Member Info for CTSFO

yorkshire’ try googling “john his**** cancer charity” it was still there a min ago. and screenshot….

Best advice I’ve seen: set a sell order for all your shares at a ludicrously high price. No fear of losing them, and shorts can’t then borrow them. But everyone has to do it to make it work.

Business is business, charity is charity. Utter hypocrisy to run for a cancer charity… oh look at me… 😇😇😇, then set out to undermine a cancer research company.

Due Diligence at FCA is taking time, and is being done very thoroughly. 1 in 7 applications approved.

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-13468461/Crypto-rush-fuels-money-laundering-fears-FCA-approves-just-1-7-firms.html

I’m not, but let’s just say very very closely associated in the past. It became an in joke.

Exactly.

I wondered why 🚬🚬🚬🦷 suggested shorting Avacta! Not for one picosecond am I suggesting correlation = anything naughty. They must both be picking up the same ‘vibes’. 😇😇😇

Keep plodding on and stay safe - there are some bad people out there.

5, 17, 36, 416. Which is the odd one out?

Evening Kong. Basically the same to and fro banter between the same key posters. Nature abhors a (news) vacuum and all that. Hope you’re well.

FFS

The Sarcoma FAP level dataset.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10275689/bin/2480493.f1.docx

She responded because she has to. A shareholder making contact with a company must be acknowledged and replied to. Her answer is polite and absolutely correct. Nothing has changed since the RNS. That’s laid out their plans, nothing to add. In other words, everything is going exactly to plan, don’t worry!

Tiger, RUA have never mentioned a 6 month time frame re material testing in any of their RNSs. I don’t know where you’ve got this from, but it’s not RUA. The heart valve stuff is important, but a small part of the overall business at present. Your money, your choice. I’d say it would take at least 6 months and that’s after they’ve decided what valve they want to build. And all of their other test to destruction work they need to see to be happy.

All we actually know, as fact, is that the global player received a material sample between December 2023 and 5th April 2024. We’re all just going to have to wait. It is what it is.

ANGIOSARCOMA VS UPS and FAP STATUS

This might be very important:

AS “Angiosarcoma of the spleen

79-year-old female with the diagnosis of angiosarcoma treated at

250 mg/m Q3W.

Minor Response with visceral (hepatic) metastases reduction of 14% at cycle 2 and -22% at cycle 4

Continued shrinkage of liver metastases at cycle 4 scan with interval development of new bone metastases (mixed response)”

VS

UPS “Instead of progression, his tumours continue to shrink. At the November 2023 cutoff, the tumours at shrunk by 65%. By the Jan. 2024 cutoff it had shrunk to nearly 80%. So it is the fact that ava6k can be given for much longer periods that is going to be the game changer here.”

Angiosarcomas are incredibly rare, thankfully. They make up 1% of Sarcomas.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10275689/

This research article shows that FAP is low in Angiosarcoma (only 1 or 2 cases in the dataset), but moderate to high in a sequence of UPSs.

If this is replicated across all Angiosarcomas and UPSs, we can better interpret the results of Q2W vs the exact Sarcoma being treated.

FAPI-PET scanning makes more and more sense.

GLA everyone.

Just reposting this excellent piece from JT

“ The Undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma (UPS) patient, who I believe is likely to become the first "complete response" patient on the ava6k trial, began their ava6k treatment in Feb. 2023. Their tumours are sensitive to dox, but if they were given straight dox, they would only be allowed 6 cycles, meaning that their treatment would have ended after 18 weeks, which would have been in June or July. Progression free survival of sarcoma patients after ending their dox treatment is just 2 or 3 months (it is 6-7 months from the beginning of streatment).

Instead of progression, his tumours continue to shrink. At the November 2023 cutoff, the tumours at shrunk by 65%. By the Jan. 2024 cutoff it had shrunk to nearly 80%. So it is the fact that ava6k can be given for much longer periods that is going to be the game changer here.

Just a reminder that many tumours are sensitive to dox, but that 6 cycles is simply not enough to wipe them out. In fact, the tumours are often just starting to show significant shrinkage when the treatment stops. Precision will upend this, drastically improving response rates and improving the quality of life at the same time.”

NOOOOOOO!!!! I want more cheap shares please!!

Being respectful and serious, no telling how AIM would respond to a random lukewarm RNS. Plenty of people who love trying to crash a company, spread military grade FUD, if the RNS isn’t diamond encrusted platinum. We don’t want to dilute the potential impact of the RNS telling us the product is going to taken on.

But must admit, we’re way undervalued at present. A very cheap TO target. Trying to square a circle here. Here’s to the “big F ME RNS” soon.

Evening BV, this is tricky: “ Thoughts on what Phase 1b and Phase 2 will look like, re number of patients in the cohorts and number of weeks in each phase, which will surely be much more predictable than open-ended Phase 1a?”

To date the focus of the trials have been safety over efficacy. Deciding on trial design and numbers to treat is going to be challenging. STS is composed of approx 50 different sarcomas. Assuming ‘one drug kills then all equally’ isn’t necessarily correct. This paper suggests sarcoma therapy must be histology directed.

https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/EDBK_205423

BUT: we know FAPI-PET imaging is going to be used going forward. Very similar to histology (which gets performed on nearly all cancers where it influences treatment) in that the trial will know the FAP status of the sarcoma. How this influences ongoing treatment (inclusion / exclusion or simply a base marker that will subsequently help decide if pre/CISION delivery will work) and how it can be used to track progress of the treatment / disease.

Please don’t take this as blatant ramping! I wouldn’t be surprised if AVA6000 gets approval way before 2028, and accept it could be way after… we all know timelines change.

Why earlier?: from a simple regulatory perspective AVA6000 is a new drug with Orphan Drug Status that must meet safety and efficacy criteria to be approved. That’s simply a fact. But it’s a pro-drug, and the active agent is very well known and extensively researched. All of this existing data can be used to show present day efficacy and safety, help design trials to give most bang for a buck, and allow for early outcome comparisons. Cancer registries, all of the other outcome trials, the dataset Avacta already hold.

To me, it’s different to a brand new molecule having to be proven. Some orphan drugs have been approved after phase 1/2 trials, though this is rare. I just think we’re in a unique situation here. Fingers crossed, and good luck everyone.

Do companies review and correct Brokers’ Notes prior to publication? Picking up on what Touk has said, I’m wondering if TPI have confirmed with Avacta that they are still planning to go all the way to market with AVA6000 on their own? Hopefully an update from the new CEO will be coming once she has reviewed everything. If they are planning on going all the way, not sure that changes anything? BP will know they have to buy Avacta outright if a JV isn’t on the cards? We wait and see.