Member Info for opti_mystic

But PL they want it to succeed! Just not before they've espoused every possible reason why it might not succeed and run down the main executives, mentioned vague possible competitors implying they'll be the real winners, that the SP falling means something and because they're endlessly negative and the SP has fallen means they're right, comparing apples to oranges, an immunology drug to a chemotherapy drug, implied that BP not making an offer means something negative yadda, yadda. Reminds of Winston Churchill on Americans, something along the lines of 'You always trust the Americans to do the right thing..................once all other possibilities have been exhausted'. That's exactly where this is heading is this works out which I expect it will.

Well said BV. It's also what they don't say but that is very strongly implied, then they claim well I didn't say X but you sort of did though. It's like wrestling fog. To use your example, as I boxed the token of doom a while back; Toucanofdoom wrote (10:32): "I look forward to your explanation as to why we aren’t getting any of the BP pie. Oh hold on it’s because they haven’t heard of us, or they’re as thick as mince etc etc" That strongly implies what? They aren't interested because if they were it is logical they would have by now. The truth is they are interested but there's a process and the results of the trials have not yet got to the place where they've seen enough good data, like would be the case normally. They try to imply something negative about a totally normal thing. They then latch on to the results aren't good enough as if as soon as good results turn up in a phase one trial they immediate get their cheque books out. Respect to you if you can continue to read the nonsense but it's not for me.

Https://www.hcrx.com/approach/corporate-financing/

HCRx is focused on providing non-dilutive, structured financing solutions to late stage and commercial-stage life sciences companies. As an alternative or complement to an equity issuance, our funding allows a company to eliminate or delay dilution while enabling the company to fund product launches, acquire or license products, or re-invest capital in earlier-stage R&D projects.

HCRx has the flexibility to provide a broad range of financing and structural alternatives to meet the needs of our partners. We have been specializing in non-dilutive structured financing transactions for more than a decade.

To me the bigger picture is the fact that there is no point in bringing in people to negotiate the commercials if there is no-one interested in talking to you about them. So there is obviously a company expectation that this is the time to bring in a big hitter to do just that. Can only mean serious conversations are to be had as per the previously announced timeline. Everything is going as described . They must've had more P1b data too and clearly that is also as expected. Very encouraging.

Everyone wants to know what's going on but that is not going to happen because it's all done under an NDA. So what are people expecting that they have not got and why are they expecting it now? The company has told us it is looking to partner last quarter/ into next year. Why is it doing that? Because it'll have more data from Phase 1B which, as they have also said, unlocks the deals but at a higher price than without that human data. Is it frustrating the SP is going down? Yes. Is it in companies control? No. They cannot say anything. Do I think they have huge interest and a deal will get done? Absolutely. If you don't, sell. If you think you're going to get diluted to oblivion, sell. Buy back after your anticipated oblivion. Most people aren't doing that because you know, it's too early for what they said they would do and if you sell and do not re-enter before the deal is announced, well better luck next time. I have confidence in CC and the team. If you don't maybe sell. I'm not expecting a deal to be announced before October at the earliest as per the company's earlier communication. What I see is a mismatch between what some people on here would like and what company is doing for the longer term benefit of all shareholders as previously announced. A lot people complaining about the company doing the right thing and sticking to exactly what they said to enable them to get a better deal. Lots of criticism of previous incumbent and rolling over that as if it is attributable to the current team and that is unfair I think.

It's obvious they have a deal lined up for STS. I don't know why everyone is sweating this so much. They've got the data they needed, they've got a deal lined up, the funding isn't going to be a problem, they aren't concerned at all. They probably have discussions around other indications too with the likelihood of further deals in the not too distant future.

It's obvious they have a taker to proceed with STS. Probably advancing talks in the other two indications to fund the beast.

@BV as I understand it the Phase 1a dosing regimen changed part way through to better accommodate TNBC in line with Enhertu dosing regimens. My understanding is the first dose is now 385 followed by regular 260 doses every two weeks, this developed as the safety data came through during the trial and the purpose is to establish the highest safe dose for maximum efficacy. So as it was proved that pre|CISION was doing what it was designed to do, it's primarily a safety trial after all, they increased the doses and I think the 385/260 per m2, seems to be the sweet spot. It will be informing the Phase 1b trial that is going on now. The frequency is every two weeks, but they also tried every three weeks. This is shown in the March corporate deck on page 11. I think they done an excellent job of allowing the data to inform the decisions they've made and adjusted accordingly. I am not entirely certain that all of the patients have had exactly the same dosing throughout. However on the median PFS slide from Thursday night it's clear they've beaten the PFS already and that data is 5 weeks old as of now. It says in the small print "All patients treated at or above 250mg/m2 regardless of schedule." I take that to mean some may be three weekly and some two weekly.

