Replies to post #188480 on Avid Bioservices Inc (CDMO)

[Krakonos]

thealias2002 that is an old article because
TKMR is now above $20,-

We know that bavituximab was also tested in viral programs with great results.

[Protector]

Yes, permission was granted to use non-approved drugs (experimental drugs) to treat Ebola in extreme circumstances.

I knew about the Gov. Sponsoring of Zmapp and indeed PPHM's Bavituximab in Viral applications, incl Ebola, came to mind.

Dr. Kent Brantly en Nancy Writebol where indeed treated with it in the US. About a week ago this was released by the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID)

MB-003 was developed through a decade-long collaborative effort between private industry and the U.S. government, with funding from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA).

I am not saying Zmapp contains Bavituximab but I am not excluding that it would be part of a cocktail of MABs. However this is HEAVY SPECULATION as i have NO indication or whatsoever that could support that with the exception of the above Gov Bavi works that has been done and for which the gov payed PPHM several milj$ over a period of time (forgot how much exactly).

The renewals were stopped early and that can either mean it didn't work or it worked straight away. Also the Military must have been motivated by something to engage that kind of money in bavituximab additional research.

The only thing I can think of were the Bavituximab viral clinical trial. I also wonder why viral is, since March 2014, back on the PPHM agenda (see conferences/PPHM presentations of the March 2014 period).

Finally I would add FIVE major things to at least show that my SPECULATION is based on something, be it not much but at least more then a wild yell.

- First, we remember Dr. Brekken being very exited about adding Bavituximab to vaccine/viral cocktails and he mentioned posibilities of, if my memory is correct, 200-300% improvements.

- Secondly, the "Nature" article about Zmapp explains that Zmapp works EVEN when administered after the 5 days of no return period where normally the victims organs are so much damaged that whatever treatment you give him cannot prevent death.

- Zmapp is a MIX of 3 MABs!!! We do not know which ones but I would think that given the Gov researched on Bavi and what we know Bavi does, we have a change of being part of the cocktail. Bavi is SAFE and has no side effects either.

- Bavituximab is the ONLY UPSTREAM MAB that we know of and the 3 MABs included in the cocktail were EXISTING MABs. You'd think you would at least include the upstream in the cocktail.

- And we know the sponsors of ZMapp had Bavi under research and were certainly aware of its existence and what it does.

Now, I am not saying there cannot be any other secret UPSTREAM MAB out there (I strongly doubt it because to be secret it would have had to be so as of the lab work) that has the same characteristics as Bavituximab, BUT we know that Bavituximab does has that effect of activating the immune system resulting in repair of prior damage. In the case of our clinical trials that damage is collateral damage done by the SOC (chemo/radio or immuno therapy).

And that brings me back to a post from about two years ago that I wrote about Bavituximab's latency in viral. With the understanding of the MOA at the time we (well at least I, concluded that Bavi could not fight up against viral because the proliferation of viral was so fast and so body wide that you actually are always to late at the moment you start the treatment based on a fresh diagnosis. With Ebola this is particularly true because of the extremely fast progression of the condition while cancers are mostly localized and slow.

NOTE: Ebola incubation 2 to 21 days, 7 days for first symptoms (fever, heavy headaches, heavy pain peeks) followed by fast progression. 5 days after first symptoms is point of no return, with patients death mostly in second week.

At the time the idea was that when Bavi bound phosphatidylserine (PS) it only affected the macrophages and we didn't think a lot about the dendric cells. We did not understand that it was the anti-inflammatory/anti-infection effect that kept the patients alive because the operating system started to repair collateral damage from treatment elsewhere in the body. Mainly, inflammations/infections that are the REAL cause of death of many cancer patients (see Avastin and other traditional chemo's side effects) are slowed down and repaired and as such giving the immune system the time to attack the tumour before the patient dies.

However, today we DO know that it is that aspect that gives/creates the needed additional time allowing the patients to benefit from the effect Bavi has on the Macrophages and the related systemic activation of the immune system.

So Ebola? Ebola is aggressive, but organ focussed and in that MORE localized as, say, the flue. The latency problem doesn't exist because at the moment you administer Bavi the damage is important, PS abundant but the damage is also very concentrated. Bavi has therefore, AND THAT IS MY PERSONAL OPINION, a better change against Ebola then it has against the common flue. Thing is that you'd have to administer it abundantly and frequently during several consecutive days. Monitoring fever and dehydration and possible tremors will have to help to tune the dosing and the patient will have to endure that on top of the already unpleasant symptoms of Ebola on its own. But it is a matter of live and death.

So, do I exclude Bavi from playing a possible role in Ebola? No, but do I say Bavi is in there 100% sure? No, but it could be and personally I think it might be in the Zmapp cocktail.