Member Info for DonaldTrumpsWig

Wiltsinvestor - 'Chris Woods being bought by Newcastle from Burnley is an easy illustration. Did Newcastle think he was worth paying his release clause of £25m or did they just want to ensure that Burnley lost their top goal scorer? Strategy worked one team relegated and one remained in the PL.'

As a lifelong Claret, I can assure you that selling Chris Wood was not the reason we were relegated last season, (sacking our manager in April had much more to do with it). His measly 3 goals before being sowere hardly keeping us in the division. NUFC soon also realised he was useless and shipped him out to Forest. All has worked out well in the end for both BFC and NUFC (thumbs up emoji).

On a far more important note, the update on 3996 this morning is being drowned out by theoretical discussions on valuation. On the back of Andrew Saunders confirmation that AVA6k has demonstrated proof of principle, the update on 3996 appears to confirm that this principle is able to be consistently transferred to other drugs.

Biggest news since the SD update

We can debate all day (actually we already have) on ratios of Co value versus revenues and how this might be calculated.
We mustn’t forget however one crucial valuation driver which is AVCT’s IP.
Their broad IP protection coupled with ODD exclusivity could easily supercharge any valuation ratios if for no other reason than it would allow AVCT to set their own selling price (are you listening WYN) safe in the knowledge that they would have protection against like for like competitors.

'Interesting. Do you think any drug takes the whole market overnight?'

Doesn't really matter what I think, I just, once again, refer you to the words of Bill Tap, who clearly does think that.

With regards to the potential size of that market, at this point it is impossible to predict. What I would feel confident in suggesting however is that it will be significantly larger than it is today.

'Let's assume Avacta gets AVA6k up and running, and has sales of $300m (a market share of 20%)'

IF AVCT get AVA6k up and running it will never have a market share of 20%, in the words of Bill Tap:

'What we are looking for are drugs that work better, so if I have a doxorubicin that works better than standard doxorubicin, overnight that becomes the standard of care' - Dr William Tap

He thinks it's a film about blue aliens that live on Pandora

Hi Nicolas, good to see a decent informed poster on here.

What do you think of the read across of AVCT vs Seagen? Do you think that AVCT’s pre CISION platform-derived prodrugs will be direct competition to ADCs.?
Would be great to hear your insights?

$229 per share in cash....I know it's not $400 ex chinah but I would have to give that offer some serious consideration !!!

Clearly two companies at very different stages but only an idiot would be unable/unwilling to see the obvious read across between Seagen and AVCT.
Incredibly exciting news and a clear example of what could be possible.

It's very simple really, II's (Banks) want to buy companies for £X and sell them on for £Y (hopefully many multiples of £X) as quickly as possible.
They are bankers and they know very little about running small pharma/biotech so their decision (and the price they will pay) is almost entirely predicated by the confidence they have in the retained management team to deliver £Y as quickly as possible.
So whether AVCT are beefing up the management for a sale or to go it alone only time will tell, but either way it's a very good thing IMO

VertiseaSun - 'The two appointments, and other recent ones, are not the actions of a CEO preparing to sell his company. Quite the opposite in my opinion'

Quite the opposite in my experience, businesses for sale are often discounted heavily if the management team is lightweight and soon to be much lighter if the founder/CEO wants to leave as part of the purchase.
VC's and other II's place significant importance on the retained management team when making investment decisions.

Beefing up the management is definitely a positive IMO however you look at it.

Agree with all that gmcc ...good post

I also liked:

'Identify investment opportunities that are misunderstood and fundamentally undervalued by the market .... Getting rich quick is hard and requires luck. Getting wealthy slowly is a proven path.'

The IG article, whilst factually correct, reverts to the stereotypical sound bite of 'high risk high reward'. Then disappointingly uses SNG as a comparative example.
It's lazy and is the journalistic equivalent of using charts to predict the chances of AVCT being successful

Is it just me or do his eyes follow you as you walk across the room.?

