Member Info for AVCT

As far as I was aware we haven't agreed a P2 dose yet

CC said words to the effect a pathway to P2 dose had been agreed with FDA was my understanding

"Abstracts are tomorrow evening after close, hopefully means an RNS Friday morning."

Abstract no

Poster yes

Why do you describe this as "...research by Zeus" Whitney

I can't see it attributed as such - but then again it doesn't read as typical AI?

Thanks

"...no quarterly CLN payments..."

Not correct - CLN instalments, maybe accelerated recommence in July

Expect if SP rises sufficiently eitheslow ar fsst conversion @75p and at that price approx 30m further shares in due course

Which at 6% dilution is not a problem

I broadly agree with your principles WMS

However timing of the 26th March £10m raise 54 days after Fap dox limit lifting, prompts an alternative thought also - an application if made, may have been turned down for now.

Imo It’s no big deal either way

From where we are now BTD asap would still be be my prefered next event - but i suspect the reality is we still have a little time to wait for that

6K TNBC in june, good bad or indifferent, imo is the catalyst for a decent pan 6k JV deal with the pharma who ultimately JVs on a much larger 6103 deal before the year end

GLA

"Misspelling someone's name (Windbum / wyndrone / Windy et al) during an argument is often a deliberate tactic, though sometimes it is a result of carelessness. When done intentionally, it serves as a form of verbal aggression designed to belittle, disrespect, and assert dominance."

Excellent - now you've got the idea of this banter!

So nice to hear from you whynny - maybe I'll get a reply from Touk on this one - please do try and get the word sarcastic in if you do :

PS I was sticking to the facts as conveyed by AI

Being called "sanctimonious" out of the blue during an argument is rarely about a literal moral failing. Instead, it is a calculated, defensive tactic used to shift the focus from the topic of debate to your character. It is an ad hominem attack designed to invalidate your argument by painting you as insincere, self-righteous, or "holier-than-thou".

Merriam-Webster

Merriam-Webster

+4

Here is why someone would use this tactic when they are being argumentative:

To Deflect and Avoid Accountability: When someone feels cornered, challenged, or criticized, they may resort to labeling you as "sanctimonious" to avoid addressing the validity of your points. It forces you to defend your character rather than maintaining your position on the issue.

To Equalize the Moral Field: They may feel inadequate, insecure, or threatened by your perceived moral high ground. By calling you sanctimonious, they aim to pull you down to their level, implying that your righteousness is just a pretense or a "show".

To Dismiss Your Viewpoint as Preachy: If you are expressing strong principles, they may interpret this as lecturing, condescending, or "preachy". The label "sanctimonious" is used to diminish your input by suggesting you are acting superior, even if you are not.

To Signal Hypocrisy: They may believe you are practicing "holier-than-thou" behavior—preaching values they do not believe you fully uphold yourself. They use this word to accuse you of being a hypocrite.

As an "Argument Stoker" Defense: Someone with an oppositional conversation style may use this as a quick, stinging insult to derail the conversation and create drama, especially if they have narcissistic tendencies and feel the need to win at any cost.

WordPress.com

WordPress.com

+6

In short: When used defensively, it is a way to say, "You think you're better than me," which allows them to stop listening to the content of your argument and focus on attacking your persona.

Not so short

In a legal or rhetorical context, defending a malicious falsehood by accusing the accuser of "spiteful bile" is an attempt to shift the focus from the truth of the statement to the motivation of the person reporting it.

1. Rhetorical Strategy: Ad Hominem Attack

Describing an accusation as "spiteful bile" is a classic ad hominem attack—targeting the person rather than the argument.

Discrediting through Emotion: By labeling the accuser's words as "bile," the defender suggests the claims are not based on facts but are merely the result of irrational, toxic, or bitter emotions.

The "Improper Motive" Defence: In the legal tort of malicious falsehood, a claimant must prove the defendant acted with malice—meaning they knew the statement was false or acted with a dominant improper motive to injure the claimant. By calling the accuser's report "spiteful bile," a defender is essentially arguing that the accuser is the one acting with malice, attempting to invalidate the claim by framing it as a personal vendetta.

