Member Info for beinthelead

Are you taking the p155? Got to be sarcastic.

Avacta stating AVA6000 not requiring P3 is one of the fundamental basics here. Except, Neil Bell didn’t think so. Hence his firing. Don’t tell Eggy…

Eggy. You’re all over the place. One minute you say don’t listen to the CEO, then you take his word as gospel. By the way, I’m not saying don’t listen to him, but his point re your concern was not the answer. Try again

Yet you DO want the last word. This is an Eggy trait, unfortunately.

Like I said, you’ve ran out of any new material. Your naivety here is incredible. It’s such a Reid you’re not invested.

“ With you however BITL I'm on much firmer ground! I'm only reiterating what Dr Smith has said after all”

I couldn’t care less what he said. That’s beside the point. Your belief that AVA6000 should be a success is because of a naive view over the patient population. That’s now clear.

No Thorn, let’s not. Your point made no sense. Re read my response. And Ophidian’s while you’re at it. Your last remaining issues put to bed.

Come back at P2. Wise move Sir.

Hahaha - you’re more clueless than I thought. Once again, this patient pop is not unique.

But thanks for providing your rationale in a civil manner. Suggest you investing in P2.

Cheers Thorn.

So. How much research have you done on previous trials (P1) which almost always use a similar patient pop to Avacta, and have published similar results.

If this is the reason you believe it should be better, it’s best you’re not invested at the moment. Wise move Sir.

Again Thorn, why should it be better?

There still remains risk in getting AVA6K to market.

The platform is risk free. Focus should be on the platform.

The completion of C7 and commentary on fair sides with enhanced efficacy is the biggest mover now. As PL states, FDA already point already known.

Given the patient pop within C7, this data is the stealth mover. And it should arrive in JAN. won’t move us massively, but should get us back to a less embarrassing base.

Thorn;

“ Because many/most/all of the current trial patients have been previously exposed to various chemotherapies and aren't treatment naive. I think Avacta have said that that's a thing, especially if there was previous Doxorubicin exposure.

May have got that wrong, in which case apologies.

Patients entering Phase 2 should be new diagnoses being randomly assigned to one of two arms (actually it might be 3 to allow different dosing regimes of AVA6000).

The behaviour and response might be different/better?

All appears to be going to plan though.”

That made no sense. Didn’t answer my question.

Again; Why should it be better???

Why should it be better Thorn?

Are you serious?

You said it Apre

Whatever you call it, they didn’t care what the cash was for. That was my point.

They spent the cash unwisely. IMO.

AVCT - we weren’t told what they were raising for. And why not? It was a loan shark - not an investor. They get paid every Q regardless

Not at all, an investor. Following my own lead. Have a try.

We’ve spent a horrendous amount of cash on a Dx box that’ll pay us nothing back for years. Cash that could have been spent progressing seriously valuable assets through the clinic. Money doesn’t grow on trees.

Or a better way, we can’t now progress parallel assets because we’ve waste the cash we had, on other things.

Commercialise something, then crack on. Until then, spend wisely.

I hope they partner/licence it. They haven’t got the cash to support another programme.