The incredible thing about AVA6k vs STS, is that whilst dox is currently the standard of care, it's not actually very good. From memory, I think Bill Tap said that only 18% of STS patients showed any real benefit due to DLT's.

If AVA6k can improve this index then what value can you put on that?, especially when you consider the 7 year exclusivity AVA6k would achieve via the ODD status.

I wonder if the current news vacuum could be as a result of any of the following:

1. Recruiting patients at the Marsden for the 5th cohort in the ongoing pursuit of a MTD?
2. Setting up the P1b trial in the US with Bill Tap at MSK in New York?
3. Possible that 1 & 2 could run parallel to each other?
4. Possible that they could design P1b to seek not only the therapeutic index of Ava6k but also the MTD? effectively combining P1b with the pursuit of MTD?

Important to remind ourselves that despite the FUD instigated perception of delay, the reality is quite the opposite. The 1st cohort was only dosed in Aug 2022 and the amount of SD data produced in circa 18 months is incredible.

Agreed JT, the potential for AVA6k and the extended AVA family now proof of concept has been confirmed is quite mind boggling.
Going back to the P1a trial, I think the term Andrew Saunders used for the cohort patients was ‘Doxorubicin naive’. My understanding of this term was that the patients had never previously been dosed with dox as sadly, it was deemed to have no therapeutic benefit for their particular type of cancer.
The purpose of selecting such patients being that any adverse reactions/side effects could be traced directly to AVA6k without fear of any possible ‘contamination’ of results as a consequence of previous exposure to dox.
Assuming that the patients agreed to this in the full knowledge that AVA6k would be unlikely to provide any benefit to them I find incredibly humbling.

gje 306 - 'Impressive numbers indeed. Wasn't aware that dox is largely ineffective against colorectal cancers. It's curious why patients with this tumour type would be selected'

With the greatest respect, if you had listened to the SD, it is explained in great detail why patients with CR cancers were selected. In short, as P1a is only focussed on safety and tolerability it was important to dose patients that had never received dox before and hence were not subject to MTD restrictions.
CR cancers are known to be unresponsive to dox hence why these patients were chosen. It only emphasises the selflessness of these patients that they agreed to a trial that would almost certainly have no real benefit for them. Unbelievably altruistic.
It was also explained that P1b would (almost certainly under the guidance of Bill Tap) likely be focussed on soft tissue sarcoma, a cancer for which currently dox is the standard of care. It will be this trial that will seek to understand the efficacy of ava6k, particularly now we have achieved proof of concept that ava6k is not only safe and tolerable but appears to be depositing dox in the TME at therapeutic levels.

RAH, you sound like the Christian Bale character in 'The Big Short' movie. The only guy that has done the maths. Let's hope the outcome is the same !!

SB asked - 'Is it reasonable to assume that Pro-Dox will replace 100% of the current use cases for generic Dox? For example, is generic Dox used only on tumours where FAP mediated cleavage (I hope I have the right phrase) is possible? If not, should the USD1.5bn market size estimate be reduced accordingly?

Andrew Saunders and Bill Tap answered those questions unequivocally on the 23rd Feb.

'The promise of 6000 is that we could deliver more doxorubicin to the tumour with much better tolerability and with that the promise of giving 6000 for many more cycles than 6' - Andrew Saunders

'If we can have something that we can use for longer in patients we may be able to even use it in a wider group of patients than we are normally restricted to clinically' - Dr William Tap

'What we are looking for are drugs that work better, so if I have a doxorubicin that works better than standard doxorubicin, overnight that becomes the standard of care' - Dr William Tap

Pigster - 'Did anyone hear in the presentation a claim/plan to be trialling pro-Dox in Dox-sensitive patients in 1b?'

Andrew Saunders said whilst discussing next steps... 'we plan to move into metastatic soft tissue sarcoma ...we may go well beyond that to other tumour types, this is an obvious and logical first step, being an unmet need, a place where doxorubicin is used as the standard of care and where most tumours are know to be FAP positive'