The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
The abstract that has been re-shared is what is submitted for review to the conference panel/reviewers, several months before it takes place. If they accept it, the authors of the abstract are invited to present a poster, which is what happened. That‘s why abstracts are often less informative than posters, and are often written ahead of obtaining certain results with experiments planned ahead and taking time.
Ray
14M market cap, 6.3M cash just received, finally time for rerate?
r
Maybe because non-hail Mary (more understood) attempts at a cure could be are a better idea, and they have time to give more established options a go. There must be some ethics protocols about clinical trials about who can participate.
r
found it, page 77 here https://avacta.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Avacta-ARA-2020.pdf
have a good week-end all
Could someone point that document which has milestones for share options for employees/directors? I remember seeing it a while ago, that document had a line for example saying AS would have hit a bonus if the SP was around 1.50 at the end of the year 2021 (which did not happen and the options elapsed).
Thank you in advance.
Ray
Could be with the latest share allocations (500k, from memory) that it took their short (Bronte) below the 0.5% threshold and it isn‘t to be reported anymore? Then again all the short tracker websites do still note them at 0.5 (and Jupiter 0.58)
PK data describes how the molecules move (kinetic) through the body/blood. The table with rat in vivo data is just to show how quickly the drug gets flushed out, if it goes places etc. If I understand it correctly, the rats/dogs do not have a cancer (unlike the PDX) and that is why they had to add FAPa to actually activate the drug and see how it distributes/decays in the body. If there is no cancer, the concentration in the normal blood will not be high enough to activate 6000 (thankfully, that‘s the whole point!).
GLA
Ray
MrA clearly no idea what you are talking about re. peer review / scientific practice. The data are new and have been presented here. The conference is a form of peer review. Scientists submit abstracts to conferences or journals and other scientists evaluate the abstracts, leading to acceptance or rejections. Accept in a conference = invitation to present. And it's not like the mouse data has been in a journal yet? This is all hot off the press stuff, science moves rather slowly. Peer review doesn't mean they invite external people to the lab and reproduce results in front of their eyes. They also don't just make up tables which would be fraud, is that what you are implying by it "not being peer-reviewed"?