Chris Heminway, Exec-Chair at Time To ACT, explains why now is the right time for the Group to IPO. Watch the video here.
Johndt, excellent SWOT analysis. May I also add: their cost of $5 a pop as a strength, and being unstable with high temperature as a weakness?
Daniel, you can check the timeline proposed by Ophidian, who is a very knowledgeable expert in this field:
https://twitter.com/Ophidian18/status/1297461212809244673
Trek, fully agree. 90% range sens with upper 90% spec on the field/clinical validation will make us indeed the best antigen test. I personally felt Sona's test could be better than what was reported yesterday, the results format from Saudi validation company seems vague and unprofessional. The sens.spec should be reported for different groups of samples, compared against PCR results. LSTM has done this for Mologic and the results have been reported very appropriately. I think our number will lie in the "desired" range.
On a side note, Sona is bouncing back in full force today, almost $10, just gives us some trajectory of our future share price even with a 80% range sens, hypothetically speaking.
My take on this is the popularized use of saliva in coming/future testing. And inexpensive cost, which could be the selling point of our BAMS testing?
Another FDA EUA test using saliva.
https://www.genomeweb.com/regulatory-news-fda-approvals/fluidigm-saliva-test-sars-cov-2-gets-fda-emergency-use-authorization#.X0aKP8hKiUk
https://www.fluidigm.com/singlearticles/covid-19-diagnostics
CS, regarding your thought of whether LFT entering CONDOR needs to be RNSed, I found the answer in the 7th Aug RNS: "In addition to working with the UK government's CONDOR programme to provide Avacta with access to patient samples in the UK, the partnership with LSTM also provides the opportunity to access patient samples in Africa and South America. The higher prevalence of the disease in those regions means that samples for prospective clinical validation studies are more readily available which, if necessary, could be used to speed up the validation process." I think it implies our LFT is already with CONDOR weeks ago, and "the test" referred by professor John Bell is definitely ours.
Permeable: Not a heath expert myself, only a firm-believer of AVCT, and trying to prove our technology is top-notch by looking for potential existence of negatives. Don't shoot the messenger. As we all see the tide of testing is turning and the authorities are looking for speedy and user-friendly tests with acceptable cost of accuracy. There will be more and more other innovative tests coming out soon and we need to believe we are the real deal.
Two links for this test:
https://ajn.timesofisrael.com/israel-invents-one-minute-coronavirus-breath-test/
https://www.med-technews.com/news/university-professor-validating-test-identifying-covid-19-ca/
Quote: "The new method is based on the change in the resonance in the THz spectral range imposed by the coronavirus through a THz spectroscopy performed on the device. This spectral range has been employed in recent decades for the fast detection and identification of biological samples.
Prof. Sarusi added: “We asked ourselves, since this virus is just like a nano-particle or a quantum dot with a diameter between 100nm to 140nm in terms of its size and electrical properties, can we detect it using methods from the worlds of physics, photonics and electrical engineering. We discovered that the answer is yes, this virus resonates in the THz frequency, and spectroscopy in these frequencies reveals it promptly.""
To me, it seems the specificity of this test will be a challenge. How to distinguish COVID from other cronaviruses using this technology? All comments are welcome. GLA.
Mologic used LSTM for their validation as well...
https://mologic.co.uk/mologic-ce-marks-professional-use-rapid-diagnostic-test-for-covid-19-and-begins-manufacture/
As someone has mentioned here "SNG helps save lives, but AVCT helps open economy!"
#SAE offers some solution to this!
allah4uk, please have a look of the video posed by Muck165 at 22:37. You can find the information needed 16:30-21:50, the description almost ticked all box for Avacta: timing for validation, working mechanism, etc. The "teacup" test was used by Professor Bell as a comparable example for convince.
Seemingly a "delay" in their FDA approval.
FN, apologies, I meant MHRA.
FN, I have went through each report on CONDOR website, and found none. Mostly about antibody, only one antigen. Cheers.
Hi Ophidian,
One positive aspect from these two tests is: they both distinguish the invalid samples from incorrectly taking sample. I think this might be the part that Avacta is working on. My question is: how come these two companies got the deals with government without going through CONDOR validation (one of which is even without CE mark)? Cheers.
The new tests either from Oxford Nanopore (no CE-mark) or DnaNudge (with CE-mark) are somewhat PCR type tests. Both were developed based on use of portable device. The costs are not cheap and not easily commercialized. Seems more like a temporary solution from the government at the moment. I sourced these two articles on these two tests:
https://nanoporetech.com/about-us/news/oxford-nanopore-technologies-partners-uk-government-roll-out-lampore-new-generation
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/201073/90-minute-covid-19-tests-government-orders/
CO, my thought exactly yesterday! Seems a pity not to disclose the "in-house" lab results to take advantage of the market sentiment, unless Avacta is absolutely confident that their "in-field" results can match the similar sens/spec as AS mentioned in the false negatives/positives video.
CO, the very good LFT antigen tests in the world can offer in-field test sens rate ranging 80%-85%. And these are the tests approved by FDA, etc.
Tom, thanks for sharing this information. Sona is IMHO overplaying this 96% sens&spec rates, which were both resulted from lab validation from 30 clinical samples. The in-field validation is still ongoing, and I double they can achieve the similar attractive numbers... The MHRA guidelines state that the clinical validation should be over 97% sens, and 99% spec based on 150-250 clinical samples, LoD as 100 copies/ml, to be qualified as desired. This almost rejects Sona's test as desired, in a sense... This clearly shows the "desired" test is definitely a tough nut to crack, but once achieved, the upside of the share price will be imminent! If we can get the "desired" test, the response of our share price will dwarf Sona's in no time! Wait patiently.