Member Info for Rambo23

2 * 100k buys printed at 41.05

The large delayed trades are all above VWAP as well. Usually a positive sign on pricing,

Bo Sears clearly knows his onions. I bought his book on Helium 6 months ago and it is brilliant. His recent videos are well delivered.

Skin in the game

Wrote the book on Helium

Big opportunity here.

Took some more today. Lots of news to come here.

JRDC they might have said he resigned but he was pushed for making huge mistakes so your assumption he wouldn't have left if a deal was close is incorrect...he had no choice and was told to go. The list of errors is long and expensive. SP destroyed is case in point.

These extracts from RAHs X post add an important reference point for AVA6000. As a reminder Dr Tap was involved in the Lartruvo trial. Also note it was Lilly's trial! The links to AVCT are all there.

'Eli Lilly’s Phase 2 study of Lartruvo was sufficient for approval to be gained from the FDA.

That study saw 64 patients receive Lartruvo.

33 of those patients discontinued treatment within the first 8 cycles. Reasons for stopping:

- 21 saw disease progression (radiology documented);

- 5 saw adverse events (AE);

- 2 withdrew consent;

- 3 for other reasons.

31 patients discontinued in 9th cycle or later. Reasons for stopping:

- 21 saw disease progression (radiology documented);

- 3 saw disease progression (symptomatic deterioration);

- 3 withdrew consent;

- 4 for other reasons.

These results (above) were considered so good the FDA approved the first STS medicine in 40 years.

AVA6000 has dosed c.42 patients in P1a.

The bi-weekly study will dose another series of patients (total unknown but let’s assume 3 x 4 cohorts).

AVCT will therefore be at the stage (before dose expansion has begun) where they have dosed upwards of 50 patients with AVA6000.

Not far off the Lartruvo Phase 2 study (64 patients). The key difference is preCISION is a delivery mechanism.

AVCT is not trialling a NCE. It’s a known drug. They sit on a lot of data. Over 1,022 days.

The bi-weekly study will be in first line STS patients. I.E. any pharma company wanting to see how AVA6000 works on the front line won’t have long to wait (ongoing now).

The question for pharma is whether they wait for P2 or do they have enough statistically significant data from a 50+ patients in P1a, which includes a bi-weekly arm of AVA6000 in first-line STS.

The CEO said they have enough data to strike deals now.

It could quite feasibly change the way multiple drugs are delivered.

Strike the deal and everything changes.'

Nice one JT this is the context many overlook or are unaware of when it comes to Dox and 6000.

We are approx 6 months on from the last scan we saw on this UPS patient and I hope we see a complete response. The wording they used on the slide 'Near complete resolution' showed some confidence. Given he was heavily pretreated, had radiotherapy and surgery all which failed to stop disease progression this is amazing progress already. This was also on a 160mg/m2 dose on the 3 weekly trial. Q2W results should be a further step change.

RoryD fair points but for me the current SOC benchmarks of DOX sets a low bar so the question becomes, how much more data showing improved/ black and white S&T profiles between the two is needed for the FDA to grant AA for this to replace Dox as SOC for STS?

STS is usually something they manage not cure. All eyes on the heavily pretreated UPS patient nearing a complete response = Benchmarks redefined. Dare I say the first patient to be cured by AVA6000 who's only tired of going to the hospital!!!...I hope so.

Worse case efficacy is the same it is still a better safer option for patients. We expect to improve on efficacy due to increased Dox in the tumour. FDA won't drag this on for years if the case is clear. Like I said the benchmark is very low and we have had sight of a lot of S&T data. AS CC would say.... it smashes it out of the park.

RoryD they said in the last RNS one indication into P2. Any additional plans beyond that are plan B so for the sake of this discussion let's keep it simple and go with plan A one indication.

We have been given guidance that there is likely no straight Dox arm. If that is correct there is no placebo, no blinded or double blinded element. We know the dose will be the RP2D the outcome of the Q2W trial assuming no issues but so far so good. Therefore I see it as likely one arm (one large cohort) across multiple trail sites at a single dose.

I think you are over complicating this based on typical P2 trials that have less advanced P1 data sets and a drug aren't using a 40 year old drug. This is different.

FDA are more supportive of using comparable data sets and AVCT have referenced some of these from Dr Tap already. Side effect profile against these we have seen is chalk and cheese.

Obviously all this is TBC and imo. AS indicated circa 80 patients to me in a discussion on this some time ago.

roryd on the one hand you dismiss the approx cost of p2 (my *** packet numbers) based on the rationale i clearly explain then you say less patients might actually be needed but it will cost more than £10m. can you explain your costing rationale please for clarity.

as a ref point current cost per patient is £$60-70k i discussed this myself with management and hence my revised up numbers (£100k) adds a lot of buffer. they will need a statistically relevant number of patients in p2 but the expansion studies could surprise to the upside as well aiding p2.

don't forget as we understand it no straight dox arm is required that is big cost saving in itself.

RoryD - Just picking up on your moonshot comment. I don't agree it is a moonshot and I will explain why.

