The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Thanks Sleepy
GL mate
gmcc
see you have been around for a while
With amphi - I broke my own recent / hastily learned and may be BS rule to never trust a poster after 2018
But I still like that post - what am I missing..
C'Mon
There is an army of Newbies watching this fantastic company do its thing no doubt chucking i a few £ when we can
You guys have been doing this for years etc
We just need to be included (I would imagine most lock down investors - if you will - are now back to - er work) and its very difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff etc
Usual GLA and I mean it FWIW
Numpty
Ask yourself whether there is any more to Amphis first three posts than;
“You are all over optimistically misinterpreting company communications”
And is there any more to his response to Big Bites subsequent razor sharp logic than a change of position to;
“You can’t neccesarily trust the company officers”
Whilst i respect everyone entitled to post whatever they wish . Good to read wide range of views & opinions expressed , However moot point whether we believe or agree with what is actually said -- that is ok . Not all clones !.
Anyway Amphiprion1 whatever your motivation , far too many ifs & buts in your eloquent wordy content to be taken seriously.
No ambiguity from me the only thing that matters is seeing AVCT market cap reflect its true value . £600m+ within 7 weeks is my first target .
Good luck everyone & AVCT team .
Vegas
To be honest I'm a novice hence the ridiculous tag - but Amphi post seemed genuine and balanced.
I suppose time will tell as I am very green to investing in the AIM - but hopefully not so green as a cabbage like etc.
What was it about his / her post that makes you certain they are negative or er de-ramping?
I'm sure a lot of people here who are like me (new / gullible maybe ?) would appreciate an explanation - or is it just watch and learn ?
No offense meant here.
GL mate
My de ramping keyword algorithm just hit the jackpot ??
Vegas,
I agree with you, don’t know why he’s suddenly appeared and the point of his post is devoid of reason.
He is a troll/ deramper but, I must disagree, not a clever one !
I’m going have to up my score which is awkward. 11/10 for effort.
Numptybuyer, is the Wow because like me you don't trust this guy? I think he's a troll albeit a clever one maybe his mates are giving all the recommendations
Respectful WOW Amphi
Wow
@Big Bite Now. Good afternoon, & thanks for your message.
I wholeheartedly agree with everything your have written there, & your thought processes match those of mine very closely. I guess from my own personal perspective, whilever I would arrive at a similar conclusion to yourself having my 'logic' hat on, I also have the constant nagging doubts introduced by the 'cynical', or perhaps 'suspicious' hat. At times it can be a most unwelcome distraction & has certainly caused me to make a hash of a few investments in the past. Nevertheless, probably a valuable counter to what is spread out before us.
I have been investing for many many years, & have seen it all (well perhaps not everything, but certainly more than I would have preferred to have seen), in terms of market manipulation & untoward (at times fraudulent) activities. I have witnessed many a retail investor being burned by adopting an approach which has been perhaps too trusting, or naive; taking things at face value rather than taking account of what may lurk beneath the surface. Not a pretty sight, & one which I am sure most (but not all) of us would prefer not to witness.
For me, much as like yourself I see a great company in Avacta, with tremendous prospects especially in the therapeutic arena, I am always wary when share prices & company valuations become so incredibly volatile as they have in this case. Whilst I would not want to air all my concerns on a public forum, I am acutely aware that there is enormous scope for a great deal of money to be both made, & lost here, & that can sometimes bring out the worst in people. For me, Avacta did lose a little credibility when it reassured twice (late last year), & again early this year when Mahmud Kamani & Clare Hughes invested, that it was now fully funded to the end of next year only to weeks later announce a very significant fundraising (& subsequent dilution). I understand why they did it, but for me, Alastair (& Avacta) lost some trust. It is very likely that individuals will have made tens of millions of pounds when the shares plummeted from over £2.00 to where they are now in the process. Likewise, there remains potential for the same thing to happen again, but only really if Avacta management & others, helped the process along. One would hope (as do I) that would not be the case, & the part of me which has caused me to remain an investor does give them the benefit of the doubt. Alastair & David appear too 'decent' to me to become embroiled in anything of that nature, but I can't help but have some nagging doubts & I hope that they will shortly be totally dispelled. If they are, then this company would have to count as one of the most exciting investments I have ever come across.
I am sure BBN that you will easily figure out where I am coming from, & for anyone else perhaps less experienced please don't ask me to elaborate as I am simply not going to comment further on this. I thought that a reply was certainly in orde
We have certainly been led by the BOD to expect multiple tests and tests that will be the best of the best.... so we wait for delivery.
Sorry one additional point.
My argument is not simply centred on "they've told us this so it must be true." it is also very much tied into who is telling us, how they are telling us and the timing of when they are telling us. All of which is tied into a wider external set of information.
we are not talking off the cuff remarks here
@Chengdo04 I hear you loud and clear and the message does needs to be repeated that nothing is ever a given in investing. All we can do is research and make percentage based conclusions on what we find out, be it invest or walk away.
The sorts of things you say are of course absolutely possible but the percentage chances are very low. We are now talking off the cuff remarks here. We are talking a consistent message that has continued past working test stage and into the optimisation phase.
Furthermore it is the very fact that it is perceived that such a high performing LFT isn't possible, that compounds the very argument that AVCT are capable of achieving because despite all that, they continue to push the same message with very little lip service being applied to the usual caveats applied to public company declarations. Yes that could well be over confidence or falling in love with the idea but it would also be highly irresponsible, which I don't believe this management to be.
