Member Info for Ophidian

Gap at 1.3p still not quite closed

My thought are with his wife and family.

An old sparring partner and always a gentleman. RIP

Ophidian

Https://www.aacr.org/meeting/aacr-annual-meeting-2024/program/

Advances in technologies - 4th one down

"New Liquid Biopsy Technologies for Detection and Characterization of Cancer"

AGL ??

Make sure you don't confuse which account to use for insults (again). Your veil is getting quite thin now - just like your alter ego's science

QED

The poison of the honey bee

Is the artist's jealousy.

The prince's robes and beggar's rags

Are toadstools on the miser's bags.

A truth that's told with bad intent

Beats all the lies you can invent.

It is right it should be so;

Man was made for joy and woe;

And when this we rightly know,

Thro' the world we safely go.

maybe you can get a two for one deal at the Tattooist with your mate ?

Good luck all - with some of these idiots you are going to need it

Thanks Ian - but don't ruin one of their favourite all time lies.

I gave a list of the steps needed to get to market (in order of how the development life cycle works) - I did not put any dates or times on it.

I was then asked (on here) to show how those steps might work with the proposed company timings - so I graciously provided my best guess of how it could be squished into the time available (I don't make those sort of mistakes anymore on here - no good deed ever goes unpunished).

The cadre desperate to control the narrative on the board then leapt on that opportunity in the exact same William Blake quote style and have never let it go (even though anyone who was minded to could easily go back and see the truth).

But again - thanks for the comment

so let's start a completely new line of fud cos the argument is lost - do you even read the ****e you type ?

"The platform will be validated when the Phase 2 data shows that AVA6000 is superior to standard Dox."................... is a made up Eggy half quote and a complete fabricated lie

"draw firm conclusions about the clinical effectiveness of AVA6000 from about 6 months into the Phase 2 trial." - I doubt these exact words were used either - but if they were - then fine, this is a perfectly reasonable thing to say - It does NOT however state or imply that there is no clear scientific validation based on the data obtained (and presented) WAY before that.

"A truth that's told with bad intent beats any lie you can invent" William Blake - you should get it tattooed somewhere as it is without a doubt the principle you operate to all the time.

Whilst you're about it - try getting "Just Stop" tattooed on the inside of your eyelids too

It's the "more or less" bit that is the grey you just love to skulk around in isn't it. Between your selective hearing even more selective quoting and perversely deluded choices about what to believe or try and fake (clearly comprehension is a big question mark over most of what sloshes around your empty skull) lies a version of reality only you cling to. The rest of us understand science, English and when some scrote is trying to rip us off with his lies

"The platform will be validated when the Phase 2 data shows that AVA6000 is superior to standard Dox."

putting aside that there will always be those who insist the Earth is flat.

Something that IS doxorubicin will not be Superior to doxorubicin, but a delivery method FOR doxorubicin that already demonstrably and beyond scientific doubt shows lower systemic concentration for comparable dosing, a significantly lower Cmax thereby limiting cardiotoxicity issues and a massively wider therapeutic window HAS already shown that it will open the way to safer administration of Doxorubicin, in potentially higher doses if required, certainly with the option to dose for many many more cycles thereby extending progression free survival for whole classes of cancer patients for whom doxorubicin would not have previously been an option due to their age or condition.

In short - just ignore the Brain Deads.

QED

With pleasure - you for example have "proven" yourself to be too stupid, too uneducated and too closed minded to be able to see and understand scientific fact

FUD - Avacta will Never pay a dividend as they will not exist as an independent entity. Proven Tech with this much potential and opportunity cannot be left un-snatched by Big Pharma companies. Just listen to the interview with the CEO of Novartis

To paraphrase a recent adage about the law I was recently reminded of by a friend and to put it into the context of a scientific debate:

If the data supports your position then argue the data;

Where the data do not support your position, argue the veracity / applicability of the science;

When your science is exposed as lacking depth and rigour - just make a lot of noise and try to deflect any cogent analysis of the data in the context of good science, throw in the odd abusive or insulting rant and do everything you can to keep the noise level high enough to try and drown out the truth.

Simple - an informed (unlike your pathetic groping for failure) interpretation of the data. You can shout it's Black all day long but the data and an interpretation of that data by anyone at all with even a rudimentary understanding of the domain KNOWS it's White. The End.

Eggy contra-science FUD first then the "Froth" of a raise - the old one - two. If anyone is ever in any doubt as to which master the Egg serves - you couldn't have it more clearly spelled out

The point is very very simple Eggy - if you fail to adequately educate yourself on a subject - then your expectations or their absence in any subsequent presentation of data are at best a fantasy and most of the time are simply there for everyone to see as complete and utter garbage.

Just because you don't understand the basics doesn't mean that your failure to then understand the data presented to you means those data are by default Bad.

you are like the American who see's the result of a premier League soccer match and thinks 9-0 is not much of a victory based on his flawed assumptions that his basis for judgement is the NFL where typically much higher numbers are seen because of the totally differnet scoring system.

Https://www.annalsofoncology.org/article/S0923-7534(20)31530-1/pdf#:~:text=Conclusions%3A%20Bolus%20injection%20of%20doxorubicin,without%20being%20significantly%20more%20toxic.

In the present study we investigate the possibility of

reducing the toxicity of the EAP regimen by prolonging

i.v. doxorubicin infusion to eight hours. The cytostatic

effect of doxorubicin in vitro and in vivo has been correlated with the area under the plasma concentration-time

curve, AUC [11, 12]. The side effects can either be

correlated with AUC and/or the maximum plasma concentration, Cmax. Doxorubicin side effects reported to

be decreased by a fall in Cmax include cardiac toxicity,

nausea and vomiting [7].

Trying researching and reading- but of course you need to have a basic understanding to be able to understand what is being said. From your recent efforts I suspect that education will take at least until we are seeing 5 year sales figures for AVA6000

Oh dear oh dear, Eggy I thought we had cleared this up for you when you first tried peddling this erroneous argument. To quote your recent (I assume attempted implied slur):

(Thanks by the way for Ophidian's cut and paste trip down memory lane RE pharmacodynamics and compartments/distribution models etc although I must confess I'm not sure what, if anything, it has to do with the AUC stats.)

The fact that you are "not sure what it has to do with the AUC" is exactly why you parade you ignorance. Try even thinking about what the units for the AUC are (let me help ---> h.ng/ml or maybe h.mg/L - both may typically be used - it is a measure of the amount of drug per unit volume of blood per hour)

It is all about clearance - as I tried to explain in the piece I shared that you seek to malign, the criticality is around not exceeding the levels that the body can adequately deal with clearing. Hence as multiple people have tried to point out to you the SIGNIFICANT difference in Cmax is what is most illuminating and pertinent here. It would not be reasonable to expect a very very low doxorubicin plasma concentration and still expect to be seeing clear and obvious efficacy in some patients. The 40-80% reduction in doxorubicin plasma concentration compared to standard dosed doxorubicin compared to AVA6000 dosed doxorubicin (at a substantially higher relative concentration too btw, is remarkable).

I know he's gong to continue to blather on and try and argue black is white - I won't be drawn in to another exchange - but I would urge everyone to simply look at the available explanations and just simply ignore the total nonsense this guy tries to peddle.