Member Info for beinthelead

How disappointed on a scale of 1-10?

So what??? What opportunity have you missed? The SP has literally stayed the same.

Stop going on.

Great endorsement.

One big takeaway - it’s going to be very expensive to deliver.

Just about the convert the same feeling but didn’t know how the phrase it. It’s very odd… this material discussion is mental. The deck is really good. A lot of work.

My take on the silence - nothing more to guess/make up. They’re all lost.

Great share, wallyj

I would my favourite part of the deck was the proposed trial design including comparative dox data in P2. That’s confidence. Huge news that’s been missed.

Just in gym Rip. Started reading, more tonight.

Trial protocol;

Dox concentration is measured by systemic exposure to cleaved dox. HUGE news. Trial design is OK.

Safety data;

Difficult to assess fully due to low data points, but it’s pretty much in line with other pro drugs. Nothing extraordinary. It’s quite rightly described as ‘modest’. That said, the profile is not the bottleneck here.

PKs;

Would like to see some data points. Shame, but understand as mid trial.

AUC - although stated as 60-90%. Great. In line with preclin.
Cmax - again, stated as 80-90% reduction. Fantastic.
Cl - would like to see clearance data.

The above is inline with other prodrugs delivering dox.

Biopsy data;

Fantastic and the main USP. Numbers are very good. Other prodrugs have similar PK performance, but MAY not clip the dox and grab hold of it at the tumour. This does. It’s clearly very effective.

Quick view; more later. Open to correction as always.

Just downloaded Timster…

First impressions. Dox exposure in trial is CLIPPED dox, not standard systemic. Great news.

More to follow…

What will the half life data tell you Derek?

Hahaha - that’s cheered me up

Yes, gmcc. I believed data to be material, hence expected an RNS. Couldn’t care less on the SP - leave to Twitter x8.9 and see what happens.

Data was presented today. Let’s see what we get, the. Judge.

People are within their rights to be disappointed. It’s their money.

An objective assessment based on what ‘presentation of data emerging’ from the trial looks like after they’ve issued the slides. That’s what Avacta has committed to presenting today. Also an update on TMAC etc. all committed.

This is it PL. Yet another hype with Avacta itself, king of comm’s promising and failing to deliver. I just wish they would be more transparent and clear with their expectation management.

The tech deserves far more than this.

PAH - ‘the trial hasn’t finished’ absolute boll0x. Have a look at every major trial of similar execution. They all release early data. Especially when things are extended. Shasqi, AlDox, Doxil, i can do on.

I don’t think it works? I know intrinsically that it does.

Bandit - fair point. I’ll continue to reserve judgement until tomorrow evening.

Numbers are material in my view. 100%.

From a comm’s POV, I agree Apre. But why consistently imply data will be presented, only to never have the intention of doing so? This is edging in the extreme.

A p1ss take.

Every presentation for 2 years has specifically street that a comprehensive data package will be made available. “Initial data will be presented”.

What have they got to hide. Show us some numbers. Another carrot snatched at the last minute.

Exactly. Minus the rhubarb, the board used to be a resource. Not now.

“They are not concerned for your finances. They are here to fill you with fear and take advantage.”

Can we change LSE’s branding to run with the above.

It’s an emotional wreck. The entire board. Perfect example is BV’s comment re SP tank if no RNS. He’s correct - it will. Nothing wrong with the comment, but does drop into the FUD category because of the persuasion of the board.

AS has CLEARLY stated that early data will be presented tomorrow. We haven’t had any yet, ergo, he has to release it tomorrow or else he’s lying. Simple.

Sit back, load up, or better still, leave the board. It’s a cesspit.

What he said. I’m going again too.

That’s not what the RNS states at all. It’s IMPLIED. The test failed. If you care to read every other RNS written by AS on the LFT you’ll see things weren’t exactly true.

Facts are - the test was not commercially viable. It’s could not compete with the competition in terms of performance and cost. No numbers were published - ‘high viral loads’. No data.

Move on from it. Honestly.