Member Info for OAMOT

Slow but right! The profit has been sat there all week so why would people who planned to take it wait?

All shareholders have known they had these shares coming for a few days. Anyone wanting to just take a profit would probably have done so and sold at the 120-130 range already knowing the same shares will come back to them in a few days for 95p. Simple guaranteed arbitrage type profit with sell and buy price both known. Why would you wait and risk a price fall if your plan was to bank this easy profit? I can’t see any volume selling on share issue and impacting the price as a smart investor should have already sold if that was the plan.

If they confirmed they already had biopsy data now then that adds so much more information to everything else. In effect with biopsy data confirmed anything positive said is in the context they also know it’s working in the tumour. Imagine the buzz if they said we’ve had biopsies now? The company do not want to disclose anything until they do the full data reveal which is good and the right way to do it. These volunteers are altruistically taking the treatment to help future sufferers. I’m sure in that context some have said yes to a biopsy.

It is in the clinical trial design of I read it right. Each cohort finishes when they reach maximum lifetime exposure. Here is the extract:

Patients in Phase Ia will receive escalating doses of AVA6000 following a 3+3 design, commencing with a starting dose of 80mg/m2, once every 3 weeks (Q3W) starting on Cycle 1, Day 1 (C1D1), until disease progression, unacceptable toxicities, withdrawal from treatment for other reasons, reaching maximum lifetime cumulative exposure to doxorubicin (or other anthracyclines), or death, whichever occurs first.

Despite what the crazy UT tries to make everyone think. Good to see the psychology of the false drop hasn’t worked.

Lots of action (1.5m trades so far) and where the official price is versus actual trade prices making lots of buys show as sells. All a bit strange.

Mr A I agree with that except I think your timings are 21 days too long. 4 cycles given 3 weeks apart takes 9 weeks not 12 and 3 takes 6 not 9. First does is day 0, so yesterday announcement was the day after all doses had been given.

I think the answer is all in the timing.

Today was 9 weeks and a day after last DE. For the previous cohort to be finished exactly on 9 weeks they all had to be lined up by the clinicians ready to go the day the last DE was announced. If it wasn’t working why would clinicians be this keen (each participant needs advance screening I believe so they did this in advance).

They have signed off this DE yesterday on the day the last cohort received their last dose otherwise no RNS today. Again, why no time to consider? Why give the green light at the very first possible opportunity?

If this just floated harmlessly why would the clinicians who recruit the patients and sign off as safety committee move so quickly?

Just my opinion, but safety is now a given with this DE. The speed at which clinicians are moving with this for me says it works too.

The first patients would have received 8 cycles so 21 weeks of treatment and the gap from first patient dosed RNS to first DE RNS was 25 weeks. This cohort will receive 4 treatment cycles as you say so 9 weeks. If it takes the same time frame - treatment cycle plus 4 weeks that’s 13 weeks from 29/6. One day from the end of Q3 / start of Q4. The gap DE1 to DE2 is much more than cycle time plus 4 weeks unfortunately, but the first cohort shows that late Q3 is achievable based on past experience.

Berenberg?

Thank you. I could have probably cut the rest of the waffle!

I agree. Despite what I said below, if a raise did happen it would be after results as you say, so the idea todays price is too high due to funding needs is rubbish in my view however you look at it. Todays price is only too high or too low based on how you see the chances AVA succeeds. But I can’t see find raise even after success.

Getting this to market looks beyond avacta and plenty will want the platform, even partly proven by 1a. And that’d be great for shareholders and future cancer sufferers.

Nothing is certain. However this a small biotech creating a non-toxic chemo platform applicable to multiple cancers / drugs , with a current market cap of less than 300m. If it works, and it appears to have so far as we are way past the time DE patients would have finished the higher dose, being bought by a major pharma quickly is in my view so likely that I’m happy to assume that’s the future for avacta. Going alone ended when the LFT didn’t provide the massive funds needed. The fund raise then only comes into play if it fails. At which point the whole business will be in total crisis. Yes fund raising looks needed medium term, but after 1a this is worth a fortune or nothing so it is for me a manufactured story / risk. Risk is in the trial not the bank balance.

Bets on a UT nothing like the close price?

It’s so easy for the price to move when volume is so low. Sells could be 2 x buys with an extra 200-300k shares sold today. On that volume if it’s a Leak it’s a very small one to a very select few. This stock always has (false) deadlines set. In this case news for the AGM. I think the deadlines create uncertainty and volatility. Which is easy to play into and create some momentum either way. I’ve always been a big sceptic of deliberate narratives to try and move prices but some of the volume of posts and opinion switches do get you wondering.

Since the bounce back from the real lows avacta’s been around 110-125 range for a few weeks. Ignoring the odd blip up. Can’t remember it being able to hold anything outside 120s. Market is off. Avacta is off a broadly similar amount. And trade volume is very low. Nothing to see here. The more debate some of the rubbish is given the more momentum it gets. DE RNS was 18 weeks ago or is it 19? 5 dosing rounds take 12 weeks. I feel happy assuming the last announced DE finished some time ago and as the trial hasn’t stopped it presumably went well. Whatever they did next hasn't been released - another DE? More rounds at 120? Good reasons in my opinion for avacta to not say more than is essential until they have conclusive data. Every week holders should be more relaxed and harder to persuade to sell. Ignore the cyclical posts of future joy or doom. The people posting are predictable and should be easy to see through. Not even sure it’s for a purpose. On the internet plenty of people just love a wind up and here they often get a response.

Requirements to be on the trial are that you’re past normal treatment options. So some people sad to say will have died and this will have been expected. If after over 300 days treating cancer patients who’ve exhausted all care options everyone had survived this would be on the news I think. Awful though it is, this will mean there have been biopsies as some patients will sadly have died. We could, and maybe the fall is people think we should, have had news now based on timelines since the DE RNS. In that time the patients must have now achieved or exceeded normal MTD. Why no news when maybe avacta has biopsies and we’ve had another DE or otherwise exceeded standard dose successfully? There was a good debate earlier about low ball bids. Avacta is destined for BO - assuming this works the expertise to bring it to market is beyond avacta and ethically giving it to someone who can do it quickly is the right thing - in a way that’s fair to shareholders including those in avacta. A bit of good news would be seen as near proof of concept here, but as discussed earlier not by everyone so the price would not react enough. I can’t believe big players wouldn’t see the significance too and someone look to make an early low bid. Being ethical to investors and the potential patients means achieving a BO at a high price (relative to today). So I expect until the data is very strong / irrefutable and able to produce the real rerate it’ll be withheld to the greatest extent it can be. As we know from previous RNS, its 4 cohorts and doses will escalate, so you can say anything that happening within that framework is not news and doesn’t need an RNS. All just an opinion of course. No news could also mean it’s rubbish.

The actual buy / sell is normally quite tight but the published spread is wide. No idea why this happens but it’s quite regularly like this.

Down for dilution. But really that should’ve happened as soon as they were announced. They were allocated to employee incentive plans. So the odd trading can’t be related as they won’t be released to employees for some time. They said they’d do updates 6 monthly on what was taken up. As I understand it anyway.

I did say I am not an expert!! You are correct - so it could have finished a week ago. I had assumed it kept going to establish an MTD over 6 cycles. Very exciting.