Member Info for wyndrum

Ah Strangy, so I have been generally bearish on this stock for quite a while.

What has happened to the SP in the that time?

Has my view proved correct? to be bearish and at the same time seen a depreciating SP.

If I had been bullish and the SP rose, would that have been rampy?

I just don't quite see why you get so het-up over my view and the events that transpire?

For the millionth time, Its not my fault the SP is 43p My "crime", it would seem , is that I thought the fall was the most likely direction of travel and always explained why.

(And before you go on about the amount of posts i write, back in the day there were literally hundreds of posts every day taking a bullish view.)

So all it is you just don't like what I write, so just filtetr me, rather than clog up the BB responding with personal jibes every time I post which add nothing and irritate many

Well, thats very charitable of you ice, but as I still have 10k shares it will be ok. And I can always buy back in after the event at a higher price when its de-risked further.

(I am not sure you realise but this is not the only stock available to invest in, and even if one gets away, there are so many other opportunities.)

But thats the thing about having a portfolio.. slow and steady gets the job done far quicker than all eggs in one basket.

(Opps! Sorry that's an investment strategy that no one is interested in....)

". I mean it’s just so obvious, positive when you are in negative when you are out. See most people trade Avacta. However most people don’t tell the world their strategy because seriously no one cares. "

Well, speak for yourself but as an investment BB, I would have thought a variety of stategies would be of interest to many.

But, yeah... if I have sold its because I think things have changed for the worse and when I buy I think things are looking up. So, again how is that either a bd thing or remotely duplicitious. And I explain my thoughts so people can make up theor own mind if those views have merit or not.

Otherwise, seriously, whats the point of positing?

Should we be limited to one post. "I think this share will go up". and then never post again?

Or would you carry on posting when more good news came to light? Because if you would do that, whats the diff in posting if you thought the most recent news is bad?

Ice, this is not a religion for me.

If my view changes then I will buy back in. So what?

Better to buy and never sell? I don't understand your thinking from an investment pov.

I have never made any secret that I trade more often than most, but that does not of in itself, make it a bad thing.

I still hold some and I will buy and sell on a trading basis if I think there is an opportunity as I did recently and made a quick 10%. I don't why this seems to upset so many here, but clearly it does.

You might want to have the potential satisfaction of buying at the very bottom of the SP but that ship has sailed here and I imagine your capital loss here is quite high as a percentage.

I think again fwiw, that your expectation that you will eventually see avct break its all time high is also now debateable.

It feels to me here given the speed of progress, that even your holy grail of FDA approval may be some time away and a take out could be easily way way below that old covid-induced 285p figure.

its about risk reward and the risk looks to me to have increased over the last 2 months while the potential reward has fallen.

YP, Probably, but does that not apply to all of us who post here? In which case what's your point?

On the other hand , I have with close to 50 years running my own portfolio, have made every mistake under the sun in that time and through just painful experience have learnt' to see what works and what doesn't.

I no longer need to be a builder by profession to know that a hole in the roof will lead to bigger problems down the line if not dealt with asap.

all very amusing.

now, back to business: price is 43p; what is the size of your current loss and how long have you held it for?

do you think you are in a better place financially on this stock then those you ridicule?

and why do you ridicule us?

is it because we have turned out to be so far, correct suggesting we are better at analysis than you.

or do you just like to hold hands and say to each other, we might be crappy at reading the runes but at least we are better people? (and giving how abusive you are, i am not sure thinking you are better people holds up either.)

i mean, just think, if anybody did listen to the fudsters you claim us to be, they would all, every single one of them, be financially better off.

had they listened to you they would have huge capital losses with a diminishing chance of ever getting that loss back.

and joking aside, you really should consider that.

your constant denigration of posters that have been correct in their forecasts to date, with your never ending tirades that they are wrong , has not helped anyone so far , has it? and in fact the reverse.

how you sleep at night is beyond me.

still keep up with the crass crayon "jokes" and we are all just 1 poster... (and in case it's passed you by, you are all as boring as ****)

So all the people who think AVCT are going to make them money are individuals. But all the people who discuss AVCt and the so far short-comings of the stock have to be lumped into just person with multiple accounts.

Thinks about that.

It is saying that if those "negative" posters are just one account then its just one view and therefore not to worry against the majority view. (presumably because if a majority think it, it must be right.)

So you are inventing a scenario that is unlikely to be true (and in fact isn't), to artificially reassure yourselves that everything is ok, rather than (apart from Ice), debate the different views.

