Replies to post #260136 on Avid Bioservices Inc (CDMO)

[pphmtoolong]

Entdoc,

PPHM has the inside track in this seminal area of inquiry, and we must encourage continued preeminence in the field

We are investors, not scientific investigators. Unless Peregrine management demonstrates they respect the need to use our money wisely, we have no reason to fund them.

GLTA, Paul

[north40000]

Do you still hold your belief that Bavi + radiation will also prove a viable therapy in many oncology indications, as we discussed over 1 or 2 dinners a few years back?

I gather you do not mean to deprecate Bavi + other immunotherapy biologics as viable entries in treating solid tumors---just Bavi alone as not so viable as Thorpe and SK envisioned many years go.

[geocappy1]

Endoc

Based on your info, it is even more obvious to me that there should have been a partnership many years ago even if all back loaded. Bavi needed development fund to be tested much faster and on more types of indications. It is even more obvious then before. Our team was either greedy or naive to think BP would just let them walk thru the approval door.

[ArchieK]

This is the kind of post I hang my hat on and remain invested. I am a sucker for looking into a guy's eyes. Believe in the concept very, very much. Also, your realistic understanding that if bav works it just needs to find the right home in terms of application. I have tried, mostly by reading so many posts here, to understand bav and it's action and PS and really do, in my crude understanding of it all, think we're on to something. I have used this sickening ps to drive my ACS down significantly so if and when this moves up again my upper boundary got sweeter by a lot. I'm nervous, but continue to hope...and still hang my hat on Garnick, AZN, MSK and NCCN...any of which leaving would be a bad, bad sign. GLTA especially patients.

[JamesGMS]

Hello Ent, a question related to your post excerpted in relevant part below:

The good news is that even if that invention and this one, Bavi, did not turn out to be all the inventors believed them to be at the time, this one, Bavi, will be good enough for several applications...none of which will be solid cancers.

I would refer you back to my "incremental" argument from a week or so ago - and yes, I still agree with you that there is currently nothing out there that truly can cure large solid tumors - but when I asked you if Bavi + Doxe should be approved if it could show a 14 month MOS - vs Opdivo's current SOC of 12.2 months {yes, just a small incremental advantage}, you indicated in that case that yes, Bavi should be approved in the NSCLC indication.

So my question - and again remaining firmly positioned in our incremental little world - why would you say that Bavi should play no role in the treatment of "solid cancers." ?

Thanks for you input.

James

[exwannabe]

Bavi was originally a double-armed MAB missile which could carry a payload of cytotoxins in one hand, and attach to the "flipped" membrane -PS antigen with the other. But then reality (scientific reality) intervened in that scheme just as it did with Bavi as a better Avastin.

What did happen to the conjugated Bavi concept?

I asked about it when I first wandered around here, and somebody pointed out that it had been partnered. To that little (Scandanavian?) bio that got bought by the Russian company then vanished in the Siberian wilderness.

It would be a bit tricky to conjugate because the mab is not internalized. The 2 conjugates I know of that have worked (Acedtris and Kadcyla) both get internalized and the linker breaks (releasing the chemo) within the cell.

IMGN claims they have a linker that works once the mab binds, w.o the need to be internalized. Seams like they were the one to partner with. Give IMGN the rights to a conjugated Bavi in return for pocket change and a royalty. IMGN at least had the cash to run some trials.

The more logical conjucation was with a radioactive element. Works as long as it is in the micro-environment (so the vascular binding still works), and does not have to worry about the linker issue. Of course radio-mabs have not brought home many rewards for investors.