PFS not being reach if it happened or took a very long time is essentially a good thing and regulators would be remiss if they wouldn't sanction a drug on that basis alone as the whole idea is to extent lives and a very PFS is exactly doing that.

If that is going to be a problem for 6000 what would it mean for 6103? Being as it destroyed 19 out of 21 tumours, not going to be reaching a PFS on that basis!

The issue for me is that the regulators will use that as the end point but they cannot do that until it is reached, which may be a long time away. In the meantime patients could, and in my view should, be benefitting from this drug now in this indication. For me the whole thing is too slow when the data is this good and it is just Dox.

My view is it'll be when 6103 is in P1 human and the data is as good as we hope and expect. Either 2026 0r 2027. So roughly 18 months to 2 and a half years. I expect an uplift/re-rate though when 6000 is partnered end of this year early next

The median was 25.3 weeks 5 weeks ago data cut off. One of the two patients at that time was still on drug. Likely is not the correct word. Already have and now it is just by how much is the reality but it cannot be a less than doubling.

My bad most not still on drug be even so beating the PFS is 100% guaranteed at this point.

Avacta do sometimes do my head in with the over cautious approach they take. They say the PFS they have to beat is 3.5 months. That is a bit vague so I'm counting it in days as best I can based on a 30 day month. 3.5 x 30 = 105 days to beat as the median. The FAP Dox PFS median not reached slide shows the shortest length of time a patient who has not died and is progression free is what looks like 18 weeks, that is the shortest length of time. 18 x 7 = 126 days. All the others are longer. In what world does that translate to only 'quite likely' to beat the PFS survival? That patient is still receiving ongoing treatment. One has disease progression at what looks like 16 weeks (112 days, a beat) Avacta, get a clue. Another is discontinued at what looks like 21-2 weeks all the other are better and most are ongoing treatment. Bear in mind it is the median not the mean average.

The more I read the more convinced I am about Avacta. It's just a matter of time and the longer that time is the more it will be worth. It has great utility across many indications and the ones they're pursuing now are just the tip of the iceberg.

BV thanks, broadly looks the same sort of numbers. Still a big ticket price for Avacta which ever way you cut it.

I'm just trying to assess my value of the share price based on certain known facts and other factors like standard or common multiples etc. Avacta says that there is a large market in TNBC. Google says circa 2 million breast cancer cases of which 24% are TNBC. Avacta says 170,000 (136,000 of which are FAP high) cases on P8 of its March corporate presentation. Quite a big difference there. Let's take the lowest number (136,000). On p18 of the same set of slides is the L.E.K. analysis of the US market size in dollar terms says $740m for only 5000 dox naïve patients. That averages out at $148,000 per patient. So just on TNBC for a drug that better targets a tumour, leading to improved efficacy AND a better safety profile the TAM is 136,000 multiplied by $148,000 = $20 billion in one indication. That is without ANY other possible indication or licensing out the platform and attributes zero value to the one that is likely to make this look like small beer AVA 6103. Also zero value to the platform. Obviously I guess not every single person will need chemo but most do. We know AVA6000 leaves more chemo in the tumour improving efficacy and less chemo therefore elsewhere meaning a better safety profile. Is my maths wrong or should I be getting excited about the mid term prospects? Obviously phase 2 to get through but will it get put in patients before that given there is lots of data and it's just dox?

HarChris, The documentation says partnering deal available at the year end which would presumably be being negotiated any time now and during the next few months whilst the P1b data is coming in. Unfortunately it doesn't matter about the data in the meantime because the evidence is the market doesn't care about that.

I'm just watching last years' Turner Pope webinar more than twelve months' ago. And the thing that comes to mind is we're in exactly the same spot albeit with more data that we were in 13 months ago. Lots of great data, proven in human better outcomes, improved efficacy, safer, want a good cash runway and looking for a commercial partnership. All looks/sounds good. The question I have is what's taking so long? Data can only get better because it works. I know they're sussing out best indications in which to use it and also dosage for optimal safety/efficacy combination, but we seem to be in the same situation as we were then. Frustrating. He mentions orphan indications. But still patiently gathering information a year on. So the strategy seems to be to gather information to maximise value. They aren't in a hurry.

Understood BV I was just agreeing with you and emphasising the benefit of 6000 over standard Dox.