Member Info for DonaldTrumpsWig

The Telegram shareholder group have been in communication with AS and asked if he would be open to receiving a series of questions for the webinar.

He has agreed to this and a poll was taken from which 10 questions were selected and submitted. IMO the questions were excellent and comprehensively covered much of what we are all seeking to understand.

It remains to be seen how comprehensively he answers ??

Stating facts is not ramping, stating that AVA6000 has demonstrated a remarkable safety and tolerability profile is not ramping, stating that early signs of efficacy have been seen is not ramping, stating that the company has approx 2 years worth of cash is not ramping, these along with many other statements are facts, RNS'd and in the public domain available for independent scrutiny.

Saying that the company is likely to fail in future because they haven't produced a working LFT, or they will fail in future because they haven't met previous timelines, or they are likely to fail because at some point in the future they will need more money, or they will fail because they haven't yet demonstrated efficacy is nothing more than supposition and guesswork.

It is nothing more than a prediction of the future with no basis in empirical evidence and it is only right that it should be discounted as such. Similarly 'the market' has arrived at its valuation on Avacta based, not on the data, but on its assumptions of the likelihood of the science being commercialised and when that will take place. It is nothing more than a collective opinion with no basis in fact. It is clear the market doesn't rate the chances too highly currently, researched LTH's rate the chances much higher. Somebody will be right, somebody will be wrong

To use supposition and guesswork as a legitimate counter-argument to published scientific data is wrong and only done by an individual with either, a limited intellect, or a spurious agenda. Discussion and debate and counter arguments about the data is healthy and valuable.

'Debate' that centres around an opinion, around a 'what if', around a comparison with the LFT is a waste of time and is propagated only by narcissists and sealions and should be ignored, binned or reported.

Take your pick with regards to the posters on here

Ice & B2 agree with all that. I would only add that what began as a simple concept (identify a MTD to guide P2RD) became significantly more complex as P1a exceeded all expectations.

I’m sure neither the Co nor SH’s expected P1a to get to C7 without an MTD. Wether we feel that the company thereafter have been scrambling to decide the best strategy as the cohorts progress is a moot point. I think most of us would agree that they haven’t. I think most of would agree that it seems they have been struggling to decide what to do with this beast they have created.

What is clear is that the evolving trial data coupled with poor comms and an inherent lack of understanding has led to the market doing what the market always does, adopt a conservative approach until it understands the opportunity and can see a return. And when it does it will again do what it always does and pile back in very quickly..

I feel we are very close to that ‘pinch point’

Jive, I think I speak for the vast majority of posters here when I say we all value your knowledgeable and reasoned input.

Please, please don't lower yourself to engage with the two Ronnies, they will suck the life from you with sealioning nonsense. Not sure if you are already a member of the Telegram group but it is much much better than here simply because the clowns like Wyn, Derek, Thorn and Value are not present.

Lot's of robust debate around the science that you would be able to contribute to, without the thick sealion garbage that litters this board.

We all agree with you, time for a relaxing bank hol weekend and

WYN - the following quotes are taken from your posts this morning:

'So why did we go from 4 cohorts to 7 which was surprise to AVCT'

'I am reluctant to make the assumption on efficacy at this stage'

'I don't know for sure, other than clearly it has not gone to plan. Why it has not gone to plan is obviously debateable.'

You regularly ask why you are often reported for being disruptive. If you claim that you are not being disruptive then you will have to admit to bordering on being pathologically stupid if, even after all this time, you haven't understood that P1a was never designed to demonstrate efficacy and the pursuit of a MTD to guide RDP2 was the sole reason the trial extended to 7 cohorts.

Excellent post gje. Sums up the current situation perfectly.

Of course you are correct, the ‘market’ neither understands nor cares about the science. Its only interest is if it thinks it can make a quick return from its current position.

The inference that it has the inclination or aptitude to take a ‘look under the bonnet’ is laughable.

As others have pointed out AS and the BOD played a terrible game of poker. They basically let everyone around the table see their cards and surprise surprise their bluff was called and the money guys sniffed desperation and offered 50p simply because the odds of a quick return were very likely. NOT because they understood the long term opportunity of PreCision.

Gje306 - you only have to listen to that recent interview with Gervais at Premier Milton to realise that the majority of fund managers do not have an understanding of the science at AVCT.

He is a long term holder of AVCT shares and his understanding was rudimentary.

Some very interesting comparisons with the Fusion deal.

Targeted therapies remain at the forefront of BP's acquisition focus

Fusion are a clinical stage biotech (phase 2) yet their current SP is over USD $11 (almost 20 X higher than AVCT)

AZ have paid a circa 100% premium over the current SP ($21)

Can't help feeling that the AVCT BOD now really have to start boosting the SP as whilst we grovel around at 50p with a p 1ssed off SH base then we are vulnerable to a low-ball offer.

Not boosting hasn't worked unless it's sole aim was to see the company and its shareholders get bent over and rogered at the embarrassingly low price of 50p.

No excuses to hold the SP down now, we have a cash runway and perhaps critically, we still retain 100% of all assets

And just to add to your post Timster, it is always worth reminding us all that P1a was never, ever, ever designed as an efficacy study.

