Member Info for Pier6

@yuyus. Fair play if you are being straight. But can I claim my magic beans

Jeez. 350 own circa 16%. 7 attendees as representatives, can imagine a meeting with AS and FM with 350 others in attendance :-)

@yuyus. I calling you out for BS. You won't phone the company. And you don't have any magic beans :-)

@Thornogson. I know what I know. You believe what you wish.

I do actually think it would be preferable for the company to publish the notes though.

@joesoap1 - No

@Thornogson.

Are all the Paul Hill exchanges on the Avacta website? No. Oh - so why should these be.

And for a meeting that didn't happen. That's some pretty extensive quotes purportedly made(up) on behalf of AS and FM.

And if this was mythical - I would expect them to co tain some snippets of new news to satisfy a ramping motive.

But I know it happened. And you are free to believe it didn't.

Worked sell across the day? Price is below the days VWAP.

@PL75 - I quoted Neutronic - assume not in your green bin????

"PL, imagine it did take 10 years... and we got 1000%... 100% profit per year.

Pretty decent still right? Might not be what everyone wants... and expects... but fantastic return by any "PI" investment standards."

But different strokes for different folks ... Time is clearly a factor for some. Not to be too flippant, and I accept that maybe the 10 years was also verging on the flippant side but ....

1. Some people here will not be around in 10 years - fact of life I'm afraid.
2. Some people here, due to their age, may have requirements to start drawing down on their investment.

We all have different time horizons based on many different factors. It is certainly not a case of just ignoring that part of the equation

And that should or course had read at 90% of the 5 or 10 day VWAP, not a 90% discount to it (that would be tough :-))

Whilst some are content that the RNS's will come when they are good and ready and in the meantime why stress it is important not to lose sight of the next HCI conversion which is around 20th April.

We know this will be at 118.75p or, as per the RNS, at a 90% discount to the lower of 10 day VWAP or the 5 day VWAP and no higher than the VWAP on the conversion day. To get a conversion price that is not below 118.75p the average SP (VWAP based) would need to be at 132p for that 5 and 10 day period. So the 10 day period starts on 6th April, just over two weeks away.

So unless AS is content with even greater dilution than anticipated, with resultant negative affect on the prevailing SP, then he would be best employed getting some positive news out.

So they can't possibly get to 3% for a TR1 until April quarterly repayment unless they also convert another tranche before then (similar to today).

But who cares anyway ... hardly having a catastrophic impact on the SP is it.

"Marked reduction does not equal medically none. However is it good enough that side effects are a minor nuisance? "

And a question worth asking yourself is - look through your medicine cupboard. Can you find anything that has zero potential side effects. None, from Precision, is asking to much. But marked reduction ... well make up your own mind n that.

People are confusing Block A and Block B warrants. For clarity ...

On 23rd Feb 2022 (Block B) there were :
56.67m at 3p expiring 17 June 2022
10m at 4.5p expiring 01 July 2022
5.76m at 4.5p expiring 17 April 2024
5.5m at 4.5p expiring 4 December 2024

On 14th April (Block A) there were:
1m at 2.25p expiring 1 November 2022
0.55m at 2.55p expring 1 April 2024
0.98m at 2.9p expiring 16 May 2023
22.49m at 3p expiring 17 June 22

In addition as part of the legal settlement we have 3m at 5p expiring on 31 March 2024

So those interested in 3p warrants. At the last block listing reports we had a total of ~79m warrants outstanding to expire 17 June

@Bella - about as clear as mud really then. All I would say is that when Bronte went to 0.49% they disappeared from the list only to reappear again when they apparently added 0.01%

@Bella6532 - whilst I agree that they don't report shorts below 0.5% they are still reporting Jupiter at 0.58%. If Jupiter had reduced below 0.5% they would no longer appear on the list.

@travel_light ...

The "3 + 3 design" is clearly explained in FDA guidance "Clinical Considerations for Therapeutic Cancer Vaccines" as following:
The traditional standard dose escalation schedule in the development of cancer therapeutics uses the so-called “3 + 3 design” to avoid selection of a phase 2 clinical trial dose that causes a treatment-limiting toxicity in more than 17% of subjects, a standard considered acceptable as an outpatient therapeutic for patients with limited options and life-threatening diseases. In a “3 + 3 design,” three patients are initially enrolled into a given dose cohort. If there is no DLT observed in any of these subjects, the trial proceeds to enroll additional subjects into the next higher dose cohort. If one subject develops a DLT at a specific dose, an additional three subjects are enrolled into that same dose cohort. Development of DLTs in more than 1 of 6 subjects in a specific dose cohort suggests that the MTD has been exceeded, and further dose escalation is not pursued.

Link to that is - https://onbiostatistics.blogspot.com/2015/01/phase-i-dose-escalation-study-design-3.html#:~:text=In%20a%20%E2%80%9C3%20%2B%203%20design%2C%E2%80%9D%20three%20patients,subjects%20are%20enrolled%20into%20that%20same%20dose%20cohort.

Note - if 1 patient out of the first three exhibits a DLT they enrol another 3. So clearly as they have only enrolled an extra 1 then there can have been no DLT's experienced by any of the three.

The trial design is such that the three patients continue 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."

I believe therefore we can eliminate DLT (aka unacceptable toxicities) for the reasons stated further above and disease progression (as per clinical guidelines DE would not have been +50% if there had been any disease progression). It is unlikely to be maximum lifetime cumulative exposure (sloppy selection of patients if that were the case).

I will leave you to conclude from the other reasons what it may be.