Member Info for wyndrum

Jive, "In retrospect, yes, the window for LFTs was quite short, so every day mattered."

Retrospective? I was saying this since at least November 2020 when vaccines were first launched. (and in my wynbag way, explained why I thought so. And of course, more than once).

Apre, nothing I said was any of the things you have stated. You constanlt play this reporting card.

I put up an idea, I support it with my reasoning. Others post contrary views and we discuss.

What is your problem? If you don't like alternate views then don't visit a BB that discusses investments.

Ice, firstly I though your previous post was spot on.

Clearly from the data I think its unequivocal that the AVA6k wrapper contains dox and does not harm patients nearly/hardly as badly as naked dox.

The biopsy slides show that more of dx is being released into the tumour than would be expected without

AVA6k. Fantastic, but there is some dispute here as to how much "effective" dox is in the tumour. My "proof" is AS's remark of it being therapeutically relevant which just means better than what went before. Again its typical AS and its ambiguous. The words would have been chosen carefully. Just as different words could have been used, but were not.

The continual upping the DE (5 plus) is the bit that has made me think. Only because it was unexpected and that instead of it seamlessly going from DE4 to DE5 there was a 3 month or so hiatus which suggest (to me) that there were no DE5 cohorts ready.

Now given how closely the safety committee would be working with AVCT how could it have been unexpected?

One is that, as I think most likely, the results changed in DE4 and that side effects increased beyond what was up until then expected hence a MTD hoved into view and was worth the extra time to get to.

The other one I thought about was that AVCT knew all along that it was going to take longer (much longer) than they publicly forecast, but felt the market would slaughter them for the length of time they really expected.

But that would have to be blatant deception and I don't think with the gap between DE's 4 & 5 that holds up in fact or for any other reason.

Neut, For the millionth time I have never said it doesn't work. In fact nearly a year ago when people here were distraught with the SP being so low I suggested the market understands that it works but it was the cashflow/time to market relationship that was unclear. (That went down like a cup of cold sick as I recall from many here)

More recently with the "Its exceeding expectations" theme running through here, I tried to figure if that was true, why then wasn't the SP reacting. That led me to think what if it isn't? Would that make more sense? Then I looked more closely at what AS said, and realised its vague and open to interpretation. And given the factual historical track record of AVCT I think caution wins the day.

I will be as delighted as any if this turns out to be the breakthrough we all hope it could be. But right now there is no supporting data to suggest it is.

Its circumstantial and carefully worded to confirm "it's working" but without enough data to bracket it quite how well.

If you can't accept that then that up to you and good luck, but I am not assuming several ambiguous statements from a CEO that has a track record for missing self imposed deadlines and promising commercial sales that fail to deliver, should be treated as exceeding expectations.

We are using different charts then. I use the ones supplied by HL and on those dates the close was 14.9p, 14.6p, 13.85p and 15p (with all the the intra day highs being less than 16p)

Anyway, as long as it goes up who cares :0))

I have said forever I am not "paid" to post. There are others who post more than I do here.

I have said forever that nothing said here affects the SP.

So who is it that is talking crap then, donkey?

What time intervals are you looking at lottie? I can't see a single close over the las few months at 16p.

(15p (to me) on the other hand looks decisive.)

Neut I don't think they are lying. When you quote:

"The data continue to show a very favourable safety profile for the tumour targeted chemotherapy and several patients in cohort 5 and earlier cohorts remain on treatment as their disease has not progressed. The emerging positive safety and pharmacokinetic data from the study support the potential clinical differentiation of AVA6000 over doxorubicin."

That could have been said after DE1 or 2 couldn't it and be absolutely 100% accurate.

However according to AS the patients who were selected for the trial had cancers that would not be responsive to DOX.

This was to measure the safety aspect and at the same time they could measure DOX in the tumour through biopsy data to show that not only is it not harming patients with side affects but also it was allowing DOX to enter the tumour (albeit in theory not having an effect on the tumour as they were meant to be dox resistant). It was deliberately done to avoid efficacy implications as much as possible as that is to come next.

