Member Info for opti_mystic

If Dox might work for a patient then it would work better with AVA6000.

Just clarifying, I did not reply to Touk as I no longer see his posts. It was implied that he had questioned the half life of Dox or maybe perhaps AVA6000, and by that implication this was some sort of problem. Being as the half life of a drug relates to the 'active' drug and the active part of AVA6000 is obviously Dox they are pretty much one and the same thing. The half life might be different but as we know the amazing people at Avacta can alter it anyway if it was a problem. But it is not a problem anywhere else except in the mind of people like Touk. It is not a problem for Avacta. It is not a problem for the world renown oncologists. It is just another example of why not engaging is the best way forward imo. Ignore. Box. Forget.

Hi Alde, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4732876/

This source suggests in the states there is 1.6 million persons each year diagnosed with cancer. If it's correct that 90% are Solid tumours then that market size is huge. Other figures seem to back that up. If the market is a tenth of that we're home and hosed.

It's going to be the worlds most expensive Ribena.

Hi Aldebaran, I'm wondering where you get the £xxxbn from? I'm not casting any doubt, just trying to understand. Whenever I try to find data to base the TMA on I get quite a wide variety of results so not sure what's reliable.

I agree Ice. To me unless Dox suddenly stops working or the mechanism suddenly stops cleaving in FAP (neither of which is going to happen) then it's just a matter of time and the long trial time-frames to get it into a much larger number of patients if frankly ridiculous and could be saving and improving lives right now imo. I know they have to be cautious with new drugs, but this is not really a new drug it's a very old drug being made more effective and safer by a new delivery system that is only two amino acids. Verging on unethical in my opinion. This is new but safe and putting it through years of further testing just to make it go through the same hoops as everything else shows to stupid degree of inflexibility and is over cautious.

I'm guessing that as it says it doesn't improve the outcomes for patients then it's sort of irrelevant. (Neither superior nor inferior) . The improvement can be either same efficacy but safer/fewer side effects, or better efficacy same safety. Looks as if AVA6000 is heading for both.

This is the part I thought was interesting:

When the response is 'we have a MOA called PreCISION that is exclusively cleaved in the TME by the biomarker FAP that is present in 90% of solid tumours AND you can attach any warhead you like AND you can change the TX I operating window AND you can change the Half-life AND it is safe, I would love to know a better opportunity out there right now in oncology that can dominate for the next 20+ years before anyone else can use the same technology. As CC said 'Game Over'

Careers will be made and careers will be ended over the fight for this IP. What is the cost to BP of not having this to protect patent expiries and revenue cliffs in the future?

Of course it's not enough, nothing will ever be enough at this stage

No Ceesor, it is true the mechanism works or it doesn't work, that is maybe the clarification, that I thought was implicit you need. Not many drugs work for every single person 100% of the time and chemo is no different.

I agree wholeheartedly with that Pedro. Box and forget.

Ceesor, Yes I think the board is divided in a binary way a bit like this company's drug. It either works or it does not. It is so simple, the peptide cleaves when it hits the FAP and leaves the chemo where it's supposed to be. This is not in any doubt nor is the fact they have done this with more than one chemo. But what do we appear to have? Someone, I know not who, seems to be questioning the half life of Dox!? There is no logic in that at all. Dox has been used for 50 years. It is the primary go to chemo for breast cancer and when oncologists try something else survival rates go down. That's just straight Dox. Avacta use the exact same drug and someone questions the half life of a drug that we know works, so why wouldn't work when Avacta use it? Make it make sense!

Exactly Alde, I guess that's from one of my many green boxed individuals spouting the same illogical negative nonsense over and over.

They don't allow the facts to get in the way of their opinion not worth engaging with or reading.

Yes Alde, I did a few numbers but had to use a bigger calculator with more digits, it's frighteningly huge!

Aren't we lucky that should read.

I agree Aldebaran, my discounts for chance of success is zero and I think it'll be available within a year.

I think they tell the story well enough. I'm no genius, even I can understand it! The people they need to get it, get it, That's big pharma. But as we have seen this market does not pay attention and it is misprice pretty spectacularly. Aren't lucky? That won't last forever though.

The numbers from the Avacta corporate deck in March P8 global incidence of mSGC that's FAP+ is 13,500 people. Multiplied by the cost per person $175,000. That's just one very small indication it can used less whatever discounts you want to apply for time to market or chance of success.

Thanks Monkshood that makes sense

I don't see any way where Avacta would recommend a sale for pre-clinical assets. It'll be once there is some human data for 6103 that'll be next year at the earliest in my opinion.

P1a for 6103 next year P1b year after. Cannot be much longer than that for an epic deal