Member Info for Thompi

Sorry, correction to post - Thorn’s ADD is Avacta Deficit Disorder.

It would be good if LSE gave the option to edit a post - even if it’s just 10 minutes to make a correction.

Thorn has ADD - Avacta Deficit Order:

• Compulsive posting (41 posts in 24hrs is his record so far)

• Zero shareholding

• Chronic fixation on one company

• Symptoms worsen after data releases

Sadly, there’s no approved treatment:

• Data doesn’t help

• Clarification doesn’t help

• Silence helps a bit, but relapse is common

What a prize plonker!

Touk, I think you’re over-crediting your Mystic Meg abilities here. “Avacta won’t take 6000 into P2 – probably no one will” is a judgement on AVA6000’s viability as a Phase 2 asset. Management saying they would look to take it into Phase 2 with a partner is a funding and risk-sharing strategy. Those are different positions, and conflating them after the fact is rewriting the meaning of your original post. Which incidentally was the 20th December - fecking hell you don’t half post a lot, it took some scrolling through.

Someone did ask that question BV in the Turner Pope presentation. I remember it well because it seemed an out of place question for a presentation that was supposed to be focusing on three posters that had been presented at AACR in April.

Wyn, have you never read that other classic tale? The one about a poster called Thorn who spent years filling a share board with malicious, pompous FUD, then affects surprise when even the most patient investors eventually tell him to feck off. It’s called Lord of the FUD.

The moral of the story is simple: relentless FUD produces exasperation, irritation and - entirely predictably - a response.

People can only take so much… or explain half-life so many times

Thorny, are you back in bed again with TW? Myles McNulty rather showed you up on that a couple of years ago.

Totally untrustworthy. Talks tripe. Zero integrity.

Thanks BV for reposting Dan’s concise rebuttal.

It’s frankly ridiculous that we’re still having to wade through Thorn-in-the-side’s half-life obsession.

Worth reposting again - not that the now uninvested half-life-wit will take any notice.

From Dan:

Half-life is not an issue with AVA6000 / doxorubicin.

It is an issue with exatecan.

It might be an issue with other payloads.

Down-talking AVA6000 on half-life grounds is FUD.

And while still to be proven clinically, Avacta now has the ability to tailor half-life to the payload if required.

Really - nothing more needs to be said.

I agree Russell & Pedro - the posting has become relentless. Thorn & Touk are by far the most prolific posters on here - less is definitely more. I’ve sin-binned Thorn for my own sanity.

And with respect to NFTs - I do appreciate that you’re trying to counter the FUD, but for me some of the recent posts were straying a bit into rampy inference territory.

Thorn has posted 249 times on Avacta in the last 30 days (average 8 posts per day) - including 41 times yesterday even though he is no longer invested. FORTY ONE TIMES. It’s almost funny - what a twat.

Thanks NFTs, I appreciate the reply. The peptide angle in the PepLib deal is interesting, although there doesn’t appear to be any indication that the asset targets FAP.

I agree that, based on the Novartis presentation, they have a large cash war chest that they’re clearly willing to deploy. The CEO was explicit that oncology is an area they are looking to strengthen, with an active focus from both a BD and M&A standpoint.

Cheers for the good work you are doing on here.

Hi NFTs, going back to your post last night and the comment below:

“The FAP Lock: Yesterday, Novartis reinforced the value of the ‘address’ by licensing new FAP-targeting compounds. They’ve labeled FAP a ‘Tier 1’ priority target.”

Please could you point me to the source you’re referring to? I listened to the Novartis JPM presentation and reviewed the slide deck, but I couldn’t find that wording referenced there.

SNewby, I think the question is really: what clinical benefit should we expect from doxorubicin in SGC?

Chris has said repeatedly that SGC is a notoriously chemo-refractory indication, which is why PFS and durability - not RECIST PRs - are the clinically meaningful endpoints and the basis of the planned Phase 2/3. In that context, ~90% disease control, with many patients still on treatment and median PFS not yet reached, is a successful trial outcome.

In SGC, prolonged PFS is the priority; tumour shrinkage is a bonus.

I will try it again.

