Member Info for Nanomat

Those of us who are LTHs remember the times when the shorting naysayers said -

1 The pre-clinical data of AVA6000 shows only that it works on animals and in the petri dish.

2 There are little or no harmful effects because AVA6000 has no effect and just goes round the human body and does nothing.

3 AVA6000 doesn't cleave.

4 AVA6000 doesn't shrink tumours

Yesterday put an end to the 'disinformation rat pack' once and for all. This is excellent Phase 1a data and we are not finished yet. In addition, it needs to be appreciated that from our company's viewpoint we are now entering a 'dangerous' period for a small biotech as BP will be all over this latest data. The last thing that the CEO wants to do at the moment is to put Avacta 'in play' before Phase 2 which will undoubtedly ramp up exponentially our commercial worth. That is why Alastair said we are only at the BEGINNING of the value cycle. This is a message not just to us PIs but to BP. Translated it means 'we know what we've got and we now what it's worth.'

And just to show how far progress has been made in the 'holy grail' clinical space of cancer treatments without significant side-effects have a look at this novel approach has now been given and published this morning -

http://www.cv6t.com/2023/12/cv6-receives-mhra-approval-for-novel-cancer-therapy-phase-1a-clinical-trial/

Whether 'DNA uracilation' one day becomes an available treatment for soft tumours remains to be seen as the readout for P1a data is not till January 2025. I expect AVA6000 will be in a very different clinical space by then.

However, you have to hand it to Belfast based CV6 - if you scroll down the front page of today's FT you'll see a picture of Robert Ladner, founder and CEO of CV6 trumpeting today's news. Maybe one day we'll have Alastair Smith doing likewise in the FT - https://www.ft.com/

Whilst valuations are dependent on many factors - eg BPs cash positions and established competitor offerings - current deals WITHIN THE SAME CLINICAL SPACE are at least a good guideline from my experience of what BP is prepared to pay. So whilst it is still too early in my view to discuss anything other than 'what if' scenarios - and no problems in 'shooting the breeze' on that score - just have a listen to Pfizer's short interview with Jim Cramer on 31 October and note the number of times you can -assuming Avacta progresses as we hope - read 'Avacta' instead of 'Seagen'.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/31/pfizer-ceo-really-keen-to-join-forces-with-cancer-drugmaker-seagen.html

The Pfizer/Seagen deal actually does our Board a favour in terms of valuation and thus should keep any opportunistic 'lowball bids' at bay - as well as giving the market a real life example of what BP is prepared to pay in this particular clinical space. So who knows what any bidder may be prepared to offer this time next year - assuming our current strategy in terms of clinical trial development keeps progressing as planned and we have not yet been swallowed up by some BP 'whale'? Or to put it another way, how much is another BP other than Pfizer prepared to pay to 'eat some of Pfizer's lunch'? Make your own estimates - but the only one/ones that will count are those that if made will be considered by our Board based on all the market and clinical intelligence they have in their hands at the time. Keep the faith.

From experience and to keep things simple -

1 The SP has been clearly weighed down by the selling of Heights - a source of funding which some commentators refer to as 'death spiral' funding. Under such circumstances MMs are not going to just keep absorbing stock so they shift it by lowering the SP to bring in buyers. In that respect I reckon the SP has stood up remarkably well over the past year or so as buyers have inevitably come in at certain price points to pick up stock. There has been no 'death spiral' - only volatility - which can be good news for those 'topping up'.

2 As regards next Wednesday just refresh the memory by re-reading the Interims published 29 September and the statements made, including this from Alastair - " Not only are the initial safety data emerging from the AVA6000 Phase 1 study, across all dose cohorts, remarkably good, but targeted release of doxorubicin in the tumour has been confirmed both by analysis of tumour biopsies and now by clear clinical responses."

3 If there is any material change - eg anything negative - affecting the status of such positive data then it must be RNS'd before it can be mentioned at a 'closed' gathering such as InvestorMeet. Not to do so could be argued as withholding price sensitive information and then releasing it on a selective basis - something which is clearly in conflict with FCA guidelines. Ergo, if there is no RNS on AVA6000 between now and the release of RNSs next Wednesday morning of a negative nature, then I expect a flurry of buying after 8am next Wednesday - though how this will affect the SP I have no idea as I'm an investor - not a soothsayer.

