Member Info for Nanomat

Wildstar

Correct as it will then be information already released in the accepted public manner, ie an RNS.

I presume the drop in the SP following this RNS is because some folks expected new information to be given at the presentation. That is a ludicrous expectation as it would amount to providing those in attendance with market sensitive information not already made public. Any new information will only come via an RNS. That is how it works.

Mr Ripley - a puerile and illogical attempt at an analogy. BB trolls are real and exist as demonstrated by people like you giving them the 'oxygen' of communication. Monsters under beds do not exist - ergo your comparison is clearly false - unless of course you really do believe in monsters under the bed.

Apre - 'I prefer to challenge them and defend my investment.'

This may be news to you Apre but trolls and agent provocateurs have absolutely no interest in either you or your investment. Their only objective is to be disruptive and to do that they need to 'bait' people like you to engage with them They have about as much interest in facts or the truth as Donald Trump and if you think that they care about your replies then you are deluding yourself. Your claim to 'defend your investment' to trolls/agent provocateurs. is merely proof to them that they have a 'sucker' caught hook, line and sinker. That is the reality in my extensive investment experience.

In summary, you two make yourselves foils for trolls/agent provocateurs and fools for falling for their tactics. As has been demonstrated by many provocateurs on this BB - Bottom Feeder was a latest classic example - they have their own logical modus operandi and they use it to disrupt and cause doubt and confusion that suits their agenda.Whether or not they are in collusion with others with a similar agenda is also another matter. The fact is they are disrupters and you deal with disrupters by turning off their only source of 'oxygen' - getting responses to their 'baiting' - and Filtering them. If they have no 'oxygen' they 'die'. It's as simple as that.

Mr Ripley, Apre et al

It would be a great help if you simply used the Filter button and prevented this BB being clogged up with your responses to any 'troll/agent provocateur/wind up merchant' still loitering here. The only reason these miscreants exist - to put it bluntly - is because there are those who are yet to understand or are too dumb to see through the. obvious agenda of such provocateurs.

I am sure that you do not wish to include yourselves in the 'dumb' category so please do the intelligent thing and use that Filter button. Thank you on behalf of myself and others on here who feel the same as I do.

Many thanks to Energyshares for that link to James Spicer's comments on the need to identify 'duds' at the earliest opportunity. Glad to see confirmation 'from the horse's mouth' so to speak.

So bearing those comments in mind it is worth re-visiting the Phase trial objectives as given by Cancer Research UK-

https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/find-a-clinical-trial/what-clinical-trials-are/phases-of-clinical-trials#:~:text=Phase%201%20is%20sometimes%20written,had%20all%20other%20available%20treatments.

If you scroll down to the Phase 1 criteria the objectives DO include learning about efficacy - and remember these objectives refer to the trialing of completely novel compounds whereas AVA6000 is as we know based upon a much researched compound (doxorubicin) but delivered via a novel mechanism. This gives the Scientific Committee controlling the trial the ability to compare blood test results of AVA6000 volunteers with published data in respect of Dox. And since the evidence is now confirming AVA6000's superiority to 'vanilla' Dox in respect of safety, then it stands to reason bearing in mind the 4th stated aim in Phase 1 trials - plus James Spicer's comments - that you would want to also focus upon any data from volunteers that gives indications as regards efficacy. After all, a 'safe dud' is still a 'dud' and there is no point putting sick people at further risk or spending more company money and resources than necessary on something that shows no signs of working when compared to known Dox data. Just makes no sense to my mind but until there is actual confirmation of our expectations it is going to be 'squeaky bum time' between now and the RNS we are all waiting for.

Bella
That's correct regarding trolls and then they or AN Other avatar crops up to repeat the cycle of 'me newbie, me know nothing, me want to know things. Please please help.' So blatantly obvious. Anyone considering putting money into an AIM biotech without doing their own research first shouldn't be anywhere near AIM. That's what makes these trolls so transparent.

My own concerns about AVA6000 were more or less eliminated when I read this Abstract a few months ago by our own Chief Scientific Officer, Fiona McLaughlin - https://aacrjournals.org/cancerres/article/82/12_Supplement/1815/700880

I know the link has been posted before but bearing in mind the more recent RNS informing us that the Safety Committee had permitted a higher dosage for the fourth cohort, this highlights the statement in the abstract regarding the in vivo studies of tumours with high FAP levels, whereby 'AVA6000 significantly decreased tumor volume and increased survival in a DOSE-DEPENDENT manner' (my caps.). The upping of the dosage basically confirms the safety side, and to me it would make no sense if a specifically targeted 'war head' of a medicine shown to be effective in vivo studies could fail to 'detonate' as designed in the human body per se. It would beg the question 'what is it doing then?' and I would personally find it unethical if dosage was increased to double the normal doxorubicin dosage by the Safety Committee on that basis. You have to be able to justify such a very important step as increasing dosage and I expect that a decision along the lines of 'we have no idea after months of data whether or not it's effective but we are increasing dosage anyway' makes very little sense. What's the point of upping the level of a 'dud' - even if it is safe? I know it's a Phase 1a trial but these days volunteers may have to sign up to biopsy data being taken as well. Trials are expensive so you need to get as much data as you can even at this early stage.