Hi GHD,

The Avacta-specific commentary in the PL note is confined to the Avacta company section and the “next updates” table, where they reiterate Buy (TP 72p) and expect upcoming updates to focus on clinical data, while noting cash to mid-2026 and the need for partnering or fundraising in H1.

Elsewhere in the note Avacta appears only in a wider sector or peer-group context alongside other companies; those references are not Avacta-specific and are therefore not included here.

Here is the AVCT specific content. Sorry if the formatting goes awry.

“Avacta (Buy, TP 72p)

Avacta is a pureplay biotech developing oncology drugs using its pre|CISION

platform. The lead programme, Faridoxorubicin (AVA6000), is in a Phase I

expansion study across three indications (salivary gland cancer, breast cancer

and soft tissue sarcoma). Encouraging data in salivary gland cancer, including

multiple confirmed responses and Progression Free Survival (PFS) close to

double that of standard of care, was released at AACR, with data on the larger

Phase Ib expansion cohort released at ESMO supporting the early readout.

FAP-EXd (AVA6103), the second programme in development, is currently in

pre-IND studies and on track to enter the clinic in early 2026. Expansion of the

foundation IP, to include both the ability to manage half-life, rate of release,

and add multiple peptides to a single conjugate, in addition to release only in

the tumour microenvironment, gives a highly attractive core technology with

multiple applications. Avacta is looking to generate value from both its portfolio

and platform with active business development discussions.

The company has taken steps to address its financial position, through both

the renegotiation of the Heights Capital Bond, which has removed the quarterlydilution aiding share price performance, and a £16m fundraising in November. This extends cash to mid-2026. Consequently, Avacta requires additional funding for the continuing development of both the platform and product portfolio. This could potentially be achieved through licensing, although, in our view, will probably include a further equity raise. This is most likely to be on AIM in the near term, though a NASDAQ listing should not be ruled out in time.”

“Summary of expected next updates

Expect a focus on clinical data rather than financials. Cash to mid-2026 requires partnership/fundraising in H1 and may temper R&D activity.”

Sorry the formatting did go awry. LSE doesn’t seem to like copy and pasting sometimes.

Hi GHD,

The Avacta-specific commentary in the PL note is confined to the Avacta company section and the “next updates” table, where they reiterate Buy (TP 72p) and expect upcoming updates to focus on clinical data, while noting cash to mid-2026 and the need for partnering or fundraising in H1.

Elsewhere in the note Avacta appears only in a wider sector or peer-group context alongside other companies; those references are not Avacta-specific and are therefore not included here.

Here is the AVCT specific content. Sorry if the formatting goes awry.

“Avacta (Buy, TP 72p)

Avacta is a pureplay biotech developing oncology drugs using its pre|CISION

platform. The lead programme, Faridoxorubicin (AVA6000), is in a Phase I

expansion study across three indications (salivary gland cancer, breast cancer

and soft tissue sarcoma). Encouraging data in salivary gland cancer, including

multiple confirmed responses and Progression Free Survival (PFS) close to

double that of standard of care, was released at AACR, with data on the larger

Phase Ib expansion cohort released at ESMO supporting the early readout.

FAP-EXd (AVA6103), the second programme in development, is currently in

pre-IND studies and on track to enter the clinic in early 2026. Expansion of the

foundation IP, to include both the ability to manage half-life, rate of release,

and add multiple peptides to a single conjugate, in addition to release only in

the tumour microenvironment, gives a highly attractive core technology with

multiple applications. Avacta is looking to generate value from both its portfolio

and platform with active business development discussions.

The company has taken steps to address its financial position, through both

the renegotiation of the Heights Capital Bond, which has removed the quarterlydilution aiding share price performance, and a £16m fundraising in November. This extends cash to mid-2026. Consequently, Avacta requires additional funding for the continuing development of both the platform and product portfolio. This could potentially be achieved through licensing, although, in our view, will probably include a further equity raise. This is most likely to be on AIM in the near term, though a NASDAQ listing should not be ruled out in time.”

“Summary of expected next updates

Expect a focus on clinical data rather than financials. Cash to mid-2026 requires partnership/fundraising in H1 and may temper R&D activity.”

Touk – “To my mind it wasn’t the content it was CC’s demeanour… On 17th she looked totally deflated.”

