Instead of continually knocking other posters why don’t you tell us your timeline for Avacta trials, development etc and expected impact on SP. I’m particularly interested in any evidence supporting a significant SP movement before this Summer
At the end of the day, initial efficacy results will not be published before June IMO. And CC has said as much. She has also said that any acceptable deal is unlikely before those results are published.
And there will be no takeover even if CJ62 forms a consortium of shareholders and tries to push it through at say £1
That is my point. Trial start does not mean first patient dosed. CC has outlined in a previous communication the lengthy steps between IND approval and first in patient dosed.
My prediction is still for initial clinical results around June.
No deals until at least tolerance shown to some degree and even then maybe not until initial signs of efficacy.
And yes I do know that P1 is not designed to show efficacy.
Clear from what CC said in today’s RNS that no one has been dosed with 6103 yet. Given the preparation work that needs to be carried out including pre screening, I previously predicted April earliest for dosing to start. (Based on 6100 timescales)
RE: From MM on X - If it offends - Tough6 Feb 2026 13:22
All hail the uber ramper.
But I agree with everything except I think his timeline is optimistic. I’m still saying Summer for the pivotal moment - in that respect I am accepting CC’s predictions.
Why can’t the seasoned well informed investors on here understand that each time news is released is a time to review the risk/reward balance of an investment. Great RNS today moves the balance towards the reward side. Whether it is far enough to make you buy is up to your investment aims. It’s got nothing to do with loyalty or disloyalty towards Avacta. Or saving lives. It’s an investment decision that’s all. We aren’t supporting our favourite soccer team.
As I recall doxorubicin worked well in a combined treatment for TNBC but the main issue was that despite destroying the tumours many patients died later because of collateral damage to organs. Hence why AVA6000 was seen as a potentially better treatment.