Avid Bioservices Inc (CDMO)

[Protector]

FTM, the word 'active' may be the problem resulting in your reply.

Once in the cell, as I have explained in the very first post, Bavi remains bound to the PS located at the inner cell membrane that was involved in providing the inwards traction (see previous post). Bavi is not active in the sense it does something there as long as the cell is undamaged (that is as long as PS is not exposed on the outside of the cell). I called it to be in a cloaked state (for the immune system), call it dormant, call it passively present bound to the inner cell membrane's PS.

Two posts ago I used the sentence "Bavi is dressed, booted and arm for action", meaning that if while it is in it's dormant state bound to the membrane's PS, upon damage of the cell (e.g.: cracks in a cell membrane or other damage involving the membrane that comes into existence) the PS and the attached Bavi will be exposed. As a consequence it's immune system 'suppressor-suppressor' function will immediately be active (the so called masking function). That is where I should have used another word.

The word 'active' seems to be the trigger for your reaction, because I agree that in antibody language it carries other significance, hence my past effort in writing: "exposes behavior that makes us think about it as an active antibody alike substance but it is not an antibody". This expresses that it exposes signs of activity which may not qualify as being the results of the grounds that we normally find at the basis such observed activity (e.g.: as with antibodies).

So while I called the PS+Bavi couple when it becomes exposed outside the cell 'becoming active' maybe i would have better used 'Bavi becoming effective', because Bavi ALREADY being bound to PS makes it immediately effective as the immune system 'suppressor-suppressor' with ZERO latency. It would be even more effective because it's already on the scene compared to Bavi administered during treatment shortly after diagnosis. (Not even sure if there wouldn't be a better word then 'effective' but in English i'll probably won't come up with it).

Now I'll respect that you'll call it nonsense, but I would appreciate you add exactly why. As I said, there where times we tough the atom was a fundamental particle and we had no clues about electrons, protons, neutrons, up/down quarks, etc.

I think I provided an answer to:

Once inside the cell how does bavi then have any activity?

I reconfirmed that I don't believe Bavi is an anti-body:

You don't believe it is an antibody?

I explained what i think to be plausible theory, without the claim it is exactly that what is going on, for the "Persistent Presence" theory vs the active anti-body theory:

How do you think they make it????

FTM, I respect you and you are a knowledgeable poster, if not the most knowledgeable one. Ask questions as much as you want and I'll try to answer them at the best of my ability. Bavi has prolonged activity/effectiveness or signs that identify as something alike and Thorpe has not given an explanation, neither did anybody else. If you think the MOA anticipates or explains this feel free to point it out. I think it doesn't and therefor think the MOA will at the least have to be updated at some point to include this aspect of Bavi's prolonged 'effect' after it left the body. So all roads are open, but frankly, and you may help me out if you see others, I only see two overall possible concepts: an active antibody-alike theory or a persistent Bavi presence theory.

If you see another that doesn't involve an active antibody alike approach nor rests on the persistent presence of Bavi at some level in our body (not even inside the cell as I think) then pls, I am all ears and open to the wildest theories because looking at all possibilities will some day lead to results. Very possibly if 100 scenarios are advance it will be scenario 101 which nobody ever thought of. I can also understand that you are not into 'theoretical speculation' and the 'if you see...' was not a challenge to drive you in proposing a theory of your own, just a matter of language usage.