The hope for us as investors - and doctors and patients even more so - is that the 'war head' effectiveness of AVA6000 is greater - even if marginally so - than 'vanilla' doxorubicin as the safety profile alone will make it a better choice for patients/clinicians. Fingers and toes firmly crossed we get the indications we are looking for as regards targeted effectiveness over and above the safety data.

A classic modus operandi of trolls/agent prvocateurs is :-

1 Profess a willingness to learn and get info so they ask others to 'help' thereby stirring up a reaction.

2 When given help in the form of where to look they find excuses - eg 'that doesn't help'. A classic way of trying to introduce a negative atmosphere to the BB and to challenge and provoke.

3 Play the victim regardless of how helpful people may be in order to elicit more reactions.

4 Blame everyone and keep trashing the BB which is the original purpose anyway.

5 Keep playing the victim if responses keep coming.

I trust that every sane person here has any such miscreants on Filter. The latest one below seems to have operated according to all the classic steps. Filtered from his first 'I need help' pathetic drivel.

Good spot Yorkshire. I'd missed that link with James O'Shaunessy at Newmarket Strategy. Excellent contact bearing in mind Newmarket's stated expertise - never mind the political connections for both sides of Avacta's business.

MrA

Thanks for that info re the respective dosages. The slide does show clear divergence after Day 35 which seems to substantiate the effects of the much higher dose of AVA6000 in tumour volume as compared to 'straight' DOX. To be strictly accurate it does appear that the 2mg Dox 'outperforms' the placebo up to around 80 Days - but whether or not there is a statistical difference between the placebo and the 2mg dose over that period of time is really a moot point if the difference in results between AVA6000 and 2mg DOX are DEFINITELY significant.

I continue to keep 'kicking at the tyres' but the more I learn about what is going on at Avacta the more optimistic I become that this company could be a real game changer for future cancer treatments - fingers and toes crossed!

I'm not sure if I've missed something but my query revolves around something stated in Abstract 1815: AVA6000 published this June which most if not all have already seen - https://aacrjournals.org/cancerres/article/82/12_Supplement/1815/700880

The statement which puzzles me is the bit which says 'In a PDX model of osteosarcoma, AVA6000 decreased tumor (sic) volume while doxorubicin had no significant effect'. Bearing in mind that DOX has been used as a treatment for osteosarcoma for many years this seems a surprising find to me unless the study encountered resistance to DOX - already known and being studied - https://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/10.2217/fon-2016-0519

The other implication is that if AVA6000 'significantly decreased tumor volume' then it logically follows in my view that AVA6000 is not only been shown in vitro studies to be far less toxic as a method of delivering DOX - but also a new variant treatment in itself bearing in mind that 'doxorubicin had no significant effect' but AVA6000 did have such an effect in a PDX model of osteosarcoma. Therefore if the PDX model findings are replicated in humans then this would be a major development in itself as regards chemotherapy for osteosarcoma.

Some excellent posts today and I agree with the view that a simple dosage increase without proper clinical justification based on the agreed patient testing results (eg urine/blood samples) makes no sense to me whatsoever. I also wanted to share this link with those who haven't seen this paper as it is such a good summary of the reasons as to why AVA6000 could be such a therapeutic breakthrough - https://febs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/febs.15583

Note especially under Cardiotoxicology - 'Currently, there is no management or medication to relieve anthracycline-induced cardiotoxicity, and the only option for patients with severe symptoms is a heart transplantation. Therefore, doxorubicin is excluded from treating patients with a poor heart function, usually old patients. Thus, alleviating cardiotoxicity would greatly improve cancer treatment with anthracyclines.'

It was the bit about heart transplants that caught my attention - for some reason I had missed that aspect. So after today's news AVA6000 is another step nearer to achieving a much sort after goal that will benefit so many cancer patients in so many different ways. Long way to go yet - but at least we are heading in the right direction.

Of course these things are arranged weeks and sometimes months in advance. Ergo, issuing an RNS today must surely mean that between the conference booking and today nothing adverse has been detected. Otherwise to carry on with the presentation and its publicity would be unethical at the very least - not to mention that the Nomad would also be potentially culpable for allowing a misleading RNS to be issued.

Thanks gmcc. So if 3 of those posts first advertised 9 months ago are not yet filled, what does that say about achieving the goals of the presentation strategy dated February 2022? In my experience you develop the strategy first and then acquire the necessary resources - not the other way round. Oh, and by the way, that 'wish list' of diagnostic tests fails to include 'Uncle Tom Cobley and All :-)
Of course, if 3 of the 4 posts have already been filled then why are they still being advertised on the website? If they haven't been filled - what has been the problem as a success rate of 0 out of 3 would pose serious questions. Perhaps someone with actual contacts to the company can clarify the ACTUAL situation with respect to Job Vacancies.

These new posts are a serious beefing up of the Diagnostics division bearing in mind the overall size of Avacta -
https://avacta.com/careers/careervacancies/

From my perspective either the team has been under resourced up to now, or certain people are being 'replaced' or new opportunities are envisaged which require additional resources. I'm particularly puzzled as to a new Reg Affairs Officer bearing in mind how crucial ISO 13485 and CE marking are to get to market - https://www.iso.org/iso-13485-medical-devices.html So what has been going on up to now?

Does anyone have any actual knowledge of the actual reasons behind these new jobs as this would be very useful information to know at this stage.