There was a video feed, but it was of the slide deck only, not the presenters themselves. No presenter was visible at any point, so there was no way to see CC’s demeanour, body language, or facial expression. Any reaction would therefore have been to the content, the tone, or to expectations going in.

I do agree it was a flat presentation by usual standards. I was surprised and disappointed by how little time Dave Liebowitz spent on the long-awaited Phase 1b preliminary data - literally a few short sentences on the updated swimmer and waterfall plots.

“Here’s an update to our waterfall plot. This has Phase 1a and Phase 1b patients. Notably, we have nine patients that had either partial or minor responses, and you see the 90% disease control rate that we’ve achieved in this population of patients.

Here is the updated swimmer plot. And what you can see here is that most of the patients are still ongoing, and we have not reached our median follow-up at this point.”

It wasn’t the best of presentations. But I did have some sympathy for Chris - after a long and demanding year, fatigue may well have played a part.

Hi Unicorno, just for accuracy: Avacta have stated that the four AVA6103 indications will be in SCLC, gastric, pancreatic and cervical cancer - TNBC hasn’t been identified as a clinical indication.

Also, Enhertu uses DXd (deruxtecan) rather than exatecan (Chris has described them as being in the same Topo-I family but it is not the same payload).

Runner-Runner, you are quite right - engaging with Thorn is a pointless exercise and clogs up the board. I will cease with from doing it.

He is the master of:

• Selective framing – Consistently adopts the most negative interpretation while omitting relevant positives or context (e.g. characterising the TNBC expansion as “random” or SGC as “lucky” despite a clearly articulated, safety-driven clinical rationale).

• Rhetorical erosion (“just asking questions”) – Deploys chains of deliberately unanswerable questions (e.g. “I guess going with a random punt when you've got all that data tells you something?”, creating implied incompetence by default when no forum participant can provide definitive documentary proof.

• Disingenuous speculation – Advances conjecture as informed analysis, retrospectively hedged with “effective” or “IMHO” (e.g. “AVA6000 is ALL about half lives. That's why it doesn't work and Dr Smith got sacked. IMHO”)

• Narrative poisoning – High-volume negative posting to dominate and toxify board sentiment through repetition (15 posts yesterday) rather than substantiated argument.

• Speculation presented as fact – Sarcastic insinuations phrased as authoritative conclusions (“investors got lucky SGC responded”).

• Faux civility and deflection – Maintains a polite surface tone (“Good question”, “Thoughts?”) that discourages moderation, while substantive challenges are deflected with sarcasm, reframing, or further unanswerable questions.

And Thorn, you prize plonker, this was not a random decision. It followed Scientific Advisory Board input and was based on the exceptional clinical safety profile of AVA6000.

Gemstar, I don’t know whether the Tempus collaboration was instrumental in the decision to expand into TNBC. What Chris has explicitly cited is input from the Scientific Advisory Board - specifically Anthony Yu - based on AVA6000’s cardiac safety profile.

Below is a verbatim quote from Chris at the October 2024 Science Day:

Let me tell you a story from our Scientific Advisory Board meeting. So we have a cardiologist from Memorial Sloan Kettering on our Scientific Advisory Board. His name’s Anthony Yu. He didn’t say much through the ad board. We were trying to pick: what are the indications? What is the dose? Where are we going to go with AVA6000?

At the end of the meeting, he unmuted on the Zoom and he said, ‘Chris, can I take the floor for a second?’ I said, ‘Absolutely.’ Now, we had talked about breast cancer quite a bit, and he said, ‘Look, I just want all of you to know — and I want you to hear — my waiting room at Memorial Sloan Kettering is full of young women who have been treated on Keynote 522.’

Keynote 522 was a trial done by Merck with pembrolizumab. It revolutionized how we treat early-stage breast cancer. It includes doxorubicin, and we accept that nearly 10% of patients treated with this highly toxic chemotherapy — which includes doxorubicin at a lower dose — but we accept that many of these women who are cured of their breast cancer will show up in his office with heart failure.

And he unmuted because he said, ‘Please, please, can we get the breast cancer trial? Can we get it going? This is where this drug is going to have impact. All you know — respect to patients with soft tissue sarcoma, patients with salivary gland cancer, a subset of head and neck — but he said, “This is where you’re going to have an impact.”