Member Info for RorkesDrift

£1.37 is the new £.50. Im already swapping to morrisons rather thsn aldi

I havent forgotten abput science day but dont call me Shortly

Thorn there is a slide that addresses your point in the latest slide deck - i suspect your thought is along the lines of what dox concentration in tumuors do you get between fapidox and normodox. The tumour uptake slide may help. I also think dox kicks off intracellular changes that persist even once dox in tumour levels drop. I think avacta avoid your question cause tumour nornodox in specifuc cancers not well defined. As you say plasma vs tumour is wushy washey if you dont pin down req tumour level. I think the slide does.

FAP is an enzyme and activity limited by concentration. Would twice the concentration be required if two drugs admin at same time. Plus its local concentration ratio that matters then this approach woukd enable that rather than pk of systemic admin

Fancy logo with the strap line

"Precision built in"

Think intel inside type thing

£1.37...

Feels like the assumption that referring to past performance is spreading fear. That would seem odd. I would add that the fiasco was managed by Sir Alastair cheered along by many on here and RAH, Myles McNumpty and you know who. Since then much has changed - rather than jumping up.and down on other posters why not simply stare management has changed, results are looking optimistic if a little opaque and the company seems to have a firmer grip on finances and are navigating their way out of it. See. So much more helpful than knee jerk paranoia that everyone is looking for an argument and you are the one to have it with.

Perhaps ask chatgpt to focus on future. Discounted cash flow included. Reality is inconvenient but chatgpt seems to ignore thst. Can you?

Anyway good to see some older faces here and at least if I need a headache I know where to come

Are they still there....?

If any pharma company developed a product that even arrested alzheimers let alone reverse it then they would probably have the number 1 selling drug in the world. High unmet need and potential to save on long term care costs. Growing population. 3million patients at say $30k gives you annual sales of $90B. If use a valuation multiplier of 5 gives valuation of $450B. That's quite a pick up over 10bagger. All conservative numbers. Truth is IF stronger data emerges thus company won't remain independent but suspect it would be still a significant buy out. Without data then none of this comes to pass - very high risk, very high reward

At what price did you buy - if your only investment rule is follow McPumpy I suspect you are significantly down over all. Indeed your post here about a different share suggests you know how a punp works especially given the high risk, low liquidity and mkt cap of N4P. Have a look at the 80% drop in BSFE you will have experienced based on the McPumpy strategy. Why don't you miss out the middle man and just send him a cheque

More like a loitering munition - goes everywhere but only zooms in on a viable target.

I'm thinking £12.06 and that includes dilution

Thanks. Great to hear McNumpty explaining it to RAH

My working assumption is any dox from ava6000 is released in the tumour. What appears in blood is a consequence of that (leakage) and is at a lower concentration because the volume of blood is so much higher. Ava6000 doing what it's meant to. High tumour concentrations, low systemic

Additionally they have seen significant efficacy signals. As they move towards patient cohorts that are known to be dox sensitive this will improve. At moment it seems enough dox is being released in tumour - possibly at a higher concentration than normal dox. That's the key comparison.

I

When they continue to compare dose of dox to ava6000 the implication is 100% is converted. This is unlikely so thar comparison clouds the pK data.

I'd prefer them to say 30% is converted but that all hits the tumour rather than being diluted by whole body volume. What you see in the blood is just leakage from the tumour. So rather than 4x the dose the tumour is being hit with multiples of that. Say that and SP goes up.

In the phase 1 to date patients are a cohort of difficult to treat. Patients who would respond better were selected out by the other treatments they received before they ever became eligible for ava6000. As avacta move through the different phases the entry criteria will shift to more nieve patients that respond. Thus the response rate will improve.

Bump

Ah if it's that clear you will be able to say at what dose ava6000 achieves the same concentration as normal dox.

The favourable responses seen probably negates this to some extent (hence I continue to hold) but lack of detail and the comparison of a dose of an inert drug that is not 100% converted is just a red herring.

Sorry. Unconverted ava6000 and they would have established elimination and pk.

They have dipped into the kinetics of conversion. However, they haven't been clear enough about

1. How much is converted - indeed cf the dose to normal dox just confuses that

2. Comparing tumour concentrations to blood would be great if we knew the values of normal dox.

Study couldn't help be a proof of concept study. If you gave ava6000 to a patient with no FAP then none would be converted. The patient cohort could have been high Fap from the beginning - however the non fap group have not seen any issues of unconnected ava6000b