Member Info for RorkesDrift

US has turned inter web on. Phew

Timster - nooooooooooooooooo

To be fair says nothing is top notch. Also says efficacy data is top notch. Not sure how regulators define top notch but I'm pretty sure it is more than an n of 1 and will have some sort of statistics in there. Will run out of superlatives by the time avacta get a randomised study with incredible confidence intervals and hugely clinically significant result. I'm also more confident than ever but more because of the studies designs being proposed and my interpretation that means it works. Not proof just my interpretation.

Isn't normal dox the normal first line treatment. For ethics to grant that they must be reasonably confident patients in the trial have a reasonable chance of not suffering any detriment and either them and/or the health system a reasonable chance of a benefit. To be able to reason that they would need data.

Sheppy - healthy skeptisimn is what the board should be about but to call avacta a pure gamble yet quote the market perception has being relevant suggests you are confused. Either all shares are a coin toss or all shares are bound by the market. If its the later then the rules of high risk, high return apply but then that's not a pure gamble but a calculated one.

Nah - never go back and I had a mk2, mk3 and sat in a few XR3i. Thinking XKR has a balance between the possibilities. However, there is a nice Reliant Scimitar up for grabs that would suit the Timster. No rust so you know its a bargain.

In respect of recovery its a difficult one. Cardiac cells don't regenerate but there may be effects below this threshold. Are those effects reversible - in other cells and drugs yes but I'm not sure with cardiac cells.

The doctors couldn't tell is also great. Were they referring to visible appearance, basic signs or something more like blood tests. How many patients etc etc. They keep upping the dose which suggests cardiac toxicity is known to remain low otherwise unethical to continue - I'm thinking they are looking to see the same thing at more frequent dosing. The trial will enable that statement to be proven and therefore allowed as a claim. As I say my belief is they can already predict the outcome hence run in parallel - the two week cycle trial is to keep regulators and ethics committees happy ready to crack on with the efficacy P2 study.

Roll on Xmas (which may happen between St nicholas and St Davids days. 🤔.

Trying to decide between new car or something classic

When I say looking for I mean looking for an absence of....

At the risk of joining the magic calculator brigade AS has said the starting dose for the first cohort for two weekly dosing will be lower then C7 and then escalate up. It remains a P1 study suggesting tolerability remains key variable. I'm going to guess they looking for early markers of toxity and cumulative dose. Each six weeks patients will be on 50% bigger dose compared to three weeks and have less recovery time. However, they must have pretty good idea of what they expect to see due to the short timeframe. They know two week dosing also hits tumour harder and avoids saturating the fap enzyme maximising bang per mg. Otherwise why not just continue with ever increasing three weekly dosing. Its getting exciting - if they hadn't got positive results why would you plan a whole new study and move P2 forwards. Conjecture and assumption not proof. Anyone want to borrow a magic calculator.

Live. They have several highly qualified scientist including new medical director. I suspect AS might delegate much of the data report writing to them whilst they have repeated debates amongst themselves and the investigators about who gets to be first author of the paper that is already 2/3s written.

I'm picturing AS is a brand new Father Christmas shumper fitted with boosters whilst Paul Hill dressed as an elf bounces up and down excitedly whilst throwing out answers pretending to be questions. Alan just smiles and consults his share options list.

Runnerx2. Technically we have been pumping ava6000 into patients into patients not dox. Once P1a is published we will have a picture of how much of this is cleaved, the dynamics of this and the variability between patients. Then we can start talking about dose of dox. Not a good or bad thing just at the moment an unknown thing. Levels seen in tumour look dose dependent which is what you would expect over part of the curve. If you have your own crayons you can draw your own version of the rest.

The variability bit may be key and I suspect the highlighting of the different types of STS by AS of this in two recent presentations and the patient who seems to be doing much better then expected reflect something. Moving a group from holding tumours at bay to reducing their size has caused significant changes to trial design inc posology. Some on here predicted that but blowing your own should remain on TwAtter

Is it that hard to understand. Avacta has more risk that established pharma companies. It potentially has more RoI than those companies.

Risk : reward

The collective sense of the balance of these two factors drives share price. If you believe the market has it wrong then buy more shares or sell what you have. Twiterring about you don't understand it means you don't understand it. I think most share holders here know its not risk free but yesterdays presentation was positive and jeez I very nearly bought more. Rejoice that the imperfection of the market enables PIs with high risk tolerance to make a profit - otherwise go and buy glaxo. Don't tell others its a nailed on cert. It just isn't. Looking good though😬🤔😁

Timster - don't jinx it

Thank you. I was worried we were going to miss the daily post on a large buy - just need the one about my buy showing as a sell and all will be right with the world.

Oxygen makes a good point. There are 1000's of companies that have reported as having an oncology product in development. They all claim the same revolutionary advance. Added to that Avacta are on AIM which is one step further than the wild west. Prudent and by that I mean people who are paid to be, investors are waiting for hard facts rather than promising snippets and pom pom waving. Have to ask why a small group of people who presumably have a shed load of shares and state long term horizons need to pump out the same half cooked treats over and over again. What us their motivation given the company website has all the facts that they are putting through the magic calculator.

If they don't understand why the market values this dufferently to their £B valuations then fine - just accept market has different calculator and attitude to risk or just go on and on and on and on posting and posting. But I think we all know why they do it.....

Money sponge. I guess most of your answers can be found by considering WHY pharmaceuticals a HAVE TO undergo a REGULATORY approval step as opposed to a vote on Twitter. Inconvenient and time consuming since it requires company to produce ALL data derived from clinical trials which has lost investors in companies such as 4d pharma £millions (billions).

I know the reality button on the calculator is missing but there is enough there to build an investment case without having to make it up

The news last week was incredibly positive and reassuring. Everything is on track for ava6000 to be entering a straight fight with dox - a compound we know has significant tolerability issues but is the most effective choice currently available. Indeed most avenues for sts are focused on dox + something new rather than replacing it. Most. Not all.

I'm reluctant to adopt the pom pom shaking happening on X but looking forward to comment from more informed commentary - once we get clinicians telling us ava6000 is leading the pack then I suspect BP will follow. However, those guys will need a n > 1.

Until then I continue to hold but with slightly more regular checking for the red dot

I'd be happy with £119

Interesting thought that about taking drugs that failed to get through trials rather than just drugs that got over the line. Lots of patents being reignited.