1. The MoA has been proven, once cleaved Dox behaves as Dox in the TME

2. Biopsies have confirmed Dox in the Tumour at much higher ratios (see IC50 numbers from previous slides)

3. Efficacy has been seen in multiple patients who have tumours that respond to Dox

4. The UPS patient on the 160mg/m2 dose is nearing a complete response

5. The safety profile vs straight Dox is chalk and cheese

6. They have 40+ years of data and understanding of Dox

7. Why would you ever choose straight Dox over AVA6000 when comparing the safety profile alone.

8. Near term revenues from AVA6000 are not far away vs a new drug trial requiring P3 completion before approval.

9. P2 - say 80 patients and I pick that number out of the air at £100k a pop but call it £10m..that isn't a lot of cash to find

10. Point 1 is arguably the most important for Precision not 6k.

The risk is low on 6k but the execution risk on other business areas and timings is likely higher but all achievable e.g DX sale, HCI removal etc. It's likely AVCT won't be taking this to approval themselves so someone else's risk.

Energyshares - Great post.

BMS have an orphan drug programme so worth having them on the list. Multiple indications in expansion studies will be attractive for them. 1 step away from P2 and likely Accelerated approval = revenues.

Bella the European healthcare fund was Axa Framlington Biotech.

GMCC I can shed some light - LG CHEM labelling dropped off the other day. I emailed the company on this issue then followed up again today. Looks like it is back to normal now

Anthony I had been thinking the same over the last few days. Shorts buying back in a controlled manner. Assuming a 50p entry that's circa 20% for them. Short disclosures are done T+1 so I expect to see the FCA short report updated each 0.1% they go through buying back. I checked earlier nothing yet.

M216 my point was more a general one I know others have experienced themselves. If you post some factual points in response to some FUD expert nonsense and then it disappears from the board it suggests the trolls have reported it deliberately. Funny that. For clarity I don't work for anyone. No games here just a shareholder unlike some others. I was replying to Ben's post I agreed with and used 'our' to include anyone posting constructive comments nothing more. Sadly there is a lot of nonsense and bickering on LSE.

Ben report them report them report them. This is why our own constructive comments vanish as they do exactly that.

Dog....If a BP make a bid unsupported by the board they risk a bidding war with competition they might lose. If they are genuinely interested they won't want to lose to a competitor so step one is to get the board on side and therefore agree on a number. This is why all this talk of low bids is nonsense and more FUD than reality. If the board won't support it many shareholders won't. Then the numbers get revised up and the process continues. You could easily end up in double digits with the IP they have already. The question for a bidding war then becomes what is the cost of not owning it vs a competitor.....near term revenue, global IP protection, patent cliffs extended using Precision, prop warheads etc etc. BP have big cheque books.

PL75 just coming back to your points yesterday pm. If we agree DX and HCI are parachutes on the business solutions to them both are required. News of selling DX would rally the SP but being left with a CLN doesn't look great for new investors if they are going to get diluted each quarter. Also the debt is a large % of our mkt cap right now so the optics are terrible and would be priced in for any offer. There are a few options on how to use DX cash imo.

1. Extend the cash runway and leave HCI as is until a bigger deal lands then clear it.

2. Use it to remove HCI asap in sum or part. If a shortfall raise say £10m at a higher price

3. If the SP can be back at a level where HCI can be taken out at spot by a cornerstone investor & DX cash left on the balance sheet then great.

My preference is option 3 if achievable but option 2 if it can be done with the SP much higher than now (£1+)and quickly.

I don't mind DX cash being used in this way because the momentum that comes with removing a quarterly trading signpost that has had a hugely negative impact on the SP every time more so than the actual HCI payment itself has been self harming for too long. It also removes a reason for II's not to invest and we need the register to be adding II's especially if we expect bids at some point and want a positive outcome not a low ball offer accepted. Lastly my comments above are heavily weighted on my expectation that a deal lands before the end of the year extending the cash runway, removing any P2 funding concerns and next years going concern audit point. We need the house keeping done before that to look like a credible BP.

There is a list of potential near term news items that might finally enable us to move on from this chapter

- New Executive Director added to the BOD

- Management buying stock

- New Broker

- Sign Goldmans an advisor eg Goldmans

- A complete response is confirmed in the UPS patient by the AGM

- DX Sale

- Affyxell news

- Partner milestone payments - Point/ LG Chem

The list goes on. The tide changes soon.

Wearegroot - I respectfully disagree. Agreed we have cash in the bank but the company have to keep the cash position looking as long as possible and move things forward. DX cash is a non dilutive option and would further add to the cash pile and allow a more aggressive approach to progress the pipeline. We have hardly progressed the pipeline on any front in recent years due to a lack of cash. This is at the expense of cash being in DX broadly speaking which was purchased using dept and we dilute in shares each quarter to buy a business that is not able to pay the dept in cash. DX will never provide a ROI like TX so keeping it for 12 months to see a profit is a bad call imo.

If you had a choice would you prefer DX being sold enabling HCI to be removed (making the numbers straight forward here) and we are sat at 100p+ or keep DX and and HCI for and sat sub placing? The optics of DX and HCI are so bad if removed the upside would be huge. If we see a low ball offer before we have got rid of these two parachutes it would be a travesty as they are holding this company back and SP back and might well cost us a lot of money on any near term offer as a result. Then you might regret the SP not being higher before an offer comes just because of the presence of DX and HCI.

Sell DX and remove HCI asap and perhaps we see some serious investors come onboard to support a TX business that is 100% focused on delivering Precision to the market for billions of pounds.