It then goes further to suggest that these posters (or one poster) are paid to post these contrary views, to discredit further the content, and if thats not enough, they are abused and ridiculed personally by being sad, working in a dark basement, having no life, etc etc.

Thats how desperate you lot come across to me when you continually post this rubbish.

And when you resort to this invented, fantasy, and often abusive responses it somewhat lays bare your own lack of objectivity as well as your immaturity as a human being let alone an investor.

(And if you really do believe that the majority are more likely to be right, then you should look at the SP and see what the wider majority think about AVCT.)

I am saying Chris, that that is how words can be true but have 2 different interpretations. Something AVCT have had some practise at,so I am wary.

Also I am not sure what side effects are present and to what degree any more.

The trial to date has been too small I think to be definitive yet in the scale of the reductions. (I am not doubting it does reduce them but simply with these higher doses I am not sure where we are.

(Dr Tap also looks to me a bit of a "gun for hire" when it comes to endorsements, but that just me)

So, Richar, why after all this time do we need 2WD?

If we knew it was safe after, I don't know, say DE4 with all that Data why didn't we do it then, or indeed get ready as planned to go to Efficacy?

Why spend another year with now pumping huge amounts of Dox in DE7, and still no one thinks it yet worth starting the efficacy bit of the trial? Given it is so safe and so effective, why prolong it to prove what point? Couldn't that have been done in parallel?

The move to 2WD was done on the hoof, with the reasoning they want to improve its efficacy it. Trouble is "improving" could be be from a place where its not very effective to a place where its just a bit more effective

Chorts 5,6, and 7 were unexpected. UNEXPECTED! Why? It was so good that they wanted to just keep going on and on, and still there is no MTD but now its ok to stop that and try 2WD?

The CEO has been replaced (I think sacked). You would not have a problem financing this if the data was a good as you seem to think.

Personally I think thats why it has never gone straight to PI's. If it went tits up then there would be real problems of mis-selling.

By the way where are we with 2WD that was stated to start the whole process nearly 9 months ago?

"To be clearer, BSing about finance from somewhere who couldn't care less about PIs does not equate to the presentation of factual scientific results."

The thing is I can't separate the financial sleight of hand wording then from the scientific. What's left out? where's any peer review? To have a company delinquent in communications in one area yet straight as a die in another does not make sense.

Why, if the Science is SO good, why do you have BS about funding? The 2 don't add up .

However if the description and release of results is tightly controlled and not the full picture then it goes in hand with BS finance projections. I just don't see, if the science is beyond reproach why it can't ultimately talk for itself.

And clearly right now, it can't.

Its so convenient for you strangy. Just ignore that you were deceived in the past by a BoD who are telling you the same things now albeit on a different application. I just find inconceivable that you are so trusting and niave.

Still its all the fault of posters and Aim and shorters and MM's. The tech itself works perfectly as can be seen by the Sp over the last 3 years.... Good grief....

And how long will this take?

How long have AVCT been trying to get this done?

Its over a decade. |Another decade to go?

So the platform works. Do you then not test safety on more potent warheads or just assume it will work the same way even though the drugs are different?

remember LFT and then it turned there was an antibody in the best test in the world? They don't all fess up and tell all the truth, do they.

If everythings going fine then we would not be where we are, would we? How could we be? Thats the flaw in going by what vested interest tell you.

GoSushi, Its not that dox isn't working via AVA6k but if it was just Dox administered on its own then there would be Dox recorded in the tumour as well.

Therefore its proven safe using AVA6k and it releases dox at the the correct point. but, if its not as effective when it gets there than non AVCT Dox, maybe thats the issue?

It would explain (if its not all released from the wrapper when triggered), why the dose can keep being increased and it would also account for why no MTD found. What if the more Dox doseage it is, a diminishing return on the dox cleaved at point of release?

It would also fit to 2WD too. Its safe (too safe effectively), so give it more often and the smaller amount of dox being cleaved will on the 2WD, be more effective than 3WD?

If it worked as well as we think/thought, then why are we still mucking about after 7 cohorts and a huge amount of dox going into the patient already?

I understand the reasons given that we want to hone the treatment etc, but I can't see why that would be such an issue IF the data from the last 7 does trials was SO good.

(Also if this off the wall idea has possibly some truth in it, then for me it would also explain why it has taken so long to get 2wd up and running.

If a patient was told this would save their life without side effects then you would snap their arm off given the known safety aspect already. The only? reason not to agree is that it isn't as effective as "raw" Dox.?

