Member Info for benbenbenben

As Rxdav says, It only reduced to 0.49% before - it was never clear if it they fully closed it

Everything is down - war with Russia in Ukraine looking increasingly likely; my entire watchlist is a sea of red and every major indices (except volatility index...) also tanking. Eurasia mining (Russia) down 13%; lots of other AIM stocks in a similar position...

Travel Light - FDA require any available in-human data to be submitted for trial approval. Given the FDA's 30 day response time and known date of first dosing, this would have been available for inclusion.

Ergo it is not unreasonable to take FDA approval as a positive signal regarding the trial. In a recent Vox market podcast, Gervais Williams of Premier Miton took the same view and he seems to be good as his job...

I was thinking this the other day…

Quite clearly a lot to be read across to the AVA6000 trial from this - why advance the precision platform pipeline if your data rich, ongoing trial of precision shows it’s not working?

My favourite part is this bit as it just simply states what precision does as fact:

“ Avacta's pre|CISIONTM chemistry is used to modify chemotherapy drugs to render them inactive in the circulation until they enter the tumour micro-environment where they are activated by an enzyme called fibroblast activation protein a (FAP). This enzyme is in high abundance in most solid tumours but, crucially, not in healthy tissues. The pre|CISIONTM platform therefore offers a way to reduce systemic exposure to, and improve the safety of, these effective and affordable cancer drugs.”

Inference, but I’m taking from that they’re now very confident on how the platform is performing.

GLA!

Avacta is also on the list in case people weren't aware (not that it means much..) - https://covid-19-diagnostics.jrc.ec.europa.eu/devices/detail/2426

Given the known issues with antibodies and Avacta's USP being Affimers as an alternative, why the test design relies on a secondary antibody over an Affimer is really beyond me...

There's no real sugar coating today's announcement as anything other than the latest shambles in a disastrous commercial roll-out.

The best case scenario I can see is the company are ahead of the curve and rapidly return to market with an enhanced test as regulators force the competitors from the shelves - but given we're two years into the pandemic and still struggling to sell at scale, there's hardly much cause for optimism.

The technology is fantastic and long term I think this will win out, but ahead of the AVA 6000 results - which now seems to be the only bright spot on the immediate horizon - I think the LFT will be so late to a crowded market it'll have a negligible impact on the SP in the near term.

I think the BOD are well overdue giving investors a comprehensive update now - like everyone I'm intensely frustrated...

Good find on the connection; interesting their offices are in Manchester (as with MEDUSA19), Boston Massachusetts and New York - so clearly a decent American connection.

Also interesting from the website:

"We are currently engaged worldwide, including in Argentina, Brazil, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Germany, India, Paraguay, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, UAE, United States, and Uruguay."

Fingers crossed for some good news soon!

Hope your daughter has a speedy recovery Pigster!

Like you I've abandoned this board in recent months to focus on work, given there's not a huge amount left to do except wait and the quality of posts has, er, deteriorated...

Still holding the lot though - I imagine there's a fair few former posters who now just skim read. I look forward to the day when there is something more substantial to discuss!

"Immunotherapy does not involve chemo so why are we reading about this trial nothing to do with AVA6000 and Avacta"

Because as Rorkes Drift highlights, a key therapeutic target in this study was PD-L1 - Avacta has three (3) programs targeting PD-L1; success in another companies trial in eradicating disease via PD-L1 validates this approach.

A trial at the Royal Marsden has found a ****tail of immunotherapy drugs (antibody-based) has eradicated tumours in some terminally ill patients.

Key takeaway from the piece:

"The results of the trial show the immunotherapy combination enjoyed a particularly high success rate in a group of patients whose tumours had high levels of an immune marker called PD-L1."

Hopefully, this bodes well for Avacta's PD-L1 programs, one of which LG Chem are moving into pre-clinical development.

The researchers state the results "lack statistical significance" but are "clinically meaningful" - perhaps, given the advantages of Affimers over antibodies, Avacta's programs can improve the efficacy of this approach...

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/oct/11/new-cancer-treatment-destroys-tumours-in-terminally-ill-finds-trial

"very pleased with progress to date" stated in relation to the dosed patients !!

Perhaps a leak - but I think BBC business running a story about how there are insufficient LFT's to meet present demand would give LFT producers a boost; Abingdon up 30% in the last hour also...

Thanks for sharing your thoughts Myles.

It would seem there is indeed still a significant market for LFT's - given supply apparently cannot keep up with demand:

"Travel rule change delayed by lateral flow test shortage

Covid testing firms are facing a shortage of lateral flow tests, says Transport Secretary Grant Shapps.

He told MPs this was the reason for delaying the date when PCR tests will be removed for travellers returning to England.

The travel industry has called on the government to confirm when in October the rules will be changed.

Mr Shapps said it would take several weeks to switch from PCR tests to lateral flow tests.

Addressing the Transport Select Committee, he said the Department of Health was responsible for making the decision.

However, he stressed that his colleagues were aware of school half-term dates and understood the speed required to implement this change.

"But my understanding is that the ramp-up of supply of lateral flow [tests] through the private testing sector has some way to go [since] they have been almost entirely been involved in providing PCR [tests] currently," he told MPs.

When questioned by MP Ben Bradshaw about why this was an issue, since many test providers also offer lateral flow tests, Mr Shapps said it was a question of scale.

"We go from a situation where they are providing a low number of thousands [of tests], to probably millions of tests very quickly and need a few weeks to scale up on it," he said.

He added that the extra few weeks were needed for making sure the administrative switch-over when the rules changed went off without a hitch."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58656292

Wyndrum - the book finally arrived; will let you know my thoughts on reading it!

That London address looks interesting - https://www.scalespace.co.uk/

Thanks Poirot!

Presumably this would help with clinical trials in the States - am I right in thinking Al has previously mentioned this?

@scaredey - if you control+f "scientific advisory" in the latest annual report it only comes up 5 times: once in relation to governance, the other four in relation to the former director who left the board to chair the scientific advisory board.

Which would support your point that If the SAB barely feature in the annual report and have a largely backroom oversight function, it would make sense to take them off the primary landing page for 'people' in a website reorganisation.

No just their names are off the website - I said 'make of that what you will' because I have no idea what, if anything, that means.

I only noticed because someone flagged the site had been updated and put the archived version side by side, so I had a little look.

They've updated the site generally so perhaps they have just consolidated content - I wouldn't infer any conclusions from it!