Member Info for B2HS2L

From Inv. Meet presentation 17.12.2025,

Q Is the team pleased with the dose selected for phase 1b? One question is whether you'd have gone higher or lower with the benefit of hindsight.

Same question for TNBC, given this was the dose selected, having NOT DOSED TNBC in P1a.

A The TNBC cohort - the triple negative cohort, is a bit of a challenge.

One of the big differences here is that most of the patients are going to have been pre-treated with an anthracycline such as doxorubicin.

This is the first time that we will study Faridoxorubicin in a patient population that has already received a decent amount of doxorubicin.

In their therapy, we call it adjuvant, it is given after they had their first surgery, and this complicates assessments.

The patients are already going to be familiar with the potential toxicity profile here.

So, we are continuing to watch this cohort and we are working with our investigators here to determine the appropriate dose in each of these disease settings.

However RNS - 03.02.2026, contains important update:

The historic maximum dosing limit which is based on the patient's exposure to released (free) doxorubicin, has been removed in the clinical trial following the collection of highly favorable safety data from the faridoxorubicin program and observation of patients receiving the highest cumulative doses for prolonged periods.

What is now the status quo regarding TNBC patients post maximum dosing limit removal.

Yes, but - https://convention.bio.org/participating-companies/avacta-life-sciences found.

Make sure you take D-Geeman / wyndrum with you.

YDSA2 - impressive rant 👍

See wyndrum 21:05 post

He states what he gets from posting on AVCT BB, - seems it's more of a set of 'wants' and 'needs'.

I distinguish between a want (nice to have) and a need (must have).

What turns him on:

* 'I try and provoke alternative views to my own posts to remind me why i still am with this stock'.

[- Note provoke. - We could all spend less time responding here - self included.]

* It allows balance. The different views can only help the individual to weigh up alternatives that they may not have considered or given sufficient weight to and act accordingly.

[wyndrum discussing others feedback. 'Needed' for future FUD.]

* Chris does a sterling a lob with reasoned views. I don't always agree whole heartedly with them all but it reflects a more thoughtful examination of the positives.

[- wyndrum 'wants' thoughtful reasoning to examine the positives!!! - Thoughtful responses should be avoided. They only generate further questions.]

* God forbid that's what an investment BB should do. [- God forbid 'Chris' spends most days on other bulletin boards. wyndrum 'needs' his reasoned feedback. That's right - future FUD depends on it.]

++++

wyndrum is incapable of UNDERSTANDING the following. Interactions are unlikely to work for him or for anyone on this BB:

What do you expect the situation to be, if you are an away supporter and you watch the game in the home supporters stand.

Are you going to praise the away goal keeper after he saves a penalty, - and NOT UNDERSTAND why home supporters are bothered by your behaviour?

This BB is the home supporters stand, to discuss Avacta efforts to make shareholders money, and improve the lives of cancer victims.

If that's not your aim don't post. Simples.

No response necessary wyndrum.

'None of the data ever, has been peer reviewed'.

Lifting of the lifetime maximum dose due to highly favorable cardiac safety. - Any thoughts wyndrum.

RNS 01 June:

Due to limited evidence of cardiac toxicity, an exposure-response analysis was conducted to assess the relationship between exposure to released doxorubicin and changes in LVEF on a per-patient basis.

This analysis found no meaningful relationship between the LVEF changes and released doxorubicin exposure,

suggesting that the cardiac toxicity observed with conventional dosing of doxorubicin is not observed with released doxorubicin from faridoxorubicin.

This supported removal of the lifetime maximum limit of dosing.

The Company received Health Authority agreement with this conclusion and hence the limit was removed from the study protocol earlier this year.

It's clear you don't give sufficient thought to the garbage you write to prefix later 'make it up as I go along' statements in your posts.

You have a very poor memory for an RNS dated 1st June 2026.

What do you expect the situation to be, if you are an away supporter and you gain entrance the stand dedicated to home supporters.

