Member Info for mowzerrocks

Yes- Velcade has this side effect and AVA3996 should hopefully put a limit on that. Dox doesn’t have this particular side effect - at least not significantly. However the heart damage it does is the biggest opportunity for AVA6000.

I have particular experience of Docetaxel and Cyclophosphamide and their toxicities. I play the piano and do many things with my hands and the risk of peripheral neuropathy was a huge concern. Taxanes can also cause temporary issue with your nails causing them to come off. I used cold gloves and socks during infusion and did not have these issues, though I had neutropenic sepsis on the first round.

Precision offers the opportunity to reduce side effects significantly and effectively deliver higher doses to the TME. I can’t tell you how exciting that is. I had to I have have a dose reduction and that is likely impacted the efficacy of my treatment. Given that we know that AVA6000 is being deposited in the tumour, I can’t see how it won’t lead to better outcomes for dox susceptible tumours.

So I don’t think peripheral neuropathy is particularly common with doxorubicin. I was advised it is more common with the Taxanes. However velcade is listed as one with this has a side effect. Peripheral neuropathy risk can be reduced a fair amount with cold/compression gloves and socks - which is particularly unpleasant especially when your head is being frozen as well with the cold cap. Roll on Precision Docetaxel and Paclitaxel (was Paclitaxel on the list? sorry being lazy just too wiped tonight to look it up).

Hey Muller - So sorry to hear about your sister. I hope you friend recovers - the mental aspect of it is very challenging. You end up feeling quite mauled. Pyschological support is a real necessity. Presume with ovarian cancer the BRCA1 gene could be involved. Did you see the article about the link to a specific island near Orkney.

https://www.abdn.ac.uk/news/16704/

I paid to get genetic testing... I'm clear from what genes they know about.

I had a wide local excision to remove cancer plus a symmetry reduction on the ‘good side’. I now have the breasts of a 20 year old … with some serious Halloween scars on a late 40s body (doh!) . To top the trauma off - I chucked an entire drawer of now too big useless bras to make room for the copious meds from the Party Bag the journalist mentions. It is filled to the brim… I couldn’t open the drawer last night - something got wedged… getting old sucks but getting old with cancer is a *****

Thank you … I’m trying to live in present. Good luck to LTH and let’s hope that the science prevails. The initial data is very promising.

Just thought I’d post a slightly off topic message to break up the bickering between the LTH’s and FUD dumpsters.

I had my last chemotherapy yesterday. On to radiation in a few weeks. Roll on Avacta and deliver some kinder more targeted chemotherapy.

50% or probably more will be entering this journey and I for one hope science moves forward to making cancer a more manageable condition. The science here is fascinating and I think if you DYOR you will see this has been derisked significantly, though still not without risk.

I came across this on twitter and found it to be particularly relevant and balanced. There is a lot of volatility in AIM shares. They can be very illiquid and there is a risk for those that aren’t researched to be swayed by shorters and rampers who are looking to make short term gains. Posters who discuss the actual science hold more weight. DYOR and if you like the company and the science just buy on the dips and hold and ignore the noise here.

https://mhmembers.com/if-aim-is-a-casino-can-you-beat-the-house/

If you do scream then it will be unheard here… sorry I couldn’t resist.

To those that go on about AIM and rampers and fudsters … this share is incredibly illiquid and a target for these types. Someone posted a very good link to a summary of AIM and boards and market makers from a balanced perspective. I am not on here much so it may well have been posted previously, if not I will link it if there is interest.

I’ve always said I expect the ramping here… but so easy to ignore.
The science is fascinating and hard to ignore and easy to get excited about.
The FUD - well let’s just say it isn’t altruistic. You could say neither is the ramping but when backed up by the science - I find it more acceptable and educated. When putting out negativity on a faceless BB - regardless of how much is supported by market impatience and illiquidity etc - it is going to attract justified backlash because not one single person will believe it is because you have their back! Apart from the fools being targeted.

But going back to AIM - this will be turbulent and what this board has turned into is a bickering match between researched LTH and shorting FUD makers.

It would open up the market considerably. Dox is currently contraindicated for those with any heart issues. Not to mention proving the platform for all the other potential chemotherapy drugs.

Just have to be patient … or sell to the FUDsters. That is the only reason they are ‘here’ with their ‘altruistic’ venom.

I love it when you pop in Indy …

RIP Tony. He was only 60. So sad.

BITL - I agree - the presentation gave a lot of additional data and narrative about that particular table. There are number of issues in comparing the two sets of data (end stage vs primary treatment as just one example, but additional mitigation treatment would undoubtedly be used in primary treatment, so the data presented there could be artificially low if it wasn't also used with AVA6K). Saunders did issue caution about comparing the data and I would have like to ask a number of questions I have about the data presented about side effects, but what absolutely clear is that even with dose increases, we are not seeing the toxicity that prevents longer treatment with powerful doxirubicin. Don't forget that it is cleavin and dox is being deposited in the tumour significantly more so than the blood. Ideally there would be nothing in the blood, but given there is bloodflow all round the body including the tumour, then it is no supply that there is a small amount in the blood and potentially causing some side effects but at a significantly lower level.

