Replies to post #86484 on Avid Bioservices Inc (CDMO)

[keep_trying]

Robert, more important than impressions from respected posting parties from other IHub boards is how Dr. Thorpe's peers are responding to theories about Bavi's method of operation. That said, the anti angiogenesis comparison with other products doesn't seem to apply to Bavi's MOA. Dr. Thorpe is suggesting both mechanisms are synergistically in play, so the rationale about one or both mechanisms being shown as inapplicable will need to be resolved by reconciling with Bavi demonstrated success in treatments, or lack thereof. Pending Bavi trial results will help address such resolution.

Since the PPHM IHub board posting interchange with the moderator of that other board, who started posting here with statements about PPHM being a scam company and Bavi being a placebo treatment, I have chosen to leave the other board to itself. I observe that such remarks were at timing when the PPHM short interest was rising and pps was dropping and Russell rebalancing was imminent.

This is the IHub PPHM board, which is a site with IHub terms of use calling on posters to limit posts to PPHM the company and PPHM the stock. New posters interested in PPHM are welcome here, including your respected poster friend.

Best wishes and IMO.
KT

[freethemice]

Yes, he doesn't really know much about bavi and how it works. He makes the mistake, that many do,
to lump bavi in with anti-angiogenics, like Avastin. While the result of treatment with Bavi is to destroy the
tumor vasculature, the MOA is not anti-angiogenic. Anti-angiogenic are usually mAbs that target the
receptors (VEGFR-1, VEGFR-2, VEGFR-3, FGFR) or their ligands (VEGF, FGF), that is the pathway involved
in the growth factor for vascular growth. Of course, these are upregulated in tumor growth, but they
are also part of normal growth, wound healing, etc. Bavi is a mAb that targets the PS upregulated
specifically, and uniquely, on the endothelial cells of the TUMOR vasculature. PS is not upregulated
on the vasculature of normal tissue. So Bavi is not involved in the angiogenic pathway at all.
The MOA for Bavi has at least three aspects to it and they are all connected, so you can't say
maybe some parts will work and others won't. I suggest looking at the post CJ put up yesterday
which is a concise overview of how Bavi works as previously presented by Thorpe.
See post # 86429, also see this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angiogenesis
After this I am not going to respond to what people say about Bavi on other websites.
That is a hole I am not going down.