Are you going to praise the away goal keeper after he saves a penalty, not understanding why you bother home supporters?

Nothing you have said today convinces me you understand this, so will continue ignoring your posts.

Sorry

Avacta might get a better deal by getting ACCELERATED approval first, - better deals being what they've said they want.

Surely the award of an accelerated approval is something you would want to achieve before choosing a partner for phase 2.

Avacta might get a better deal by getting regulatory approval first, - better deals being what they've said they want.

No idea if "watch this space" was discussing accelerated approval.

Avacta may have applied by now, they have to make the application.

Possibly further results / FDA discussion first.

FWIW

Investormeet Prelim results for year ended 2025 19.05.2026:

Q When would you envisage AVA6000 replacing the standard doxorubicin treatment?

A We've been asked as well have we applied essentially for accelerated approval, and the short answer is

no we've not sought any kind of approval for AVA6000.

AVCT may have applied since, but gave no hint when that application might come.

I'm happy to peacefully wait for this month’s announcement, as are many posters here.

However, this turns up yesterday as an example of those wishing to instigate a rumpus:

wyndrum

Member since Apr 2020

Posts: 12,908

Price: 71.50

No Opinion

RE: Avacta love8 Jun 2026 06:05

Love, the reason why sgc was introduced and the others effectively dropped was because a new treatment came out which gave better results than ava6k was producing so they went for what turns out to be a non dox cancer treatment with no standard of care so as to prove its worth albeit for a relatively rare cancer.

That's why I highlight the competition. It overnight negated (or at least undercut) years of research and countless millions of expenditure. (and it was not just about safety. P1b was to target hand picked patients and tumours to show case efficacy.

Recommend (1)

+++

Most LTH know the answer provided by CC to this question.

Reccs = 1 (one).

All that's left for us to do is to switch off when stupidity surfaces.

So we're doing our bit Touk, but it would be great if wyndrum were to, as I say, 'read the room and *iss off.

Wyndrum

6th June 06:42

"I bore myself" &

"You may think I am a bore."

+++

Truth be told, we thought you were a bore years ago.

You're obviously not enjoying yourself so read the room and *iss off.

From the original post

"A Tier 1 pharma company won't buy this just to use it; they will buy it defensively so their competitors are locked out of

pan-tumor exatecan delivery for the next 15 years."

This sentence hasn't been highlited as one of the most important parts of the post.

Responses do not include mention of the premium Avacta could ask, when selling Avacta's preCISION platform and all PDC developments to date, -

complete with all associated IP.

++++

"Intellectual property moat," sometimes called a "patent moat" or "technology moat").

An IP moat signals durable, legally enforceable protection around the core technology.

A sustainable COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE popularized by Warren Buffett — where a company uses patents, trade secrets, copyrights, trademarks, or other IP to protect its technology and products.

Competitors cannot easily copy or sell similar offerings without infringing, which creates barriers to entry, supports higher margins, and defends market position.

It forms a "moat" because rivals must either license the IP, design around it (often at high cost/time), or risk lawsuits.

Examples include pharmaceutical companies selling patented drugs, tech firms with proprietary hardware/software features (e.g., certain algorithms or designs), or manufacturers with protected processes. (investopedia.com)

RH loves what CC and the R&D team are doing / have done, but what excites the money man most is what he can do when negotiating a sale of a complete set of IP that creates a massive competitive advantage.

Meanwhile our moat gets deeper due to 6207 development.

I can't see our new chairman rushing this process. 👀😉

21.01.2026 Hughes on 'X'

"Chris and her brilliant team continue to build and protect the IP of #AVCT in order to exploit the full value of preCISION for shareholders.

Honoured to sit on the board of such a disruptive biotech.

2026 will be a transformational year for us all."

Shortly RH will be installed as the Chairman of Avacta.

There were a full 12 months ahead when this statement was issued, there are only 6 now.

AVA6103 started and progressing unhindered, and AVA6000 three weeks away from full reveal.