The lack of progression is not conclusive that it is due to AVA6k. Otherwise AS would be shouting that from every roof top.

He could have said "The lack of progression is the most unexpected, exciting development we never foresaw in this part of the trial. it bodes extremely well for the second phase and it is this development that is spurring us on to see if we can get to an MTD where before we did not think it necessary as this may have an even far wider market for treatable cancers than we originally thought."

Anyway. It is the usual ambiguous stuff that AS to me, has a track record for and only gets used when things are not performing as well as expected rather than the reverse.

If it turns out the opposite this time round then hallelujah, but as I have said countless times, I am cautious based on the historical track record of what this company projects and what comes to pass.

Tim, the MTD was an original objective as the trail was undertaken over 2 years ago, Then in DE3 AS said MTD may never be found (At that time (DE3) there was no mention of any further DE's after no. 4.)

Yet only 3 months later AS said that the trial would continue as a MTD was now required which in his words were "unexpected"

DE 5 did not start until April meaning that the trial had effectively stopped at the end of DE4 and then it took 3 months plus, to re-start with new cohort(s)

At that time AS said 5 maybe 6 DE's with a reference to a 7th but that would be very unlikely.

I don't remember him saying definitively "if it's not found in cohort 7 a biologically effective dose will be defined." I thought it was more an option.

However I might be wrong but I did think I heard him say there could be an 8th 9th or even 10th but again maybe I am wrong about that too.

So yes I think its unequivocal that the DE5 plus was "forced" on AVCT.

As "performing badly" I have not said that at all. What I have countered is that I don't think its exceeded expectations as many here repeatedly assume and that something (unexpectedly) changed in the results in DE4 that required more cohorts and DE's.

The reason i think this, is that had it actually performed better or at least to what you are implying then it would be easy for AS to have said this and he did not.

The fact the SP is stagnant is that the market thinks it hasn't either. It does not mean it doesn't work, it does not mean there is not a profitable market for it but it does mean its taken longer than forecast with little data thus far to excite the market with no timeline as to when it will be commercialised.

Its the partisan views here that as you did by inventing what I say as in (Performing badly) or mis-interpreting what i post that cause a row where none is necessary.

Tim, what's your point?

I have never disputed it works, I am just starting to consider now its not as effective as at first thought.

When was that (P1B) link first put up?

"Disruptive lies and FUD. Probably worth reporting that…"

yes, that seems to be your answer to everything you disagree with. I have not lied, I have simply expressed my view based on the facts available. Its just my dot-joining does not match yours.

The fact you always end up agreeing with me normally months later, also shows your approach is somewhat flawed

Yes Tim that is the same RNS that said the trial (1a and 1b) would be completed by now.) It was superceeded last year by AS saying a MTD may never be found. But you never mention that do you?

The "investment case" is this is currently an almost binary play. It is the the first stage of a trial that has released limited but encouraging data in a market full of companies at various stages trying to do the same thing.

We had a debate about gambling and here so many viewed this as an investment as opposed to a gamble.

Still think that? Still think that as the goal posts are moved at every meeting/result, the time line gets farther away?

You can be invested, just as you can be invested in exploration companies (as this is one really, in its own way), the chances of success are slim but the rewards if successful are great. That's the investment case. And as a result the experienced investors in these fields recognising that they have no way of knowing the eventual winners from the losers spread their funds over many companies in the sector to improve their chances of a positive outcome.

And presumably every one here recognises that. Its just that many posts just keep assuming everything is going great and that its only a matter of time before this ten bags or more likely 20 plus. (Which for what its worth is exactly a gamblers mentality.)

"EXCEPTIONALLY well at this stage, hence increased escalations. "

I don't accept that premise at all. It MAY be correct but there is no proof and I think actually the reverse is more likely.

