Member Info for smeeagainbruce

Wyn here is what he did say ; https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/AVCT/update-on-affidx-and-detection-of-omicron-variant-x2zwsj4vf49p42n.html

The test worked effectively at high viral loads which was the standard required and reached by all the other approved tests validated by PD. A Government approved testing facility who could not carry out the proper testing procedure laid out by Avct. PD used artificial covid samples instead of live samples as instructed by Avct. Who do you think made this monumental error in declaring the AffiDX LFD was not fit for purpose, not Avct. This .... up delayed the tests clinical validation by over 6 months. In the mean time the Chinese were filling their boots with tests no better than than the test PD failed.

Avct demonstrated integrity in stating the Sensitivity of the test was not up to the standard achieved pre-Omicron however it work effectively and was fit for purpose. The rest just kept raking in the profits whilst Avct took the moral ground and refused to market a product it knew could be improved.

Avct did not introduce the duff Antibody it was Mologic, so where in all this fiasco did Avct actually contribute to the massive delays imposed on its test.

PD got it wrong / Mologic who designed the tests architecture introduced a duff Antibody and all the approved LFT's never produced third party evidence proving Omicron did not lower their tests Sensitivity. It would appear we are in total disagreement as to why the LFD never reached the market. I can provide the evidence to what actually did cause the delays and on that basis my interpretation of events is accurate. I stand to be corrected.

Https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-invests-43-billion-battle-cancer

Pfizer flush with covid profits splash out $43 billion for Seagen's ADC's. Unfortunately the timing of the purchase appears to have delivered Pfizer a second rate technology. This new targeting technology used by all the big boys to deliver their own toxins is about to become obsolete. This being a possible outcome, how do you place a value on a technology which reaches far beyond ADC's. The fact is pre|CISION is priceless and the big picture will reveal the full potential of the Avct platforms imo.

Quote from Carla Bauer from the 2023 Bio International Convention in June. " Great to be back in Boston to attend Bio 2023 with the aim of meeting with biotechs to discuss exciting opportunities".

Avacta Group plc: Dr Fiona McLaughlin Bio 2023 presentation.

Maybe she found that exciting opportunity, the opportunity was there for her to get acquainted with the technology.

Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlHRRmycxTY

Around 55 min into this video EF explains how the Stroma (barricade ) prevents modern treatments from working. Ava 6000 hits the barricade and the cancer cells at the same time. The barricade no longer exists, that imo blows the rest of the treatments out the water. Very little spillage, straight into action.

Proving the toxin does what it should do via the trials has still to be proven however Avct are still getting on with it. Why would you continue if it didn't work. The pre|CISION platform potential dwarfs any single treatment where FAP is targeted. Chemo, ADC's, Radiopharmaceuticals, its a mind blowing technology imo.

Conclusion; However the clinical utility of ADC's is limited by dose limiting off-site toxicities. Signnificant reasearch effoerts have been invested to understand ADC mediated off-site toxicity & develop strategies to improve ADC tolerability & thus efficacy.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9913659/

Done and dusted, pre|CISION.

Https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1138068/omicron-report-version-6.pdf

It would appear the Acon test detects the Omicron variant better than it did the Delta variant. This study however goes beyond the design requirements of a LFD ( < 10,000 copies/ml ) Viral Count.

When you reach the VC of >10,000 copies/ml which this type of test is designed to detect some interesting results appear.

Page 33. Question ; What was the Sensitivity of the Acon LFT for Omicron .

Answer ; The overall Sensitivity for Omicron was estimated at 77.7 %. The point estimate was highest with a VC of >10,000 copies/ml at 86% and with cardinal symptoms 93%.

In effect if you have Covid the Acon test Sensitivity is 93 % at best, a long way off the 98.8%, the most accurate test on the market, a claim made by the manufacturers. To be fair the test does work effectively against Omicron however there is a fall in Sensitivity from the original inaccurate test results. Now we know how one of the approved LFD's performs in identifying Omicron the result raises lot of questions imo.

Https://bmccancer.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12885-020-07663-x

This study puts a case forward for significantly higher cumulative doses of Dox when treating STS. The 400 mg/m2 was designed on cardiotoxicity data from breast cancer patients, the cumulative dose was increased to a high of 934 / low 504 mg/m2 for STS patients.

Conclusion ; A higher cumulating dose of Dox for advanced STS was associated with better efficacy. The results from the US sites could be extremely informative, at present double the maximum cumulative dose being administered compared to this study.

If you really want to understand how far you are off the mark with your assumption ;

" So yes reduced side effects and yes more Dox going into the tumour at therapeutic levels, but not significant , but bigger amounts of Dox are needed in an effort to get a significant improvement".

Listen to the video RMFatGB advised earlier, it blows your statement out the water.

There is no historical data on how much Dox is required it was never documented, this is also discussed in the video. Is it straight Dox being delivered yes, is it being delivered more efficiently, yes. Do they know what level of Dox will offer the best results, no.

Here is a fact taken from the video, Dox has four methods of killing cancer cells and the levels needed are documented, what's being delivered kills cancer cells. Therefore when the CEO states Dox is found in the biopsies at therapeutic levels he means therapeutically calculated levels, fact. The levels of Dox being delivered is also way higher than what is required. So your " but not significant but bigger amounts of Dox are needed" is clearly not a fact.

Yes higher levels of Dox is being delivered, whether these levels will be required is another question. However claiming higher levels are needed is unfounded.