Hummm

You give yourself away with your words 'given all the positive HYPE' in your thinly disguised 'me newby, me know nothing, please help' post that I have seen countless times when the SP weakens - mainly due to a known seller. Do yourself a favour and take note :-

1 If you really are that naive and inexperienced as an investor you shouldn't be anywhere near investing directly in any AIM stock - never mind an AIM biotech.

2 Most posters here have a good knowledge of what Avacta is aiming to achieve and most of what is posted is based on information available from RNSs and company presentations. So before you raise accusations of HYPE go and educate yourself on the basics of the stockmarket first and foremost and then look at individual companies - but steer clear of AIM until you have enough experience to cope with its volatility. This is no place for either genuine or fake 'newbies' who say they know nothing yet at the same time attempt to muddy the waters by unsubstantiated claims of HYPE.

'This is the month of November'............................

Well spotted Sujood! No flies on you pal are there ?

Please give up on your embarrassing, puerile, inane and vacuous statements of the bleeding obvious. You have absolutely no more insight than anyone else on the BB so stop pretending otherwise with 'pound shop Mystic Meg' cr*p.

GTW

It really is desperate and pathetic drivel from the idiots who seem to have 'discovered' the fact that Biotech trials require funding. They must think that we as LTHs who have followed the science at Avacta for years are remotely interested in such puerile views - and which is why I have every single troll in a green box.

Actually I am reminded of a 'moral tale' that I heard in Beijing about an Emperor Tang who heard that far away in his lands there was a story about a chicken (it was a goose- but works better in English as a chicken) that laid golden eggs. So the Emperor sent his accountant as he was a very rationale man to travel to the region and investigate the story and buy the chicken if the story was true. Months passed and when he returned Emperor Tang asked him whether or not the story was true. 'Yes', said the accountant, 'the story is true and there is a chicken that lays golden eggs'. 'So you bought it ' said Emperor Tang. 'Are you kidding' said the accountant. 'Have you seen the price of chicken feed these days'.

I think that that little story just about sums up the logic of the shorting trolls. They concentrate on the price of chicken feed whilst failing to calculate the true cost of missing out on future 'golden eggs'.

Although it is some years ago now I studied Biotech trials I can clearly remember going through studies looking at all stages of drug development from the selection of a novel compound through Phase I,II and III and finally approval; in the common vernacular - from soup to nuts. And there were - and still are - differences between the success rates of non-oncology v oncology novel compounds - see latest US data I can find - https://www.statista.com/statistics/597819/drug-development-phases-probability-of-success-oncology-nononcology-drugs/

However, as all genuine informed holders here know we are NOT trialling a novel therapeutic but a novel delivery system to deliver a doxorubicin 'warhead' that is at least as effective as straight Dox and without all the side effects - some of them very serious. So it is quite useless to use statistics gathered from truly novel compounds going through trials when estimating 'chances of success' as it would be the equivalent of comparing apples with oranges.

From the time the data from the pre-clinical trials was published it is clear that AVA6000 must be treated in a separate and rather unique class of oncology therapies undergoing clinical trials. The comparison is actually against 'straight Dox' - not any new oncology molecule - but we have to stick to normal trial protocols - for example our CEO has stated that step increases in dosage used in C7 must conform to no more than a 25% dose increase over C6 as laid down by the FDA.

Having watched yesterday's presentation quite carefully it is clear that the C6 data is firmly establishing a first class safety profile for AVA6000. But not only that, there are now a growing number of clinical results that are indicating therapeutic levels of Dox in tumours - something that I would expect based upon the superb pre-clinical data. And as we progress the evidence obtained so far points towards further data expanding upon levels of efficacy according to tumour type.

I know that TW's site and other ill-informed individuals are pushing out 'Trump like' analysis of Avacta's chances of success, but in my view it is simply to bolster those with short positions - some of whom who are predicting that our SP will be 80p by next Easter. I am more than happy as a LTH of shares to take the opposite view as everything I've seen and heard so far with regard to AVA6000 leads me to rate the chances of eventual approval as AT LEAST 50% - something that our CEO also mentioned back in June. He would not have made that statement without 'knowing what he knows' - and you could see in yesterday's presentation there were moments when he was literally holding back from saying something not yet public knowledge. So keep the faith all LTHs - the truth really is out there.

