Member Info for benbenbenben

https://twitter.com/affidx

https://www.cubdomain.com/site/affidx.com

https://avacta.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Avacta-Ltd-Registered-Trade-Marks-summary-29.09.2020.pdf

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41587-020-00021-z?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-en-GB

"Even the most optimistic projections suggest that safe and effective vaccines will not be available in meaningful quantities until well into next year. It is looking increasingly realistic to assume that the virus will continue to circulate in many populations in the meantime. In such a grim scenario, effective rapid tests cannot come quickly enough."

Like everyone I am getting frustrated with the wait, however:

- Just last week the company stated it was making strong progress with both of the tests and advancing commercial opportunities

- The company has stated Tech Transfer will complete in Q4; we are halfway through Q4

- IF THE COMPANY ARE AWARE OF ANY MATERIAL CHANGE TO THE ABOVE GUIDANCE, THEY MUST NOTIFY THE MARKET IMMEDIATELY

- The absence of any change to the above, restated, guidance suggests they are simply getting on with it

- Tech Transfer started 3 months and 3 weeks ago this Thursday, BBI advise it takes '3-4 months'; therefore updates should be extremely close now

- BAMS has been under clinical evaluation for 7 weeks; again, updates are imminent

- BAMS works by disintegrating the sample with a laser, before measuring the weight and velocity of the individual molecules which fly off. This is hyper-accurate - more so than PCR - and once correctly calibrated has an exceptionally small margin of error. Bruker - the worlds leading MS manufacturer - have produced data sheets for use of the assay on their platforms and the assay is on sale for research use, which confirms it works as intended.

- The bottom line is that MS doesn't lie: BAMS will pass clinical validation with flying colours.

- The AVA 6000 Clinical Trial Application, "on track" for this quarter, will easily send the price back to pre-vaccine levels.

I wish the company would hurry up; the wait is frustrating; I raised an eyebrow at Big Al's house purchase...

But the guidance from the company has remained consistent: given they are legally obligated to inform us of any deviation and yet restated this guidance seven days ago, it stands to reason we remain on the cusp of transformational news.

If you're nervous, I'd recommend re-reading the companies annual report (it helped me last week), logging-off this website and going for a walk outside - it a beautiful day!

Poundcake - that line made me think of that 'passporting' app we were briefly linked to the other day...

DD77 - No, I'm afraid I only have anecdotal (though highly reliable) information one step removed from the source, so you'll have to form your own opinion as to whether you believe me.

However, 3/5 tests are listed on the UK Gov LFT review page, which will likely be updated soon with the other two.

As you say, tech transfer is key - the company have said they will notify when this has completed with a pilot batch, they know every investor is desperate for this news and a pilot study cannot be carried out without it; so IMO there is no reason for them to have completed this key milestone and not informed the market.

Obviously I would love an RNS tomorrow to prove me wrong, but I wouldn't hold your breath.

That said, I am optimistic we will see something this month...

Interesting that Avacta retweeted Heathrow the the other day, who were saying how testing will be required for years at airports. Avacta also recently stated they had made 'strong commercial progress' with the LFT.

Today, the FT published this story - I wonder if the above is directly related to this?

"The UK government has set an “aggressive” bar for the accuracy of tests that will be used to screen incoming travellers for coronavirus, as it searches for companies to implement by mid-December its plan to halve the quarantine time.

The Department for Transport has stated that it wants tests to have 99 per cent specificity, only recognising real cases and avoiding false positives, and 97 per cent sensitivity — identifying all real cases and avoiding false negatives, according to government documents.

“The sensitivity and specificity [targets] are really aggressive, not many companies are going to be able to hit it,” said an executive at one UK test supplier in regular talks with the government."

https://www.ft.com/content/dc85a602-9b3b-4ab4-b7d5-96e815771bdd

We are not one of the four, and we all know why - because we are still awaiting notification of tech transfer completion.

My understanding is that the four are SD Biosensor, two Chinese imports and Abbott's.

However, the Government are very keen to find a UK-made test and e know from David Wilson that they desire a "sovereign supply", so once we do come to market we will likely displace the above...

Quite right Gaz - it's not like they press the big "approve vaccine" button and suddenly COVID disappears.

A 100% effective vaccine would need to be given to c.75% of the population to achieve a level of herd immunity which would end the pandemic. If the vaccine were only 90% effective, that would look more like 82.5% of the population...

With c.68 million souls in the UK alone, that equates to between 51 and 56 million people who need to be vaccinated, potentially even requiring two doses, before widespread transmission ceases.

At a rate of 2 million injections a week on a two-dose vaccine, that's nearly 12 months from approval to mass effect.

In the intervening period, the only tools to prevent a third wave and continues outbreaks are the hated social distancing measures and... mass testing.

Plenty of gas left in the tank here, even if we all wish Al would put his foot down!

NT to buy on IG.

Also, UK has not bought any of the Moderna vaccine - so atm has little baring on us

No, because John Bell has not received a version of, nor evaluated, Avacta's LFT.

His comments do not relate to Avacta's LFT and the guidance from the company on the viability of a saliva-based LFT remains unchanged.

Not yet, until we have completed tech transfer there is still nothing to report on as neither company or Gov are making any statements and so at present there isn't really a printable story.

However, I do know for a fact that Prof. John Bell has not received or evaluated our LFT, so on the plus side the comments about issues with saliva do not relate to us.

As soon as we get updates from the company I think we are more likely to see coverage, but it really does all depend on tech transfer or BAMS validation atm...

Good find Martnotsosmart!

I doubt it - John Bell hasn't seen a version of our test yet, so any discussion of saliva-based tests by him is not referring to us.

Good find Zztop - I think the discussion of Mass-Spec for prognosis, not exclusively diagnosis, is especially interesting, as it would give BAMS a significant advantage over PCR

Well, on the plus side at least there's no risk of the news being 'priced in' now - so at least we can look forward to a nice rise.. ;)

I know for a fact he has not reviewed Avacta's LFT - he has however reviewed 70 other tests, which must be keeping him busy enough that until our TT completes he isn't concerning himself with prototypes.

Not so sure it's the Guardian that's dodgy... It's Public Health England who think the test isn't as accurate as claimed and the DHSC tried to bury the report...

The SP crashed alongside every other covid stock owing to the change in market sentiment brought about by the vaccine - it has little direct relation to Avacta's performance, as evidenced by a similar drop in revenue producing companies.