Member Info for DugWalker

That's just wrong.

The problem with PSA is it produces too many false negatives, so much so that the majority of biopsies are unnecessary which is a huge drain on NHS resources. If PSE helps avoid the vast majority of false negatives and hence dramatically reduces the number of biopsies the savings to the NHS would be massive rendering the £750 cost of the test and irrelevance.

Oh and £750 is much less than the cost of an MRI scan, which looks to be the current preferred candidate for a National Screening programme.

Hi Kingalf,

It's a chasm. It's Burrows favorite word. Bridge the chasm and all will be well.

I recently posted an email I sent to Prostate Cancer UK. The essence of it was to see if they would acknowledge receipt of the letter Burrows claimed to have sent to them. I have just had their reply;

"Thank you for your message and for informing us about the diagnostic product developed by Oxford Biodynamics. I have shared your message with members of our Research Team who are aware of this test. As you have suggested in your initial message, we are still undergoing contracting with the relevant parties for the TRANSFORM study and so are unable to enter discussions with third parties until that has all been finalised. We very much recognise the interest and potential opportunities for collaboration arising through this initiative and intend to reach out to interested parties to discuss further once we are in a position to do so.

Many thanks & best wishes,"

So nothing I wasn't already aware of, except that IF we have established contact with Prostate Cancer UK, we are unlikely to hear anything positive until, probably, the middle of the year. If we have not we need to ensure we are recognised as an interested party for retrospective inclusion.

I'd imagine the company will have had a similar reply if they did send a letter. That makes me wonder why they claim to have employed a lobbyist to approach government as per Burrows's comments?. Seems the wrong route to go down and may even backfire should Prostate Cancer take offence (they are the dominant contributer to the cost of the trial).

Hi Tav,

Not a peep.

Doesn't surprise me in the least.

@NurseSteve,

Completely agree about the relative merits of the tests, IF PSE continues to perform with a much larger and diverse cohort. (I think.the science is sound so see no reason why it shouldn't). The problem is commercialisation. Clarity has clear support from the relevant Cancer organisation and is already being supported through the regulatory process to become available via the public health network. Stockholm3 has been in widespread use in Scandanavia for some time and is likely to be the lead candidate blood test for the UK screening trial as it has already been referenced by the NSC in relation to the Transform trial. In the meantime our CEO reads to us from his notebook.

Then you will no its not the only competitive technology? One of them has already been validated on a cohort of thousands and is to be included in the UK screening trial.

If PSE lives up to its promise its the better test. But they need to get their fingers out, go after regulatory approval, get Prostate Cancer UK on board (currently sceptics) and start selling!

He's probably Jon Burrows. Am going by the inability to count to 5.

There's a rival test out of the University of Alberta and being commercialised by Nanostics. It has support from the local cancer foundation and is progressing through the regulatory process with a view to making it available via the public health system. Its also half the price.

https://globalnews.ca/news/9993876/claritydx-prostate-cancer-blood-test/

Seems they are contemptuous towards retail investors and/or fear the repercussions of providing honest replies. That's not good.

Let's not forget he appears to still be in post as President of Contract Services at PolarityTE. Suggesting he's our part-time CEO.

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/polarityte-expands-contract-services-business-with-addition-of-jon-burrows-300773220.html

@The Wombat.

https://simplywall.st/stocks/us/pharmaceuticals-biotech/otc-oxbo.f/oxford-biodynamics/management

https://www.erieri.com/executive/salary/jon-anthony-burrows-bk72

2nd link quotes 2021 figures.He will be on more now

@The Wombat.

https://simplywall.st/stocks/us/pharmaceuticals-biotech/otc-oxbo.f/oxford-biodynamics/management

@JimiHendrix.

The stuff he read was basically a rehash of the Prostate Cancer UK press release announcing the Transform project. Him and the majority of Senior managers don't live in the U.K. so their ignorance of the screening study is understandable but completely unforgiveable.

Investor relations blanked me when I wrote to them about Transform a couple of months ago. They have not yet responded to the email I sent last week. Amongst other things I wanted to know why Burrows was happy to tell us he'd employed a government lobbyist to try to get OBD included in the trial. That's inappropriate & completely unnecessary. The Transform project was specifically designed to accommodate innovations, like PSE, that might arise after their application deadline. He ought to be getting one of our multitude of overpaid and seemingly ineffective V.P.'s on the task. A couple of calls to Prostate Cancer should do it.

I have also written to Prostate Cancer to ask about Burrows claim that we have written to them. I'll post their reply as and when...

@undersold.

The CEO needs sacking. He could and should have ensured we were in the Transform project. Had he done so clinical validation at scale would not gave cost the company at all.

Let's hope so. The sooner he's gone the better.

Quite the opposite I think Tav. Unless and until the test is proven by large scale clinical trials medics using it are taking a risk.

The UK screening trial is a god given opportunity for OBD to get a proper clinical trial done, with the costs and administration being picked up by others. They cannot afford to run such a trial on their own and if they miss out the inevitable outcome will be they sell our IP on the cheap and lock the doors behind then.

That's why I raised the prospect of increased oversight by FDA who are determined to bring a halt to commercialisation of poorly validated tests.

Burrows was typically disingenuous by suggesting FDA keep changing their minds over this. The reality is they have been steadfast in their intent but have frequently been thwarted on their efforts to get political concensus. The issue has been a political football in the US. FDA have now decided to invoke rights they have to bypass politicians in order to stop this abuse.

@404x

Agree. It makes our CEO's ignorance of the gift horse that is the Transform project a huge red flag.

12 Senior managers in a loss making company numbering circa 50 employees and what has he done in a belated attempt to remedy the negligence? Oh yeah, he's appointed an external consultant to.lobby government to try and secure participation. Obviously making it a priority. Shame government can have no influence in a project predominantly funded by charitable donations to Prostate Cancer UK.

Yep Burrows said it'd be easy if they were selling widgets but at least he acknowledged their realisation that they are not. Too many 'robust discussions' in their workshops. To much 'candid input' from the oncologists.