Member Info for Wiggly

It doesn't happen often however there is a reasonable probability that it happens here. The recent activities from Avacta strongly suggest that we will receive positive progress with Precision. If we have positive clinical progress with Precision then that should be reflected in the MC (proving that it happens)

Good news and lets not forget our stake recently increased to 22%. With GBC lined to invest more, I am now very curious as to the value of our 22% stake.

RNS worthy surely?

Biopsy not required during phase 1 so why are Avacta planning to obtain?

I believe the answer is... Prospective partner wants to see this data before commiting on the license deal..

Who is the partner and what will the license deal entail (limited to 3996 or the full platform) are the big questions..

Big difference between Avacta and SNG is that the AVA6k safety committee and the Avacta directors will have much greater insight into the performance of AVA6k

If Tumors are shrinking (I believe they must be - or we would not be progressing at 270+ days...) and if patients have minimal negative symptoms then we know AVA6k is performing.

It is more that just clues in the language... Avacta have been implementing clear concrete actions (lets not forget 3996 - with the costs associated with progression to IND) that they simply would not be implementing if Precision was performing poorly. Progressing costly 3996, Director appointments and increasing the overhead costs with a move to London would not make sense if bad news was expected from precision. I think we would be cutting costs as quickly as possible in order to ensure the cash lasted until deals with the likes of LG Chem are progressed.

Why are we stuck at placing price following receipt of the following - 270+ days into the trial?

- The appointment of Dr Coughing, who commented:

"I find the Affimer® and pre|CISION™ platforms to be highly innovative in the oncology field. I look forward to joining the Board and working with my new colleagues and the Avacta management team to develop novel therapies that will improve the lives of patients suffering from cancer."

- The AVA6k AACR poster presentation, presented by our CSO who certainly would not present this presentation in the knowledge that AVA6k was generating poor clinical data.

- The positive commentary during the prelims - Lets not forget the chairman commented as follows with regards to outlook;

'We are VERY confident and excited about the immediate and long-term opportunities for the Group'

- The costly move to London with the following commentary:

'The move follows the transition of AVA6000, the Company's lead pre|CISIONTM targeted chemotherapy programme and a TUMOR ACTIVATED form of doxorubicin, into the clinic in August 2021.'

'We take the next steps towards developing our innovative oncology pipeline and improving our ability to bring these innovative therapies through to patients.'

Change of language at this stage is very relevant.

per RAH comment - it works!!!

Excited to see the positive data that AVCT are now most certainly sitting on.

The move follows the transition of AVA6000, the Company's lead pre|CISIONTM targeted chemotherapy programme and a TUMOR ACTIVATED form of doxorubicin, into the clinic in August 2021.

Seems like a huge wink to me.

None of this would be happening if AVA6K had failed to please.

For whatever reason, Avacta seem to be prevented from disclosing the clinical data mid trial but it seems very obvious now that very positive data will be released post trial.

Seems we have a buyer that is trying to accumulate under the radar

The statistical evidence needs to be very high indeed.

I assume biopsy data would deliver very high statistical evidence ?

Might have been a gap between DE approval/market notification and 1st DE patient dosing.

Hold tight, the yanks are coming.

It is clear from listening to the comments from Neil Bell that positive PK Data was received 4 months ago. All of the actions Avacta have taken since those comments also back the theory.

Why did Avacta not release to market as AS suggested they would?

Perhaps advised that it would be better to package the complete phase 1 data set prior to notifying the market ? Would this be standard?

Perhaps Avacta never planned to release data prior to conclusion of phase 1 and it was an AS slip during the interview that suggested otherwise.

Perhaps concerned that releasing positive data at an early stage would leave open to cheap hostile bid?

Perhaps, with the LFT debacle unfolding behind closed doors, the strategy was to get that news out prior to beginning positive news flow on Ava6k?

Either way, listening to the comments from Neil Bell coupled with all actions post those comments, you'd be hard pushed to deny that Avacta had not received confirmation of action (activation in the tumor), positive PK and safety read out at end of cohort 1.

The Sujood bot has to be right eventually?

The day is still young...

Avacta looking very strong again!!

These big funds will rely on advice from expert consultants in the field of precison oncology.

I wouldn't be surprised if their was various discussions over coffee pre and post the poster presentation. While I don't think any key data would have been divulged I do think a general level of excitment and confidence would be hard to mask.

Whatever the reason (tipped off or joining the dots) they are now not betting against Precision failing. That's interesting at this point 8 months into the trial......

Great stuff. Must have lost confidence in their short position. I wonder why?? Were they tipped off or are they also just joining the dots?

Our buyer seems to be in a hurry... I wonder what could be announced next week?