Member Info for opti_mystic

Wyn, You never know everything and can't, but some pieces of information are more important than others and we know the important bits that are relevant to how the drug works and why it works and that during testing in humans it behaved as described if not better.

The substantial de-risking comes with the results that so far have been very good. They've been good in patients for whom the outlook was bad and in circumstances where ordinarily the efficacy would have been harder to achieve due to previous chemo being given. That bodes extremely well for the P1b. The science works but it is being priced as if there is uncertainty about the science as if it is a new drug, which it is not, it is simply a method of getting an existing approved drug, that they will be putting into patients today, much more targeted at the tumour.

You have to be close to the detail here to understand it and the market isn't paying attention to the detail, that is why there is still a short on this. Those guys risk having their backsides handed to them if they don't close this out before a deal is announced. They are not across the detail and that matters in this share more than most.

"The data and science is only what AVCT tell us" I mean who would you prefer to tell you if not the scientists that work there? Are you suggesting they're lying? Are you suggesting the world renown oncologists are also lying? The people doing the biopsies?

The market cannot price AVCT properly that is self evident. That will become evident probably within 24 months. Most companies are priced on a forward basis of what is expected in terms of the financials. This one may be more difficult to price but at these levels it is clearly way, way out. BP price companies like this one on the basis of expected sales over a number of years into the future. The drugs in our pipeline will bring in billions and that is not priced into the share price or even close. On the basis that you value it, it is worth nothing at all because it does not have approval and is not available to the market or bringing in any real money. The difference may lie in what BP value it at and what the AIM market values it at.

Your £250 million scenario will be only to allow continuation, it won't be for the whole company and future payments will be tied to milestones being hit as they go through the process of getting the drugs to market like other deals in the past.

My guess is that you can't run trials on every single indication that looks promising so they've gone for those that look the most promising, where there is little or no competition for SoC and where there is the biggest commercial opportunity and quickest easiest route to market. I don't think the other indications have been dropped because it doesn't work, just that there is lower hanging fruit.

I agree Timster. If those results are good then this should fly thereafter.

The way I see it is that they're holding off on the partnering until they announce results of P1b at the end of the year. More value in that and better visibility too, it de-risks things a bit more. They pivoted the trials to different areas as a result of the findings of the trial P1a which is why TNBC is included and this makes commercial sense as it is a much bigger market than SGC.

The potential here is enormous. The issue is we are all a bit impatient for the big T/O or at least a cash injection from some sort of deal. My view is that is already in discussion awaiting confirmatory human data which they are expecting. They'll obviously know quite a bit before we do as to what the results are from P1b and we'll know at the year end. So time for a deal to be struck and income agreed before we run out of cash this time next year which is why they're playing it the way the are imho.

I am trying to understand the realistic time scales involved and appeal to the board for insights / experience if anyone has some and can contribute accordingly. I keep reading the phrase fast tracked or accelerated approval. That sounds good, but my idea of what that means probably is not what it really means. WTF does it mean? Time scales seem to move at glacial speeds. Looking at the timelines from Avacta of drug to market it is literally years away. The timelines here are long for what seems to be an ultra safe more efficacious version of a drug they've been using for decades. Is it really necessary to go through the same long winded hoops as a brand new drug or are there any realistic short cuts to market? My frustration is what they think is a short cut is years away which is not short! The best commercial opportunity seems to be with AVA6103. But P1a is 2026 all year and P1b 2027 all year. So P2 2028 one assumes. Probably a deal will be struck before then one hopes! If they can demonstrate the Pre|CISION peptide works why can't they use it for any already approved chemo? I mean, it either works or it doesn't. It either renders the chemo inert until it reaches the tumour or it doesn't. I don't understand the ultra cautious timeline when peoples lives could be being saved. Is it possible to get the pre|CISION PDC approved as a 'transporter' of a drug or does each individual drug need to go through these sorts of timelines each and every time another cancer killing drug is attached to it? Seems unnecessary to me.

My understanding of AVA6k is that in essence the drug is not new, it is the delivery system that is the effective safety valve which delivers the Dox (which has been used of decades as a chemo) to the exact place it is needed thereby reducing the toxicities and enhancing the efficacy. Our IP is the patent on that, we're using it on Dox and have Exatecan in the pipeline too, another already expired patented drug converted into a new patented drug by the delivery system. Many other drugs in use have patent expiry coming up in the next few years and could then be used by other companies and therefore the commercial advantage of being the only company that can use it disappears. Avacta could either licence that tech to protect the patent for that other company or could in house use the drug with the delivery system and have a patent of its own. Discuss. If so what is THAT worth?

Thanks BV for the heads up. I don't use forums except for this one for the reasons you cite. I had hoped some facts might sway but had suspected from early on the facts wouldn't get in the way of their opinions! It does seem a futile endeavour. Will cease and desist!

Thorn, The side affects don't occur anything like a normal chemo because the payload is inert until it's in the tumour. Normal chemo is indiscriminate it hits everything. It's the difference between going into a house and indiscriminately spray painting everything, or going into it with an artists brush and just filing in a little bit of paint that's missing off a corner. That's why there is very little collateral damage.

