Member Info for opti_mystic

@ Ceesor, That isn't what she said, she said Dox has a half life of 35 hours and so we didn't need the Gen2 PK enhancement. Your conclusions are nonsensical. How on earth do you think a chemo refractory tumour that is not affected by straight Dox with a half life of 35 hours would respond better to Faridox if the Dox element of it only had a half life of 45 minutes? Make it make sense! Dox is Dox, she said Faridox had a half life of 45 minutes (Faridox, I think it goes without saying is not just Dox) meaning the Dox cleaves from Faridox in the presence of FAP in 45 minutes (leaving the Dox with a half life of 35 hours in the tumour) and because Dox has a half life of 35 hours there is no necessity for Gen2 to extend the half life of the Dox because Dox has a half life of 35 hours as she had previously stated. She was talking about all of this in the context of extending the half life of Exatecan and why it was necessary as the half life of Exatecan being only 9 hours. This is a thing that commonly and repeatedly seems to raise it's head here by someone whose posts I don't see, and it is an irrelevance based upon a misunderstanding of the two separate entities that make up Faridox, the Dox and the peptide. CC is talking about cleavage rates not the half life of Dox being altered by it being attached to the peptide, it's still Dox and it's inherent characteristics could not possibly alter just because a peptide was covalently bonded to it. This line of thinking is beyond utterly ridiculous. The cleavage rate is altered for 6103 slowing the release of Exatecan, it is not necessary for Faridox the difference being the respective half life of the respective payload being delivered.

It seems every time we get data that says yep every thing with the drug(s) is as we expect it to be the market trashes the share. I was looking forward to seeing the data and 6103 looks incredible. I'm hanging on to all my shares, it's just a matter of time as far as I'm concerned. This board is becoming unreadable and with and with all the adverts virtually unusable. Singing off for a while. GLA

Avacta R&D episode 13 on the website. CC confirms Doxorubicin half life is not a problem at 35 hours but Exatecan is only 9 for anyone that might still have a half life problem. Not sure if anyone has mentioned this recently?

@emilly1katie Zeus do have a NOMAD licence.

Cancer treatment is not a binary thing cured/not cured; it's very often about buying time. The disease is considered chemo refractory, chemo is not supposed to work. Avacta has extended the PFS from 15.9 weeks to somewhere around 50 weeks, for sure more than 41 weeks. It has demonstrated a disease control rate of 90% and objective response rate of 40% in a disease where it should not work! What will it do in say breast cancer where we know Dox does work? Context is everything. There is no standard of care for a reason, this drug will become the SoC. Is it a 100% cure? No, it was never going to be that, none of the currently approved treatments offer that in any cancer setting, that is just unrealistic. It's about improving the prospects for patients and this is a dramatic improvement without a doubt on the alternatives. This demonstrates the P1a was no fluke and is a shoe in for approval at some point. Great safety data seems to continue, more on that later no doubt. The key take away is the drug works the way it's supposed to.

Tomorrow is a day for data. That data will inform what potential route there may be to faster approval. A deal or deals are inevitable with the technology we have and the data it is producing which essentially confirms for Faridoxorubicin that it works just exactly like Avacta said it would, as it was designed. The share price will rise when it rises. The nearer a commercial deal comes the more likely a rise in the SP, tomorrow's data is just one more step on the road to the inevitable deal, it is not an if it's a when.

I don't think the board would even put that to shareholders. That's what I would expect and hope to be the case.

I think it's just, as we have seen before, the science delivers exactly what you'd want and the market goes meh? It is as if the market thinks great science doesn't lead anywhere and they'll believe in a deal and price in that only once it arrives. That why they're talking about Nasdaq as it values not only the deal but the actual science. Good science make deals inevitable, but this market doesn't seem to value the science in any meaningful way. Does anyone think Ava6000 is not going to be approved for SGC and with some sort of accelerated pathway? The market is not pricing the stock on the real life probability which must now be north of 90%.

