Member Info for wyndrum

Yes, good reminder D. Many here will remember the wink of AS when he said funding would not be a problem prior to the diagnostic buying spree....

Plus it is also good to bear in mind there are laws about all this. Its why RNS;s exist, when directors can and can't buy etc etc.

To double guess a facial expression and base a buying/selling decision on this type of "indicator" is very high risk indeed.

There is enough straight forward and traditional info out there to come to a more rational, less emotive decision.

I think the upward moves will continue now at least until 84p because I think there could be an element of FOMO given a "surprise" update could come from the new trial any time now given its been 3 weeks since the first dose.

I am not sure there will be one however, but thats how FOMO works, its the "just in case" syndrome.

Certainly all bets would be off if there was a good news rns way ahead of schedule.

So BV, are we saying that it did not perform as expected? AS at the time said he did not expect a MTD ever to be found.

So there is an MTD after all?

I don't have a problem with any of this with the ultimate success of AVCT but you seem based on what CC has confirmed that perhaps AVA6k did have an unexpected performance at higher doses.

I would suggest Jeffa, that traders don't wait for SP moves in the way your post suggests.

Traders don't care if it goes up or down. They will wait if a SP is in a range and will make a decision only when the SP hits a certain price supported by various indicators the individual trader "trusts".

Currently the share is trading within a range of .19p -.27p. If it should break .27p then from a TA perspective you would expect heavy buying. like wise heavy selling if.19p went.

So presently I think traders are sitting on their hands and waiting for the range, one way or another, to be broken rather than a .14p target that currently shows no indication of ever happening. I accept it might but I think there is no evidence yet to say that this has any meaningful probability of happening. IMO.

Yes, its Poor MM.

I try to see both sides but even if it was an auto response explaining why no reply would be forthcoming that would be something.

MM, have you ever emailed them directly and if so got a reply?

I don't know if this analogy works, but maybe its like a person keep going to a car dealership and asking for test drives but with no means or intention of ever buying one.

Its just a waste of time for the company to that individual.

However they will blanket advertise their latest models to attract genuine buyers.

So in this case the updates do address what is going on but we won't get the individual attention we feelis fair but is not reciprocated fron the company.

I think Van, we over-rate our own importance. Although we are shareholders with legal rights and all the rest of it, we have no influence on the company individually, almost universally we have bought the shares from a broker and have never actually contributed financially to the company but expect them to treat us as though we have some sort of benefit to them.

Ultimately we are parasites trying to improve our wealth by gambling on their technical and commercial expertise.

(I wonder if they have list of IPO shareholders and maybe respond to them?_

Anyway, it is what it is.

Although as my reply was to gemstar, as he referred to the SP and AVA6k

My sincere apologies. Mis read the title to the thread and thought i was responding on the "Exciting pipeline ahead"

Gem, I was using the SP of 185p more of a bench mark as that was the high on the ava6k trial just before the good news, 3-dose extension plan was demanded. (I did not mention the LFT debacle)

I am also not talking about this latest trial and indeed with everyone here, I have high hopes it will be successful. My recent posts have been specifically about ava6k and perhaps it did not perform as expected from the lab and mice tests.

Again, all things considered I don't believe my view is particularly contentious and is a reasonable alternative to the more positive views expressed about it.

Whats "good" about it other than its an interesting but partisan view?

My take is highlighting other factors that may explain why after 5 years of such a ground breaking trial the SP has declined.

Surely thats the point of these boards?

Seems to have caught fire just now?

Opti, Do what you like, but the sp after 5 years of a trial is a third of its high back then and generally my caution has proved with regard to the SP, correct.

So quite why you think you are "right" I am "wrong" is a strange conclusion to come to.

Also I think you will find that when trials are exceeding expectations as I believe it was Ice who thought this 4 years ago, then there would at least have been no ambiguity in RNS's and that a partner would have likely been found by now. I am sure there would have been more press releases and much stronger PR with peer reviews of the data.

As it is the CEO was replaced and several RI's have followed along other board members and with various house brokers. Also P1b patient recruitment took longer i think than we and certainly I, expected

I do not know what went on or what the results of AVA 6k are. I do know 5 years is a long time for a phase 1 trial and these factors above are the reasons i am not sure that all went to plan.

Certainly if you do not put so much weight on what the company says (which in my experience is wise), then these external factors paint a different picture to many views held here.

Yes you could do that ice, you could actually read what I said before posting. Bit radical I know.

When the insults stop a civilised exchange of views takes place allowing greater understanding. Whatever next.

I agree with your analysis Thompi, I guess where you say you don't think it went off the rails a bit and CC saying there teething troubles is basically what i have been saying. Maybe we disagree on how long those teething troubles lasted.

All the good stuff you highlight is true but the mini elephant in the room is the efficacy.

I absolutely agree that 6k did the heavy lifting to move this trial forward so rapidly, which is why i think AVCT are being so tight lipped about 6k prior to this new trial getting underway and maybe was (pure speculation), given the good/bad results of 6k the reason why this trial got going as quickly as it did because there was/is only so much time AVCT could stall on a fuller 6k update.

I think the lack of shouting the results of 6k from the rooftops and therefore would have got MSM coverage if the efficacy was so good, gives some support to my thinking.

Anyway, let hope the initial data from this trial moves AVCT past the 6k trial results.

It just seems to me given the short time this trial has been set up and delivered (which is impressive), to me highlights the 5 years of AVA6k and we still wait for the definitive update with a confirmation AVCT won't take it to phase 2 on their own. (I don't remember at the start of or during P1a, a declaration of no phase 2 trial expansion. I know not everybody agrees but it looks more to me than not that AVA6k went a bit off the rails at some stage. Further I expect this trial with an initial update before any talk on AVA6k so as to put AVA6k in the past and not make it completely irrelevant, but to put into a context where the info ghleaned allowed the better targeting of this trial rather than focus on the actual results of AVA6k.

I think if there was any negative talk of AVA6k prior to an update on this trial, it would completely undermine confidence (rightly or wrongly) in the company given its history to date.

"...because if there had been a problem with 6000, this was the obvious place to soften expectations, and they did not."

I too don't know how this will pan out, however AVCT and just about any small company I have ever followed, when there is no good news they tend to simply never mention it rather than soften shareholders up.

Hopefully the poster correct in their view but I don't think it is supported in practise.

Anyway we will see soon enough.

Thank you D , that was informative.

It seems to me the regular crew here have no problem in replying to my posts by going off at tangents to be rude to me but still , rarely if ever answer questions I raise about AVCT.

I have assumed they think they are terribly funny and droll.

perhaps they cannot understand the legal definitions and potential legal ramifications of on-line harassment.

I am sure its just high spirits and no harm is intended, although it might not be my decision to make.

Still, there is no point chasing people with no money.

Roll on Avavcta!

Thats interesting chris.

Can you see a reason why having got the limit removed and now the extra

funding in place she could have articulated your idea?