Member Info for wyndrum

" It means ZERO systemic toxicity "

Not true. Factually incorrect.

""We haven't seen any material efficacy data in 5 years."

Where did I say that? ( I didn't, factually incorrect)

"To call a 90% DCR in a "no-option" cancer "immaterial" isn't a point of view—it's factually incorrect."

Where did I say that? ( I didn't, factually incorrect)

"Fact: Merck is signaling a $32B appetite for oncology platforms."

No it isn't. Its prepared to pay for some oncology platforms. Or are you suggesting investors should buy shares in every single Bio pharma available on the ND and here as they will be bought out by Merck?

"THE RNS REALITY (Aug 29, 2025): Avacta successfully DEFERRED the January 20, 2026, and April 20, 2026, bond repayments to October 20, 2027."

Deferring a crippling loan(which AVCT themselves entered into either out of lack of other options or poor negotiating skill, have only deferred the loan by giving a forward payment guarantee funded by further stock holder dilution. I can't what "strength" was displayed there.)

You sound like Hurst: by constantly showing the huge sums BP will pay it only shines the spotlight ever more brightly as to why up till now AVCT can't get any outside money in at all. They have been forced to sell every asset it has/had to keep this trial going. I would remind you that diagnostics is a HUGE area of global income and yet AVCT with its ground breaking tech had to sell both business at a loss. No strength there. And remember that area of AVCT was meant to be yet another cast iron winner.)

" Wyndrum’s Fiction: "They are desperate for cash; the £16m raise shows they have no leverage."

I did not say that. By all means respond but stop putting words in my mouth I did not say with quotation marks. It implies I actually said those exact words and gives a false meaning to my views.

On a broader point, I would suggest yopu know little of the invetment market, al;most nothing about finance and to think you understand the science when not only you don't but you don't even have anywhere near all the info available to come to the conclusions you do.

Answer this: In 20 years and £200m ish, when has AVCT ever commercially delivered on any project it got involved in?

Have you ever been disappointed with what avct said previously and then in the course of time proved to be wrong?

Why do you think 3 extra dosing cohorts were insisted on when the original program was for 4? (If it was such good news, why after 2 years has the SP fallen further? And why has SGC been the only reported P1b data result so far? I ask because what happened to all the other patients on the P1b trial?

It is not fud to simply have a different pov.

What you are actually saying is you are tired or reading a view that you don't agree with.

None of you seem to get tired of positive posts.

That is perfectly normal human behaviour but does not make your arguments as to why I post correct.

This is a BB to exchange different pov's, so if you can't take different arguments then perhaps it is you that should leave rather than always demanding only a one-eyed view of a stock.

NFT you are a mess of contradictions:

"Smart money looks at the Science to judge the future price."

So, the smart money is staying away from Avct yes? (The SP is lower than it was 5 years ago) Why do you think it has fallen by more than 25% in the last 6 weeks? You think that shows strength?

If Thorn is right and its less effective than standard dox then what good is it being safe? The disconnect between the amount of dox that can be dosed into patients and "only" partial or minor improvements suggest this more complex then you experts seem to accept. But as I say we can't square this circle.

You say I am looking in the rear view mirror which apparently negates my entire argument.

Yes I am looking at the past/history of AVCT to see if that indicates what might happen next. What else can you do?

You use your experience to colour all your future actions in life so why is it a problem with my analysis?

You on the other hand are taking at face value everything AVCT are predicting even though to date they have never delivered on previous utterances. You seem to believe this is "proof" that this will succeed.

As for the results I don't know enough about the science to be able to comment. I defer to the market. Within the market there are plenty of real experts. The SP whether you like it or not is an extremely good indicator and you ignore it at your financial peril. The market exists for money to be made (and lost). To believe that they don't know about AVCT is to me, naive.

Yes, an offer would potential a great premium to the SP but it won't come from here, it will come when the SP is many multiples of what it is now as the tech has a much better proved efficacy rate.

Right now, we are back to funding being an issue. (Which I mentioned some time ago before christmas.