Thanks BV, that's very interesting. Sounds like next year could be the making of us! Cannot wait to see the initial data in 6103.

CC mentioned fallen angel drugs recently. I wonder if we have already talked to companies whose drugs failed due to toxicity, where we could mitigate that and improve efficacy. There must be quite a few of these knocking about. If we have I wonder if we approached them or they approached us. It's been said we have at least ten plus drugs under the iceberg, I wonder if there are any in it? Very keen to learn more about this. The longer Avacta stays independent the slower the progress will be to develop those drugs in the iceberg and those drugs that could easily be placed into our iceberg. The potential for our technology is so vast . All we need is the money to get on with the real job of saving people's lives. Our platform is worth a fortune, the chemists have worked wonders. It's unfair to patients to take an unnecessarily long length of time to get those drugs progressing. As soon as BP have sufficient data to be convinced things work as advertised, they need to shoot their shot because getting dugs approved is glacial as it is.

I agree @emilly1katie ,typically just data doesn't move the price and a deal or a speedier route to market should as those have commercial implications. We'll just have to wait to see when the data drops; as much as we're all keen to see it, it's better that it's accurate when delivered. Hopefully a deal won't be too far behind when the data lands. Slightly baffling how the market does not see the huge potential here.

The RNS will contain data relevant to the on going trial with data such as median blood plasma to tumour ratios, details on any partial, or complete responses (if any), disease control rates and percentages of patients with stable disease, progressive disease etc. I doubt we will have reached PFS in the P1b but I expect we will see where we are with that. Probably see the waterfall plot with patients who have sadly seen their disease progress, and those with stable disease, as well as partial, complete responses. We'll also probably see data regarding any severe cardio toxicity and other side effects data relevant to safety. This will most probably include common chemo side effects data relating to neutropenia, heart and lung data etc. Similar to data we've seen before. Hopefully this will be as good if not better as these patients were less heavily pre-treated.

Dear Avactarians,

What a journey we have been on! We are approaching one of many relatively near term inflection points where our somewhat stuttering share is about to take off on what I expect to be excellent data. Of course the amazing data and the quantity of it has often been met with a shrug of the shoulders by the market and I'm not entirely sure it will be any different this time around; why would it be? If you think the recent upward trend was great, wait until you see what comes next! The deals we expect to follow will ensure the market finally has to take heed of the progress we've made. The FAP targeting technology is without doubt disruptive and the tens of billions of dollars that currently go to ADCs will, in due course, largely become ours. ADCs have no real advantages over Avacta's FAP targeting technology. We do not destroy the very thing we're targeting, we harness it, merely to make our drugs more accurately delivered. We utilise the bystander effect and our tumour penetration is better. Our size of molecule is small compared to ADCs and is therefore undetected by our own immune system enabling a journey to the target unfettered by our system attacking the very thing sent to help us. Highly toxic drugs, inert in the bloodstream until released by FAP that is only highly expressed at the site of the tumour.

What else? We've tamed the highly toxic Topo 1 inhibitor Exatecan whereby next year we will demonstrate to the world that not only can we deliver it exactly where it's needed, we can also finely tune its release to bathe the tumour in Exatecan for two and a half days instead of the normal 9 hours, thus solving the two problems with Exatecan no-one else could solve, its systemic toxicity and short half life. The market can shrug its shoulders all it wants, but it cannot do that forever. Tumours will shrink and die, patients will survive and thrive. Oh, and we've invented the worlds first dual payload PDC, offering two drugs to the tumour with one cleavage event.

The data from the P1b is due very soon, these patients were less pre-treated and therefore I expect the data to continue to impress. PFS in the P1a SGC is one assumes still not reached and that was at 41 weeks on September 15th. Smashing the previous PFS of 15.9 weeks. This is in salivary gland cancer hitherto said to be chemo resistant. Well it seems that depends upon how well you're able to target the actual tumour. Avacta has already extended the lives of some of the patients in the trial, heavily pre-treated and out of options it's a place no patient wants to be. In the future, many patients will have more successful and much kinder chemo.

