Member Info for BuenaVista

MG, that is fi!

Memo to Sirius Computing Tech Corp: I know it's a difficult concept for HurstBot to grasp but Avacta's trademarked pre|CISION technology is not the same as 'precision medicine' so please institute an update to its Search & Find module that will identify and act accordingly on this difference.

So you're one step ahead of big pharma. I get it. Once they 'realise' what you've already surmised...

And btw, whilst pre|CISION may be used on proven drugs, the big opportunities are with cytotoxins that are too deadly to have been proven as drugs on the market.

I know Monkeysponge from another BB where he was and, still is, a basher. Clearly he sees the opportunity there and is angling for a lower buy in. Fair enough, one should always try to buy in at the low end, although bashing is morally questionable. So, Monkeysponge is a manupulator, and a persuasive one, and investors should beware of his constant ramping (with factual errors, but hey! who needs facts?) now that he has had his epiphany.

"Big pharma will pay for this once they see the data and realise the chance of success here is the highest they're ever going to get in any M&A given precision is proven and the drugs it will be used on are proven."

Have you seen the data? Why do you think you have a better handle on what the data says than big pharma currently has?

Also, what are the drugS, plural, that it will be used on that are proven?

Basic maths. Can't you work it out yourself?

It would be crowfoot. But I'm wondering whether FDA scrutinisation of the data as part of the approval process for a fortnightly trial would be a sufficient surrogate. Specifically for setting the starting dose and the allowable percentage increases.

If, for instance the FDA conclude that C6, for which they will have full QC'd data, is safe and tolerable and shows signs of efficacy, then a starting dose of 2/3 of that would show confidence in the data. Starting at 2/3 of C7, if the initial data for that cohort could be included, would be even better. Or maybe they might conclude that giving the C6 level or something close to it every 2 weeks was a safe starting dose. Interesting times.

Jimbo,

Please explain the "Poor strategy and weak leadership" comment. In what way is the strategy poor? What should the strategy be, in your opinion? Why do you say the leadership is weak?

I realise you are underwater with this share and so are frustrated but the company is facing headwinds as it is a loss making tech company in an out of favour sector. However that will change at some point, maybe with next November's US elections, and in the meantime the CWR share price may decline further but I regard that as a buying/topping up opportunity. It is important to have a long timescale, good research/belief in the investment case/decision and a lot of patience. And of course to only invest what one is prepared to have written off as a complete loss.

@Matml74

AS: "...we believe that eventually AVA6000 may become the standard of care for some Sarcoma indications."

AS: "P2 will be a longer trial and will require regulatory approval of the trial design [for registrational approval] as well as our choice of the sub-sets of Sarcoma."

If 80 sarcoma sub-types are regarded by the FDA as a single indication, then yes, I'll believe you. In the meantime, physicians will be free to prescribe AVA6000 off-label as first line treatment for all sarcomas, which means money in pocket for Avacta. Maybe a post-marketing (a follow upto the 'pivotal Phase 2' or a Phase 4) to prove efficacy in all sarcomas? Erm.. Maybe oneor two Phase 2 (FAP-sensitive) AVA6000 vs (not FAP sensitive) doxorubicin trials might be a good idea, yeah? Afterall, what's the point of giving AVA6000 if there isn't the FAP there to cleave it? So yes, some diagnostic for FAP concentrations prior to treatment in other sub-types seems sensible.

don't let the door hit your **** on the way out.

Forget all this Telegram group rubbish, I just want to know how many pints it'll take to get Alan singing like a canary.

@JT, I think the strategy is clearly to get AVA6000 approved for some sarcomas and then license/partner out for more lucrative cancers (breast, ovarian first, and then others) and maybe revisit the other sarcomas later for exclusive Avacta sales if the market size if big enough or they can bag several sub-types with one or two Phase 2 trials.

Of course, AVA6000 may always be prescribed off-label by physicians for those other sarcomas.

@Eggy, do you think the CEO should not meet with a shareholder group representing circa 16% of the company's shareholding?

🤡

He learnt not to fall prey to the temptation of being spiked thanks to Jeeves

Lots and lots of positive stuff of interest there but I would just draw your attention to the comments about sarcomas, with apologies for LSE's senseless line formatting:

Page 2:

AS: "...we believe that eventually AVA6000 may become the standard of care for some Sarcoma indications."

FM: "When you open too many sarcoma sub-types in a study you may get poor results. This has been seen with other companies historically, so we want to restrict the sub-types. Sarcomas are a very diverse disease [sic] with 80 sub-sets of different patient sub-types. The aim is to select a few sub-types sensitive to Dox and high in FAP to maximise the chances of success of the phase 2 pivotal study."

AS: "Though sarcomas are a relatively rare cancer, if we get AVA6000 registered in this indication you can then broaden out into other indications such as breast and ovarian."

Page 3:

AS: "P2 will be a longer trial and will require regulatory approval of the trial design [for registrational approval] as well as our choice of the sub-sets of Sarcoma."

AS: "Our strategy is to get 6000 approved in a small, quick P2 study, and then we can then partner with others for larger indications such as breast and ovarian."

AS: "For sarcomas it would be feasible [to go it alone for a launch - manufacture and sales] but it would be highly unusual for a biotech like Avacta to build sales and supply capability - it's far more usual to partner with a larger pharma partnet."

-----------------

So it seems that unless Avacta do a subsequent pivotal Phase 2 trial for some low and medium FAP-level sarcomas (to show efficacy over the range of 80 sub-types), AVA6000 will only get approved for a few susceptible sarcomas. Not a big problem in and of itself (unless these have very small incidence), but maybe stop talking about AVA6000 being a treatment for all sarcomas?

10p now. Well done. You're gettingt here.

Gotta love the newbies that coming on here knowing nothing and telling us they know nothing. One line baseless statements are a dead give away. PUT MORE EFFORT IN if you want those 20p payments, this lot are only worth 2p. So well done Redhotstinks, that's 8p so far in a single day. Well on your way to being a millionaire.😂😂😂 🙄🤡

You ain't seen nothing yet Slacker. 20p placing incoming.

Is there anything there that he couldn't have divulged if he'd given answers for all the questions asked at the laughably entitled Q&A after the recent imterims presentation?

@Icecool, why don't you ask AS if you don't believe the people here?

@Donkey, would it be any more complicated than it is now?

It's a bluff