I may of course end up being wrong. In investing there is always that chance and the least likely things often end up taking the biggest bites, excuse the pun. However, even if that end sup being the case I would still be happy with my process because the evidence strongly indicates that they believe they will meet their goal. That said, a lesser result is still an excellent fall back in terms of success, which when added to the BAMS test and the other platforms, offsets the longer term risk considerably.
Last point. Sometimes knowledge can be the biggest hindrance of all and prevents us from seeing what is directly in front of our noses.
Yup, it is based on what was said, but it’s also the circumstances, it was the day before they declared the prototype ready. The initial data must be promising to state confidence in achieving the minimum targets they’ve set themselves.
Gordon, has your crew gone short again?
Great post BBN. People often forget that Avacta are a long established company with a highly credible board and II base
PS I would welcome any counter arguments from anyone that may test my logic because i may well have missed something along the way.
(2/2)
I could also add that at no point in that IG video does he bring into question the success of the test. So its not just about what is said but what isn't also.
Like I say, I am no scientist or LFT expert. I base my decisions on logic.
Unless Dr Smith and his experienced diagnostic team, are deluded, somehow in denial or simply underhand in their dealings with shareholders, all of which are highly unlikely, be it always possible, then their actions are very much pointing towards a belief that their own minimum standards will be met, at the very least.
We must always be conscious of what has been achieved before and what most likely can be achieved now but if AVCT truly had doubts, then those 2 videos, surely should not have taken place and it is they that chose to stage them, nobody else.
I 100% support the need for individuals to be cautious and actual results will define this in the end but logic says to me, that they truly believe they will hit those mass screening parameters and for my sins, I believe them too because their actions point to such an outcome.
(1/2)
@Amphiprion1 Good morning. I have just had a chance to read your post from yesterday. I appreciate your stance and support the need to not get too carried away about the LFT needing to reach the top levels of performance, or indeed match Sona, in order to be successful.
I'm going to give you my opinion now but please do take it in the context of it being an opinion, that is my opinion only.
I hear loud and clear the argument that high performing saliva based antigen tests are not the norm, if indeed achieved to date.
I tend to take a logic based approach to investing based on information that is available from the company, tested by what I find out from other sources. An approach I dedicate a lot of time to. I am not a scientist, nor have I worked in the field and I do try to recognise that as I go along.
My opinion.
Despite reservations about the way the last placing was handled, I feel my trust in what Dr Smith says, is well placed.
With David Wilson as head of the diagnostics division at AVCT, there is ample well respected experience within AVCT, such that statements made on their aims for both the LFT and the BAMS test, should not be taken too lightly.
Furthermore, it is for me not just the release of the diagnostic performance video that is key but the timing of it as well because it came out 1 day before the working LFT test was announced.
So when Dr Smith states that in AVCT view "the minimum hurdles for a rapid antigen test for use in the general population is a sensitivity of 90% or better and a specificity of 95% or better" and that statement is made 1 day prior to the working test parameters being known, it is for me a strong indicator that the test is capable (at least at this stage), of meeting that criteria.
This is further compounded by the fact that Dr Smith goes on to state that "we are aiming for a high performance test with both the LFT. . . and the laboratory based test with Adeptrix."
In the table given earlier in the piece, an example of a high performing test is given as 95% sensitivity and 98% specificity, which again must be taken in the context of this video conveniently being released, just 1 day prior to the working test announcement.
Anything is possible but it is highly unlikely that AVCT published this video 1 day prior to these results, purely by chance. It is also highly unlikely that AVCT are blissfully unaware that it may just be construed, that their test can meet their own minimum requirements or better, because of the content they themselves decided to publish, on that particular day.
All of which is further compounded by the fact that Dr Smith appears on a IG interview 9 days later and openly discusses the need for 100s million of tests and the logistics of putting enough manufacturing in place for it. That being smack bang in the middle of the optimisation process, which defines the final product.
from what I heard ****y Winnifritth has more important things on his mind, namely trying to work out how the fukc hes getting him and his mates out on the shorts they hold in EUA
good luck with that one you bunch of Cokcwommbles
Whilst Sona may be 96% accurate at detecting the virus on a swab (tested only 30 times on a perfectly prepared sample) - this doesn’t account for the difficulty in making nasal swabs. Especially by non professionals...
Some links that demonstrate real world accuracy likely to be better with saliva sample.
https://azbigmedia.com/business/asu-researchers-develop-cheaper-faster-saliva-test-for-covid-19/
Saliva tests may be even more accurate than nasal tests, said Joshua LaBaer, executive director of the Biodesign Institute. Nasopharyngeal swabs involve inserting a cotton swab into the nose and pushing it to the back of the palate, where the sample is collected. The swab then is put into about half a teaspoon of liquid, mostly saline.
“But in the case of the saliva test, the entire sample is produced by the person,” he said. “So, if there’s virus in there, there’s probably a little bit more virus in the saliva test. So, in our hands, it’s as effective, and in at least a couple of cases it looks like it might be a little bit more effective.””
The authors found that oropharyngeal swabs significantly outperformed nasal swabs in terms of both sensitivity and accuracy: throat swabs missed only 14 percent of positive cases, as opposed to almost 60 percent that were missed by the nasal swabs.
https://www.labroots.com/trending/clinical-and-molecular-dx/18056/throat-swabs-prevent-covid-false-negatives
There’s no point debating what Sir Al said, it’s in the video. They’re aiming for the highest performing test possible and said they believe the minimum is 95/90. He then has a dig at Sona, saying swabs are useless, good ol’ Al. The summary starts at 9:10.
Amphiprion, I don't know how they could 'cede specificity' to enhance sensitivity due to the fact affimers do not cross react with similar viruses. I could be wrong and there are more qualified than me that could correct me. But I am led to believe that affimers are highly specific by nature.