Pinsent Masons

Pinsent Masons

+4

2. Legal Context: Malice and Falsehood

In UK law, malicious falsehood (also known as trade libel or injurious falsehood) requires the claimant to prove four specific elements:

Lawprof

Lawprof

+1

Falsity: The statement must be objectively untrue (unlike defamation, where truth is a presumed defence for the defendant).

Publication: It must be communicated to a third party.

Malice: The statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with a "reckless indifference" to the truth.

Damage: It caused, or is likely to cause, financial loss (pecuniary damage).

Pinsent Masons

Pinsent Masons

+4

When someone uses the phrase "spiteful bile," they are often trying to invoke the "Honest Opinion" or "Qualified Privilege" defences:

Protect - Speak up stop harm

Protect - Speak up stop harm

+2

Defeating Privilege: A defense of "qualified privilege" (e.g., a manager giving a reference) fails if the claimant can show the statement was made with a dominant improper motive (malice).

Counter-Accusation: By claiming the accuser is spewing "spiteful bile," the defender is trying to show that the accuser's own motive is improper, which can be used to discredit whistleblowers or trade rivals.

Protect - Speak up stop harm

Protect - Speak up stop harm

+4

3. Psychological Element

From a psychological perspective, this type of defense can be a form of DARVO (Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender).

Reversing Roles: The defender denies the falsehood and immediately attacks the accuser's character, attempting to make the accuser appear like the "malicious" party instead.

Moral Deflection: Using visceral language like "bile" evokes a sense of disgust, intended to make the audience recoil from the accuser before they can even process the facts of the case.

Falsely Accused Network

Falsely Accused Network

+4

AI responses may include mistakes. Learn more

Malicious false

The best method if you're a bit bored is just short and simple riducule

"Normally an amount of capital has to be allocated to the NASDAQ listing. Anything less than 50% is pointless. So someone has to stump up this money and this entails substantial dilution."

Really - if you say so Touk, you're the expert ROFL

Even Whynny doesn't lie as blatantly as that

"The only thing that matters to shareholders is the share price"

Correct again - gosh you are good Whynny

"what, when there is literally no money left in he bank at all?"

Maybe maybe not - time will tell

I presume even you Whynny agree 6103 initial data will be in the public domain after jpm, when the roadshow size and price will be established?

"BP won’t give a monkeys where the company is listed, any more than they would if the company was an unlisted private company"

Correct again - they only care about the negotiating counter party's negotiating strength.

" 'Costs and Ongoing Requirements

The cost of listing on NASDAQ can be substantial. Advisory, legal, and compliance costs are significantly higher than in the UK, and ongoing reporting "

All correct - which is why it was premature before

"You obviously don’t understand what a NASDAQ listing entails do you"

Pray explain I'm all ears -ROFL

Not for me to name names, think about what potentially is up for grabs and the obvious candidates - AI might even be of help!

"Anything else you simply want to make up"

Nope - price is 70p until it isn't, even you know that whynny

One of those two will win the 6103 JV - the other will be left with deciding whether to gamble on take out bid at "new validated" US pharma price levels

End September is the crunch data 6103 @ likely P2 dose - the cost of a 6k JV to get first right exclusive sight of that data is peanuts for those two!

6k JV part derisks us ahead of Sept - very elegant

Without SEC filing they'll still be trying to "starve us out"

Worst case we raise on Nasdaq in January with initial 6103 data in public domain

My opinion "money bags" deals on our terms - AZ too risk averse to bid at new level ( they'll lose that battle anyway to "money bags"), and we have a consellation deal with them, maybe with Dimmers warhead?

Nasdaq would have been premature previously, because we weren't ready to "squeeze pharma's nuts"

Sec filing in VDR in July proves we're spending couple of million and serious - AZ balls in one hand, biggest purse in pharma in the other!

A Nasdaq confidential filing in July is the difference between £2bn take over and £10bn+ takeover if pharma feel forced to gamble that way!