Member Info for wyndrum

Or... you could use TA and let the market disseminate the news through the price action.

There are potentially 2 different objectives here.

1 is an interest in the company, the other is an interest in making money.

I am not saying they are mutually exclusive but avct is actually a good example.

Without going through it all yet again, but just as a general observation, how has keeping up to date with everything avct have said and released over the last 5 years or 10, helped the individual as an investment?

Continuing discussions could be (I am not saying it is) but could be.

Do you want a deal?

not really, we need a lot more data

Ok here is more data what do you think?

Its better but I notice blah blah blah

then later:

we have more data. deal now?

well we just spent some money acquiring co. abc. maybe we will look at it in 6 motnhs.

so "continuing discussions" going nowhere.

This allows very "positive" truthful comments in an rns not exactly conveying the actual reality. (An that does happen all the time, but as I say I don't know if it applies here or not.)

Thanks Chris

I agree Chris, this is very complex. (well it is for a dunce like me)

Then , if all is needed is a safety profile why hasn't a deal been done yet?

If dox is dox then why if after all the years now, of data, why is more data needed?

Surely BP could proceed faster than avct with their greater resources if they were convinced about it, to fine tune dosage limits/sweet spot?

What is still missing, do you think?

Birdie, I would suggest with a £1b market cap, there is a lot of contracts already priced in. Or at least this one was.

The market always looks forward 3-12 months

Why not just answer my question of your post?

If dox is well understood and 6k is safe, then why after years of application are there are only a few partial and minor responses?

Whats your view on that.

" We already know it works in a range of tumours."

What does that mean? Does it mean it destroys the cancer/tumour? Does it mean if you could continue with dox it would eventually destroy the tumour?

If so why has p1b been so .. so-so?

If dox is dox and it is being administered to the tumour in hugely higher quantities for longer and allowing many, many more treatments then why by now after years of treatment, are results not being knocked out of the park?

We know its safe, we have know that for 4 years or more. We have started a new trial based on its approved safety. There are now no time limits to its application. And yet...

Cj, I think you will find I often reflect on my lack of knowledge. also I have often said that when new news comes through i change my view.

In this specific instance (AVCT) I have much experience in other bio tecs failing after very promising years of data. This does not mean it will apply to avct but nevertheless it is proof of caution when looking at the data provided and realising that no "bad" news or problems or hiccups will be released in these updates.

Therefore its not that I take the info with a pinch of salt but look for corroborating evidence to confirm that avct are indeed going to succeed.

Their history that no one wants to ever acknowledge is one of commercial failure both in technology and financial acumen.

The trial of ava6k is still continuing when it was forecast to start and finish in its entirety within 2 years.

CC is the latest ceo but I feel the not to distant future remark has not proved to be accurate. I don't know if it was deliberate or that a problem came along that no one expected and put a wrinkle in those negotiations.

The SP does not suggest there is an imminent breakthrough expected as can be seen from a fall since the latest update. This is countered here by the market simply not understanding what avct are doing. This to me is fatuous,

Again the argument here is to stop fixating on ava6k and concentrate on the latest started trial which I presume has years to go. However ava6k has run for 6 years and is still going so cannot be dismissed in the way that it is now. (Originally years ago many here, including me), expected the company to long be bought out as the safety would prove efficacy at the same time, yet here we are, targeting a cancer that has no standard of care to compare it against. That to me is a red flag to the efficacy outcome. Particularly as sgc was never a candidate in the begining.

If the next RNS contradicts my view then I will have no problem reassessing my vies and conclusions.

So far my analysis generally is keeping up with what occurs.

I like all here, realise that if 6103 does crack it on the back of info obtained from ava6k then this stock could give fantastic returns.

My view given other indications such as RH's involvement, the SP holding up and going forward suggest that this might well be the case and the risk is worth taking.

Timing entry or top ups so as to maximise profit is tricky as there are funding issues to also take into account.

Its not so much complex as nuanced, and very little latitude is given here for nuanced views.

Well, thats a good effort D but the outcome on B2 will be either, he simply ignores your reasoning and evidence, or simply calls you a liar.

What I can catagorically forecast is that he won't change his mind and certasinlt will not apologise for being wrong.

its when you realise that his closed mind is incapable of taking in information that contradicts his view that I can only wonder how angry and frustrated he must likely be in all areas of his knowledge.

There is a theme here b2. And it is clear that the problem you have is a complete closed mind.

You cannot accept any evidence that refutes your incorrect conclusion on DG and me being the same person. , just as you cannot accept ant argument that differs from your view on AVCT.

This is clearly your problem so perhaps deal with it privately and stop bringing your flawed attitudes to this investment BB.

If abdx can close above 15p then it really does open the door to mid 30s plus.

Pretty close now.

Common sense is hardly a unique human trait albeit in relatively short supply here.

I would be interested as to why so many here are fixated with this alias subject which is patently not true.

It only surfaces as an accusation on views you/they don't agree with.

it is such a childish and immature reaction as to be laughable.

The funniest thing is that you believe it to be true and oblivious to your frankly stupid remarks.

"Nobody is claiming SGC is some massive blockbuster indication. To me it's simply the easiest and fastest route to get AVA6000 over the regulatory line if the data continues to hold up, it currently has zero standard of care, and very low bar for approval."

The elephant in this particular room is outcomes.

If it was just about safety then it would already be done, wouldn't it?

The reason that sgc has been chosen is to show as there is no alternative than in this very particular instance outcomes are improved. So it is in fact all about sgc which might not be a big enough market for a deal to be worthwhile to both parties?

If you want to start with other cancers then much bigger trials taking a lot more time and money need to be started. This is beyond avct's reach.

Comparatives need to be done to show conclusively that outcomes are improved. It seems to me that ava6k is a very long way away from being allowed to simply be added to any treatment based soley on its so far, small patient number safety profile to date.

It got a little toppy so today was just a slight unwinding but tested and stayed above the .27p level which is now technically a support.

Tomorrows another day.

Chris, we had various diagnostic tools apart from the lft test and the popular refrain was even if the covid lft missed (which of course was a slam dunk), there were hundreds of tests that lft diagnostics and machines as well as the therpeutics side and all the rest of it would propel avct into a multi multi billion company.

Thats all gone and now its down to this one arrow.

Its safe. but how does it affect outcomes and it all hangs on the next couple or so rns's for the future of the company.

"Avacta has 500 shots on goal. Whats the odds 1 of them hits the back of the net?"

Thats EXACTLY what was said in the lft days way back then. every one failed commercially.

This the last one

Reported on Times radio.

So not fud plus have I mentioned that time is part of the valuation pf avct?

If you spent less time looking for non-existent agendas and more time engaging in dificult conversations we all might learn something

Another pill reducing some cancers by 30% when all else fails.

Exactly, 6 years and we are still phase 1. My best guess is because the data has not been compelling enough so more patients, more doses to see if they can get a deal. avct is no longer imo about 6k.

Its all about 6103. Why would that be if 6k was so good? 6k would just be transposed to other drugs. wasn't that the idea of the platform?

Still, 6103 will have the ironed out version and hopefully results will be immediate.

I am surprised so many here still cling to 6k thinking it exceeded expectations.

There is little or no talk here about commercialisation, no timescales, nothing in short that offers any insight to its valuation other than comparisons to other companies doing different things, which really is not helpful or informative.

Everything here seems to hang on CC's remarks and confidence, body language, smile and how she compliments the staff for 6103.

Fingers crossed.