Member Info for Toukankahmoon

Thorn

Define merit?

CC knows Novartis key players

CC trusts that she won’t be dumped 12 months after the TO

Avacta would be a nice fit with Novartis

Novartis have the funds

Novartis aren’t so big that Avacta will be swallowed up and lost

This isn’t about who will pay the most

I posted a good few weeks back that I thought (conjecture) that CC’s role as head of development was a stipulation of Novartis TO offer.

Yes all guesswork on my part. Time will tell

As I’ve said many times before, CC has friends at Novartis and they are neighbours with Avacta on White City. 👍

My post does not say that all organisations can’t be trusted. It says don’t immediately take things at face value. Again, you obviously aren’t following the Post Office Inquiry which is a horrific example of manipulation by senior organisation managers and their legal representatives in order to protect the organisations image.

In this post I was intending to highlight the shift in focus with our new CEO.

Al’s focus was on the science and nurturing his baby all the way through to the end.

CC’s focus is on delivering a life saving drug into use asap

************************************

Whilst Al was on board I agree with you. But the picture regarding commercialisation has changed completely with Chris. She wants this out there asap and will be happy with a well paid role in new company and share options but isn’t interested in a fortune. The money will take a very poor second place to achieving fast development of the drugs. Also she will want to feel very comfortable with the new company and make sure she isn’t sidelined after a few months

************************

BenH

There you go again

At least I’m not stupid enough to put ‘all ‘ my money in one share no matter how promising it looks

BenH

Another poster determined to read my post in a way that they can argue.

I meant if large institutions can do it. What is to say that any institution is telling all the facts. The chart I refer to is great because it has numbers not the ambiguous phrases that Al was prone to use.

Ice

Following the Post Office Enquiry, I have little faith in what any large institution says. Certainly blatant lying is par for the course it seems. So I’m inclined to view Avacta’s communications with a very suspicious eye.

Ice

Possibly, but not a clearly as Christina.

Apologies

Watching

I tell it how it is. I was concerned about rate of excretion of AVA6000 from the body because I was try to understand why so few patients had react favourably in the trials. So I was delighted by Christina’s explanation with regard to that slide.

As to hot and cold, that pretty much describes the ride with this share over the last 5 years.

And I haven’t dissed Al like some others on here.

Please don’t tell me that you are another that just takes sides to pursue a vindictive agenda.

I posted earlier this week about FAP levels related to dox in the biopsies and how great it was that Christina had emphasised it as one of the important findings and gje said I was lying. I called them out and it appears they’ve gone off the rails finding it really important pursue a vendetta than post anything about Avacta 🤣

To me the fact that AVA6000 works well with differing levels of FAP as emphasised by Christina, was the most comforting point to come out of her description of the science. Providing that they have been able to target patients with tumours that are expected to respond well to dox, then arm2 results could well be the pivotal moment that is well overdue.

GLA

Buen

You mention gje in your post so I presume that he is the author of all my new green boxes. I called him out and now the sad vindictive moron has launched a vendetta against me. Jeez what a ……

Bella

You can’t be right because when I highlighted these excellent facts and what they mean, to gje306 he said I was posting lies.

I guess it just to show that some just want to to stir it up and argue with me regardless of whether I am highlighting great things about Avacta or raising concerns.

Gje306 you are a sad vindictive person. Binned

Gje306

You accused me of spreading lies. I directed you to the chart supporting what I said and you change the subject just to continue arguing with me. I guess you are well under water but don’t take it out on other posters

Ice

I admire your efforts to cheer us all up and will now recognise your posts as just that and not take issue with you.

In turn feel free to treat my posts as an effort to depress us all

GLA🤣

Gje306

Look at the f*cking slide. Chris specifically made the point that there was no higher dox in the biopsies from high FAP expressing tumours than the mid FAP ones. And this was something they were surprised and encouraged by.

That is why it is pointless discussing things on here because half the posters only hear what they want to hear.

Ice

Why high FAP. Chris explain a slide demonstrating that level of FAP wasn’t a determinant in amount of fox in the tumour biopsies

The fact that Chris says it’s on track doesn’t make it so.

The exceptional clinical results are no more exceptional than that extrapolated from the mouse trials.

Chris made a point that the amount of dox in the tumour was not directly proportional to FAP present so why is there such a range of tumour shrinkage or in some cases continuing growth?

Jeez

You must have a great average buy price

Ice

Agree

Ice

I think you’ll find that it’s mainly the chairman that “represents “ the shareholders