Member Info for AgentB

I just emailed LSE to ask when CBX will get its own chat board. They replied:

It'll likely go live on the day once we're sent the data for it from the Stock Exchange. It's an automated process usually.

I assume from what Pedro says, they should mean tomorrow and we can stop bugging the Argonauts?

Is there a leak? Haven’t seen this much blue on the horizon for quite a while!

To think about that guy from ODX who popped up here the other week to suggest that all Avacta did was to make “a few bits” for THEIR test!

Not wishing to antagonise them by doing a Captain Stanley, but I would love to post that video on their board.

That interview has completed renewed my Alastair crush

On LSE Bid 245, Ask 255, Mid 235!!!?

Well the journalist seems to have undergone a conversion regarding ARB. He contrasts its “immaculate character” with some very dodgy dealings fro MARA a and RIOT of which I was previously unaware.

The fact that the test detects new variants is really positive. That confirmation alone has been worth up to 10% on the SPs of other Covid stocks in the past.

Pure speculation here but I wonder whether this has anything to do with the fact that Dominic Cummings was in charge of Moonshot (and therefore many Govt insiders may have wanted it to fail so dragged their heels)?

Seems the read time is 20 mins, not 5 as per HP?

EUA suffering from MM manipulation during a period of no news. Many people locked out when they did a stop loss grab the other week. SP was up nicely yesterday though. Re RMS, I read some anguished comments from exasperated investors selling at a loss. They had gone all-in and with horrible consequences. It’s upsetting to see when this kind of thing happens.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Moonshot

I think that the Govt’s communications team needs to take a look at this and correct the following:
“ mass testing at this scale is liable to cause hundreds of thousands of false positives a day, resulting in very large numbers of people being told that they are infected when they are not.”

I think Doze is referring to the comments on the article which I can’t read as I’m not a subscriber. However, I can imagine that some people (mothers in particular) currently imagine that they are going to have to agree to a brain tickler type on their test twice a week just to get them into school. To be concerned about that is understandable IMO. They don’t realise that a kinder and gentler and way more accurate test is on its way.

The journalist writes:

“Marathon Patent Group (NASDAQ:MARA) has seen shares rise 2,000% since I first wrote about the company in August. However, the company has a history of misleading investors with alleged cases of “misrepresentation and omissions of material facts.” Investors have understandably worried about the company’s early days as a patent troll.

Riot Blockchain (NASDAQ:RIOT) has also seen shares rise amid the reinvigorated case for Bitcoin. Company shares are up 1,800%. But RIOT, too, has seen its share of issues. In 2018, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) charged 20 former executives and investors for running a “classic pump-and-dump scheme.” ”

Based on that article, who would want to be in MARA or RIOT with their dodgy dealings, compared to the totally transparent ARB?

Thanks JT, but it was FDH’s post, not mine. I just wanted to focus on his positivity rather than the other negative thread (which I hoped was being reported and taken down but still seems to be there.)
Sadly, I’m not a scientist or else I might be capable of similarly confident observations. But I can spot a good post by others :-)

(‘Dear person’ was derampers. Sorry all, I meant well.)

I'm a chemist - or was - long retired - and worked in a completely different field. But from my experience, and as Monkswood implies, I would be more than a bit surprised if PD scientists had got their assessment procedures wrong! And I would be surprised if AVCT had allowed PD to get their assessment procedures wrong, vis a vis the freezing issue for example. These guys on both sides are all top class.

Also I keep seeing posts in which it is claimed that PD have failed one or other of AVCT's LFDs? Seemingly this arises from what unidentified sources told HuffPost over the weekend. I would take this with a largish pinch of salt - nothing disclosed by AVCT in their RNSs can be read as their having had an LFD failed by PD.

On the contrary this Mondays RNS correcting the HuffPost's weekend piece says: "The press report this weekend incorrectly stated that a saliva-based rapid antigen test from Avacta had been evaluated at Porton Down. In fact, the evaluated test was the anterior nasal swab test that has subsequently generated the excellent initial clinical performance."

So which test is supposed to have been failed by PD and in what way? Based on this and all previous RNS disclosures, the short answer seems to be none. OK, maybe some imaginary, undisclosed ones - in the eyes of those that speculate - and take what they read in the press as gospel!

The other thing that appears to have been misunderstood from the Monday RNS is the statement "in its evaluation Porton Down used artificial samples and did not use clinical samples."

This ties in with normal practice. The initial step in proving up even the simplest of new analytical procedure is to use an 'artificial' or spiked samples. It allows the early assessment of a new test to be done under controlled conditions, which eliminate all the real world noise that will subsequently be encountered when samples are taken 'in the field.' In the case of a medical diagnostic test such as AVCT's LFDs, these 'in the field' samples are the clinical samples that are now undergoing what Monday's RNS calls 'full clinical validation with a larger number of patient samples in order to obtain a CE mark for the test for professional use'.

So reference to the use of 'artificial' samples by PD was reference to an initial evaluation, which would have deliberately avoided the use of real clinical samples - in order to eliminate real world variables - in order to focus on pure analytical performance.

Hope this helps, somewhat.

Mowzer, totally agree with your post. What is annoying at present is that Avacta’s website makes it clear that they will not take questions from shareholders at present. (Something that I would like to raise at a future juncture). So I guess this means we have to contact the new PR agency for clarification of the RNS. And as a new interface btw company and shareholders, they should show a willingness to assist.

Yes, well, you don’t get much more ‘establishment’ than Bill Gates - another new Climate Evangelist. Apparently he’s concerned about the energy being used in the mining process.

Dear Ian, so Dad’s birthday didn’t work :-(. Please could I conveniently ignore wicked mother-in-law’s birthday (tomorrow) even though that would be lovely, and go for oldest daughter’s birthday.? It’s actually on Easter Sunday, so 6th April is the closest. (Please let it all be done and dusted by then!!!)

Many thanks
Agent B (AKA ‘Ten bag’ - hopefully.)