Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
If AVA6K is delivering at above the potential of the preclinical trials, then you can bet the STS community will be all over it. Dox is the best they have for most of their patients, double, treble, or whatever the delivery and at the same time nix the side effects then they will have to be fought off. The world of regulation is dense, complex, and murky to most mortals, but common sense surely says a pivotal trial should be possible very soon. Dr Tap seems like a switched on character, he will not be in London just for a jolly.
Avacta have wheeled out that graphic many times now. On every other one to my knowledge it is labeled as a 6 times dose of AVA6000, not a 6 times dose of dox. Ophidian is right. You guys need to stop being such a bunch of jerks and actually listen. You are so used to batting back the moronic comments of your resident cadre of trolls that you just shoot the messenger.
The TAM for a newer, better dox in STS ? $500m pa is conservative I feel. So, not to be sneezed at at all. However, in order to get that approved they will have to have a manufacturing in place, fully validated, with, I think, 12 months stability data. (You do not want to inject 6 month old AVA6K and find that the leaving group has left of its own accord). So, catch 22, you need an industrial partner, if not now, very soon. So, Avacta need the compelling data from 1a or 1b or wherever delivers whatever is deemed compelling, plus the FDA nod on approval in the form of breakthrough status. Then, they are in a position to deal. I think we will have to wait for a bit longer for our prince to show himself.
A good partner would be a major with an existing doxorubicin supply chain and a lot of cash. Any ideas ?
Hmm, jiveturkey, yes that panel does express it differently. The ones I have seen with that graphic say dox at x and AVA6K at 6x. Why proper papers are better than corporate panel sets I guess.
Actually 4x once the molecular weight difference between dox and 6K is taken into account. 18x now would be twice as good, but given lower human systemic FAP levels fantastic, but not impossible.
Call me old fashioned, but I think it is good practice to have some knowledge of the industry your investments occupy. For quite a few on here, with their endless witless musings, that is clearly not the case. Or perhaps they have a agenda ? Hard to believe people can be so willfully blind otherwise.
Last weekend, as the new crew came on with their tales of woe and warning I posted that the share price was going to come under a concerted attack to drive it down to the gap at 140. (Hey, I'm a genius eh). I quickly got two lengthy replies from you know who accusing me of being a pathetic paranoid fool. Guess what ?
Yes, it is a horribly complex procedure (shame as the chemistry is pretty neat). AVA6K has its own click chemistry already in place fortunately in the form of FAP. The great takeaway though is that very big doses of dox can be landed in a tumor without apparent leakage, so should be good news for Avacta.
Either that or the polymer did not stay in the tumor I guess. Maybe it is very localised in the tumor and the biopsy missed it ? Bizarre though that they can report this in such a positive way with this big gaping hole in the data.
Clearly AVA6K is a simpler method than Shasqi, and should get to all tumors wherever they are. I don't really understand why it worked once and apparently not 5 times though. The click chemistry clearly works, the polymer was injected into the tumor, a very large quantity of dox was infused .... where did the dox go if no side effects were observed ?