The 'plug and play' nature of the technology means previously dropped drugs can be re-purposed and effective but soon to be out of patent ADC drugs can be re-patented with improved targeting meaning they will be even more successful than they previously were.

All of that makes for a very bright future. VGLA

I don't believe for a minute he shorted it, just more FUD.

I'm pretty much with you Ice. I was perhaps splitting hairs in terms of platform validation for BP. They will want to see two drugs delivered safely, and I expect that to happen especially as you say the gen 3 is predicated upon the very same chemistry and combination. It's validated for me that's for sure!

I mostly agree Ice but until 6103 is validated in humans we do not have a platform. Don't get me wrong I expect it to work and I expect that we have a platform just not one that's validated at least as far as BP are concerned. I agree though it's all but done just need the data to prove us right over the next 7 months.

It's pretty obvious isn't it we have not yet reached our PFS in SGC so how can we say what the time will be on average when we have not reached that average. The problem with having a drug platform as disruptive as ours is it takes forever to reach things like MTD or PFS because it's so good.

No, no I understand they won't stop, that's a given. But if you choose to engage the board is hijacked by the very points of view that we all know (including the people posting those views) are without merit. Then you go around in circles just like you did the last time they raised the exact same point, and the time before that over and over. Therefore there is a line to tread, reply without engaging or just ignore them. Anyone could read the corporate decks Avacta produces and see very quickly there is no merit in these faux concerns. If your friends are serious about investing here they should be well informed enough to make an informed decision. It takes some effort, but it means if they see this utter drivel repeated on here ad nauseam, they'll be robust enough to know you've read something about it or know enough to debunk it or where to look for it. To challenge it directly and engage, is to accept that banging your head against a brick wall is unlikely to cause a headache. If you must address it, a simple, 'as usual a meritless point of view' but don't get drawn in because then it becomes about their agenda and that is what they want. Then you can go round and around the same circles you went around before with the same outcome. Give a week or two or three and here is the same rehashed nonsense again. Then it appears as amore serious concern than it is because it's been discussed at length, these concerns are not worthy of such time, effort or scrutiny. They are baseless. The facts do not matter to these people. Giving them time and energy is what they want. Ignore or dismiss. They know what they're doing and engaging plays into their hands, it's the oxygen the need.

There are certain people on this board who will never be satisfied with any explanation given. In order to persuade certain people that the drugs work just fine and there is/are no problems with them you have made a fatal error of thinking these people have no agenda, that their minds are open and that if you just explain it the right way they'll get it, the penny will drop and this board would be able to move on. That is not going to happen. These people do not have an open mind and no amount of factual information will change anything. I've said it before and I'll say it again, they are here for their own purposes, you cannot reason with unreasonable people and frankly in view of the history, where exactly the same things have been explained over and over only for that very thing to be raised at a later date as a 'concern' I wonder why you bother? It's an act of utterly pointless futility. If you haven't learned that by now you may never. No pennies will drop. There will be no eureka moment. There will be no epiphany. I boxed them long ago. I have not a scintilla of interest in anything they have to say and I am a bit disappointed that people who I think should know better allow them to hijack this board for their own purposes as it becomes about their agenda almost every day in an endless punch and Judy show of meritless concerns and then frustration personal attacks, just box them ffs. If you continue to engage you get what you deserve and this board will be the worse for it.

A TO is inevitable at some point. RH said he didn't even really want to talk much about it until next year when they would have P1b TNBC as well as whatever will be happening soon with SoC in SGC and initial results of the in human 6103 by summer of next year. All of this builds tremendous value in the pipeline with IP moats for decades to come and a decent income stream of AVA6000 in the relatively near future 28/9. H2 next is very likely but imho not later than H1 2027. So I agree Harchris within a year discussions will have begun for sure, whether they'll be finalised maybe maybe not but we will be in the window for sure.