Member Info for SisyphusShorter

But remember they'll only reasonably be able to start a phase II for AV6k once they have mature data for STS/TNBC, which based off of their current timeline we probably won't get until late Q2 2026, and this is also the point at which, depending on the nature of the prelim data for STS and TNBC, big pharma might want to get involved.

But again, even if AV6k was simply a proof-of-concept, and AVA6103, "the Beast" is likely to be superior if the science holds, anthracyclines still remain a cornerstone of chemo for a huge variety of cancers, and oncologists may want to keep on using a drug they already understand in a more precise and safer format.

It's plummeting.

Looks like someone knows something.

Getting awfully close to tomorrow's deadline with no news as of yet. Is an extension likely?

Brilliant news in the RNS this morning

Thanks BV, good to know. So in theory, a "FAP-Temo" agent would be roughly 460Da in size, provided the same Gen1 preCISION peptide is used. That puts it within the 400-600 threshold for BBB-crossing possibility (obviously notwithstanding lipophilicity, polarity and other parameters). That being said they could always cleave off a few residues to make a lightweight version for this specific indication.

So been looking at the phase 1 data for AVA6000 and also been listening to the podcast, thanks BV. Now I have two broad questions: One on bone/haem side effects, and one regarding primary brain cancers.

Firstly, of the patients we have seen with bone marrow suppression, I know it's a known side effect of Dox, but I do wonder if prior primary therapies have induced a bit of fibrosis in the marrow, leading to FAP expression and thus Dox being released, leading to further bone marrow toxicity. That would imply that the side effects seen in the patients so far are less likely to emerge in a larger trial with a higher proportion of chemo-naive patients. Thoughts?

Secondly, CC mentioned in the podcast that given that 90% of solid tumours express FAP, including brain, which she mentioned, and this begs the question whether or not the Peptide used in pre/CISION drug conjugates is small enough to pass the blood-brain-barrier, after all, that's how Temozolomide can do it's think for brain tumours. Again, thoughts?

Sorry, *Next* data release....

At 36:22 CC says, regarding tumour biopsies - "...in our new data release which will be later this month..."

Make of that what you will.....

GLA

Out of coincidence it's been exactly a week since the last RNS regarding AVA6103. Could an announcement be due imminently?

And yet the SP is staying the same, bizarre. Maybe we'll see a raise later today once the US wakes up?

Pebsi - I know I thought this username might stir up a little trouble ahaha. And likewise, I'll hold for now. For what its worth I do still want immupharma to succeed, but I am more skeptical than I was a few months ago.

So I was just doing some AI-assisted research on low/med/high risk companies in the biotech space, and I stumbled across the story of Destiny, who were making XF-73. Again, another company that got pretty far with a single asset and then......

Destiny Pharma collapsed as a listed company because it ran out of cash, failed to secure a Phase 3 partnership, and couldn’t raise funds at a viable valuation. With no strategic bidders and no route to continue as a public entity, it accepted a distressed all‑share rescue acquisition by SporeGen. Destiny shareholders received private, illiquid SporeGen shares, and the AIM listing was cancelled.

In practical terms, public investors were wiped out because their new shares cannot be traded, valued, or exited.

Immupharma, to an extent, shares some of the structural weaknesses that doomed Destiny: 1) a long‑running flagship asset with mixed data, 2) repeated funding challenges, and 3) no major commercial partner - YET. Both companies faced shrinking cash runways and limited investor confidence. However, Immupharma still trades publicly and retains optionality through ongoing clinical work, meaning it hasn’t crossed the point of no return.

Ultimately, the risk of a similar distressed outcome is materially higher for Immupharma than for most AIM biotechs, but not inevitable unless funding fails or clinical or scientific progress stalls. I'm still a believer, but it pays to be aware of what could happen.