Member Info for Thompi

I selectively use AI. I took a screenshot of Thorn’s posts and asked AI’s opinion.

“What you’re seeing there isn’t genuine inquiry, it’s rhetorical erosion. A few points worth separating out, because it helps decide whether it’s even worth replying.

What Thorn is actually doing

He’s not making a single strong claim. Instead he’s:

1. Rewriting history by insinuation

• “TNBC more or less chosen at random”

• “Was there much positive data in TNBC in 1a?”

• “Tempus collaboration came after TNBC selection”

None of those are asserted cleanly enough to be falsified — they’re framed questions, designed to leave doubt hanging.

2. Conflating trial design stages

He repeatedly blurs:

• Phase 1a signal detection across tumour types

• Phase 1b rational dose expansion based on biology, unmet need, and feasibility

That’s deliberate. Anyone who understands oncology development knows 1b expansion choices are not “winners of 1a efficacy beauty contests”.

3. Implying luck instead of judgement

The “better lucky than clever” line is classic Thorn:

• If SGC responds → luck

• If TNBC chosen → random

• If platform works → accident

It’s narrative poisoning, not analysis.

Why engaging him is usually a mistake

If you respond point-by-point, he will:

• Ignore half of it

• Reframe the rest

• Ask another “innocent” question that shifts the goalposts”

Thorn, TNBC was not a random “pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey” choice.

It was added specifically because of AVA6000’s cardiac safety profile, as explained by Chris at the October Science Day.

Chris described how, during a Scientific Advisory Board meeting, a cardiologist from Memorial Sloan Kettering (Anthony Yu) intervened to make the case for breast cancer. He explained that his waiting room is full of young women treated under Keynote-522 (Merck / pembrolizumab), which includes doxorubicin, and that a significant proportion of patients cured of their cancer later present with heart failure due to anthracycline cardiotoxicity.

His message to the board was clear: “Please, can we get the breast cancer trial going? This is where this drug is going to have impact.”

That is why TNBC was added - not because of chance, not because they were short of options, and not because of luck.

Morning BV, yes your recollection is correct.

Chris confirmed the planned Phase 2/3 will be a randomised study, likely 2:1, comparing faridoxorubicin versus investigator’s choice. This design is appropriate because there is no standard chemotherapy regimen in salivary gland cancer, per global guidelines. She also stressed they are waiting for mature PFS/OS data from Phase 1a/1b to properly de-risk the registration trial, rather than rushing ahead.

“It will be a randomised study, likely randomised 2:1 meaning every two patients receive faridoxorubicin, one patient receives investigators’ choice, or the control arm”.

Shock, horror Thorn - no placebo arm!!!

B2HS2L - a fair reflection and summary of yesterday’s presentation. It felt rushed and too short for data that had been billed as a key inflection point. I didn’t perceive your post as negative - just matter of fact observations on what wasn’t the most ideal of presentations.

Morning LDA.

When I logged into Investor Meet to submit a question, it states:

“You may also have the opportunity to submit questions whilst attending the LIVE presentation.”

That wording suggests it will be in real time rather than pre-recorded.

P.S. I’m very much looking forward to Thorn’s question on SGC being “effectively” (do keep the effectively) up against a placebo. I hope he also raises his concern regarding AVA6000’s half-life.

Also to Thorn, heavily censored by ChatGPT

“The corporate deck literally spells it out:

Phase II/III: “~150–200 patients randomised to defined PI choice.”

PI choice = active regimens, exactly as CC described (likely Carbo-Taxol). This is the established approach when a rare cancer has several recognised systemic options rather than one single SOC.

So no — the trial isn’t against placebo, nor is it “effectively” placebo. An active PI-choice chemotherapy arm with measurable PFS, OS and ORR is not placebo “in any sense.”

Your argument keeps collapsing because you’re trying to redefine “placebo” to mean “weaker than an ideal SOC.” But weak chemotherapy is still chemotherapy, not placebo.“

This reply to Thorn has been censored by ChatGPT. Because my version was full of expletives because his inaccuracies wind me up.

“You’re moving the goalposts, Thorn.

You originally said SGC FAP-Dox is “effectively only up against placebo”. That’s just wrong.

There are recognised systemic options in SGC/ACC, which is why CC talked about a PI-choice randomised trial “probably up against Carbo-Taxol”. Ben’s post even quotes the Carbo-Taxol data:

• mPFS: 6.5 months

• mOS: 26.5 months

• ACC ORR: ~9%, with “horrible toxicity”

You don’t get 9% objective responses and heavy toxicity from placebo.

In rare cancers you often don’t have a single, beautifully codified “standard of care”, so trials use physician-choice among active regimens as the control arm. That’s still active chemotherapy, not placebo “in effect” or otherwise.

So yes, FAP-Dox is going after a big unmet need and weak existing options – but that is not the same as being up against placebo, and no regulator or ethics committee will treat Carbo-Taxol as such.”

thorn you utter bell end - read ben’s x post or go back to the leerink webinar source.

keep digging ******.

