Member Info for Iaintittle

Smoked salmon and beetroot, no cake in sight.

Thanks Thompi, I knew I had seen the audio somewhere but hadn't got round to listening, that is perfect.

Please can someone post a link to the video of last weeks AGM? Thanks in advance.

If we are going to divest the Diagnostics division then we must keep the Afimers tech within Theraputics and licence it back.

From the RNS;

‘This analysis shows that AVA6000 targets the release of doxorubicin to the tumour tissue at therapeutic levels which are much higher than the levels being detected in the bloodstream at the same time point.‘

‘Pharmacokinetic data indicate that systemic levels of doxorubicin are considerably lower compared to standard 75mg/m2 doxorubicin dosing, potentially allowing for higher dosing or more treatment cycles.’

‘The data obtained to date in 40 patients with a range of solid tumours has confirmed that AVA6000 has improved the safety and tolerability of doxorubicin, with a marked reduction in the incidence and severity of the usual doxorubicin related toxicities (including neutropenia, anemia and leukopenia). Cohort 7, at a dose of 385mg/m2 (equivalent to approximately 3.5 times the normal dose of doxorubicin), has not shown to date the typical drug-related cardiotoxicity and pharmacokinetic data suggest that AVA6000 has the potential to be used for 2-3 times more cycles (depending on dose) than standard 75mg/m2 doxorubicin dosing.’

These statements are unequivocal, it works.

So a dose of AVA6000 could be 3.5 x one dose of standard dox and still have significantly fewer side effects that allow a course to be 2-3 times longer. (but we still don't have a MTD nor know how long patients can remain on AVA6000)

So essentially between 7 and 10.5 x the amount of dox during the full course. With a new patent I wonder how much will we sell that for?

A whole chunk of FUD and other posts removed from yesterday...... including this;

Laughing as I see the FUDers trying to set up tmrw’s trading. Reflecting on several recent posts I believe the something material happened after the RNS 4/12/23 and before RNS 13/12/23. I agree that there might be a ‘new news’ black out imposed by a potential partner and that that may have prevented the in depth data analysis that many of us were expecting (promised) on the 13th. What really intrigues me is what caused the company to decide to make several new patent applications at this time? What did they see in the cohort 6/7 data in relation to the dosing methodology that made them do this?

Quiet round here!?!

Wyn, the LFT didn’t fail, the government were not interested in the best LFT, they wanted a cheap one. AS realised that the playing field was not even and that by trying to compete on price not quality/efficacy we risked Avacta’s good name as a serious life sciences company. He took the tough but correct decision to back away from the governments covid testing program. AS wants the best science not cheapest. LFT’s (in this context) were ditched so that other things could prosper, time to let go of the bone Wyn.

What say Takeda have access to the 'data room' and the early (and ongoing) AVA6000 P1a data and decide to licence AVA3996 but have Avacta re-engineer it to use Velcade as opposed to the analogue. Trial should not require P3 and Takeda get a new patented pro-Vecade to maintain and increase there market share.

AS mentioned 50% during the 6 ‘yes and no’ questions early in the Q&A.

Another justification for a high price will be the absence of costs associated with side effects.

Just thinking out loud.

P1a was not expected to show that pro-dox worked in humans, only that it was safe, and the patients selected were not expected to react to Dox but the RNS seems to say that it is working as well as being safe.

What happens if other drugs in the pro drug pipeline do unexpected things? Each drug in the pro-drug pipeline may outcompete the last.

Just suppose we licence AVA3996 to a leading pharma; what happens if a subsequent Avacta pro drug out competes AVA3996 leaving AVA3996 redundant, where might that leave the licence holder?

Surely some big pharma will take us out as a whole so they can dominate this market without competition?

All the attention seems to be AVA6k and the pre|cision platform but Affimers could be colossal. Global antibody market forecast to be $50bn+ by 2025. Antibody production slow, expensive, and some regard it as being unethical. Europe wish to see them phased out by the end of the decade. Affimers are the alternative, ethical, cheap to produce, smaller molecules and therefore more accurate than antibodies. Many diagnostic applications of Affimers are external to the body and need much less rigorous trials…….Affimers, the sleeper.

Further to Energyshares earlier post....
Takeda -neighbours
Novartis-neighbours
Sofie -Co sponsors
Merck -cash rich
J&J-cash rich
Pfizer-cash rich
Which one of the above would be under the biggest threat were a competitor to buy the whole platform?
Who has most to lose?

Would it be possible for the therapeutics division to merge with a subsidiary of a large pharma offering the benefits whilst keeping a degree of independence and some of the upside of the future drug pipeline ?

There is mounting evidence that pro dox and the pre|CISION platform might have the capacity to disrupt the existing chemotherapy market. Risk/reward…… should Big Pharma buy the whole platform now before the results are known or risk a rival doing the same?

Just thinking out loud….. yes CEZ have first dibs on buying EMH’s 49% but if KC felt that CEZ were attempting to delay in order to drive the price down couldn’t he solicit a realistic bid from a Korean battery maker in order to spice up the negotiation? Yes CEZ might not want a different partner but they could do worse than a Korean company, the Koreans are big investors in the Czech Republic.

Note to Adamsmith and RP: the Manchester face to face last year turned into a very pleasant pub supper for 3 investors plus BM out in the sticks….. there was that much interest. During that meeting I asked how many investor shareholders attend AGM’s; BM said only one had attended the last ‘face to face’ AGM but many more had been involved in the online AGM since….. so I suggest we should be happy to go online with the AGM and all hear what is said and then maybe ask BM to do another face to face in Manchester or wherever in mid July so we can put our observations to him…… just saying….. I have always found him most obliging!

I thought it took 4-6 weeks to get the assays back and a further week or so to collate? We were told that the drill program had started on March 16th….. I think it ambitious to expect anything before April 20th but you never know, today’s rise has come out of the blue!

looking forward to an update from Cora....... don't like to drift

I think people are forgetting that AS and Avacta are trying to establish themselves as a serious diagnostic and therapeutic company.
I suspect Avacta no longer want to risk their affimer platform besmirched by the circus that is Covid LFT’s….. (nobody is going to sue Innova or Flowflex for a false negative or positive) AS does not want to compete on price with those for whom 90 odd % specificity/sensitivity at c/t 25 is acceptable. The market he is after is serious diagnosis of life altering diseases through the detection of marker proteins, the sort of diagnostic work that can get you sued if it is not accurate enough.

Really interesting article BUT, lots of analysts still asking whether the VW’s of this world understand that they have to go upstream and fund mine development or else be at the mercy of external suppliers for their Lithium and other essential raw materials……
As Freidland said, a gigafactory with no Lithium is a warehouse.