It is 100 times the normal value of dox found in a tumour compared to the plasma and it only explicitly releases it in the interface between the stroma and the tumour, exactly and precisely where you'd want it to go. It reduces the two key toxicities you'd want to reduce both bone marrow and cardio. At the doses they're using 6% to 20% is normal toxicity for those two indications, they have 0%. Salivary gland cancer is known to be resistant to chemo. In the lab they were expecting a 10-20 times increase they were happy with that. What they got was a 100 times increase in humans (again ratio between plasma and tumour). After one dose! That is the median! 3-8 times leads to very effective therapy.

In answer to your question "100x the very low dose that's found in the circulation then Optimistic?" The answer is no. It is 100 times the drug that is found in the plasma ordinarily, and dox works just fine at a tumour rate of of 6-8 times. AVA6000 is a median rate of 100 times what is ordinarily found in plasma and 12.5 times what is considered to be 'effective treatment'. Your question reveals what you don't understand about how big this is, which may explain your pessimism.

The technology works. One hundred times concentration of drug in the tumour. Holy grail of cancer treatment people have been searching for for years. Much less side effects in pretty much every thing you'd want to measure. More effective in pretty much every way you'd want it to be. I don't know what people want, oh yeah the shares are on sale right now for an extraordinarily low price of fractions of what the tech is worth and all some people can do is find fault with it.

The dosing schedules were switched due to data from another trial that revealed a sweet spot for Dox.

My thoughts are there is probably some discussion about funding she can't really talk about and so glossed over it.

I agree B2H. Obviously it's a complex thing but sometimes I think they think they're only ever talking to other scientists or oncologists in this field or maybe big pharma. But the message is very often lost in the complexity of what they're trying to communicate. They need to use the phrase " This means that" and then communicate what the medical advantage is and where the commercial advantages are in plain language.

Aldebaran, That is what I meant by old generals fighting yesterdays wars. This is in a totally new place. Just the delivery system pre|CISION is worth fortunes. That is before you add in the pipeline. A 6 fold increase in the MTD. 10-20 fold increase in the PK in plasma (pre-clinical) for tumour exposure. That is without The Affimer and AVA 7100. Avacta are assuming a rapid/ accelerated route to market for both SGC and TNBC, it's in their literature.

Also the later pipeline drugs can target low FAP cancers. So that means the pipeline targets low, medium and high FAP cancers with very much reduced side effects, higher maximum dose, better efficacy, better tumour penetration etc etc.

If you were dreaming up a cancer killing biotech with a suite of drugs this is what you'd dream up. The fact it is all under one roof in one company is frankly unbelievable.

The regulators like any one of better efficacy, reduced side effects, unmet needs. The delivery system with AVA6k does all three.

Did I say it would remain hopelessly inaccurate forever? It is now, that's all I care about. Predicting the when is a mugs game, I don't know when, but I am pretty certain it will re-rate, and I don't see it as a punt with the data they have, I see it as an investment of epic proportions.

You say the market thinks it is still to risky, okay maybe you're right or maybe it isn't paying attention to the progress/science. I don't know which it is or a bit of both and I don't care. It's about opinions. There is a company shorting this stock and in the not too distant past you might claim they're right and I am wrong. But I am looking beyond this week or next. Within three years this will re-rate, might be within one.

Most of that other stuff is just noise to me. Who cares about that? I'm not here doing a history of Avacta degree, I am here looking at what I think is the most startling investment opportunity of my life. Probably never come across something like it again. I am looking at the big picture.

"What is the history of this company bringing its tech commercially to market?"

Wyn, what is the history of any start up Biotech bringing it's tech to market until it does? You could say that about literally every single one until they do. The beauty is they very often get bought by big pharma before that, so we won't have to wait so long for a return.

"If you think it is rigged or the market is hopelessly inaccurate in its way of valuing stocks then why invest in it?"

Wyn, I am investing BECAUSE it's hopelessly inaccurate. That is my opinion. If you have another that is fine too.

Wyn that assumes that the AIM market is entirely accurate in its valuation of this stock. Is it? Is any market ever entirely accurate even very well researched and large companies? The fact that serious money can be made is almost entirely due to the inaccurate valuations of companies. I just think that it is much nearer to a deal and I don't want to miss it as the science has in my view moved into a different category with the results they've had. Did we see a re-pricing off the back of that? I got lucky with the share price falling so far but I would expect a lot of volatility in early stage Biotech especially when dilution/funding and cashflow is important. I happen to think that is much less important now as I think there is every chance of a much faster route to market with a partner/licensing followed by an offer. If this board is a anything to go by some people thing it's going to be great some aren't so sure . I think it's going to great. Your contention is if I've understood you correctly, founded on the premise that the share price should only move in direct correlation to the dilution, but I think we both know it doesn't work like that, don't we? It's fear and greed. Fear about running out of cash, fear about the science not working/ the results and some mis-understandings around what the science means and a hang over from the previous management. A lot people like old generals fighting yesterdays wars.

No Wyn, it wasn't that it was the fact that dilution was almost inevitable and the science had a long way to go before any deals were likely.

Well maybe it's because the process is long Wyn and you were early on the trade?

Exactly Ice, they've seen it working. It isn't a guess.

TNBC is a high expression (strong) FAP cancer and the drug works most effectively with higher FAP cancers. All of the selected arms for trials are cancers with a typically high FAP profile. That is why TNBC is included.

Ice, I think the reason they chose TNBC is because it typically has high FAP expression and the drug is more effective in cancers with high FAP.