Member Info for PJT12

James, you are just irritating, boring and highly transparent rather than achieving your agenda. Give it a rest, son.

Yes you do.

Brussel Sprout!

Carcosa61, appreciated, as always.

D-Geeman, I think the problem is that some of what he says is right but why then rub people's noses in it on those occasions with the repeated and rather boring "I told you you so" retrospective comments. Why spend the day disrupting the board through provoking arguments - which, to me, is what he appears to like doing. It is an ego / superiority complex issue, imo. That said, people who find him annoying could just filter him.

Wyn, gotta be honest in as much as I'm obviously too thick to have seen through your posts and wondered why others got so upset by them, although there has admittedly always felt like an underlying agenda / dark nuance to them which I first noticed on BooHoo. I was going to risk asking why others get so upset by them but having just read Apre's extremely impressive post which brings to mind the phrase, "Shot down in flames". I cannot help but feel that nobody would pen a post like that unless it was coming from their heart rather than any contrived underlying agenda. I no longer need to ask the question.

Energy (Oil and Gas) Profits Levy Bill 2022-23 (windfall tax) will be introduced in Parliament on 5th July and debated fully on 11th July – following Rishi Sunak’s commitment to a windfall tax last month, this Bill will confirm the details in law. However, the Government’s proposal still leaves the UK’s tax rate on offshore oil and gas producer profits 5% below the global average, and the new Investment Allowance announced with the levy creates a loophole that could result in an additional £6 billion in public subsidies to oil and gas companies.

https://www.politics.co.uk/opinion-former/press-release/2022/07/05/july-energy-policy-announcements-a-fork-in-the-road-for-government-energy-policy/

FAP expression is difficult to detect in non-diseased adult organs, but is greatly upregulated in sites of tissue remodelling, which include "liver fibrosis, lung fibrosis, atherosclerosis, arthritis", tumours and embryonic tissues.

Jumping the gun a bit here but might our platform take us beyond cancer if successful?
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/prca.201300095

I asked earlier in this thread why Oncologists are often "flying blind" and getting it wrong when matching a type of chemo to a generic tumor IE Dox and other forms of chemo work better on some tumors than others even though the cancer might be the same type. I received the following comprehensive reply from BuzzLightyear:

I think the term ‘flying blind’ is more in reference to the current diagnostic procedure where a tissue biopsy (usually when a tumour is removed) is taken prior to treatment and used as a guide to treatment.

So in that respect, they know what to do after all these years, but often this refers only in the initial stages.

There are two considerations to add to which can affect patient outcomes.

First, cancers mutate and what worked (treatment wise) at first, may no longer work as the treatment cycle progresses, hence the need for further biopsy during treatment (Longitudinal testing)

As we know, that can’t usually be done using additional tissue biopsy as there is nothing to remove or test or the patient is too ill to undergo more surgery.

Hence the term ‘Flying Blind’.

The second consideration which is particularly pertinent to cancers such as Prostate and Ovarian cancer :

Sometimes it is preferential to reduce the size of a tumour before surgery, and since tissue biopsy is surgery, the only way to define the best treatment before surgery is to do a liquid biopsy to guide the best personalised treatment for that patient.

The second reason - many abnormalities discovered that could be aggressive tumours, may in actual fact be slow growing tumours that are best monitored rather than have surgical interrogation - often it’s best not to intervene at all but to just continue monitoring testing every few months to look for change.

Indeed, I have read in the past that the actual physical act of surgery on a tumour at the wrong time can have a severely detrimental effect on metastatic process thus making spread worse.

Many people die with Prostate cancer than because of prostate cancer. Often they don’t even know they had cancer as it didn’t affect them and was contained.

In addition, surgery can have lasting quality of life issues for a high percentage when they didn’t actually needs any surgery as the lump is either slow growing or benign.

The way cancers are treated these days are often more calculated than just going in and removing what they find as they used to in the past… and it’s the liquid biopsy that can improve guidance on the best intervention (or not).

