Member Info for wyndrum

Bitl,

When you say "Once thing’s for sure. We’ll not agree on how where the science currently sits, and the significance of its achievements. The SP is where it is because AS hasn’t got a clue what he’s doing."

Do you mean it should be higher, or it never should have got as high as it did/has?

I can't quite work out if you think it has been over hyped or should have been around say, 30p at the start of the trial and worked its way up as more positive data has been revealed?

How hilarious indeed Watching as it wasn't me that bothered to have such a pointless post deleted.

I only ask for abusive or defamatory posts deleted.

Idiotic ,stupid and silly (and I think you hit the tri-vector there personally with your latest missive), don't bother me.

Donkey I repeat myself because other posters keep asking the same question or ignore/twist the answers I give.

9.25p is a bit of resistance level and here we are at 9.25p.

If we can close above it then that would suggest further rises are on the way.

It then all gets a bit choppy but the next target would be a close at or above 11p.

There have been a couple of false dawns, but hopefully the buy/sell action confirms a belief that maybe there really will be no more dilution....

I have to say the posters who simply keep saying it works seem pretty wilful to me.

No one is saying it does not work, there are just a few of us saying that the platform works but that at this stage is not proof of efficacy of outcomes.

Likewise we all realise that this is not what this part of the trial was designed for.

All I am, in particular saying, is that based on passed history I am sceptical of what AVCT implies without peer review or conclusive data release.

This is compounded by, what seems a "seat of the pants" approach to progressing the trail and various timelines and then re-enforced by the level of the raise and subsequent, to date, muted SP reaction.

At best, this says to me anything definitive is most likely a ways off.

But it also holds out enough hope that something truly remarkable might come from this. Just because I see commercial failure higher than commercial success currently does not mean its remotely out of the realms to be a success.

All might be revealed later (prob Q4) this year but with AVCT you never know.

The chart is still in a down trend from the announcement of the RI It needs to close above 58p to indicate that a bottom has formed from the most recent (new low)of 50.75p

With new lower lows, the odds are still currently for further falls rather than a reversal.

Because donkey there is no angst, I have a small shareholding that I can afford to lose if the worst happens.

However I don't just sit on my hands . I take a more active short termist approach than some here.

But no, I am not "happy" with how this has proceeded to date. are you?

And it seems like are many here, you simply don't read my posts. I have highlighted before that a take out price whether its BP or private , could from here, easily be 100-150p. However , I would suggest BP does not see value in AVCT at this price or at this stage of the trial, so its a possibility but a low one in my book at the moment.

I always look at as many scenario's as I can and then figure out as best as one can, how likely are any of them to come to pass.

The easiest one is thats its a fantastic success and its £20 per share. however based on past performance of commercial success this seems unlikely to me presently.

When new data arrives it will undoubtedly change my view on the likelyhood of the various scenarios coming to pass.

Then why not answer my questions?

Did you think, based on the science ath the time that BAMS ELISA LFT Affimirs etc would have proven to be commercially successful by now?

DTW, me pathologically stupid?

You don't seem to have the ability to read my posts.

Without efficacy results it becomes irrelevant as to what P1a produced. Its not me assuming efficacy is already proven. My whole point is that it has not. My whole point is that the continuing time extension of the trial means that it has not gone to plan.

If you don't think an almost doubling of the cohorts from 4-7 which took AS by surprise is relevant, then fine. If you think AS saying MTD may never be found so we are not bothered about it and then saying the cohort extensions are to find MTD, and now we are back to we are stopping at cohort 7 no matter what, shows that this is all going to plan, then again, fine.

Watching a share price decline quite dramatically and wanting to discuss why that may be, is neither proof of my stupidity or indeed disruptive.

Your assumptions have proven so far to be wrong all the way along. What does that tell you about your investment analytical skills?

But yes, its all about me being the problem....

"The science works. Exactly as intended."

If you say so.

On that basis did you expect the trial to have finished by now or do you just accept every timeline extension confirms that everything is going exactly as intended?