DTW

The shorts appear to bee basing their position on the self-serving and arrogant TW's statement that is there for all to see on TW's home website stating quite unequivocally that - 'it [Avacta] is certain to do a fund raise well before Easter.'

No ifs, no buts, but 'certain' to do a fund raise - and by fund raise TW means raising money via a PLACING which he clearly states in the article itself - available to be read only by subscribers. That means he discounts any money that could come in the way of licencing, partnerships or other commercial deals which would of course be non-dilutive to shareholders - and which are exactly the kind of deals our CEO said to Paul Hill in yesterday's Vox podcast would be preferred.

TW must know that by making such a categorical statement as 'certain to do a fund raise well before Easter' is tantamount to claiming to know the 'certain' commercial strategy of AVCT between now and next Easter - even though the CEO has dismissed TW's assertion very clearly of a 'certain' fundraise.

TW must know full well that using words like 'certain' in respect of a company's financing via a placing has a potential dilutive impact on that company's SP - and by adding in his article that Avacta is a 'company counting down to a bailout placing' he is doubling up on his assertion of 'certainty' as regards a placing between now and next Easter.

Since TW also states that '[AVACTA] cannot deny what it knows to be true' with respect to a 'certain' placing, TW is in effect throwing down a gauntlet to Avacta and Avacta would do well to consider the implications of allowing a third party such as TW to state that a fundraising between now and Easter is 'certain'. After all, to allow such statements as TW's to continue without challenge is, in my view, not only not in shareholders interest but quite clearly only in the interests of those determined to short the shares. Avacta therefore needs to challenge that which TW considers to be 'certain' in my view and to do so ASAP.

Icecool - ' I wouldn’t be going with normal Dox anymore if AVA6000 was an option.'

Dr Alastair Smith, Chief Executive of Avacta Group plc commented:

"I believe that we are on the verge of a paradigm shift in how chemotherapy is delivered to cancer patients.

Reading between the lines, our CEO's pronouncement is a thinly disguised message to Big Pharma that the 'rules of the game' are soon going to change as far as chemotherapy is concerned from the evidence gathered so far in respect of AVA6000. He is in effect signalling to Big Pharma - 'who wants to be part of the future?' And Big Pharma will have interpreted our CEO's message loud and clear - make no mistake about that.

Harrogate

If you read the RNS dated 6 September it will tell you that there is a live presentation on Thursday 28 September - ie in 10 days time - which you can join online via Investor Meet. OK?

PL75

You state -' It is not reasonable to ‘expect’ anything.'

You also state - 'I’ve heard the chances [of an RNS] are 50% each day.'

Whilst it is true that the appearance of an RNS on a daily basis is a binary event - just like tossing a coin - at some point Avacta will publish an RNS regarding the results of C6. At that point it is a 100% event and therefore by definition most definitely 'expected'.

Ergo, it is false logic to say in this specific example to say 'it is not reasonable to expect anything' since by definition it is expected - and at the very least on a 50% per day basis to use your binary logic.

PL75

'Financial results presentations are completely independent of business updates.'

I also hear rumours that the Pope is a Catholic, Harry Kane plays football and Muhammed Ali was a boxer.

The discussion that Icecool generated was specifically targeted at the period between now and the 28th in light of where we are in relation to AVA6000 developments and the fact that 3 months have now passed since the last presentation on the 28th of June. In addition, presentation of results is a reflection of the PAST in terms of the numbers - but what shareholders are more interested in as far as my experience goes are updates and views on the FUTURE. It is therefore more than reasonable to expect an RNS between now and the 28th in order for 28 June to have any meaningful discussions that would add anything further than we know today or knew on the 28th of June.

So yes, your 'strawman' statement above is generally true - but in the specific instance addressed here there is an alignment of events that in my view makes the expectation of an RNS between now and the 28th and therefore does bring both financial and business aspects to some kind of alignment in my opinion. Let's see what happens between now and the 28th.

Agreed Icecool. Otherwise the scenario would be along the lines of -

'We would like to take this opportunity to inform existing and potential shareholders that we have nothing to say as regards anything new.'

In addition, the day before the meeting - if there is no RNS by then - I reckon that would prompt a number of shareholders putting forward questions basically amounting to 'can you please give us some kind of update'. And if all the CEO can say is 'no I can't at the moment' then, as you imply, why have a meeting at all? It is after all only Interims.

I therefore sincerely hope that our company has 'new news' by then.

