Member Info for BuenaVista

If you're in need of reassurance that you've made the right decison and will soon be very rich, be sure to give the HurstBot fantasy ramp algorithm a rec if you haven't already.

The 231,000 and -231,000 look to me like a transfer, for example a dark pool trade whch can be recorded at any time post-trade, in or out of hours.

Dark pool post-trade reporting: While dark pool trades are not displayed on the LSE order book, they are reported to the national consolidated tape as OTC transactions after execution.

The other large out-of-hours ones look like the reporting of worked buy or sell trades on the market where, if a buy, all the small sells on the market will have been reported at the time, and vice versa for a worked sell.

What other types of OTC transactions are there?

Is that a fair reading of these trades?

AI would have to account for side-effects (off-target activity), for example the enzymes related to FAP that AVA6000 was tested against in vitro, and who knows what else in the body - enzymes active at different stages of life, unknown enzymes, acid environments... and also allow for genetic heterogeneity within the target population.

To be better than pre|CISION, AI would need to have a better model of the FAP receptor than Avacta is using and to design molecules to fit the receptor better than Avacta's are with their pre|CISION dipeptide plus two ends.

"Yeah, you are all quite right, I have no idea about anything.

"By the way, what loss are you sitting on? "

The argument of a person who has lost the argument.😂

Interesting. You seem to have mastered the law of supply and demand. Now explain this:

"If the stock is being bought within the dark pool why would it not reflect in a higher SP when the stock was attempted to be bought via the "normal, transparent platforms by presumably most investors.

"If you want to buy some stock via HL say, but the dark pool has all the available stock that is being snapped up then why wouldn't HL raise the SP to tempt sellers to get more stock?"

Wynbore is very intelligent and on the ball with all things trading yeah? Like how buying drives the price down and selling pushes it up...

So try and make sense of this:

"So CJ, I am not familiar with Dark pool buying so perhaps you can help.

"There is a finite amount of stock, yes?

"If the stock is being bought within the dark pool why would it not reflect in a higher SP when the stock was attempted to be bought via the "normal, transparent platforms by presumably most investors.

"If you want to buy some stock via HL say, but the dark pool has all the available stock that is being snapped up then why wouldn't HL raise the SP to tempt sellers to get more stock?"

I think it is saying that a broker such as HL acts as market maker by changing the share price. There is of course a fundamental misunderstanding here about what dark pool means and who is involved but, as I said, wynbore is very intelligent and doesn't need to do any research on the internet.

There do seem to be a large number of concurrent 'cancelled' trades today. Four that I can see in the LSE trades listing from 09:49.

Why would there be cancelled trades anyway, other than human error? And if human error, the trades wouldn't be at exactly the same time, would they?

I like the crossing networks, dark pool idea. That would be very positive at or around the ask price, yes?

Thoughts?

@COLDWATER, for the benefit of yourself but more for other board members...

A lot of the issues around funding and market interest are, as Thompi wrote, to do with the mess that the previous CEO created with hype, the Dx venture and the associated Heights bond. I say 'a lot' and not 'all' because Avacta is still an early stage clinical biopharma company with neglible income and an appetite for cash. In that respect it is no different from all the other early stage clinical biopharma companies that have been struggling due to market and financing conditions these past few years post-Covid.

As regards the Phase 1a trial, it has been very successful in its aims: AVA6000 is safe and well tolerated, which is the aim of any Phase 1a trial, and has shown early signs of efficacy at various dosing levels in a variety of cancers. It is important to bear in mind that:

1) Phase 1a cancer patients are, almost by definition, terminally ill - it would be unethical to test an uncharacterised drug on patients whose lives could be saved by receiving the standard of care treatment.

2) The cancers treated, at least in the Q3W cohorts, were chosen to maximise recruitment of patients with solid tumours where FAP is present - they were chosen to test proof of concept without regard to whether doxorubicin was an effective drug for the cancer type.

3) Patients had had various prior therapies that would be expected to affect the efficacy of doxorubicin - again, safety and tolerability were the aims here, not treatment.

4) The dose level increased during the trial from cohort to cohort - twice, once for Q3W dosing and then again for Q2W dosing - and with that the likelihood of efficacy as well as side-effects increased but no maximum tolerated dose was identified and the trial was stopped as there were signs of efficacy and with higher dose levels came considerations about the maximum lifetime cumulative dose (MLCD)- some AVA6000 for a time or more for a shorter time. Such a relatively small diverse collection of terminally ill, pre-treated patients, diverse by cancer type, dose level and prior treatment, doesn't make for any sort of statistical reliability with respect to successful efficacy - that will be looked for in Phase 1b and beyond.

5) Some trial results have been given along the way and the final results should be presented in peer-reviewed form in a journal when the trial has completed, remembering that measurements continue until at least one year post cessation of treatment for any survivors. This is normal. As the patients were terminally ill, had cancers that weren't treatable with doxorubicin, had refractory tumours, etc., they are unlikely to survive (unless AVA6000 was a wonderdrug for them) but for as long as any do they will continue to receive AVA6000 until MLCD.

@COLDWATER re "all the signs tell me you're wrong"

What are all those signs?

I'll leave it to board members to decide for themselves whether that was the response of a mature well-balanced individual or a narcissist with a fragile ego.

Aquisace, I think I'd better warn you in advance about Timster...

"Well, if I’m wrong, then it’s even worse, because it’s completely unprofessional from a board member of Avacta."

Classic narcissist. Thinks he's wiser and cleverer than everyone else and then tries to put the blame on others rather than take responsibiity for his - very loud and public - mistake. Oh well, nothing new in the world there.

Oh how cute! You've obviously taken our mores to heart.

Oh no it isn't!

Thanks ES. Good to see your partner removes the restraints periodically.

That URL didn't work for me. I think this is the one: https://www.lassmanfdalaw.com/orphan-drug-designation-the-gift-that-keeps-on-giving/

It's certainly what I remember seeing although now, as previously, I find the description confusing.

This suggests that the ODD can't be transferred to other indications, only to other formulations: "The only requirement is that the new product must contain the same active moiety and be intended for the same orphan use as the drug that received the original designation."

And this passage seems to back that up: "When United Therapeutics Corporation (UTC) requested ODD for Orenitram, its third treprostinil drug, FDA initially rejected that request on the grounds that Orenitram had not been shown to be “clinically superior” to the two previous products. However, in a March 23, 2016, letter, FDA abruptly reversed course and took the position that “Orenitram was covered under UTC’s previous orphan drug designation for the active moiety treprostinil for use in the treatment of PAH (pulmonary hypertension).” According to the Agency, ODD is conferred on the active moiety rather than the product formulation. Thus, “because FDA previously granted orphan drug designation to UTC for treprostinil in the treatment of PAH (i.e., for Remodulin), UTC was not technically required to submit a request to designate [Orenitram] for the treatment of PAH.”"

A case for a lawyer to sort it out.

And you may drop dead tomorrow. And the market doesn't care one way or the other.

Just saying.

This sentence...

"Its lead FAP-Dox (‘AVA6000’) program’s final Phase 1a (n=11 pts) and Phase 1b (up to 30 pts) expansion cohort data in salivary gland cancer (‘SGC’), an orphan indication, is expected toward the end of 2025, with triple negative breast cancer (‘TNBC’) following in H1 2026."

...is specific to SGC (n=11 in Phase 1a, n≤30 in Phase 1b), so does the ODD from STS transfer over to any other orphan indication - or indeed just any indication? That is what I had thought when ODD was first announced and looked into - by Energyshares, as I remember.

You'll need to read the fine detail in the Important Notices section.

/irony