My simple point was, Sorcerer, why did could we only narrow it down to ovarian cancer and soft tissue sarcoma at this stage when surely, but apparently not, the wider oncology community should know after all these years that Dox is most successful on those fronts? I guess AVCT might have wanted to test the waters where other areas are concerned with AV60K?

CO/Sorcerer, I am going to put a shameless plug plug in here for AGL's Parsortix Circulating Tumor Cell (CTC) retrieval 'liquid biopsy' system which has just been FDA approved (contrary to what the subsequent SP movement has suggested!) and is the first of its type to have been so. Now, before others jump on me for doing cross ramping, I mention it with the following in mind, based upon my having invested over there and gained an understanding of the term "Longitudinal monitoring" IE The liquid biopsy enables Physicians to monitor the progression of a tumor through the chemo process where ordinary invasive biopsies cannot be undertaken to monitor that repeatedly for obvious reasons. The CEO of AGL pointed out that not all types of chemo work for the different types of cancer (as you have said) and so these Physicians are often "flying blind" where tumor progression is concerned. And so my question is this: Surely after all this time we should know by now which type of chemo is suited to what type of cancer tumor?

"The problem with this type of company is that it is very long term."
No, the problem with some investors is that they are too short term. Just enjoy the ride because it's proving pretty enjoyable and exciting at the moment.

Okay, all well and good but still no mention of the LFT :-))
(Okay, I admit it. I've just ripped-off Timster's joke from yesterday)

Can't think of too many better weeks on this board.

I feel the sentiment amongst those who've been sitting on the sidelines with a degree of caution may well shift after today's RNS from, "I'll wait for the next piece of news, just to decrease the level of risk" to "Oh s***! This is getting serious now and I should have bought in earlier". That quote about the "EMERGING safety and tolerability profile" is a huge hint / plus for me.

A huge tick in the box for AS today, Timster. Can't argue with the delivery of that timeline!

".........an endorsement of the EMERGING SAFETY AND TOLERABILITY PROFILE in the patients enrolled in this study to date."
Really pleased for the Avacta team. Great news.

Hey, JB, here's an even better idea! Lets NOT start putting your self-serving hypothetical deadlines in place. At least "pretend" that you don't have deramping agenda. I also note how we've never seen you and JS in the same room at the same time ;-)

No hard feelings, DonaldTrumpsWig. We move onwards and upwards.

DonaldTrumpsWig - I shouldn't bite but I will in view of your offensive tone.

"Any PI that doesn't understand that is either a moron or so under researched they really shouldn't be investing their hard earned here."

I suggest that you go back and read the thread properly (at all?) and, secondly, show a little respect to your seniors, those of us who WERE here and highly active on this board long before you - the pioneers at the start of the LFT project, unlike yourself - a mere rookie who falls into the shade when held-up against the likes of myself, PL75, Timster, Rorke's Drift, SeeThreeIPOand and various others. I'll also point out that it's "rose tinted" and offensive individuals such as yourself who bring about negative ructions across the board through calling others "morons" just because they may happen to raise contrarian views to your own. You will also benefit from a look at RAH00084's very positive input to the thread, by way of an example of how to conduct yourself in a "discussion", even when disagreeing. The posters I've named above - the early settlers here - would all be highly unlikely to disagree with any of the observations made in this thread but that is clearly because they ARE secure in their investment and do not feel the need to be overly defensive So, for your benefit as a relative newbie to us elite members, I'll explain how it was agreed throughout the thread that AS - who we think just might go ever so slightly beyond "zero reference" between Therapeutics and Diagnostics - now has an opportunity to avoid the same communication mistakes that he made before your arrival in those very early days.

The current oil price, ongoing and growing supply and demand problems, the ridiculous G7 "idealistic and naive" proposed solutions, the west and NATO irritating Putin ever more, the benefits of the windfall tax, limited number of shares, a powerful BoD - and strong IC analysis even before this energy crisis - or should I be spooked by some random bloke on LSE? Hmm, difficult call but I won't be selling ;-)