BITL So why did we go from 4 cohorts to 7 which was surprise to AVCT (and 7 remember was very unlikely), where are we in cohort 7. When was 2WD introducds. When did you expect it to start based on what AS said?

Is not your belief in the science based on what AS reports? Do you believe what AS says?

Why didn't the SP rocket on science day?

Do you accept that with this low SP it is entirely possible that AVCT could be taken private and PI's lose out even though AVCT's science may one day be as revoltionary as we all hope?

Investing is about getting a return on your money.

When I first bought at the begining of LFT, the chorus here was there are so many strings to AVCT's bow, so many shots at goal that they could not fail. (That was based on the science)

Well, here we are with basically one shot left that has not gone so far to any plan that AVCT predicted.

How's that for the science?

Gje,

I don't know the reason for why the SP is where it is definitively, and to be fair, none of us do.

Clearly you have more faith in the science then I do at this stage. I agree that it is not harming the patient.

I am reluctant to make the assumption on efficacy at this stage as, (as we all know), we have been strung along before and disappointed by what has been implied and what has resulted from AVCT

Certainly I do believe (and I don't think it really is that contentious), that the SP is as good an indicator as any (and imo better than most), as to what is going on in the company. If the SP has been on a down trend ever since the trial started and it is years later what does that indicate?

I don't know for sure, other than clearly it has not gone to plan. Why it has not gone to plan is obviously debateable.

You look to the science to provide your estimation of returns, which is fine and logical, but you don't know how the science is working and are relying on an unreliable company with its timelines and utterances

I never lose sight that this is an investment and although I am not suggesting for a moment you do, it may be my criteria is more specific or rigid than yours.

Ultimately we want the same thing, a return on our investment commensurate with the time and risk taken.

I rarely work on hourly charts. However I would be as delighted as any for an improvement in the SP.

It would be lovely to see a break in the trend and reverse this somewhat depressing long downturn.

I honestly don't know what you have a problem with.

YES IT WORKS IN NOT HARMING THE PATIENT

But what the efficacy yet is unproven as that part of the trial is yet to start. All I am surmising that as the longer the trial takes with ever increasing doses if efficacy was so obviously dramatic the SP would be rising over time, not falling.

This leads ME to conclude that either in fact for whatever reason efficacy is not that good or at least ambiguous or its just taking too long to progress and "people" are selling because they can't see a date of likely return and/or how this will be financed. ie will there still be yet another raise in18- months or so?

These are fundamental investment questions coupled with the fact that AVCT have signally filed to deliver any sort of long term investment return over more than a decade.

If you can't make the connection that time is a crucial factor in investment returns then I don't understand how you make any sort of risk reward calculation.

Gje,

The bottom line is the market has the same info as us. (otherwise its insider trading, so lets park illegal activity that we have no proof of). What the market may have is better access to AVCT people to discuss and question the latest results and musings of AS etc.)

What I think, is the time line has been put back yet again and that the SP peaks you refer to was a belief at the time that progress was being made commercially.

The science works as it should by all accounts in not harming the patients. therefore this stock still has enormous promise. However we are now well into 2024 and although new timelines have been issued, why would anyone, seriously, think they will be met?

The amount of money raised vias the funds that took part is tiny to them, maybe, they have stake just in case this does come good. But for all I know as they had a couple of weeks before we got to get our pile, they may have sold some or all of their holding for a 5-10-15% premium. because since then the SP has fallen.

So is it a sign of confidence or did they just make a quick buck?

As always you have to imo divorce the company from the SP. Just because the science works does not mean PI's will particularly profit. AVCT could get taken private at 100p say, and then go on and get floated at 3000p per share 2 years later. Who knows.

We only profit from the work AVCT does if the SP rises. The outcome of them succeeding and most PI's losing money is a perfectly possible scenario.

The assumption that the SP doesn't matter as long as the science works is nieve imo.

We simply remain in the dark about all aspects until it is revealed to us, but always remember we will be the very, very last to know. and then its too late.

Thats why the risk factor should never be under estimated, even when looks like a sure thing.