It works but it is not linear and that in DE4 something changed in the results. That's why it was unexpected to carry on beyond DE4. I think side affects increased and from AS saying an MTD may never be found, realised that maybe it could after all. It also explains the stagnant SP. We have had DE5 and now coming to the end of DE6. Will we have a DE7, according to AS that was very unlikely but most recently he mentioned the possibility of 8,9 or 10 i think?

Anyway, time is a critical factor which we both acknowledge, but your valuation from a minimum of £2b is just plucked out of the air, given we also agree there not enough data to give sort of valuation.

I didn't say AVCT was not "investable" I am saying that I think as time goes on the market for its product will shrink rather than grow through being attached to DOX and that time therefore is the critical factor.

Before it was just Chemo, now there is Radio as well as the beginnings of gene plus immune inhibitors , all trying to do the same thing.

(And I was and am not "moaning" you brought it up.)

Hank,

isn't that about time and motion?

How does it relate to valuing companies when there is insufficient data to do that?

No, I accept that logic Neut, But how far away are we? 2 years before its being used at all (assuming all goes well)? according to AS its 7 years from max sales. (I also accept that the market will re-rate AVCT before then, but the amount of the re-rate will be dependent on factors we have no idea about. )

Right now we don't know how effective it actually is, or indeed what side affects are actually present. (We know the big one of heart toxicity is vastly reduced, which is very encouraging)

We won't get this date until well into P1B.

Everyone here has their own view to its ultimate success, but its all complete guesswork and its on really no substantiated data at all. And again like it or not, the history of commercial success in this company is poor, and the market has to factor that in as well.

All I can work out, for me, is to be cautious and that this BB is not representative on the wider market's expectations.

To be honest Neut I have banged this drum for some time. Trying to divorce the company from the product/market.

What is the profit margin, when will it be monitised (with all the myriad of sub-divisions you scratched the surface on.)

So the current valuation is just a number completely devoid of any data that can contribute to any sort of valuation.

My beef is not so much the time it is taking per se, but the implication that every day/month it goes on before any sort of "official" data is supplied by AVCT and released means it has that much less time to dominate the market.

With AI expanding at an exponential rate, the time it will take for new ways of treating many cancers to make it to market is decreasing. DOX at 50 years old will not be the way we treat cancer in the next 50 years.

If we agree 50 years it will look very different what about 40 years? or 30 or 20?

It won't be a light switch change but incrementally more and more cancers will be treated differently so i would expect over the next 5-10 years for the dox market to shrink, not expand.

At some stage AVCT have to prove they have a commercial technology available to the market.

It is no longer a surprise to me that they are and have a strategy for buying DX businesses. They are not specifically relying on their own DX tests, although if they can use them through theses new outlets so much the better.

I think they recognise the "risk" here better than most on this BB

There is very little any company can do about its SP. I accept it could try and inflate/deflate for its own short term reasons, but short term is very short term and basically its manipulation. So for all the obvious reasons of time, money, contacts, and legalality its not very likely.

This is still a binary play. Its a tank if a duster, its huge if its successful. Either way it can't be spun other than what the result will be.

Some/many will de-risk?cut back holdings as it nears the day.

You cannot lose any money being out of the market. (A fact many here don't seem to grasp). The worse case is that you don't maximise a potential profit.... That's not such a hook as some think compared to losing most of your capital if it goes against you.

The SP is what it is and is reflecting the risk profile and the current time line is now concentrating many minds... as it should (imo)

Ok Stokey, whatever, but I think its a bit more subtle than that.

But I am only guessing and obviously there are various examples of govt pressure. I think Tony Blaire leaning on the AG at the time, regarding the Iraq war springs to mind but there are others.

Anyway, who knows, fingers crossed harl get the JR thumbs up.

Ok Stokey, whatever, but I think its a bit more subtle than that.

But I am only guessing and obviously there are various examples of govt pressure. I think Tony Blaire leaning on the AG at the time, regarding the Iraq war springs to mind but there are others.

Anyway, who knows, fingers crossed harl get the JR thumbs up.