AVA6000 approved by MHRA. Superb news. First dosing 'around mid-year'; first data to come within 3-4 months after that.

A summary thread on the significance of AVA6000 - and #AVCT's pre CISION platform as a whole - to both the oncology industry and to AVCT itself. 1/10

In very basic terms, #AVCT's pre CISION chemotherapies are essentially reformulated versions of existing, approved chemotherapies that have been used on cancer patients for many years - decades, even.

The pre CISION tech is simply an attempt to improve the safety profile... 2/10
...of the chemo.

Most therapeutics going through clinical trials look for an improvement of at least 20% over the existing industry-standard drug. A 50% increase in efficacy would usually be considered an astonishing result.

In pre-clinical mouse models for #AVCT's AVA6000 3/10
...18 times more pro-doxorubicin was found in the tumour than in the heart. Compare that to the 1:1 ratio of the standard doxorubicin.

What this means is that the pre CISION tech could be used to enable the giving of doses to patients that are multiple times more potent... 4/10
...than standard chemotherapy drugs - either in the form of greater number of cycles of chemo, or in the potency of the individual dose.

For example, in #AVCT's pre-clinical trials, pro-dox (AVA6000) doses were 6x more potent than the standard dox doses.

The results? The...5/10
...survival rate after 60 days for the standard-dox group was 0%; and 100% for the pro-dox group.

#AVCT isn't looking to improve chemotherapies by 25-30%, like most drugs in clinical trials.

Its pre CISION has the potential to improve the safety profile - and thus the... 6/10
...efficacy (via increased dosing) - by MULTIPLES. It is not an exaggeration to state that pre CISION could transform the chemo market - in fact, the overall oncology space. Survival rates could increase materially - as the mouse trials demonstrated. 7/10

https://t.co/XOEE45CBtZ
For #AVCT, it stands to reason that if the pro-dox trial is a success, then the pre CISION tech is also highly likely to work for other existing chemotherapies. @avacta has a pipeline of at least a dozen others in development.

AVCT holds the global exclusive licence over...8/10
...the pre CISION tech. It is also combining the tech with its second platform, Affimers - to create a third therapeutic platform, named TMAC.

TMAC will produce Affimer Drug Conjugates - a potentially more powerful class of oncology treatment than Antibody Drug Conjugates. 9/10
More on TMAC and AfDCs another time, but suffice to say that if they do work in man, #AVCT could become one of the most sought after oncology companies, globally.

First though, success for AVA6000 please!

Then hopefully @avacta's first TMAC drug to enter Phase I next year 10/10

More from Society

So, as the #MegaMillions jackpot reaches a record $1.6B and #Powerball reaches $620M, here's my advice about how to spend the money in a way that will truly set you, your children and their kids up for life.

Ready?

Create a private foundation and give it all away. 1/

Let's stipulate first that lottery winners often have a hard time. Being publicly identified makes you a target for "friends" and "family" who want your money, as well as for non-family grifters and con men. 2/

The stress can be damaging, even deadly, and Uncle Sam takes his huge cut. Plus, having a big pool of disposable income can be irresistible to people not accustomed to managing wealth.
https://t.co/fiHsuJyZwz 3/

Meanwhile, the private foundation is as close as we come to Downton Abbey and the landed aristocracy in this country. It's a largely untaxed pot of money that grows significantly over time, and those who control them tend to entrench their own privileges and those of their kin. 4

Here's how it works for a big lotto winner:

1. Win the prize.
2. Announce that you are donating it to the YOUR NAME HERE Family Foundation.
3. Receive massive plaudits in the press. You will be a folk hero for this decision.
4. Appoint only trusted friends/family to board. 5/
Two things can be true at once:
1. There is an issue with hostility some academics have faced on some issues
2. Another academic who himself uses threats of legal action to bully colleagues into silence is not a good faith champion of the free speech cause


I have kept quiet about Matthew's recent outpourings on here but as my estwhile co-author has now seen fit to portray me as an enabler of oppression I think I have a right to reply. So I will.

I consider Matthew to be a colleague and a friend, and we had a longstanding agreement not to engage in disputes on twitter. I disagree with much in the article @UOzkirimli wrote on his research in @openDemocracy but I strongly support his right to express such critical views

I therefore find it outrageous that Matthew saw fit to bully @openDemocracy with legal threats, seeking it seems to stifle criticism of his own work. Such behaviour is simply wrong, and completely inconsistent with an academic commitment to free speech.

I am not embroiling myself in the various other cases Matt lists because, unlike him, I think attention to the detail matters and I don't have time to research each of these cases in detail.

You May Also Like

Great article from @AsheSchow. I lived thru the 'Satanic Panic' of the 1980's/early 1990's asking myself "Has eveyrbody lost their GODDAMN MINDS?!"


The 3 big things that made the 1980's/early 1990's surreal for me.

1) Satanic Panic - satanism in the day cares ahhhh!

2) "Repressed memory" syndrome

3) Facilitated Communication [FC]

All 3 led to massive abuse.

"Therapists" -and I use the term to describe these quacks loosely - would hypnotize people & convince they they were 'reliving' past memories of Mom & Dad killing babies in Satanic rituals in the basement while they were growing up.

Other 'therapists' would badger kids until they invented stories about watching alligators eat babies dropped into a lake from a hot air balloon. Kids would deny anything happened for hours until the therapist 'broke through' and 'found' the 'truth'.

FC was a movement that started with the claim severely handicapped individuals were able to 'type' legible sentences & communicate if a 'helper' guided their hands over a keyboard.