(Tim, just say you don't filter me anymore. no one cares)

All you post is correct but it also does not mean that "it works" as this is all irrelevant if a side affect is, its less effective at the tumour.

Ultimately the question is, if its so fantastic and works so well after all the released data, why is the SP close to relative all time lows?

Why is AS constantly missing timelines and all the other discrepancies from previous utterences?

Why is it wrong to ask these questions?

Gje,

you shut down every alternative scenario that might explain the current situation.

The general term of the "market" represents more than one fund or person. It is the collective knowledge of everyone who knows about the company.

If you think in this day and age with the potential gain there is on this company that there arn't some very clued up people constantly monitoring AVCT you are mad. We know there is a reaction to every RNS. That means every RNS is read and digested. Your theory must be it is only some people on this BB that actually understand what is going on and everyone else is wrong, even though they have the same access to the same info as you.

I don't know if dox is being inhibited by the wrapper. I do know the science is complicated I don't know what affects what, by being in contact with it. I don't understand how dox flushes around and through the system. I seem to remember AS saying there is not much recorded data on Dox even though its been in use for 40 years (or something along those lines)

What I do know is that the longer the trial has run the lower the SP has gone. What I do know is that there are a lot smarter people than me pouring over what data is available and we are where we are.

Its possible I am drawing incorrect conclusions, of course it is. But with the history of AVCT and its projections on all of its tech, (LFT BAMS ELISA) failing to deliver and now the SP decline in tandem with the longer the trial goes on accompanied with what SEEMS to be an un-coordinated and changing strategy, then my conclusion is this is not progressing as expected let alone exceeding expectations.

Gje, I don't think the platform is the issue. Its whether having delivered the drug to the tumour the wrapper does not make the drug less effective.

At the moment through the chant of "Dox is Dox" the assumption is the wrapper has no effect on how the drug reacts at the tumour.

All I am trying to say that until efficacy is proved, simply not harming people does not make this a commercial success yet.

The bear case is that this far into the trial the market is seemingly not convinced or persuaded that it does.

So much so that no one would appear to want to build a stake, coms from AVCt in actually shouting it from the rooftops is also missing as is any sort of conclusive evidence. That suggest to me, that PI's are ahead of where AVCT really is and are making false assumptions on efficacy already.

Therefore it will all come from the efficacy trial.

But we are not sure when exactly that is likely to be.

Where AS is culpable is forever (seemingly) raising expectation of (in fact a unrealistic) timeline that I think he already knows is false.

Xenor, I am sure you are right.

A TU or any sort of results announcement will be useless and pointless without news on the finance deal.

That will be the trigger for everything else. (imo)

Gje, the post yesterday asking for my posts not to be deleted gained 21 recs. possibly the highest of the day. Yet straight away today again a few are simply, although they break no rule of LSE posts, are having them removed.

Its a shame but there you are.

(Also I heard that the Fusion deal is using Radio Active Isotopes to attack tumours to remove the need for chemo treatment. Which has been a theme of mine for a while that AVCT are trying to fine tune the efficiency of a combustion engine while others are developing electric motors.

When AVCT started down this path a decade or more ago there was no alternative. Where will the market be in another 10 years for chemo? Its a race and always has been and time, as I have also banged on about, is a crucial factor that some here laughingly reject with the view that it can take as long as it likes. Well, it can't and the longevity of the teck will be a factor of its value.

Right now we are at such an early stage that these facts are yet to be revealed assuming it does in fact work in reducing tumours without side effects.

Shall we have a sweep stake as to how long this post will last?

"The technology however is performing tremendously."

is it? Who says? Please don't say its based on what AS says.

Thats the problem. If we discredit AS 's outpourings then what does that mean for how good the tech really is?

All we know for sure is that the wrapper works. What happens after that is not yet clear.

The market, who actually do have the technical ability to lift the bonnet, is not yet convinced. At this stage I'll take my lead from them.

(And as for Paul Hill, it was obviously staged, scripted interviews driven by AS. )