Suggest you listen to the advice given, even go further listen to the entire video. It could prevent future mis-leading statements being made. On the subject of the SP this was also discussed, inflection points, EF explains what drives a SP and when these inflection points will occur. Importantly when the Yanks will step in.

Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlHRRmycxTY

39 min in is the part discussing the share price. If you can find the part where AS states he thinks the SP is to high as opposed to the statement arguably I think the SP should be higher please advise. Stupidly I thought him stating it should be higher really meant it should be higher. Am I missing something or is this just another mis-representation of the facts.

Under the agreement PB has the exclusive license of Avct's patent rights to use, develop. manufacture and commercialise any FAP-activated, PSMA targeted Radiopharmaceuticals. Adding PSMA into the agreement allows the next generation of targeted Radiopharmaceuticals to be placed in clinical trials.

PB know pre|CISION works, and it is certain Prostate cancer will be a CanSEEK target.

A visionary piece of business imo by both companies and money for nothing for Avct.

Bein I should know better however even a denialist should be able to interpret what was actually said.

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/AVCT/update-on-affidx-and-detection-of-omicron-variant-x2zwsj4vf49p42n.html

This is the RNS you refer to, where does it say it doesn't work. It does say AffiDX works Effectively at high viral loads.

The approved tests worked at high viral loads. These are 100% facts, not the ones you dream up.

If this does not convince you it did work, give us a clue where we can find this RNS contains porky pies.

Bein, if I remember you are the one who posted the LFD didn't work even after proof it did work was provided. Being a denialist in terms of the LFD you now turn your attention to the facts about Affimers. The potential to develop treatments using Affimers is massive and if sufficient capital was available it would be madness not to develop your own product.

Proof Affimers can be developed quickly and efficiently and bind excellently to a desired target is readily available if you care to DYOR.

Here is one example which has been posted numerous times regarding Covid. Several Affimers were sent to the Centre for Virus Research at Glasgow University. Their findings concluded ; " Affimer reagents have gone very well and show that they are POTENT inhibitors of the Sars-Cov2 model virus entry into human cells. Given this excellent performance and the other benefits of Affimer reagents there should be considerable interest from potential partners in developing them as a therapy for Covid19".

In other words if proven to be safe in humans Affimers can be developed as a therapy for the virus.

You may wish to go into denial once again however the proof Affimers can be developed into therapies is readily available. On that assumption Avct developing their own therapies if the finance is in place would be a no brainer. Just like pre|Cision targeting STS.

Fire away, interested in your reply.

AOH 1996 is reported to be a small molecule inhibitor licensed by City of Hope to RLL, LLC a biotech company co founded by Prof Malkas who holds a financial interest in the company.

RLL, LLC unlike Avct are boosters and shouting about their new wonder cure is a strategy the Yanks adopt. All mouth with no concrete evidence to support their claims. If you wany a company who are boosters this is the one for you.. Avct are not boosters, the man told us so.

AOH 1996

Blehrep ( GSK ) Lumoxti ( AZN ) Mylotarg (Pfizer ) all failed using the same cytotoxin payload MMAE described as 100 - 1000 times more potent than Doxorubicin. The toxicity of MMAE means it cannot be used as a drug itself and these ADC's all failed to perform effectively, why.

Payload delivery appears to be the stumbling block and with the pre|CISION platform being validated in humans an upgrade in performance is now available to these big companies. Avct has stated it will partner out the pre|CISION platform to companies using their own toxins, ADC's being mentioned as an area of interest. This imo opens the door to at least GSK, AZN, and Pfizer seeking out partnering agreements. All the ADC's on the market face the same problem in targeting their payload, this maybe about to change.

"Imagine if the targeting really is so exquisite that Avct goes on to modify toxins even more powerful than chemotherapies ( such as MMAE ). A handful of the 20 or so approved ADC'S on the market use MMAE". Statement made by that much loved / scorned MM on 19th Dec 2022 and looking increasingly creditable.

Interesting conclusion in this study ; Mechanisms of ADC Toxicity & Strategies to increase Tolerability.

Conceptually ADC's are expected to enhance the selectivity of chemotherapies by facilitating the target delivery of cytotoxic payload of molecules to the desired cell populations (on target - on site toxicity) while decreasing the delivery of the payloads to non targeted healthy tissues. Thus widening the therapeutic index.

Having achieved the above with AVA 6000 the ADC market is blown wide open. Market value expected to reach $14 billion by 2027. Another tick in the box, yours for 90p. A bargain imo.

Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlHRRmycxTY

The reasoning behind what will drive the SP higher is explained 42 mins in. How to interpret what is meant by ; the big biotech specialists in the US leaning in and see AVCT and say now its time.

Time for what, a buy out or investing in the company, imo it's the latter.

Keytruda is not a Chemotherapy it's an immunotherapy and would suggest the thread is accurate, according to Google the Chemotherapy market is worth $8.94 billion in 2023.

Https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7684756/

Interesting read, case for the above laid out, AVA 6000 may/will provide the opportunity to dose beyond the recommended cumulative Dox levels. This level is based on cardiotoxicity data from breast cancer patients however the treatment and prognosis of STS and breast cancer are quite different. Reference to breast cancer data alone may not reflect the efficacy of Doxorubicin treatment in STS. Onwards and Upwards in more ways than one.

Affimers targeting RAS looks promising.

https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=MR%2FP019188%2F1

Interesting read.