Member Info for DonaldTrumpsWig

Sadly, we have to accept that outside of the company, LTH's here and on Xcreta nobody is particularly interested in this trial.

Medical trials are not particularly newsworthy unless they are something revolutionary such as the first heart transplant or test tube baby (from memory, Louise Brown??)

The trap we mustn't fall into is assuming that the ongoing ambivalence of the market suggests that the trial is either devalued or irrelevant, it isn't. But we have to accept that the AVCT story is buried deep below the golden globes and the fact that some woman is going back onto Love Island (both stories were front page news on the BBC website yesterday!!)

In the words of DH Lawrence - 'What the eye doesn't see and the mind doesn't know, doesn't exist", even if it does'

We need an ITV drama

Another great post crystallising what the world has yet to realise.

Betamax - VHS

Fax - Email

Phone book - Search engine

Nokia - Apple

ADC's - Pre/Cision

Had forgotten about this appointment from March 2022. Looks like she will be very very busy this Spring alongside Simon Bennett. Good to see we have a strong team with all the relevant expertise.

https://avacta.com/interview-with-victoria-statham-vp-intellectual-property-legal-therapeutics/

Answers to questions from the recent Q&A:

We cannot provide further information on the regulatory strategy for AVA6000 other than what was in the presentation. To do so could jeopardise our discussions with the regulatory bodies and potentially prevents us from protecting new intellectual property. We will do so when we have concluded our discussions with the FDA and other regulatory bodies – in mid-2024.

This is an important question. We are exploring this but these insights potentially constitute new IP which we need to protect before we can discuss them publicly. We look forward to discussing this in the future.

The Company has designed its regulatory strategy to achieve approval for AVA6000 as quickly as possible through the proposed Phase 2 single arm study in the US. As we confirm our regulatory approach with the regulatory bodies we will make those decisions, and their implications, public. We cannot publicise a regulatory strategy in advance of it being agreed with the regulators.

What you have to consider when engaging with Eggy and Wyn is that they suffer from a well understood condition called NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder)

'Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental health condition in which people have an unreasonably high sense of their own importance. They need and seek too much attention and want people to admire them. People with this disorder may lack the ability to understand or care about the feelings of others. But behind this mask of extreme confidence, they are not sure of their self-worth and are easily upset by the slightest criticism.'

They are not here to learn about the science, they are here for engagement, for interaction. They don't care what the topic of conversation is so long as they are at the centre of it. This is why they ask open questions and are often deliberately provocative. This BB fills a void in their lives and we are probably the only people who engage with them. I'm sure the people who know them in real life avoid them at all costs.

Attention is all they seek, best to deprive them of the oxygen of dialogue and ignore.

@Dflynch - ignore my last post and read the post from Timster, much better explained and directly from the horses mouth.

@Dflynch, not a dumb question but not one that is simple to answer.

Pre/CISION and ADC's are competitors in the sense that they are both using bio markers to deliver cell killing warheads to tumours (in your example the marker is HER2, for Pre/CISION it's the enzyme FAPa)

The major difference is that ADC's are novel therapies where Pre/Cision is effectively a incredibly specific delivery system for not only existing chemotherapies but potentially many more that are currently too toxic to be administered systemically.

ADC's are further advanced in their development and are seen (certainly by big Pharma) as the future of targeted cancer therapy. That is of course until Pre/Cision is fully validated which is currently exceeding all expectations at P1a level and currently entering a re-written P1b level.. ADC's are also significantly more complex and expensive to produce compared to Pre/CISION which is peerless in its relative simplicity.

My favourite analogy is that ADC's are the Blackberry with Avacta just about to launch the iPhone

Good point MB53 and the Point license was specifically granted 'to provide access to Avacta’s pre|CISION™ technology for the development of tumour-activated radiopharmaceuticals'

I suspect a license to use the now clinically proven Pre/Cision platform for the development of Cytotoxic pro-drugs will be significantly more valuable.

Worth noting that the license deal with Point was specific to their radioligand/radiotherapy pro-drugs.

My understanding is that the AVA programme creating pro-drug versions of cytotoxins such as Dox is further forward and has a much larger TAM.

It's true that AIM is a very small backwater and the majority of its investor roster has neither the money, the inclination nor the intellect to do the necessary research to fully understand the opportunity at AVCT.