(First thing, it was a typo AVCT MC is £264m, sorry).

I am not desperate at all. I simply refute your logic. (it is this desire to emotionally paint a poster with whom you disagree that only adds to the weakness of your argument.)

We are not going to see the results of AVA6k the same way. My argument is if it was as good as you think they would have been bought out or the SP would be a multiple of where it is now.

That leads on to the funding. You say a £100m raise would have been disastrous, well yes, because AVCT's tech is so weak!!! You make the point perfectly for me. Don't you see that?

The results to date are simply not strong enough to convince the market that a higher SP is appropriate. Its been 5 years so the market and BP know all about this tech.

If this latest example is correct that another bio pharma has gone for $28b then to have AVCT now, based on its results to date, valued at $2-$5b is hardly out of court. But it isn't is it? (At least we seem to have stopped the "market is as thick as mince" excuse)

Therefore the fairly obvious conclusion is that this trial has proved safety but not particularly in efficacy.

How you can draw any other conclusion is simply beyond me having read your defence.

And NFT, that tells you EXACTLY that AVCT have not got that tech yet.

This current trial has "only" confirmed that it is relatively safe but the details you have posted show as circumstantially conclusively as it can, that AVA6k does not make a material difference in treatment to the patient, otherwise AVCT based on the constant value of other buy-outs, would not be valued at just £164m)

(Further circumstantial evidence is the focus now on a cancer that has no standard of care which is both relatively rare and the previous trial cancers seemingly are now no longer focussed.)

CC has thrown all the chips now into the next trial. Which based on lab results and her enthusiasm sounds hopeful, however how many times have we been here before? Loads of what turned out to be hyperbole and the animal results have not resulted into the breakthrough promised.

My take about funding is that it is in fact based on my thoughts above, (still) very difficult.

Where you see a position of strength of the last £16m raise I see the polar opposite.

If they had been in a strong position it could/should have been for £75m-£100m to remove the issue for at least 18 months to 2 years, maybe allowed for a ND listing?

To me the fact they took just about the lowest amount they could to only have to resolve this again in the coming weeks/months looks/ed desperate.

I know little about RH but he has had previous involvement with AVCT and the share holders did not benefit so I am cautious about over egging his involvement as the new loans seemed to have been very lucrative for those involved.

This stock is simply an absolutely off- the-shelf small bio tech. Great potential, but with the odds stacked against them of success.

Anyone who is basing their pension for instance by over committing to this project does not imo, understand risk reward.

I still think the odds are still highly stacked against this succeeding.

There is no evidence that the Board are negotiating from a position of strength. That is simply your interpretation of the least amount of money that had to be raised at the time due to the terriible previous cash raise terms (no strength there then?) Given that funding will not be allowed to go to the wire it means it is likely that there will a further cash call in Q1

(Also the refinance package has just replaced one loan for another. It curtailed the constant SP fall due to the inept way AVCT has handled the financing of the trial. One can only hope this latest loan package works better for longer.) What you can't say is that funding is secured. Roughly every 12-15 montns AVCT dilute the stock to keep the lights on. Currently there is not enough money to get the next 12 months. Funding is still a very big issue.

No MTD is not bad news but clearly the extra amount of dox is not contaminating the rest of the body does not mean that it is is as effective on the tumour itself.

Thorn's reasoning makes more sense than any other explanation that the time Dox is available in the system is too short to be as effective as hoped.

The new trial is to address this. CC has referred to this. I hope this is true.

None of what i am saying is and ever has been that contentious, which is why most of it has to come pass.

Quite why you and so many others here are so obtuse to the facts around you is the mystery

NFT, if there is no MTD then why have they not pursued that further if, if, the more dox put in the better the tumour shrinkage?

Why in P1b has it only been a cancer with no standard care been the focus of results? why hasn't P1b been tested on new cases where there has been no treatment in say, breast cancer? Because the size of the trial would be too long/big/expensive?

How about if with 5 or 10 times the amount of dox going in every 2 weeks or why not one, would there not be the most astounding immediate results?

