Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
There won't be an Avacta in 2026... It either ran out of cash, or is taken over... no point in stretching yourself thin to try to materialize longterm revenue. Affyxcell is irrelevant, unless you can monetize now and then get the big take-over...
Wyndrum is this chatroom's equivalent of a metastasizing solid tumor. The point of this thread is, I hope they are looking for a buy out from Affyxcell. I wouldn't have a clue what it would be worth for the majority owners, but even anything that gets close to or above 15Mio would strengthen AVACTA's negotiation position, on top of the DX-sale. There is one target only: be able to show that they can get AVA6000 through the clinic via breakthrough, and that they don't need anyone else. That's where the final deal will be struck...
AVACTA will never see the benefit of Affyxcell, unless they sell their stake in the medium term.
Could they consider being bought out of Affyxcell in order to fund the Precision-trials and be in a good negotiation position? I would be in favor. Affyxcell has undoubtedly great potential, but is too far down the line. We need to bring home Precision and get a good buy out price, before we run out of cash.
The market can stay irrational (yes, irrational) longer than you can stay solvent. One of the main reasons for the trial to take longer is because... the science does better than expected and they literally have to give up on finding dose limiting toxicities. Wyndfurtz... take a hike please.
Oh dear,
Silly take of the day again. All you need to know is that they expected to find dose limiting toxicities around C3-4... They did not even find those dose limiting toxicities at C7. That's all you need to know. Reading Wyndrum's BS is a waste of energy. Good luck.
Toukantw§ton,
Slide 16... If you manage to grasp the numbers... several times the therapeutic amount... even at cohort 4 and below.
https://avacta.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Avacta-Group-plc-Therapeutics-Non-confidential-BIO-June-23-www.avacta.com_.pdf
Swazers is here to help people... Now it's funded and has 40Mio+ GBP in cash (at 50p), let us all sell since Swazers says it will go into the 40's... Especially with the end of the news embargo around AACR.
Just mailed him the below:
Dear Sebastian,
I read your paper regarding the FAP-expression across 23 tumors. The AVACTA trial phase 1a results, to be presented at the AACR might be of interest. Below is a link to their latest presentation.
Best Regards,
XYZ
https://avacta.com/aacr-annual-meeting-april-9/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqj0hhgmX6U
Nice find! I am everything but the expert, but it wouldn't harm if someone knowledgeable could contact sebastian.dziadek@roche.com who is mentioned at the bottom of the paper. It never harms to make him aware about the upcoming poster presentation. The more BP-stakeholders are informed, the better.
Icecool,
"Dose Expansion Phase", "run up to phase 2".... Leave the queue of "comfortable lies" ... When you put lipstick on a pig... When it quack like a duck, looks like a duck, it is a.... correct... Phase 1b (with a different callsign)
I have written about this a week or two ago. It is a convoluted way of admitting phase 1b is back in town. That is the part of the comms that I do not like. Why not own up on it and explain why. Was it potential future partners that did not like the shortcut for licensing deals regarding other indications. Was it the FDA... Annoying, and a setback, but I could live with it, but own it and communicate it. Now the PI's imagination goes wild.
The fact that P1B is back is exactly the reason that they got cornered financially. Dropping it back then was considered a big reduction in trial cost and time... this is now back, hence they suddenly did not have the anticipated cash runway anymore.
AVACTA has taken the risk (and is taking the risk) of the early trials and putting its money on the table. I agree that if it works, it should be in hands of BP... I disagree that this means that AVACTA should be selling of cheaply. AVCT and shareholders are shouldering the risk, so should be rewarded for that. If BP is holding out until AVCT is on its knees, just to get a cheap deal, it's BP that is playing with patients' lives in order to make money. The ball is in BP''s court (if it works): Pay the fair value.