Member Info for DonaldTrumpsWig

Yes Crowfoot thank you, having a senior moment !! wish we had an edit function !!

Ignore him JDT

If he had bothered to read the RNS he would have noted that the losses in the TX division for H1 have reduced significantly to £400k down from £2.6 mil H1 last year. I would wager with confidence that TX will move into profit H2 this year. Integration of new businesses takes time and money and it looks like they are well on course to move into profit.

Having said that, focussing on the TX division today is a desperate, last ditch attempt at FUD with the single aim of distracting from the real story.

TX may well go on to be a very successful sub-division of AVCT, however when compared to the DX story it is so secondary that it is almost irrelevant. Don't let the Fudsters obfuscate and move it up the agenda and make it out to be more important than it really is. In the grand scheme of the AVCT investment case it is a clear side-story

Jeeez Eggy, I've seen some p iss poor click bait/FUD attempts but that last post takes the biscuit LOL

1st prize was 2 tickets to next years ASCO conference…2nd prize was 4 tickets ………🙄

The only potential complication I can see of diverging the DX division is the Affimer IP.

I tend to agree that on the surface the DX division appears to be a distraction from the main event, however the binding factor of the two divisions is the Affimer which is key for both diagnostic development and TMAC

Just need approval from Porton Down and the PO's will be flooding in directly from Bythell's blackberry

What is absolutely clear is that anyone with concerns about funding have never run a business.

Lending institutions are inherently risk averse and require proof of your ability to repay your debt (ask anyone who has applied for a mortgage recently). Business funding is no different.

Heights obviously saw enough to provide the last round of funding and I have absolutely no doubt that successful P1a results coupled with the implied runway to significant revenues will provide AVCT with the funding 'optionality' that AS alluded to.

Yes Tim, I think it was EF who was enthusing that the 'really cool thing' about the Pre/Cision chemistry was its ability to bind to the stroma, the very thing that cancer cells use to protect themselves.

My understanding is that ADC's have a reduced ability to penetrate cancer cells due to their large size and consequently have much reduced specificity compared to AVA

Very true Allaboutbucks,, Seagen are years ahead of Avacta as a company in terms of their development & revenues.

My comparison was simply relating to the competing technologies and whilst I have to admit that I am no scientist it seems clear that PreCision/TMAC has many significant advantages over ADC's, the hitherto 'magic bullet' of cancer therapies.

Including:

Less specific than Pre/Cision with reduced (compared to standard chemo) but still significant side-effects

Challenges with cell penetration as a consequence of their large size

Complex, slow & expensive to produce

ADC's target antigens can reduce their prevalence when subjected to frequent exposure making it more difficult for ADC's to bind to their target.

There is little doubt that ADC's currently represent the cutting edge technology of targeted cancer therapies, however a 'paradigm shift' is on the horizon

Apologies if this comparison has been made previously but as we wait for Thursday's update I have been reading about Pfizers buyout of Seagen from earlier this year.

https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-invests-43-billion-battle-cancer

$43 billion for an ADC based targeted cancer therapy expected to generating revenues of $10 billion by 2030

It's very difficult to read the article without concluding that the PreCision/TMAC platform is going to come along and steal Pfizers/Seagens lunch. PreCision is going to be faster/more specific & cheaper to produce and in the right hands could also readily be generating revenues of $10 billion + before 2030

How much is PreCision/TMAC worth? if Seagen is worth $43 billion ?, perhaps $25 billion (circa $100 per share) ???

Have Pfizer purchased Blackberry just before the iPhone is launched?

Sadly Ice, none of us know for certain why we are sat at £1.29

My personal theory is based on the fable of the emperors new clothes, or if you prefer a more recent example, the Movie 'The Big Short'

Very occasionally, a small number of people can see something before everyone else sees it. The combination of (as Charles Archer pointed out), inherent fear of the sector. A poorly researched investment community (AS Sunday Times), Illiquid market (AIM) with an uninformed rainbow chasing investor pool, etc etc I could go on, but it's not because AS was mislead by Boris and his chums.

Wish I knew? but I'm convinced it's not because of what AS said in relation to the LFT

Sorry Ice

If you think, Like WYN, that 'the market doesn’t trust Avacta based on previous actions' and you arrive at this conclusion based on comments AS made about the LFT during the entirely unique circumstances surrounding AVCT during the whole Covid/MHRA/Bythell saga, then you are as daft as him

My question (the one WYN ignored) was:

'What, specifically in relation to the ALS-6000 -101 trial, has AS said that is 'hyperbole' or 'over hyped'. ? Surely that is a more relevant question as opposed to dragging up spurious, unrelated nonsense from 3 years ago.