The whole point of a 6 dose treatment of dox now is to show improvement to the patient while having to endure the most awful side effects.

If there was a trial with hugely better outcomes and very little side effects allowing for not only larger doses but for longer, then would not the world and his dog want to be on that trial?

Your use of "shorthand" is not what I have actually said. Its been proven safe but I believe with patch outcomes. Not that it doesn't work but that challanges arose during Pia and b that were forecast.

To raise £16m was just about the minimum as they had to as £13m was part of the loan refinance package.

And not for nothing, how long do you think CC meant when she said deals in the not too distant future? Me, I thought 3-9 months.

We were all misled by AVCT regarding the LFT and also by the need not to worry about funding just before a deisaterous placing at 50p 2 years ago of which the SP has hardly recovered above..

The results published have not overly impressed BP in particular or the market in general, so you can keep up your silly tirade but the facts actually, speak for themselves.

NFT, lets look at some facts rather than your fantasy post, shall we?

" Wyndrum: Frequently cited as part of the group that "moves the goalposts." When one bullish thesis is proven right, this account often pivots to a new concern (e.g., from "the science won't work" to "the funding is a disaster")."

Firstly you have no evidence whatsoever for the libellous claims you have made.

Firstly the science did not work on the LFT did it. Secondly funding has been a huge problem for AVCT with regard to the SP.

So I have been proved correct in my analysis of concern that things were not going to plan before the events were confirmed by AVCT at the time.

This is an investment so my concern is to minimise losses and maximise gains. That is hardly surprising on an investment BB.

I cannot comment on how well anything works with AVCT because I (nor you or anyone else here) has the full picture. What we do know for a FACT, is that there has been no commercial success yet with single piece of AVCT tech.

5 years into phase 1 of a trial and funding is STILL an issue with a likely need for more anytime in the next 6 months, even though there have been 3 or 4 since it started.

No deal has been done as of today that any of us are aware of in a third party funding the future costs of the Trials proposed.

P1b patients were to be cherry picked (which is why apparently it took so long to recruit them), so as to showcase the efficacy having confirmed the safety.

I wonder if the delay was because the P1a results were so mixed in outcomes. So while safe, were not as effective as hoped. This would explain the extra 3 cohorts. It would also explain why there is no MTD found yet. It is a moot point if they increase the dose but dox becomes no more effective with the higher doses. Ever considered that? because if Dox was performing well then increasing the dosage would clearly be beneficial to the patient. But that has not happened.

This patchy or even poor performance outcome, would also explain why no offer or deal has happened yet.

The SP is at the same price it was when the trial started 5 years ago. That it is a further indicator that this so far has not set the world alight.

It now all seems to hinge on another trial that has had very promising lab results, as has every other bit of AVCT tech. To simply presume based on what has been said by avct and the partial data released, that this will be the one, should imo opinion be cautiously received simply based on their history of misleading investors so as to raise funds to keep the lights on.

There is in FACT little to base the wild optimism generated here by some and I would remind you all that the RAH's Tom the Bomb, MM, Hurst, Tim, Bella, BV, ICE and every other poster here that has been ramping this stock and their tech for YEARS as been 100% wrong and it is they that keep movong the goalposts, not me.

And I know I am right because the only argument returned will be perso

Well, its come to a pretty pass when the Chart suggests a breakout is about to happen! Close above .47p good, close above .50p great"

Target would be .6p but more likely .8

My interpretation is that the market is loading up now for a soon to be, news rich period for both sites.

Ah CJ, so you want to ask me questions yet you never answer mine?

Was I right after the event on the LFT? was I right after the event suggesting that RI's (at the time) were on the close horizon?)

Was I right when I said this looked like it would rise at 32p?

I have stated I sold in the 70's and I bought back in the high 50's last week

As for the future of AVCT, how would I know? I don't have all the info.