All patients from C1 to C7 were screened specifically where Dox was NOT, repeat NOT the first line cytoxin for their particular cancer type. P1a was a study to determine safety only and to find a MTD and subsequently a RP2D

Therefore, ANY efficacy findings were a bi-product, a happy 'accident' making the example of the 59 and 73 year old all the more remarkable. And whilst nothing is a given and despite the poor comms and fire sale raise, we have every reason to view the future with great optimism

I agree notrex. The comms have been poor and subsequently we are all forced to speculate whilst this information vacuum persists.

I am fully expecting that AACR with its supporting RNS's/interviews/updates etc will provide a comprehensive status update on the P1a trial and plans for P2. I hope CC leads this and I firmly believe the results will continue the excellent trajectory we have seen thus far.

What I really want to hear however is an explanation of how and why we went from 'don't worry about that'......'we are now entering the commercial phase'....'we are exploring non-dilutive funding options' to a 50p raise that stinks of desperation.

We need the reasoning, we need the plan, we need the truth. Let's face it, they can hardly trash the share price can they? So tell us how they are going to rebuild the SP and deliver shareholder value

'It’s Official – Leeds is One of the Foremost Locations for Health and Care Research and Innovation in the UK'

However Leeds is bottom of the list for converting any of that research and innovation into shareholder value !!

As Ostrich pointed out a validated AVA6k significantly increases the value of all future AVA assets, perhaps SD has pointed this out and recommended that validating AVA6k through P2 will be the best negotiating tool AVCT could wish to possess.

I think most would accept that it is a long way back for AS to regain respect and re-build his reputation with LTH's.

Speaking for myself, I am still prepared to give CC and SB the benefit of the doubt as they haven't been tarnished with the foibles of the past. This is who I want to hear from going forward and if they impress as CC did in December then my confidence in management will be rebuilt.

It is entirely plausible (and probably expected) that a senior exec with SB's experience should be given the authority to pivot commercial strategy if he believes mistakes were about to be made and retention of assets at this stage is better than an undervalued LD.

What is the old Steve Jobs quote/urban myth:.. 'I don't hire smart people to tell them what to do, I hire smart people so they can tell me what to do'

Lot's of accusations recently regarding the lack of commercial acumen of AS, TG and the BOD, much of it well founded.

SB however has a CV steeped in commercial experience. He has now been in the role for over 3 months and as a veteran of over 80 deals, I would be very interested to hear his perspective on the opportunity at AVCT.

I for one would like to hear some evidence that the company actually has a commercial strategy run by a competent leader and I'd like to understand what that strategy is.

I'm more relaxed about the science and with CC now running the show, I am confident we have a competent scientist to navigate P2 and the associated regulatory framework

No more Al waffle, I have zero patience for any more warm words and empty promises. It's now time to hear from our proven commercial leader.

Note to AS re Affy

Please note, this is how you take a promising clinical asset and develop a commercial strategy that will likely reward shareholders in less than 20 years.

I don't know O&W, however if they can't see that their best chance of success lies with the AVA/Pre/Cision platform then they need replacing.

They've wasted 20 years worth of shareholders money on failed science projects. Hopefully the chastening experience of the last 2 weeks has made it very clear to them that now is the time to deliver or make for someone that can.

Whatever the fudsters say, P1a has been an unmitigated success and we need P2 to follow quickly and efficiently, no distractions, they now have the funds, they have appointed the right people in the right places, so no more excuses.

Good post Ostrich and suggests that perhaps CC has been involved in the more prescriptive wording to, as you suggest, align with the language used within the FDA and broader scientific community in the US.

Completely agree Rouge, right now AS couldn't win whatever he said so he's probably best to keep his mouth shut and leave any future presentations to CC.

Re, the theory that other solutions are on the horizon and are about to steal our lunch, this is total FUD nonsense. This was clearly addressed at the Q&A with competing technologies clearly identified as ADC's

The relative pro's and con's have been discussed to death and as AS pointed out at the Q&A, AVA and ADC's are effectively trying to do the same job but can work together.

What is clear is that if AVA shows efficacy it contains many advantages over ADC's and nothing has changed in that respect nor subsequently has anything change with regards to the value of Pre/Cision should efficacy be demonstrated.

Where we are now is incredibly straight forward for AS and the BOD IMO, drop everything that isn't focussed on the P2 study, get it done, get it done well, and get it done as quickly as possible and thus avoid a repeat of the rank embarrassment of the last couple of weeks.

Agree with NY and Morris here. We are getting completely hung up on semantics. If efficacy matches safety then this will be a paradigm shift. Clearly it isn't until we see RNS's P2 efficacy results.

Therefore as JT points out, AACR is an industry event, it's scientists presenting to other scientists. I'm sure hyperbole and exaggeration are neither welcome nor present.

As PL highlighted, nothing around the sh it show of the last two weeks should detract from the incredible safety progress made so far, that is real and locked in.

The context of AS's claim has been lost somewhat and it is moot just what exactly he meant, but what is undeniable is that if P2 follows the same PK trajectory as P1 then this truly will be a paradigm shift.

Not there yet but now at least we have the funds to find out once and for all.

PL - 'Disagree. Wait until it’s profitable.' Agree, wait until it's profitable, which I believe it was before the calamity crew assumed ownership