Proposed Directors of Tirupati Graphite explain why they have requisitioned an GM. Watch the video here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Slide 17 of the results period says the 2w arm Surveillance is every 8 weeks instead of 6 as per the original 3w arm. The final patient in cohort 1 was dosed before the 21st of March the full cohort 1 data should be arriving this week. The SMDC is our own internal monitoring committee it makes you wonder when reporting someone in the office used the 6 weeks surveillance period in error when calculating the anticipated end of April review date. That would explain a lot TBH. 6 weeks would have been anticipated end of April.
They are not going to correct it because they would look like f**king idiots, plus it’s not the first time they have made slight errors on an RNS. I expect the RNS to drop Wednesday/Thursday though. Imo
It's not an infrequent issue getting timelines wrong in an Avacta RNS.
It's good of you to pretend that it's really just a slight miscalculation on their part and it's really bag on time, as always, well ahead of schedule probably.
When are you going to admit that the timeline slips backwards every time you look at it?
More time, more money.
I have given a logical explanation of course it doesn’t suit your agenda of mass problems 🙄🙄 however 8 weeks from the 21st of March isn’t end of April. So it looks like an obvious miscalculation based on the original 6 weeks. Which is easily done. Although if I’m correct you better take up a position asap because let’s be honest some new case studies could be arriving anytime. 👍
"So it looks like an obvious miscalculation based on the original 6 weeks. Which is easily done. "
Is it? How do you know that? You are just making that up to suit your agenda....
(That's what you accuse me off every time I post. But you are using "logic" to justify your thoughts so that's ok then?)
So the slides were wrong, easy mistake, so does that mean some of the data might have been mis-reported in other slides too?
What should we believe if it is so easy to make these types of mistakes?
What you on about Windy when did I say the slides were wrong? We are talking about the difference between 8 weeks and 6 weeks in an anticipated SMDC timeline they have met every 6 weeks for the last few years it would be easy to make that error when using it for new cohort.
There are two things here Ice. The first is the safety for review by the SDMC. My understanding is that this consists of 2 doses followed by a two week observation period. If the third patient in C1 was dosed in the US on 20 March then we are well past the date when the SDMC could have reviewed the C1 data. That means either there has been a problem with one or more patients and extra patients needed to be added in OR it is no longer Avacta policy to report the completion of a cohort and escalation to the next dose. My email to CC last Thursday about this latter possibility has not been answered. I'm not totally surprised as she will have been very busy and she doesn't know me from Adam. However, this I can say... My first email failed to deliver as the addressee was not in the Avacta email system. My second email didn't fail to deliver. That means either that it was delivered to her inbox, or it got automatically binned as it was from one of the gmail/outlook/yahoo/etc mail services that non-business people use, or it was filtered into her junk folder for the same reason. My emails to AS got through to him so I hope mine to CC will also get through. Whether she will open/read it is another matter. I will resend on Thursday, but with a read receipt!
The second thing here is the 8-week surveillance, which is for monitoring for efficacy as per the scans shown at AACR (and possibly by other means). I think it takes a while for doxorubicin to have a noticeable/measurable effect. These 8-weekly surveillances would be ongoing for as long as the patient's cancer doesn't progress.
What date is the AGM? Late June?
BV fair enough that also sounds pretty logical. Suppose we will find out in a few days. As I said my 8 week theory does fit and maybe the SDMC were awaiting these 8 week scans for further data before they made a decision as it’s 2w and very important they make correct call on first cohort.
Also one more point this cohort was done USA are the SDMC involved on a continuous basis like the UK (going with 2 dose 2 week review) or do the USA review board just give them the full data package after the 8 weeks surveillance is done USA and the SDMC go over the full package retrospectively.
Avacta could never have fitted four cohorts of 8 weeks into the timeline stated since the first time this arm was mooted, and especially not since the 28 February fundraise announcement, even using Alan's magic calendar.
They won’t have to though, the rest of the cohorts will be done in the UK so the timeline would reduce accordingly. Also as someone stated the patients can be dosed in parallel so you can then have 6 week continuous SDMC reviews like you have suggested. What I am saying is because this cohort was not done in the UK was it different to the 6 week review period you suggested that’s done for UK cohorts does the USA have different rules?
Just guessing but they may have decided to wait for the scan results before issuing any further news if patients are not experiencing any adverse effects. No news is good news and all that.
When was no news considered good?
Never with avct.
You can fool some of the people some of the time.....
ICE fools himself everytime.
It must be a nice World to live in, so long as you don't need money for anything.
Thorn I’m not the one here everyday wasting my time because everyone here knows you are not invested and spread FUD 24/7 👍👍💯
Actually we are all wasting our time here haha 😝 still it’s fun to be part of a community while we wait. 😀