From a SP pov the break above 58p shows a greater chance of moves up to 85p plus with a stop if it fell back to 56p

I have the same as info as you and based on the history of the company and the sector in general it is more likely to fail than succeed, however, it may fulfil its potential, as I say how do I know. What my experience of investing in general and this company in particular does allow, is to trade it (so far successfully), but simply what all investors do (or should do), is to weigh the risk of success/failure and invest an amount accordingly.

Where was the SP 5 years ago?

Chris, maths not your strongest point then?

I defend my trading record against the constant lies posted about me.

Buying and selling is what we all do so to understand the drivers of why we do what we do is as fundamental to investing as the stock we buy. (This an investment BB after all. (somebody could break that news to Sheppy)

Why you never stop trying to pick an argument with me is crazy.

Cj the accusation that we post daily is just as relevant as to all the other 0ne-eyed posts that vastly outnumber the more rounded view i and very few others take.

As always your views are biased and inaccurate.

Perhaps it is you that needs help in constantly trying to silence me when I have been correct.

Or perhaps you can tell me where I have been incorrect with my analysis?

(You won't though will you. What you will do is just post more lies and straw man arguments rather than ever debate any issues I raise. Pathetic)

Thats the thing Tim (as you know), its not the "3 amigos" that clog up the board. We almost universally talk about and raise points concerning AVCT. It is the mindless responses and insults that come from the otheres that is the problem.

The " crime" we seem to perpetuate is look at the whole picture rather than just one part of it.

So it is in keeping with this most "well researched" BB on LSE that it is the mindless lie-spouting morons here that get recced while we get filtered, blocked and abused. (Oh and we have been correct to boot.)

No "investor" would only be invested in one stock, let alone a high risk one.

That is the definition of an addicted gambler. All their cash in a one shot, high risk hopeful, big pay out of unknown odds in an unknown time frame.

Nothing wrong in, and in fact most investors do, have a risk weighted portfolio so as to include some long shot potential big payoffs if they work out.

The conventional wisdom these type of stocks should only account for about 5% of your portfolio.

And there is a reason why, by the way. Once you have lost all your capital (the bet) you cannot get back in the game. Even on big losses, say 50% that stock now needs to double to breakeven.

Many here consider AIM to be a corrupt market that is manipulated against PI's. It begs the question that if you believe that to be the case why would you invest in any AIM company?

Well thats interesting yeboa. I asked if AVCT had been a good investment over the last 5 years. below is the reply

"Over the last five years, Avacta Group (LON:AVCT) has been a volatile, high-risk investment with mixed returns, experiencing both massive surges and significant drops. While an initial investment in early 2020 would have seen significant gains at certain points, as of early 2026, it generally has underperformed the overall market and industry benchmarks. "

So my overall stance of being bearish has been vindicated and my decision to trade has also been vindicated

As for it being biased or not, it simply scours the internet for all comment. Seeing as so many of you routinely lie about me and insist I have an agenda other than minimising losses and maximising gains on avacta, it is not only not surprising the agenda word crops up but also it still can't determine if i have one.

Now, given I actually am the best source to confirm or deny the truth which you are desperate to get at, I again remind you that this is an investment BB and therefore I post as to how I think gains can be made or losses reduced.

Frankly I have (and a few others) have called this correctly over 5 years, so its not a fluke.

You and others seem wedded to being "right" that AVCT will become a pharma super power. I on the other hand am more cautious having seen countless other small bio techs crash and burn but at the same time acknowledge the potential.

Whether you like it or not, objectively I find my view more rational than yours and others that simply want to be rude and insult me and to make it a personal matter while ignoring the fact that I have been broadly if not universally correct in my forward thinking of how AVCT SP pans out.

You may recall the relentless abuse I got every time I mentioned the likely hood of cash raises coming. Seems now you all accept that finance is a critical part of the markets and therefore SP calculation. You may recall the relentless abuse I got every time I mentioned the then slam dunk of LFT income, being unlikely as the delays would curtail that commercial advantage.

On all the key moments I have been right about AVCT.

The fact that you cannot accept that says as usual, more about your character than mine.

Morning Ben and thank you for your considered reply. (for those out there this is what I want. A reasonable and considered response based on their interpretation of the evidence and a just as reasonable different path/outcome.

