Member Info for 13thmonkey

Marked reduction =/= completely removed. The RNS is gospel until we hear otherwise.
I'm am 100% sure that this is significantly (<10% of the negative consequences) better than current treatment with Dox. But you know someone will say 'it's not worked as well as you said' when 1 person gets a little hair loss.

Just to stop the rumours, and people saying that it wasn't as good as was stated (you know how a single sentence that is just one persons opinion/interpretation becomes fact and a missed target in some peoples eyes) , the only side effect that was noted as not being present was the cardiotoxicity. Everything else is 'well tolerated'.
For my risk management the first part i'd be conservative on and read it as insufficient cardiotoxicity to impact the treatment, and the second i'd read in a similar way, side effects are low enough that they don't impact the treatment. I'm expecting that I'm being a little to risk averse. but that's fine, i'd like to be pleasantly surprised.
From the RNS
"AVA6000 continues to be well tolerated by patients in cohort 4 with a marked reduction in the incidence and severity of the typical toxicities associated with the standard doxorubicin chemotherapy administration. Typical toxicities include alopecia, myelosuppression, nausea, vomiting, mucositis and cardiotoxicity. Importantly, even at the highest dosing levels in cohort 4, equivalent to more than double the normal dose of doxorubicin, the typical drug-related cardiotoxicity of doxorubicin was not observed."

Being involved in this in any way will only increase risk to Avacta.

I thought he had to sell everything as a part of his bid to get isreali citizenship? They are I believe only allowed to hold investments in isreali companies?

That was 8 years ago, so it lends nothing to the argument in my opinion, but I still think 5bn is a low ball offer for Avacta or significant portions of it.

Thanks dude, I had no freaking idea what was going on. Just remember to get out early on the slightest rise, you know just in case it's a part of some kind of death spiral, don't get trapped in here. You can thank me later (when I will be giving no ****s).

I think there's another optimum, no idea what the number is, but let's say doubling it (or any other large increase), that tells the market that they are confident enough in the current levels of side effects that they know they can dump a lot more into the body. And that's also a massive show of confidence and shows how focused it is. I think a medium sized increase would be less confidence inducing.

Precision in that context typically means customised to the patient - tumour combination. Perhaps genetically.

Thank F for that.

Who says we won't be, we are not invited so there is no time sensitivity, we won't be double booked. Love the 'owners of the company' line btw, very funny, very up yourself.

It's definitely only worth 2bn as a company (/sarcasm)

II has for months had it flipping to having the 16.3p value or 0 value, sometimes showing SP changes. I assume the system struggles with this scenario (it really shouldn't).

I suppose they could do it by simply stopping people adding more than 100k, what happens after that is the free market.

I've thought about it, not many options, best options exist before Avacta increases. Tax is tax, it happens, better to be in the position to have to pay it than to not be in that position.

Apparently expressed in the stroma that surrounds the tumour and connects it to the body (as protects from immune system) , so not mobile.

I expect they'll be listening, and talking to others later. On the day those that have actually got the data will be talking. They might have something to say about the implications but they'd probably not have seen much before that day.

Marked reduction does not equal medically none. However is it good enough that side effects are a minor nuisance? But one of the important of cardiotoxicity is perhaps without side effect.

An opinion that in option 1 or 4, at the lower dosage levels nearly as much ava6000 would be coming out as going in, would the safety committee allow this to escalate. This may apply to 2 at the lower levels as well.
Your point 3, the mouse models were 16x in TME for 4x the dose (from memory), so if it is near that, then that's a win, but with lower FAPa circulating in humans than in mice, that multiplier will be higher in my opinion.

Touk a different test will likely need a different TT. There is zero benefit to having an ex employee at that level and on the supplier side, not the customer side, it would be far more beneficial for Abingdon to have an employee in Avacta.
And to answer your original question, this is why it wasn't posted here because it's an irrelevance.
Worse it's something that would grow into there's a link, and then disappointment when it didn't materialise, as there would be a collective, or purposeful, forgetting of how the link was formed.

Timster as might any manufacturer, mostly likely ones that launch already have relationhships with.
I'm sure that Alastairs dog walkers, brothers, mate's boss has a friend at Abingdon as well.