'The presentation is open to all existing and potential shareholders.'

Why would AVCT be wanting to make a presentation to 'potential' shareholders unless there was something positive to offer?

DTW

I agree re the job spec. I've got four degrees and recruited a number of people in my time and I'm in two minds as to whether it's a 'chuck everything in wish list of requirements' job spec or there are specific candidates in mind and this catalogue of requirements are to discourage all but the very best. In addition, anyone matching these requirements will surely be looking at this position as a further career step to a proper Board level appointment. The mention of 'working closely with the CEO' and 'reporting to the Board' are good indicators that something along these lines is anticipated and no candidate worth their salt will fail to pick up and mention a potential Board position. After all, the successful candidate will be at he heart of Avacta's business strategy so they would have to offer such a position or potentially lose them to another company who will offer a Board level position. Think of all the implications if that happened to Avacta ........so you have to think beyond the current position at this level of appointment and make sure there is career progression for such a 'Superman/Superwoman' as our company builds for the future.

Pharma3

I strongly suspect that there are people on here are actually deliberate foils to the trolls - the strongest suspects being those who actually copy and paste what the trolls say and then add their faux outrage riposte. All of this pantomime is to publish to those who have green-boxed the trolls what the irrelevant trolls are saying. Best to also green-box those who deliberately copy and paste the muck trolls are out to spread. You won't miss anything of value.

May I once again request all genuine Avacta shareholders not to engage with the FUD spreading trolls. By responding you are doing what they want and actually publicising their FUD for them. I repeat, trolls have no interest in what you actually say - only in you spreading their 'muck' by your interaction with them. Please therefore simply green box them and stop helping them to trash this thread. Thank you.

Looking back over yesterday's AGM I take the following as regards what to expect in the next 6-12 months for AVA6000 :-

1 Complete P1a to get MTD or equivalent.

2 Adjust P1b study to maximise the expectation of significant results. The essential aspect - having established safe dosage regimes from P1a data - being AVA6000 efficacy v straight Dox. Efficacy being the key word.

3 Undertake and closely monitor P1b trial bearing in mind that ' Mass media' need a 'human interest story' - ie one in which efficacy translates into positive benefits for real patients. Stories about the chemistry involved - however interesting to specialists - is ignored by the Media if there is no 'human interest' story that elicits emotional feelings rather than academic thought. The moment we get efficacy translated into a human story will be the main tipping point in my view - and I reckon by this time next year at the latest we will have that story.

......and it came to pass that a certain CEO went up to Wimpole Street W1 and he did minister thus -

Verily, verily I come to say unto you all that I speak is true. For there was a woman who once brought her baby into work and asked her CEO what he thought of her baby's looks. And the CEO did look upon the baby and saw that it was exceedingly ugly and did say unto her, 'did you give birth to this or did you get it from the London Zoo?'For he knew only the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

And the woman did then batter him to death - because he told the truth.

Here endeth the lesson in truth.

Ipad

You raise a very good point though unfortunately the damage was done last year. Just read again this bit from the RNS of 8 November 2022 :-

'Avacta Group plc (AIM: AVCT), a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company developing innovative cancer therapies and powerful diagnostics based on its proprietary Affimer(R) and pre|CISION(TM) platforms , announced on 18 October 2022 the details of a proposed Open Offer (the "Open Offer") to raise gross proceeds of up to approximately GBP2.0 million through the issue of up to 2,106,980 Open Offer Shares at 95 pence per share.

The Open Offer closed for acceptances at 11:00 am on 7 November 2022. The Company is pleased to announce that it has received valid applications under the Open Offer (including under the Excess Application Facility) in respect of 16,258,999 Open Offer Shares from Qualifying Shareholders (the "New Ordinary Shares"). This represents approximately 772% of the Open Offer Shares offered to Qualifying Shareholders pursuant to the Open Offer.'

In my opinion, either the Nomad was so incompetent that they totally misread anticipated share demand from existing investors, or, as some might put it, a 'stitch up' was put in place that benefited the Convertible Bondholder and not us the shareholders. Just think how many more shares could have been allocated based on a much greater allocation of shares than the measly 2m. I thought then that to have a 772% disparity between allocation and demand highlighted 'a bad smell' - and I still hold that view as the incessant dumping by the seller continues. Just think how many more 'sticky shares' could have been issued last year.