Replies to post #70311 on Avid Bioservices Inc (CDMO)

[Protector]

I would think that when interferon is part of a cocktail it was there for a reason. We probably need to split the discussion in two parts.

Part 1, oral treatment
Part 2, interferon free


I can understand the argumentation for oral treatment. The medical world may however prefer non oral because that would need there involvement. And as geo made a point many posts ago some people follow their Doctors and the drug makers they are loyal too rather then the best treatment. Then again, maybe there is a road to make Bavi oral, I don't know but I am sure there are some people on this board that could comment knowledgeably on that.

As for interferon we know what the side effects are. getting rid of it is in all cases a good thing. However there is a difference between a treatment without interferon and one that has a replacement for interferon. A treatment without is not necessarily the best thing if one with a replacement performs better. Again, if interferon, knowing it's side effects, was in the cocktail it must have been there for a reason AND an all oral treatment may work but by far not as efficiently as the interferon based cocktail. The oral versions are in early phases in the pipelines and it is very likely they show that they work but don't get even close to MOS in final tests. Bavi is a replacement for interferon with no or little side effects. Assuming that Bavi cannot be made oral it could well be that an oral regiment is accompanied by 'lower frequency" Bavi injections.

So, many posts on here always point with cautions to our own PPHM early stage tests and therefor I think it is not really fair to present the all oral interferon free early stage trials of other products as if they are the guarantee of a working and accepted approved end product. If we can ourselves go down in a P3 so can those oral treatments.