science and the company's clinical development program?

Or...

A collection of experienced and respected clinical oncologists with reputations and careers to protect who are bowled over by how effective AVA6000 is at the treating cancer indications that they would expect to respond to doxorubicin.

Pretty sure Withpower and the other patient-orientated trial recruitment sites just scrape text from the clinicaltrials.gov website.

@o_m, yes, original IP was limited to having to have at least* a free amino (-NH2) group on the warhead drug - that was the reason Velcade itself couldn't be linked.

* The 3D configuration of the prodrug also had to fit in the FAP 'hole'.

Not such a 'coincidence' that Avacta is using MSK, where Bachovchin's son Daniel has a lab. But noteworthy that little Avacta has not just enrolled top US oncologists for the SAB but that the trial is being carried out at the two premier US cancer research sites (and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center ain't bad either).

That was the hard part - composing a post in LSE's ½" high frame. This is the easy part - straight from Google:

The top US cancer research centers consistently cited in rankings include The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. The Mayo Clinic and The Johns Hopkins Hospital also frequently appear on top lists.

Here's a more detailed look at these and other top centers:

Consistently Ranked Top:

The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center:

Often ranked as the #1 cancer center in the US and internationally, known for its extensive research and specialized treatments.

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center:

A leading center with a strong focus on both research and clinical care, consistently ranked in the top 3.

Mayo Clinic:

Recognized for its comprehensive approach to cancer care, including research, treatment, and patient support.

The Johns Hopkins Hospital:

A leading institution with a strong history of cancer research and innovative treatments.

Other Highly Ranked Centers:

Dana-Farber Cancer Institute: Known for its specialized research in various cancer types, including pediatric cancer.

City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center: A growing center with a focus on innovative treatments and cutting-edge research.

Moffitt Cancer Center: Recognized for its commitment to clinical trials and developing new therapies.

Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute: A comprehensive cancer center with expertise in various types of cancer.

Roswell Park Cancer Institute and UCSF Medical Center: Also consistently ranked among the top cancer centers in the US.

These rankings are based on various factors, including research output, clinical expertise, and patient outcomes. The specific ranking of centers may vary slightly depending on the source.

It also worked with AVA3996 in preclinical as well so it's not as if AVA6000 and AVA6103 are the only proofs of concept in preclinical.