Member Info for Apre

Many Happy "Returns" . . .

And you wonder why folks give you a hard time . . .

Toukankahmoon

Posted in: AVCT

RE: Behind closed doors 20 Feb 2023 15:40

Gmcc
What is a “sell side analyst”?

Derek, you asked the same bone question a couple of days ago and a very kind and patient poster (gmcc, ES . . ?) gave you the answer.

Have you even heard of Google you lazy half wit?

I guess some people have enormous nads, others just have enormous egos and mouths.

You "quote" WB but that is clearly just made up lies . . . listen to the man himself on the link from RAH which I bumped on the previous thread. He, himslef, says the opposite of what you have just said he says. You cannot both be right about what WB said . . . my money is on WB.

Every time you open your mouth you put your foot in it. Which is why you are widely (universally?) regarded as having zero credibility.

Bump . . .

Doc, I was taken by your balsy approach to how much you thought it was appropriate to invest. Not for everyone of course. But then I was duly underwhelmed by Touks predictable cliche . . . "dont invest more than you can afford to lose". I have only heard that nugget a few thousand times . . .

Credit and thanks to RAH for posting the link this morning at 07.46, on this thread, which is what I am bumping. I am not advising or encouraging anyone to take on more risk than they are "comfortable" with but . . . Warren and Charlie make a persuasive case for growing a humungous pair when you think you have discovered a Prince Among Shares (my paraphrase). I may not be Warren or Charlie but I am balls deep in Avacta . . . and happy to be so.

Folks, have a listen . . . it beats the sh.1t out of listening to the transparent FUDders and the nappy-filling Mummies Boys, and make your own minds up. I repeat, I am not encouraging anyone to take risks that they think may hurt them . . . but after listening to the brief video clip I was reassured that my pro-risk approach to Avacta is justified. But then, . . . I do have enormous nads.

https://twitter.com/rah00084/status/1626487900228517888?s=46&t=wYytWv0lz_isBhpaGWzGYA

Thank you Ginge, . . . a thoughtful, informed post which, at least to me, supports the notion that the actual nitty-gritty science is too complex and it's implications too nuanced, to easily pigeon hole, in bite size chunks for the general public. (I include myself in that group). Perhaps why SD has been planned for so long.

Those who keep crowing that they haven't been told enough are too dim to realise that the protocols around such a scientific endeavour (technical, ethical, commercial etc) preclude shouting 'news' from the rooftops or even slipping cheeky little appetizer snippets into contrived RNS's. They don't understand the basic rules around conducting trials/business with integrity; because they lack it themselves. They are intellectual lightweights with broken moral compasses.

And you mentioned,

"As with all of this type of post there is a complete lack of knowledge and understanding. The suggestion of scientific literacy is to try and create validity for the post and poster. This was indeed the MO of NDN."

. . . and who should immediately try to shout you down . . . but NDN him/herself, in one of it's many guises.

Thank again, you nailed it.

Doc, call me old school but I'd prescribe a 9mm temple incision . . . but I'm fairly sure someone would object.

Yes BITL, it still posts . . . quite frequently . . . but it's pretty much the same post, again and again.

I think it's an illness. Repetitive Post Syndrome (RPS) I think it's called. There's a lot of it about apparently. Four or five on this BB alone have come down with it. Quite badly . . .

How about 23.2.23?

Derek, you are doing it again . . .

" . . . but why not give us numbers."

That is what Science Day is for . . . you effwit. Do you really think they will announce, before Science Day, the data they say they will announce on Science Day . . . just because a few nappy filling PIs cant hold it in any longer?

Discuss the potential ramifications, if you must, . . . it is a free BB after all. But stop bleating on (and you Son of Thornog the Dong) about not having sight of the data we have been told we will have sight of on Science Day . . . jeezus wept . . . .

Derek, you say,

"On a more serious point, I still don’t understand why, if AVA6000 is so good, we have had to prolong things by going to DE5. How many people will die needlessly because of this 6 month delay in getting the product into oncology departments?"

Are you honestly suggesting that because the anticipated data appear to be so promising, they should just skip the rest of the trial and get AVA6K into hospital pharmacies, ready to be rolled out, with no further ado?

That is a monstrously ignorant comment for even the dimmest layman to make. Yet, if my memory serves me correctly, you claim you have a science degree from UCL . . . in which case, the monstrous ignorance goes off the scale.

You complain that people respond to the likes of you with "abuse and name calling". But seriously, when you make the dim-witted, fuddled, confused, ill-informed, deliberately disruptive, childish remarks that you do . . . then what else do you expect? A pat on the back? A round of applause? A seat by the band?

You come accross as a petulant, thick, insecure clown. So people treat you as such. If you dont care for the "name calling", dont invite it.

MCB, you are either over thinking it or under thinking it. There is no "delay".

MCB, what "delay"?

Please reimind me of the day/date when the announcement was made, giving the anticipated day/date of "announcing the next dose level". I think I missed it. If we had it (and presumably you know it and can share it) then we could say for certain how long the "delay" has been.

Of course, if you do not actually have that day/date, then why are you using the word "delay"?

" . . .little puppy going yap, yap, yap . . ." , classic Ndnism.

He thinks we don't remember.

So have I knocked Wynbore off the top spot . . ?

Weh hey!

Okay . . . since its you. . .

"rarely" and "sometimes" are not adjectives. They are adverbs of frequency.

Does that sound smug? Well, what goes around comes around.

BITL, 1.5m? Chicken feed . . . get your hand in your pocket you tight wad!

I'd top up myself but I can't physically move to log on to HL because my office is packed from floor to ceiling with piles and piles of £50 notes. Its like being buried under a wall of wonga. Its suffocating just how much dosh I've got. I'm breathing filthy lucre flavoured dust . . . I, . . . I ,,,, er okay, I'll leave it there. But you get the picture right!?

Another TA guru telling as all what has already happened.

As for the bullish stochastic cross . . . apparently that is "likely". Oooh.

Here, I'll have a go a this . . . er . . . er . . . okay . . . . after an SP has fallen a bit, for a couple of sessions . . . it is "likely" that it might, perhaps, maybe start to go up again. For a bit.

There! You see . . . I'm a natural.

Derek, 14.58hrs, "The rampers are convinced SP will rocket after Science Day so they should be able to answer the questions WHY? and HOW exactly? "

Derek, 12.48hrs, "But there is an expectation on here (me included) that Science Day will trigger a huge rerate . . ."

So, Dek, as you are "included" you can clearly answer you own question . . . unless, of course, you can't . . . So let's hear it.

Also, who exactly are the "ramping gang on here"? Come on, name names . . .

"Truley I am not kicking this off again but.." .... just to kick this off again . . .