Member Info for beinthelead

Mmm... not sure. My view is the Avacta/Mologic collaboration is in test development, and could share a portion of the revenue for AffiDx, for the gov contract. They’ve been developing for months and using their architecture.

Having two LFT’s does not make much sense.

HMG Round table discussion:

AVACTA - Technology
ODX - Manufacturing
Mologic - Test architecture/design/governance

Paul Hill on Twitter has been fooled :) quoting odd inaccuracies for LFT’s.

Old information but no doubt used by ODX as ‘positive’ infill news. Or used to underpin Mologic as sovereign test choice. Who knows.

Good point Ben.

Odd that they tagged their own product page on the last tweet? Odd on a few levels.

The performance ‘highlights’ on their product page show how incomparable their test is to ours. The equation should be simple - ours is more sensitive, therefore more fitting to the use case. I’d suggest cheaper, too. But this is speculation. Let’s see tomorrow.

In a trial?

Just had the same thought in the gym...

Why declare the 30m figure if they weren’t privy to the forecasted delivery?

Still puzzled by that ODX employee on linkedin stating his delight in developing a test on behalf of Avacta. That was a duck aligning moment for me.

:)

And that’s the point Zoom. I’ll not be rude in my criticism of a share, or mock their failure. That company has and will continue to lose people money if they chose to invest in it. I’m never convinced the heads of the snake (top rampers) are invested. They’ll trade the swing of sentiment they perpetuate.

BRH are not in competition with Avacta. On no level.

The market will be where it is when it’s commercialised. It can be ramped on the BRH board :)

The BRH test is no competition to ours and stays in its own space. Unfortunately, it appears to be a purpsuit of passion rather than a market disrupting product. In theory, it is pretty awesome. But this is a perfect of example of passion being an evil in product development. Think Segway.

The cancer revolution appears to be gaining traction. Not long now: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-9539015/Stunning-therapy-lands-knock-blow-cancer.html

Great stuff. Much appreciated.

Tipster, do you believe they’re paid? Honestly. Why else would they do it?

What have they approved them for? Has ‘the list’ yielded commercial success for all 19 test suppliers?

Are the 19 N targeting tests more sensitive than our S targeting?

Theoretically, the S is MORE prone to mutation the the N. Hence, N is NOT immune to mutation. If our S mutates, we’ll make another reagent in 4 weeks. If that N tests fails...

Luckily, to date, we’re all good on the variants.

Genuine questions as I assume you’re trying to save us from losing some of our profit.

Why would Avacta be talking to HMG, and potentially loaning their kit to sell via their procurement route if targeting S protein was so bad?

I’d say, rather ironically, targeting the S protein may have haloed our test be 100% sensitive for identifying infectious individuals.

Name another that’s as sensitive.
Name another cheaper to produce.
How many of the 19 are DESIGNED for AN use case?
How many are British?
How many have been chosen as the sovereign test?

Evening.

What do we expect in terms of news throughout the AVA cycle? Assume first dosing and early feedback at the end of the year? I’m starting to look forward to that now.

I’m convinced that the LFT will deliver £15 by Christmas.

Which companies are releasing home use tests?

We are not a diagnostics company.

Correct protein target selected for prevalence within AN sample type. What a move.

UK or non UK samples? What difference does it make. Mologic used Europe.

Proof of no-bid?

Agree on better placed diagnostic companies, as we’re not a diagnostics company. The main one (Mologic) has helped us out, and given us manufacturing capacity. And been collab’ing for months.

£2m cash burn - £48m in the bank and soon to be generating a minimum of £500m revenue. Phew.

BAMS as a commercial failure is correct.

ELISA? Ask Abcam.

Cytiva. Quite the opposite. The saliva test IS a high performing test. But has no use in the current market due to the sample type change. It happens, it’s called R&D. It’ll be on the shelf waiting if things change.

For a non diagnostics company to develop the highest performing LFT in the world, in 12 months, at a cost of less than £10m. Pretty cool I’d say. Quite humbling for the diagnostic companies.

The cancer stuff can be discussed in a few months when it kicks off.

Unprecedented, I think those instructions refer to AN OR mouth swab?

And it was cheaper. Simpler design. Infinitely scaleable.

It’s not as sensitive. Especially at higher Ct’s.

If you were replacing the Innova test and using something that was as sensitive as possible for an LFT - which would you choose?