Like JT, lot's of people I know have invested on the back of my recommendation but very few of them actually understand the science and post each RNS I am inundated with messages asking me to interpret the content.

Why are we still sub £1.20?. Despite what seems glaringly obvious to us LTH's, very few others can see the opportunity.

As we know, the perception is that we are high risk, the science is complex and time consuming, as a consequence very few are prepared to invest the time and energy to see what marks us out from the myriad of other investment opportunities.

What will make 'the market' wake up? A license deal IMO. We are often compared to other take over targets/deals with the major difference being that most of the comparison companies have existing revenues. At the moment, the Pre/Cision platform is an incredibly exciting clinical trial. It has not yet received the validation of a 3rd party company parting with cold hard cash.

When this happens (and I'm absolutely certain that is why the new guy is here) then the floodgates will open, the SP will re-rate and the T/O price will rise exponentially.

Ducks in a row and all that. Happy New Year

WYN - 'Your assumption Ice, is that you know more valuing companies in this sector and AVCT in particular than the market.'

Absolutely he does, I would be very confident that Ice (and Myles and RAH and approx 20-30 others outside of the company) know significantly more about the science than all other shareholders (including you WYN) that make up the remainder of the 'market'

The bulk of the shareholders on AIM are rainbow chasing PI's like you that jump from share to share looking to make (or lose in your case) a few quid without bothering to take the time to do the proper research. The herd buying action on the back of the £1.5 million trade was illuminating.

It is AIM after all, a junior market for investors with a junior intellect and a junior approach to investing.

It is indeed remarkable NFT and whilst it is only a single example, what could demonstrate more clearly the potency of dox when it is delivered to the right place in the right amounts.

Dox very clearly being dox

So why do you and Wyn never attempt to answer any of your own questions Derek? So many questions, so few answers.

Vertizea - ....'Charles Archer did point out at the end of his presentation that he disagreed with current risk evaluations and personally thought the chances of success for AVA6000 in excess of 50%.'

Correct he did say that and he also alluded that the longer BP wait before making a move the higher the price they would have to pay.

Ok WYN I'll bite (again) you naughty aquatic mammal

Your post is nothing more than a sealioning list of open questions. What I need you to attempt is to provide answers to your own questions that you can back up with evidence. Unanswered questions are not evidence of risk and/or imminent failure. They are nothing more than FUD provided by attention seekers

Read Ice's earlier 9.35 post, the majority of the points on his list can be backed up by hard data and evidence

Sorry to be a pedant Bella but it was a £1.5 million trade 1,334,000 shares

I like Charles Archer and I thought the interview was good and gave a reasonably impartial overview of where we are.

There were a few inaccuracies but my problem is that the pro AVCT/Rampers have to provide data and results, yet the anti AVCT/FUDsters don't.

CA is a classic example, during the interview he explains the science and the results specific to AVA6k, then when he moves onto risk, he starts talking about industry averages and the percentage of clinical trials that fail etc. It's the same with the FUdsters on here, they always talk hypothetically about what might happen or what could happen if we run out of funds etc etc. Typically, lazy generalisations not backed up with any evidence.

I don't think any LTH's are so naïve to think that no risk exists but all I ask is that the burden of proof for risk should be equal to the burden of proof that it works.

Great posts Ostrich and way more interesting than the bl oody LFT saga

True Pl and I hate myself for biting.....going to thrash myself with birch twigs now as penance

WYN - Another pious lecture written with the benefit of 20:20 hindsight.

You state 'I would have expected with their experience of the market' - what experience of the market? the market that was created from nowhere by an unexpected, previously never experienced global pandemic? Would that be the same experience that saw specialist LFT manufacturers like, Omega, GAD and Abingdon navigate the market so successfully?? No, thought not.

You say, 'And lets not whitewash the past with the "silence" when these thigs did not come to pass, leaving investors to guess what was going on (NDA anyone?'

What was the Co supposed to say to investors? What did you want them to tell us? Whatever they said would it have made any difference to what eventually transpired with the vaccine roll out? and the eventual herd immunity we now have?

The facts are, the company were in a position to potentially help with a global emergency, they tried but like many were overtaken by events and a shambolic government. Once this was realised they parked it, moved on and re-focused back onto the day job.

Your retrospective, irrelevant, out of context criticism of the Co is boring and pointless and like the Co, it's time you parked it and moved on.