Advanced Oncotherapy Share Discussion Threads

[daijavu] 05/10/2016 20:00

Howard de Walden have called a meeting at their offices from 17:30 to 19:30 this evening. Word is that the residents have been invited as well as officers from the City of Westminster Planning Department. It is on at this very moment.

I imagine it will be an interesting meeting. I wonder if we will have any feedback from waterloo01. I expect he will be there considering he is obviously one of the residents.

[waterloo01] 05/10/2016 16:59

Affordable or indeed free treatment. Great! I'm very positive on proton therapy, however it's delivered and think the NHS should have multiple centres ASAP. That does not change my view of the risks with AVO. And no I'm not short. As for planning committee, I suspect there will be enough heckling without my presence.

[twirl] 05/10/2016 16:40

Usual drivel from waterlo01- shame you cannot say something positive about AVO and its intention to bring affordable and indeed free treatment to children with cancer. You just strike me as a very petty person.

Are you going to the Planning Cttee to heckle.

[daijavu] 05/10/2016 14:27

Going back to the issue of earnings visibility, AVO currently have three contracts and several letters of intent that are subject to the satisfactory completion of testing.

Sorry about the lack of figures but I am doing this in a hurry before I go out. The figures are on the AVO website.

My point is that there is earnings visibility based on existing contracts and letters of intent even though there are no earnings to date.

[waterloo01] 05/10/2016 14:26

Interesting link Scantrader. Serious (relatively local) and experienced company already with a number of machines installed.

Add in a healthy mix of 'contracts'based on proof it works and Harley Street being open (unlikely till 2018 at best) and it's a classic case of the wrong people running a business,and being handsomely paid to do so, however investors are mistaking the wonders of proton beam therapy with being blindsided with AVO as it stands today

CERN should have licensed the tech to Siemems et al, not some mates.

[scantrader] 05/10/2016 14:06

My goodness - you don't even seem familiar with basic market terms like earnings visibility.

[twirl] 05/10/2016 13:48

lazy scantrader - AVO has no earnings as its can't sell anything until its developed DYOR pleeeeese.

[scantrader] 05/10/2016 13:13

AVO has utterly obscure earnings visibility and unconvincing funding plans, and I expect the competition is a lot stiffer than made out on the AVO forums.

Eg Mevion

[daijavu] 05/10/2016 11:45

standish11

If you are looking for a technical explanation you need to visit the AVO website or some of the excellent research sites that can provide it.

[freddythefish] 05/10/2016 09:51

It's worth adding to Daijavu's excellent explanation of LIGHT that the AVO technology also allows the possibility of modulating the proton beam in such a way as to allow the tracking of a tumor. This means that a tumor moving inside the body (such as in lung tissue moving due to breathing) can be treated - something not currently possible. I understand that AVO's associates in the research community are working on this which if successful will mark an important breakthrough.

Tradidional PBT machines are not able to do this.

[standish11] 05/10/2016 09:19

daijavu. Much obliged for your detailed technical explanation.

[daijavu] 05/10/2016 08:19

standoffish

The cyclotron may be viewed as merely an expensive source of a proton beam whereas LIGHT has a much cheaper source. The critical issue is the Bragg Peak. Both technologies achieve that. The other issue is the means by which the beam is delivered to the patient. Perhaps the UCLH machine might be more versatile in that way but I would have thought that could be overcome simply by attaching LIGHT to a similar delivery system.

AVO claims that the only reason for the current limited application of proton beam therapy is cost. That there is no medical reason why proton therapy cannot be used to treat many types of tumour in the same way as the much cheaper photon beam therapy is currently used. Photon beam therapy has the disadvantage of causing damage to tissue surrounding the tumour but because of the Bragg Peak, proton beam therapy does not cause that damage. The fact that the AVO light machine can be supplied at a similar price to a photon machine means that it could eventually replace all photon therapy machines, including the one in my local hospital.

I came across this article that perhaps explains how antiquated the cyclotron technology being installed at UCHL might be:

hxxp://phys.org/news/2016-09-proton-combination-nanoparticles-laser.html

[standish11] 05/10/2016 07:35

Dai java.

Thanks for the explanation which I do not dispute apart from perhaps the capabilities of the respective machines. I has been explained to me via someone who has a foot in both camps that the UCLH machine will be much more capable albeit vastly more expensive. However,as the machines are aimed at different markets there is no conflict.

[daijavu] 05/10/2016 00:16

standish11

Harley Street is not in competition with UCHL.

The idea is to provide a showcase to sell the AVO machine world wide where it will provide cheap proton therapy and also replace the far less effective photon therapy machines of which there are many thousands. That is something that the machine at UCHL would never be able to do. The sheer cost of the UCHL type machine is why there are so few of them.

TW is basing his assessment of AVO on his limited knowledge of the traditional market for the existing expensive generation of proton therapy machines.

The UCHL machine will not be more powerful and versatile. The UCHL machine is based on old technology that is expensive to build and install, requires extensive shielding, is expensive to maintain and will eventually be expensive to decommision.

The effective power of the proton beam is in the Bragg Peak. The Avo machine will achieve that at least as effectively and be at least as effective in treating tumours. AVO claim that the LIGHT machine will be more effective. It will also be cheaper to build and install, need far less shielding, be easier and cheaper to maintain and will be able to be decommissioned at the end of its working life without leaving residual radiation behind so will be far cheaper to decommision that the UCHL machine.

At least one American university is also working on similar technology to AVO's LIGHT machine that they also claim will eventually enable them to create a much smaller and cheaper proton therapy machine that will need far less shielding than the one being installed at UCHL and leave far less residual radiation at the end of its life.

It appears that AVO have got there first thanks to CERN. CERN scientists invented the LIGHT machine. They are still involved with it.

[standish11] 04/10/2016 22:36

Once the proton beam machine at UCLH is in operation why would any NHS cancer patients for whom PBT is appropriate not use the UCLH facility bearing in mind that it will be more powerful and versatile than the AVO (private) facility?

[daijavu] 04/10/2016 21:26

scantrader

While I am sure TW is fairly knowledgable, I have seen little evidence that he has actually researched AVO and its product. All he sees is a typical AIM company with little to offer and no future. He seems to have made an initial assessment based on a cursory glance, decided the company was worthless, has never looked any closer and has taken every development since as proof of his first assessment.

He is wrong.

DYOR like most of us have and come back and comment when you have done so.

[daijavu] 04/10/2016 18:18

The 'in' should have been 'if', sorry.

[daijavu] 04/10/2016 18:17

I'd be very surprised in planning permission wasn't granted but I agree that there could be conditions.

[seans66] 04/10/2016 17:49

IgbertSponk

Are you invested in AVO?

You seem very negative towards it. Yes a few risks also amazing potential upside in my opinion.

[igbertsponk] 04/10/2016 14:32

LOL - don't blame the messenger!

[twirl] 04/10/2016 14:29

Hard for the Council to turn its back on "Free Cancer Cure for London Kids" although Igbert has tried its best to.

[seans66] 04/10/2016 12:14

There is also a letter from 3 Harley St consultants saying that they are strongly in favour of the application. The council need to seen to be sending out the right signals that Harley St is open for business & a global centre of medical innovation. I think planning permission will be granted but subject to certain conditions to appease the local residents.

[igbertsponk] 04/10/2016 11:08

Property owners still trying to convince the planners and asked them to another meeting. All a tad last minute. Suggest the planners aren't onside at the moment.