Member Info for RorkesDrift

Thank you MrR.

I am now moving my insights behind a pay wall where no-one will read them.

Im off to read the mouse pK data and see if we can work out anything. Coyid use +/- 50% to see potential conversion range

Excellent. My inter web thing is showing Avacta are up 7% over five days which if we apply your logic means insiders know something and are buying. Yet you are worried.

Maybe try an approach where facts match the argument - it gives you more credibility for your next go

A better argument for not going for another DE is that it is the cumulative exposure of dox that is an issue. Therefore more lower doses could be thought the same as fewer higher doses. This has been suggested to be how AS sees the future use.

We also need to consider the half life of the unconverted drug - any that is eliminated is unavailable to hit the tumour with dox. Higher the circulating amount, the faster it is eliminated normally. So if you saturate the FAP enzyme you already hit maximum concentration in tumour and the rest is queued up. If elimination is very slow i.e. long half life (from memory it isn't) then the tumour is exposed to higher concentrations for longer. That would be a good thing.

If MTD isn't reached then logically you would try and give the minimum dose that hits maximum efficacy (akin to a normal not so toxic drug) - the bit on the dose response curve where it plateaus. My thinking is this would be difficult to estimate with only three doses since two at least may be on the steep part of the curve especially considering current dose is governed by tolerability not efficacy.

Most of this is impossible to gauge without any data. DE continuing would suggest it is ethical to continue since data committee would have sight of it. That would also be good news - the twitter rampathon will pivot to this should another DE happen.

For long term returns the higher the converted dose that is tolerated the bigger the differential between Avacta and normal dox and thus the bigger the commercial return.

Only the insiders know and they eat at weatherby whaler, not McDonalds

I'd rather have a stable price now that a big rise built on expectations followed by a big sell when news is not as the pump and dump crew would have us believe is nailed on. The last time we just opened the door to shorters and it depressed SP further and for longer. I'm looking for closer to £3 but admit last weeks rise had me thinking leek. (Look you).

As LTH we have to be thinking the really big money is some time in the future - Positive P1a might enable profits to be taken but share price and annual returns are growing fastest the closer to market we get.

Most here seem to have the required cohones but if not take to twitter and make stuff up. You can then persuade yourself your 10% here and makes you Gordon but you have more chance of being out the next RNS comes out. I guess the mini rampathon at the moment is orchestrated by people who want to set a short and therefore need price as high as possible when they do.

Love the wind up of "Myles says so" post. Good effort

I guess I think fourth DE cause it partly makes sense and partly cause AS comments in AGM. He said they had funds for 4th dose (possibly heading off derampers).

I'm thinking 50:50 chance of going for another DE. If so this is could be excellent news in long run - we want to hit tunour with as much Dox as we can whilst limiting the systemic side effects. Another DE based on 3rd cohort would suggest that free dox is low and they can see leaving group in circulation showing conversion.

We want a big a therapeutic window as possible - high tolerated doses open that up.

The SP will move which ever way it goes - creating expectations of nailed on results etc over on twitter will risk false dawn - I'm in until results of P1a and partly cause of the above I'm thinking Jan would be a good thing.

The reason I'm thinking 4th DE is the way he said it and his diverting the dose to the SMC.

It also makes sense - trying to draw a curve with only three points conpared to three may result in next phase being at suboptimal dose. Whilst it still might not be MTD if it enabled the tumour to be hit with an even bigger dose whilst remaining well tolerated has important implications on the doses and frequency of dose used when commercialised. Efficacy could be one but you could also start talking treatment well within therapeutic window and start thinking about cohorts who cannot tolerate standard dox. From an eventual marketing perspective that is worth an extra three months at this stage. I actually think it could be a good thing for SP in medium term but does mean we have to hang on a bit longer. I'm chilled - its been a ride this far and if we hit the tunour with 10x dose (locally) rather than 7 I suspect it will work all the better and that reflects on all the other lovely products to be licensed.

Thanks for posting recording. My take is they will do another DE which puts back our magic RNS another three months. That is fine for those of us with patience.

However, we may also get some good news from LG chemical with an affimer product approved to go to clinic - a second very exciting new branch of therapy to go at.

AS acknowledged that because a drug is well tolerated doesn't make it efficacious. Bit premature to state we are over the line although I really hope the current happy band of pump and dunpers on Twitter are coincidently correct.

I think Takeda's build to buy is more of a VC approach. Avacta are different being a quoted company. Easiest approach to secure Avacta assets is either licensing or TO.

Takeda Ventures tell us upfront why they are invested

https://www.takeda.com/what-we-do/research-and-development/center-for-external-innovation/takeda-ventures/

Takeda Ventures focuses on high-caliber therapeutic and platform based opportunities around the world. We invest in early-stage opportunities that complement Takeda’s pipeline and products.

Our mission is to create strategic growth opportunities for Takeda by investing and nurturing Innovative Life Science Companies in areas aligned with Takeda’s R&D focuses which include; Oncology, Gastroenterology, Neuroscience, and Rare Disease.

Our aim is to access and support therapeutic and platform innovation working closely with academic innovators, entrepreneurs and investors. We invest in seeds or syndicated venture investing providing to the companies access to the resources of a multinational pharmaceutical company.

Reluctant to post this but ....

https://www.insidermedia.com/news/yorkshire/40503-avacta-hails-depression-research

Takeda have had licensing rights from Avacta in the past in the Dx space so have been aware of them for a long time.

Shareholders have rights. Maybe it enables them access that otherwise they don't have.

Alternatively their investment panel invests in a range of companies whether or not they intend to do much more. Otherwise they are tipped to but a lot of companies on their portfolio

Cruise ships are kind of knackered if they get an outbreak. Suspect you may be ahead of the curve - just waiting for the great monkey pox plague of the med to hit the news.

Avacta DX have huge potential - the clever bit is not the plastic or the membrane. At some point they will deliver something that shows that affirmers are as good as antibodies as recognition molecules plus a number of advantages. With the help of a partner they could bring a whole new generation of biosensors to market but that will need the shumper wearer in chief to let someone else play with his ball. Brilliant tech, patent expiry meets lack of resource / commitment - hence nothing commercial. YET.

Good argument for prioritising Tx hence let partner pay and play

£1.87 here we come - merely stepping stones to £200 ex-China

Here we go - £1.37 incoming?

Thanks for posting - proper interesting.

Thanks mrA - just issued old school 9.1. Been awhile :-)

In the UK, ABPI code of practice applies. There are good reasons for this code and MOST people working in the industry have to have a thorough understanding of what you can say and what you cannot. Specialised marketing which is why its not left in the hands of amateurs - primarily to protect patients and clinicians from approaches that are more in line with selling baked beans.

7.2 Information, claims and comparisons must be accurate, balanced, fair, objective and unambiguous and must be based on an up-to-date evaluation of all the evidence and reflect that evidence clearly. They must not mislead either directly or by implication, by distortion, exaggeration or undue emphasis.

7.9 Information and claims about adverse reactions must reflect available evidence or be capable of substantiation by clinical experience. It must not be stated that a product has no adverse reactions, toxic hazards or risks of addiction or dependency. The word ‘safe’ must not be used without qualification.

I'm struggling to think of any drug, even the most amazing break throughs that have 100% efficacy for ever or zero adverse reactions.

What Avacta may be able to claim is ability to deliver higher doses to the site of the cancer whilst also lower systemic side effects in comparison to standard dox. This claim would provide a competitive advantage enabling both higher volumes of drug per patient (dose x frequency) and a higher price. No need to over claim.