CLN reduced.

Strap in tight to prepare for bio-international proceedings - end of June.

Hughes' statement seems if anything more applicable now than 6 months ago.

NFTs 13:07 -

The BIO Convention Trap

'Big Pharma diligence teams aren't just looking at doxorubicin.

They are looking at the Gen Two (AVA6103/exatecan) and Gen Three (dual-payload) data.

They know that if this platform safely delivers exatecan across 90% of solid tumors, it threatens the entire $100 billion ADC market. '

+++

They are also observing the following -

1 Source - TD Cowen 46th Annual Health Care Conference 04.03.2026

Q What do you think is the most underappreciated aspect of Avacta.

A CC - I think it's an understanding of just how versatile the platform becomes, with the inventions around AVA6103.

Before this medicine got into the clinic, before we even invented this, making precision medicines that fit in the active site that release, were really hard.

We only had a few of them. With the inventions around 6103, there's two key aspects:

The first is we can FAP enable now almost any medicine out there.

So whereas before we had to find something to fit in the active site, now it just hangs off, now we can attach almost anything.

We've got almost 40 of these linkers, we've now made almost 500 precision medicines, - it's kind of crazy our chemists are quite busy. [March 2026, - more since if chemists were busy then].

The second aspect is we can dial in the exact PK.

So when a potential partner / strategic partner says well what can you do with the PK of this medicine? Francis our CSO will reply 'what do you want us to do with it'.

Then we have a good conversation, - do you want it to release quickly, do you want a high C-Max, do you want a long AUC?

We can dial those in and the recent spotlight series [spotlight 13] that we put out about this, the scientists actually took people through exactly how the mechanism works.

So I actually think it's brilliant chemistry, and it's still a SMALL MOLECULE. It's still fairly cheap [90% cheaper than ADC manufacture], - and easily manufactured.

So we're particularly excited that it held up so well against an ADC in the pre-clinical.

2 The preCISION platform hosts 6000, 6103 and plans to host 6207. Without a tested platform, there can be no targeted drug delivery.

There has been no attempt to value this key attribute.

It's value increases as AVCT publishes further evidence of operational successes with the 6000 phase one trial (fresh date available >June @ bio-international).

6103 success is evident from the fact the trial has not been halted despite first patient dosed on 31 March 2026, - 9 weeks ago.

Also, based on favorable preclinical activity and biomarker readouts from the strategic collaboration with Tempus, two indications have been added to the trial:

colorectal cancer (CRC) and hormone receptor-positive breast cancer (HR+ BC).

[Why add new indications, if the four originals are not delivering acceptable results].

+++

More issues affecting due diligence and value

Yeah, that's possibly gonna happen.

Quite a few PI's to address that to.

Avacta probably got the RNS written not recommending it.

Https://www.linkedin.com/in/ben-hall-686518162/?skipRedirect=true

Only just started looking and found this scientist.

Apologies if previously posted.

I'm sure Avacta and BP have given thought to treating metastatic solid tumor patients with AVA6103,

and have multiple tumor sites treated simultaneously.

I don't think that happens with any anti cancer drugs presently, but I might be wrong.

Also note the number of ❓ used today.

One of the true measures of a poster with an agenda.

Caughtsneezing - 'I don’t think this is a case of getting the best deal, more a case of not being able to get one right now.'

Now is not as good a time to look for any deal when bio-International is three weeks away.

When everyone in 'the market' is co-located, and you have presented your AVA6000 'best shot', that's the time to find who is really interested in going into phase 2 as a partner.

Avacta are not negotiating from a weak position.

The position is strong enough for the company to realise that signing an agreement, necessary to generate cash to pay a debt due 3oth June latest,

is not a good way forward, considering the level of interest now being shown in Avacta's 1st, 2nd and 3rd gen projects.

Hence the raise and satisfaction of debt - removal of deadline, and further negotiations will now proceed, with much interest likely at bio-International.

Happy days.