Additionally, the tumour types are interesting. There are two patients with tumour types where dox is standard care... and at least one patient has had 8 cycles. I'm not sure if I was on a trial at end stage that I would go through 8 cycles if there was not some evidence that it was productive. Speculative, but not unreasonable to feel positive about that.

The Jan RNS was clear to me. The quote in the RNS from Alistair was unambiguous. Go back and reread it. Playing the card about AS's use of superlatives and comparing to the LFT issues was never a good way to judge the language and manage your investment here. Why? This was a phase 1 trial of a product that has been in development for years and years and being run in the best cancer hospitals in the UK and being run by independent oncology experts. There are no time constraints here, cancer isn't going anywhere, and we haven't got outside forces at play either. It is a trial with proper design controls to ensure that meaningful data is collected and analysed.

I've avoided commenting on your posts Wyndrum - and I don't always enjoy reading the posts that bash you. However the ones in this thread have triggered me. If it makes you feel better to call AS thinned skinned (a phrase used to belittle someone into thinking they aren't good enough or are weak in some way), it says more about your deluded view of your own position in some theoretical hierarchy. If you think Alistair, given his career let alone his academic achievements, feels the need to get even and therefore deliberately decides (in your opinion) to be ambiguous in his language just to give two fingers to those that criticise him? *OR* do you think maybe you just cast your own bias (for whatever rationale or cause) and chose to cast doubt and just missed the bigger picture here - which included control scientific processes and trial designs? Your post reads that getting it wrong isn't an option for you... and therefore you must have been tricked by the CEO. Whilst I am all for balance and enjoy the scientific discussion, this one really is one of your more pathetic ones if I’m honest.
Btw for the record – I did post my opinion what therapeutic would mean:
23 Feb 2023 22:19

Go back and reread the January RNS. Everything is in there albeit no number ratios but the language used in the RNS was very positive and it seems many missed that or thought it as hyped up. We still don’t know how much dox is in tumour and may not know until end of P1a.

Trial design must be being thrashed out to get MTD or at least closer to it and closer to being able to calculate it with some kind of confidence.

‘Therapeutic levels’ would in my opinion need to be greater than what would be achieved at the lowest dosing band for tumour/cancer type.

It means exactly that yes but don’t presume that means 100x normal dox in tumour. It is the ratio of dox in tumour versus blood, so very little travelling ground the rest of the body causing damage outside the tumour micro environment.

So - we don’t know the exact amount in tumour compared to normal dox - though we do know it is in therapeutic range from the RNS. I would poke a guess at 60-100% of normal dox as these is usually the range for dose reductions (which must be considered ‘therapeutic’).

Different cancers will have different dosings and probably different dose reduction bands. Different types of tumours probably have to be analysed within their own group - perhaps a reason why data is difficult to release at this stage.

What is amazing here is that if there is 100x dox in tumour compared to blood, the side effects and toxicity must be so reduced it is quite frankly mind blowing. Dose escalations must be being undergoing considerable replanning to either get to MTD to 100% (or more)in tumour compared to normal dox. All a bit exciting but really looking forward to seeing it with my own eyes…

However the material argument… I would say that the January RNS was pretty clear still and in line with what is being reported by Myles. I think many just chose to take it with an extra large pinch of salt. The main complaint was that we don’t know how well it works… and we still don’t know how much is hitting the tumour. We do know that there were markedly reduced sides effects and toxicity and now we have some perspective on what markedly really means. Material in that sense is a bit subjective.

Bah ha ha - AVA6000 of course! And it can be added to my delicious pasta sauces as a secret cancer fighting ingredient! Who wants spaghetti doxorubicin hold the heart damage??

The animation and script were excellent but I wasn’t keen on the AI - American accent ok… but it was unnatural and feel it could have been done by an actual American … there are so many of them.

I would have done it for free… but I sound like Loyd Grossman.

Zoom out everyone. The biggest problem here is the dissecting of every minute detail and incessant posting of:

‘are we there yet?’

‘Wah wah - Al is so mean - he doesn’t care about me’

‘I’m just putting a different view to balance the board - honest gov I’m altruistic’

‘£5 by 2:30pm’

Clearly from what has already been divulged by the company says that it is working… and what many don’t seem to realise is that a multitude of variations of ‘working’ could be used to improve efficacy which would undoubtedly improve efficacy. Just reducing side effects that might ordinarily stop or reduce treatment is an increase of efficacy.

So can the doom mongers,and the kids in the back seat, and the concerned dads just chill and perhaps then the rampers would stop pulling every car/thread over.

Over and out and incredibly excited to see the video tomorrow.

Bagels

Terry why don’t you go back to retail banking ,oil , and energy. Pharma is clearly not something you have patience for… and you are wearing thin here whilst most here actually have a grasp of the actual science.