WYN

You repeatedly attack AS using terms such as; 'Hyperbole', 'poor track record', 'over hyped', suggest that 'his remarks 'don't count for a lot' and infer that this the reason that SP isn't higher because the 'market has to take it on what AS says'. I'm sorry but that is the biggest load of nonsense you've written and the bar is very low.

What, specifically in relation to the ALS-6000-trial, has AS said that is 'hyperbole' or 'over hyped'. You say the market is waiting 'until specific data is released? what data are they waiting for?

Is the market is too thick to listen to Andrew Saunders or read the Science day information? Is it too thick to read last weeks RNS where data relating to cohort 7 and the data around 385 mg/m2 and how that equates to 3.5 standard dose was clearly explained?

Is the market too thick to grasp that the 'delays' you often refer to are not because 'AS's remarks don't count for a lot' but because the company has been overtaken by events, it's a trial to develop a paradigm shift in cancer treatment. The trial has exceeded all expectations, the company has had to go back to the regulators for additional cohorts, to change the trial design, to recruit additional patients etc etc. Only last week it RNS'd changes in the trial design for P2, is this because they were reacting to emerging data from cohort 6? or because AS likes nothing better than taking the p iss out of the market?

For you to suggest that the SP is where it is because the market is 'wary of his remarks' is moronic in the extreme and frankly garbage

Charles Archer in his article goes to great lengths to stress that AIM/Small Cap Pharma/Drug trials in general carry inherent risk. Historical precedents prove this to be true, however, whilst we have this lull into Thursday's update, what do we think are the greatest risks to AVCT's chances of success.? Even being deliberately pessimistic, I'm struggling to find any significant risks:

Safety & Tolerability, I think this is pretty much a given, no MTD going into cohort 7 with patients receiving levels of dox that would probably kill them if administered systemically. Even with zero efficacy this is more than enough for AVA6k to replace standard dox as the standard of care.

Efficacy, still very early but biopsy results, early cohort patients still receiving AVA6k, 'incredible' results from initial STS patient. I accept this is a clinical trial and the design has to be followed and completed, however, when you consider the results from pre-clinical/Mouse data, I simply can't see why AVA6k in humans would diverge from these results and significantly out perform standard dox. Furthermore, I have yet to read any sensible argument why it wouldn't.

Funding, again, I really can't see a risk here, particularly after last week's RNS/Interview. No short term requirements, P2 trial runway shortened, AS comments about commercial discussions taking place. IMO, we have adequate funds to get us to the Q4 cohort 7, P1a data, early efficacy update. I feel it is safe to assume that so close to this update (Q4 next week) that this data will continue to be outstanding, if so, funders will be falling over themselves to get involved, and as AS pointed out, this is likely to be non-dilutive, which suggests that it won't be distressed/death spiral funding.

I'd be very interested to hear thoughts on other potential risks and/or if my assumptions sound too optimistic ?

Fascinating time to be part of the very exclusive Avacta LTH's club !!!!

You imagined it ....3996 still pre-clinical

Board has been great this week with lot's of sensible discussion, my reflections:

1. Single best RNS/Vox interview we have had in my 3+ years as a shareholder

2. A paradigm shift in cancer therapy now effectively a procedural certainty

3. Whilst the efficacy statement related to only one STS patient and AS pointed out that STS is a heterogeneous cancer, does anyone actually think that a kinder dox in higher/more targeted concentrations will not be superior to standard dox for all other STS tumours ?

4. SP is totally disconnected from the opportunity and today at £1.29 is the best price it has ever been as a risk v reward. For context, I have been accumulating shares for over 3 years and £1.29 is still below my average, what a time to buy.

5. Funding/raise concerns a complete red herring and a deliberate FUD distraction. AS made it clear there is no short term requirement and if and when the day comes that funding is required there will be no shortage of offers. Banks will always bet on dead certs.

6. Remain convinced that the TX division is being window dressed for a sale. For holistic reasons alone I think AS and the BOD will want BP to run with the platform to maximise speed of delivery to patients

7. My guess, enterprise value circa £5-10 billion with things getting interesting on publication of peer reviewed P1a/cohort 7/additional efficacy data, Q4 2023

Have a good weekend all

Eliot Forster also referenced his own experience in the USA during the 'booster' discussion at the AGM Q&A

Could be the case Muller but senior management join/leave companies all the time. There could be several reasons why he is leaving (or being asked to leave), none of which will have any significant bearing on the current trajectory of the company.

Nothing to see here and all the best to NB.

Adams, why do you infer that a fund raise is a bad thing ? If someone came to you and said that they had developed a paradigm shift in cancer treatment but needed funding to deliver it to millions of cancer sufferers, would you see that as a bad thing?

Having said that, and something you really need to try to understand, the CEO of Avacta said, only yesterday, that they didn't need any funding imminently and if they did they would seek non-dilutive options.

Time to give it up