Member Info for Toukankahmoon

CJ62

Are you always such a horrible nasty immature person or do you just reserve it all for this BB. Perhaps it makes you look big in the circles you move in. Mummy would be proud.

Timster of course so will I. When do you think Francis Assissi will announce something? (Sorry meant CC but couldn’t resist opportunity for a pun)

It doesn’t in the wider context of the Precision platform because the issue has been solved for eg AVA6103.

But it does matter in the context of understanding what has been going on over the past 5 years and therefore what might happen next.

For many months some people have been announcing a license deal, a takeover, FDA approval, a NASDAQ listing. All this despite CC setting out her predicted plan with milestones.

We are now awaiting a pivotal point when P1b data is due in weeks. It’s been a very long time coming and there have been twists and turns along the way. It IS useful to analyse why this is. The most concerning for me is how AVA6000 for SGS has slipped into the background. If it weren’t for the lucky find as a treatment for TNBC one wonders whether AVA6000 would have been binned?

I think that there is a fair chance that the AVA6000 data will be delayed until the new year when Avacta can “hide” behind stunning TNBC results. This hopefully will then carry us through to 2H26 when some early AVA6103 data will be available.

You won’t believe me, but I really hope I’m wrong.

GLA

Yes. Looks hopeful 👍

CJ

But but but surely it’s all about the science.

BV

“ ^ means dox does what dox does when it comes to killing dividing cells.”

So what is this special cleaved dox that has a 40% extended half life over intravenously dosed dox??

BV

As is common on here, you are shifting the focus of the discussion. I am happy with the safety of AVA6000 and understand why that is.

But the importance of half life is that with intravenous dox the tumour is exposed to much more dox for a longer period. If this didn’t matter, why would dox and for that matter AVA6000 be delivered in several doses over a number of weeks??

BV

At what rate is dox cleaved from AVA6000? Is this documented anywhere? What “delay” does this cause at the tumour because of course with pure dox the exposure is immediate.

. . . and finally;

The short half life of AVA6000 has no effect or advantage in terms of safety or reducing collateral damage because it doesn’t attack other body organs. It’s only the cleaved dox that does that.

BV

. . . and cleaved dox is “magic” dox with a half life 40% greater than pure dox. Wow I hadn’t realised that. I thought dox was dox was dox.

And you refer to me as an idiot 🤡

BV

Extended half life of 40%

Problem is there would still be many multiples of that amount of dox circulating in the blood for pure dox delivered intravenously. So an extra 40% of diddly squat is still diddly squat.

IceCool

Sans fees sadly

BV

Thank you for the accurate maths. I said my figures were approximate. Your post just proves my point regarding the huge difference in half lives and therefore exposure to dox in both scenarios.

Thorn. - I also said it doesn’t matter because the issue has been addressed in the ensuing pipeline drugs. And that AVA6000 still probably works well enough (because massive prolonged dosing can be used with minimal collateral damage)).

Why is everyone on here so keen to argue? The data is out there regarding AVA6000 half life but Pom Pom girls prefer to keep their heads in the sand.

Yes Thompi. That’s the whole f*cking point we are trying to make.

Lovable

Like a lot of posters on here you read my posts selectively just to start an argument.

I stated that I do believe AVA6000 works.

Thorn - yes I have grasped that there is a difference between AVA6000 half life and doc half life. That was the whole point of my illustration. Though of course I mangled it at the end (thanks Runner for pointing that out) which managed to f*ck up the conclusion.

Runner

APOLOGIES- yes I did bolox it up big time. Should have read:

I am invested, indeed, as we speak, I am £35 up on a £80k investment.

Secondly, i believe AVA6000 works. ************

Consider two identical patients with identical tumours. Patient A receives dox intravenously. Patient B receives the amount of AVA6000 which would cleave the same amount of dox as patient A receives. Both patients start their dose at the same time.

After 35 minutes A has approx 95% dox dose circulating in their bloodstream. B has 50%.

After 70 mins A has approx 90%. B has 25%.

After 1 hour 40 minutes A has approx 80%. B is now around 6%.

After 35 hours B has the square root of f*ck all. A still has 50%

So which treatment gives the tumour most exposure to dox? This is why they had to improve the half life of AVA6000 in the next drugs in the pipeline.

I expect abuse from the Pom Pom girls but the vast majority of you need to understand this.

And finally, it doesn’t matter because AVA6000 is good enough and the technology has fixed the issue for later products.

Runnerx2

Numbers are approx

What values do you come up with?

I am invested, indeed, as we speak, I am £35 up on a £80k investment.

Secondly, i believe AVA6000 works.

Consider two identical patients with identical tumours. Patient A receives dox intravenously. Patient B receives the amount of AVA6000 which would cleave the same amount of dox as patient A receives. Both patients start their dose at the same time.

After 35 minutes A has approx 95% dox dose circulating in their bloodstream. B has 50%.

After 70 mins A has approx 90%. B has 25%.

After 1 hour 40 minutes A has approx 6%. B is still around 80%.

After 35 hours A has the square root of f*ck all. B still has 50%

So which treatment gives the tumour most exposure to dox? This is why they had to improve the half life of AVA6000 in the next drugs in the pipeline.

I expect abuse from the Pom Pom girls but the vast majority of you need to understand this.

And finally, it doesn’t matter because AVA6000 is good enough and the technology has fixed the issue for later products.

BV

I’m genuinely interested in your views on my last post, especially regarding rate of cleaving dox. Is it possible to model or calculate how much dox the tumour is exposed to in each case?

Thorn

No they can’t, they’re thick.

Though BV made a point in a previous post that as dox is delivered intravenously it probably has to passs through the heart before reaching the tumour site, it might well be less effective than dox cleaved from AVA6000 at the tumour site.

None of this alters the fact that intravenous dox is active in the body to a large degree for 35hours during which time it can attack the tumour, whilst AV6000 is only available to a large degree for minutes. From this I infer that the tumour site is exposed to far more intravenous delivered dox than it is exposed to cleaved dox. Just draw yourself a diagram and it becomes immediately apparent Also intravenous dox is at the tumour site in strength in minutes. How long and at what rate is dox cleaved from AVA6000?

It’s obviously far more complicated than even BV knows.