Member Info for Caughtsneezing

This narrative twisting when we haven’t actually seen any sts results is akin to the modern day Le Tissier. The chin stokers can unite under that banner as they like but there is no fall back position once results that exceed Dox in STS and TNBC drop in 2 weeks.

I don’t think this is a case of getting the best deal, more a case of not being able to get one right now.

Seems pretty clear that the requirement for an additional cohort at 250 mg/m means that we can’t apply for accelerated approval and until we have that and are full p2 ready a deal is off the table.

Framing it as tactical rather than an unavoidable delay is red tinted specs imv.

Efficacy in SGC is PFS, which still hasn't been reached.

What else was expected and why were you expecting more? The power of dox was overramped by Myles & go 4 years ago but surely expectations of complete responses in difficult to treat indications were tempered a long time ago. There wouldn't be a requirement for Exatecan to be 50x more powerful if all that was required was a targeting dox.

Using this as a read across to TNBC and STS, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if we saw "better" results in both TNBC and STS, albeit with smaller cohorts given the recruitment issues that have only just been cleared by the lifting of the lifetime limit.

These results show that dox is being delivered in meaningful doses to the TME, it's finally time that the we see the evidence of dox being dox.

Slight frustration with the need for the 250 cohort as that is likely delaying our ability to partner SGC by a few months but all of this is very positive. The implications for other indications and AVA6103 are very exciting.

Are they allowed to reveal over the weekend without RNS first? It’s functionally the same outcome but I’d thought all material disclosures required the RNS to happen before they happened.

Agreed on the first point – there are only so many times we can keep kicking the can down the road. To me, it feels fairly clear that CC has a target price in mind, whether that’s ultimately achieved via a third party or independently. Personally though, I would prefer to take a slightly lower number now than have to wait until post 6103 P2 having been gradually diluted up to that point, even if it is ultimately the most profitable avenue. Given the amount of white hair in the science day pictures, I suspect that a lot of investors would align to that view too.

On the second point, I’m less convinced. There’s a certain irony in repeatedly saying we’d already know if the results were blockbuster or that something must have gone wrong, while at the same time criticising overly speculative bull cases. The reality is we simply don’t know, but we should know a lot more within the next 4 weeks. Ultimately, if you don’t believe there’s a reasonable chance of delivering at least part of the upside, it does beg the question of why you’d stay invested at all.

Re Dubliner @ 08:48

Thank you for that interpretation, I went back to rewatch that element of the video this morning and still wasn't following the meaning there. Long exposure vs short saturation makes sense there and hopefully the company will already see whether that is working as intended.

One imagines that once finances are in place a reworked long exposure AVA6000 will be developed to counter that off target seepage as required.

Any 6103 content will be a good sign but would expect this to be more forward looking stuff.

Options for 6207 and other pipeline stuff, expansions on the chemistry etc. The usual Twitter people will interpret any personal interaction positively but will likely be able to get a small steer one way or the other on how 6103 is going by the overall vibe but would be pleasantly surprised if we got anything that impacts the share price too much whether now or in the future.

Is he out of pocket on the sentiment statement though?

News flow has definitely ticket up over the last year or so. It feels like there was a time when we could go 4-5 months without an update. Now, per the list the Stonks shares periodically on twitter, we're up to 21 talks/presentations + a similar number of RNS (some of which will be for the talks...).

That isn't a mistake, a gear has been shifted and they are elbowing their way onto the table with more stratified company. Funding remains a huge issue that can only be kicked down the road so many more times but at some point something's got to land and stick.

Commitment to publishing date in H1 implies that we are close to reaching the average median progression free survival number. No point in cutting and releasing the data now if you're going to redo in 6 weeks with another 2 datapoints.

Worth remembering that this AVA6000 was run via MHRA but this time round will be US based so FDA is the advisory board. I seen to remember a lot of the delays being put at MHRA's door.

AACR is in April with abstracts published in 2 weeks, ASCO is end of May with titles published April 21.

Given Chris's comments this week and the placement on the gant chart I imagine we get the SGC and TNBC update at one of those. Given the data hasn't been cut yet you'd imagine it will be ASCO to update on AVA6000.

Unless it is blowing the doors off I would be surprised if we got any 6103 data in H1 but we will see when they publish the trial design.

Re viewing as a the platform technology, I suspect that is warhead dependent.

For known quantities you would hope that they would be able to progress a bit quicker, with the more potent drugs that failed trials due to toxicity you're going to have to prove each time that the delivery system sufficiently tempers the side effects. I don't see that being an application of a platform will really make a difference for those.

Off the top of my head I can think of about £100m raised since the trial began, much of which was either lost on bad M&A or went on interest. Where does the £200m spent number come from?

They clearly worked 12 months ago but the market still didn’t ascribe true value to 2 of the 5 largest companies in the world. If the market can be wrong on them then what else can it be wrong on.

I probably shouldn’t have had to clarify that was the point on that one.

Google had added about 1.4 trillion in market cap over the last year but is materially the same company as it was 12 months ago. Facebook did the same about 2 1/2 years ago.

This the market values it at 50p so that what it’s worth stuff doesn’t hold any water whatsoever. Pure cope.

If you need four walls and a roof to unlock your mortgage, it is unwise to start building the swimming pool first.

On balance, probably not. As I see it that would be slightly more than we should be valued based on SGC alone but those results should provide a read across to TNBC too which would then put AVA6000 squarely in that range on its own in about 6 months time.

At that point you are only a couple of months away from some preliminary 6103 data. If that is positive then the sky is the limit, if not then £3-£4b is still achievable and another 18 months doesn't matter in my timelines at least.

"Remember though for SGC FAP-Dox is effectively only up against Placebo (no existing Oncology treatment that it has to beat), the very definition of the lowest low hanging fruit"

This is a bad application of the data.

Fap-Dox is still up against every other drug that has sought to address SGC. It is just that none of those other drugs have succeeded to the point where they are more beneficial than a placebo enough of the time. I'm sure an interested researcher could find a list of drugs that are effective in other indications that have tried and failed though.

Making the correct noises although until there is something concrete about fast track timings and revenues NASDAQ isn’t really feasible. We need to be more certain about our ability to maintain the price over $1 ad infinitum before then.

I do wish CC would stop referring to the headcount though. To me it allows a narrative of little Avacta are there to be taken advantage of rather than look what we’ve done with such a small team.