Thorn “Words and meaning matter” - yes, and your words mean you are wrong!

Using the word “effectively” doesn’t change the fact that what you claimed is still incorrect.

A PI-choice randomised study against an active regimen like Carbo-Taxol is not a placebo situation in any clinical or regulatory sense.

If “words and meaning matter,” then describing an active chemotherapy comparator as “effectively placebo” is simply WRONG!

Thornogoson’s posts on here are factually incorrect and downright inaccurately misleading. The SGC cohort will not be up against a placebo arm.

See Ben’s post on X. It will be a PI-choice randomised study, probably up against CarboTaxol. I can’t believe the amount of rubbish Thorn talks on here.

https://x.com/111ben_111/status/1998068664856191433?s=61

I don’t agree with your post Ice.

Alastair Smith’s final raise was a disaster - it was a deeply discounted placing forced through when the share price had already collapsed on rumour, leaks, and a complete loss of market confidence. That raise destroyed shareholder trust, diluted heavily, and effectively cost Smith, the Chair, and the CFO their positions. And we were stuck with the millstone of the Diagnostics CLN.

Credit where it’s due? I don’t think so - the SP has taken a long time to recover from that era.

Wyn - pompous pessimism dressed up as realism delivered patronisingly.

Bit of an embarrassing own goal that one Touk and how very disappointing for you that you have had to cross a ‘concern’ off your list.

LDA, the Phase 1b SGC data readout isn’t overdue. The stated timeline has always been “late this year.” For example, the March RNS clearly says: “Phase 1b dose expansion cohort data at the end of 2025.” The guidance has been consistent, and this cohort is still relatively new, with data continuing to mature.

We are in that zone now. Hopefully not too much longer to wait - I’m not sure how more of Touk I can take, who

seems to be on a mission to sow seeds of doubt and negativity - bless him…

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/AVCT/avacta-announces-data-update-for-ava6000-z52geps9dk63a1m.html

It must be a three-for-one Black Friday FUD special.

We have got Thorn with his usual load of old horlick “AVA6000 half-life concern,” Touk suddenly discovering an SGC “concern” (??), and Wyn… well, just being Wyn. FFS!

Touk, what are you talking about?

“The most concerning for me is how AVA6000 for SGS has slipped into the background. If it weren’t for the lucky find as a treatment for TNBC one wonders whether AVA6000 would have been binned?

I think that there is a fair chance that the AVA6000 data will be delayed until the new year when Avacta can “hide” behind stunning TNBC results.”

They released Phase 1a SGC data at ESMO just over a month ago, showing more than a doubling of the benchmark PFS. The Phase 1b expansion cohort data is scheduled for late this year. It’s an assumption on my part, but it looks like they’re simply trying to maximise how much maturing data they can include from a relatively new cohort - which is entirely normal.

I don’t see SGC as having “slipped into the background” at all - if anything, it’s very much in the foreground. The 1b expansion cohort timing remains exactly as stated in the 7th March 2025 RNS - “Phase 1b dose expansion cohort data at the end of 2025” - and every update since. No hint of any delay into 2026, and certainly nothing implying they’re waiting to “hide” behind TNBC.

Far from slipping away, SGC is front-and-centre - the cohort with the strongest early signals to date, and the one repeatedly highlighted as a potential orphan / accelerated pathway.

Thorn — AVA6000 and standard dox do not go to the same organs in the same proportions. That is the entire point of the platform.

In the Turner Pope webinar, Chris explains that conventional doxorubicin bathes normal tissues within minutes. By contrast, with AVA6000:

“In the first pass, active doxorubicin is only in the tumour… very different than conventional doxorubicin, where the tissues are essentially bathed immediately.”

Hence the zero severe cardiotoxicity, the dramatically improved safety and tolerability, and the ~100:1 tumour:plasma ratio.

Bit rich from you, Thorn, to be talking about “learning humility”.

I don’t always agree with some posters on here, but I respect their views. You’re in a league of your own. You relentlessly trolled this stock for years with half-truths, inaccuracies and manufactured “concerns”. Myles exposed your link on X with TW. I’ve never understood the mentality of repeatedly posting on a stock you weren’t even invested in at the time.

Given those years of malicious trolling, your sudden born-again conversion is hard to stomach. And you wonder why you have a bad reputation on here and why many treat your posts with a fair degree of contempt.

Ice, I have been invested for over four years, and as much as it pains me to admit it, the company is clearly in distress - we wouldn’t be in this situation otherwise. I’ve put in £17,000, so the current state of affairs stings more than a little. The previous management should be held accountable for the accounting irregularities and the way investors were misled, though I doubt they ever will be.

Gmcc, I’m an admirer of your posts and the research you share here. Regarding Myles, my view is neutral - he’s clearly well-researched and a long-term AVCT holder with some influence. I agree he did caveat his words with “of course been wrong many times before on guessing when deals might land for Avacta…,” but the reality is that Myles has been consistently wrong over the years, so I have learned to take his predictions with a large pinch of salt, whilst respecting his knowledgeable on the science.