I don't know, but for me its a fairly neat fit to explain the industry reaction thus far, along with the SP, along with the extended trial time, etc And also even maybe 2wd isn't producing the expected results either? that would account for no update?)

It reminds me a little bit of when the previous model of the orbiting stars was based on the Earth being the point of everything revolving around it, and the most complex model was devised to show this was true in other stars recorded trajectory until someone said what if it's the Sun we are all orbiting around including the earth, and then it all fell into place.

Have we done that? looked for the most convoluted reasoning why the SP is as low as it is but all the time it was a more obvious reason. Ie it doesn't work |(The safety aspect works, but not so much the treatment)...yet.?

When Thorn posted: "For AVA6000 to succeed it needs to be better than Standard Dox in a head to head (ideally double blinded) Phase 2 clinical trial."

That made me think.

There is a singular view held by a few, that whatever has happened over the course of the trial bears no relation to what has transpired to the AVCT stock and that everything is on course and always has been and its only a matter of time for the SP to rocket.

That doesn't fly for me, it doesn't make sense. How can only a very few see that and everyone else doesn't. It's not logical.

So if the majority are right then what can explain it?

We have all put much store in the chap who has had such a large tumour reduction and indeed the other 9 biopsi's completed as proof positive of that it "works"

But, what if ordinary dox does a better job?

What if when released via AVA6k it is not as effective as when going around the blood stream in its normal destructive way?

So yes there is dox in the tumours, great, and there have been limited side effects, but what if its less effective?

That would explain the muted response from the science day and posters and interviews, since and all through the years of the trial. it would explain the lack of interest so far expressed from BP (Whose silence is pretty loud when you see other small bio techs bought out for seemingly far less effective treatments than we think we have). It explains possibly the over run on each cohort as the results have not been as effective as perhaps AVCT expected. It might also explain why there was extra cohorts 5,6 and 7. It would also explain the experiment with 2WD now in an effort for it to be more effective. And of course all of that coincides with a long term fall in the SP too.

Could it be, yes you will have very bad side effects but you have a greater chance of survival or longer life, that way rather than in the wrapper?

So, yes it is safe but if it does not prolong life then maybe its not quite as good as it needs to be yet.

So plenty of promise and there is something there but it is not as advanced as we thought?

I don't know but that seems to me a plausible scenario to guess the cause based on the effect we see in the stock.

(No take over, no license deal, low SP low cash raise, longer time in trial.)

Looking at today I think it more likely than not that this will top out at 440p before any meaningful pullback/retrace.

imo dyor etc

GLA

Well, that just non sensical.

They might not be doing 2WD but don't let the market know even though it contradicts a statement previously and the reason you give because it will accelerate time to market...

I give up, you win.

More assumptions Ice.

You are conflating news that should be forthcoming with the assumption it will be good.

At the momentt there is at least a perception amongst some that there might be a delay in 2WD.

Shorts are not taken out on a whim or a 50/50 gamble.

So if shorts are being increased (again, an assumption you make with no evidence other than an increase in volume), then they believe it highly likely the next move is down.

They may be wrong, but thus far their judgement has proved correct whereas yours has not.

To blindly and glibly stick to a view, with a company that only has a history of commercial failure, that silence is golden, when silence has been linked with eventual bad news, comes across as closed minded to other outcomes.

(And I know I get accused of at times flip flopping, but its based on either new news or a change of mind on further consideration. I also see continued silence as "new news" for instance. I find not being wed to any particular view as being helpful to decision making, but each to his own.)

Likewise D, very sorry to hear and echo CTSFO wishes.

"One day soon they'll be something worth talking about. Until then the regurgitation of tedious fud will continue."

Except the point of these BB's is to try and figure out whats coming first rather than react to news as its a bit late by then.

A recent example might be the raise at 50p. Would it have been better to talk about it before it happened rather than after? Or is that just FUD?

All Thorn has said is reasonable and I would also add that if you are going to quote a date (anticipated or not), then there was a reason to do that. It means, to me, therefore there must have been some significance to AVCT to mention it in the first place.

It then follows that they should update, maybe just through X , what the current situation is and why it is what it is.

That's all, no making a crisis out of a drama, but when a company has a track record for missing dates and then when news does not follow it has always transpired to be bad news, and add in that the CEO has been replaced, it is obvious that a more clear update would confirm maybe, that things have changed on the coms front given that that has always been a criticism from shareholders in the past.

So not to do any sort of update, only fuels the rumour mill.

Its unnecessary, imo.