The reasons you gave are why I still persist with this share. (It has been good to me to trade as well, so that helps! like you, I have taken advantage of the rise and fall and hopefully rise again.)

I think Aim is actually a better indicator here then many believe. The market is so mercenary that they don't miss many tricks at all, so if the price is subdued it indicates to me (for whatever reason) that short term nothing is likely to happen.

The finance I agree, is still the elephant in this particular room which many here just ignore or who don't seem to realise the absolute fundamental relevance it has to AVCT as a company and dismiss it almost as an irrelevance.

The 2 options to me seem to be that either there is a deal being worked out and its not leaking or, there isn't. Either way the market is waiting to see which one it is and is being prudent in the meantime.

I accept that this should make AVCT the SoC for SGC, but given the very positive results thus far I can't quite square that seemingly slam dunk revenue (even if it is 12-24 months away), which in turn should revalue AVCT's MC, and therefore restrains my risk appetite right now given the historic way AVCT seem to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

As for AI I am sceptical presently of its accuracy.

Something as far as I can see was not quite right in AVA6k. Is it a fundamental flaw or just a problem that they have now resolved?

It sounds as though they have improved it dramatically but we are back to 6-12 months (again) and no money. Although this has been going on forever (20 years) it can't actually go on for ever and it does feel that this is the make-or-break year for AVCT.

Right now, imo, the Jury is still out.

ATB

Or can google it

"AI Overview

The original projected timeline for the AVA6000 phase I clinical trial anticipated the dose escalation phase would complete by Q2 2022, followed by the completion of the dose expansion phase by around mid-2023.

The trial began with the first patient dosed in August 2021. However, the trial's timeline was extended, including the addition of new dosing schedules (e.g., a two-weekly schedule) and ongoing enrollment in expansion cohorts due to promising data and the ability to test higher doses than initially expected.

As of recent updates, the full Phase 1a data presentation is now anticipated in the second half of 2025, and data from the Phase 1b dose expansion cohorts is expected at the end of 2025. "

29 Nov 2021 07:00

RNS Number : 8030T

Ok Cj, where are the deals or indeed any deal?

The whole trial from start to finish was originally designed for 2 years, after the P1a 4th cohort another 3 were unexpectedly added.

P1b has only reported on a cohort (sgc) where no treatment is available. That was not what we were led to believe would be the case. The reason CC gave does not wash with me as they would have gone for the low hanging fruit from the first cohort in P1a not introduced this as a surprise to all. It has been a slow recruitment to P1b and i am not sure when it is due to complete. (Are you?)

Do you think P1b with the "cherry picked" patients has delivered to your expectations?

So yes assumptions, but where is the breakdown in logic? Its hardly saying the earth is flat is it?

As for the next trial I am well aware of the difference to this one.

I am also aware that AVCT have a history of going quiet when things do not pan out as expected and then all the hope and hype is then pushed onto the "next" one.

Maybe the next trial will be definitive for AVCT and their tech but it is now for me based on what has repeatedly gone before a case of I will believe it when I see it.

The "huge assumptions" actually come from the bullish posters here who never offer any balance and simply ignore any potential pitfall, believing it is better to air-brush out history than acknowledge the complexity of what AVCT are trying to achieve and that the odds of success are still, imo weighted against them succeeding.

Perhaps B2, less with the meaningless and stupid analogies and more with the actual analysis.

(When for instance has Tom, or indeed any bullish commentator predicting the (near term) future of AVCT ever been correct? Surely that must tell you something. The definition of madness is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.)

There are no deals, the SP is less than 60p (in fact exactly where it was 12 months ago, and P1b has disappointed. Now it all hinges on the next trial. WE have been here before have we not?

All those seminars, updates, poster exhibitions endorsements, and in 12 months the SP is back where it started.

You will all do what you like but there are going to be some stella returns I think this year in much bigger, safer stocks. How many more years do you want to keep having pension and large parts of your portfolios wrapped up in this increasingly risky stock?