Member Info for Jace86

I'm not sure how you'd see tariffs in china if all of the supply chain for the china product is based in china...

Supply chains and licensing would be localised...

I expect all manufacturing has been planned for US for the US firm.

Likewise when the test also goes to other territories, the manufacturing will also be using localised supply chains.

At our end of the market, they'll only know about it if there is some chatter on it.

There is little to nothing on the hashtag of ciz on socials and there are limited reaches for the usual interviews.

An article in the FT would be nice... Or at least something mainstream...

I don't think that it would have held us up as such but perhaps now provides a bit of clarity.

The thing that needs clarity amongst investors is what exactly gets approved.

Trying to explain that it is the lab under scrutiny (CLIA/COLA) doesn't make sense to the average PI and might not make sense to anyone group/org looking to take a punt on something that has now got an obviously reduced risk.

I don't think that it would have held us up as such but perhaps now provides a bit of clarity.

The

Great post on LinkedIn

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/cizzle-biotechnology-plc_ciz-cancerdiagnostics-ldts-activity-7312841795191660544-348r?utm_source=social_share_send&utm_medium=android_app&rcm=ACoAACeBEe0Be_316q_2kS3TiC_m_tYZhey7u48&utm_campaign=copy_link

Because there hasn't been much "hoo-hah" about the product much of the market still doesn't understand it.

Likewise with the lab selection effectively being an equivalent of approval the market failed to understand that. On FDA approval other firms went nuts with their share price.

We've kept things very bland here and it fails to attract the attention of buyers because there are simply not the comms and explanations to help the market understand the buy case.

They've been too conservative. You can be positive on the outlook without being misleading.

How's it going?

It looks like it is going to be commercialised... As I've said yesterday, I've no idea why people have the jitters.

Those of us that have been here for a long time aren't bothered.

Great posts Hermit.

Just wish it wasn't in such a negatively titled subject heading.

And as usual, the emotional spam precedes you in order to push your posts down the chain. (Green coffins some will just see)

Take care of the both of you, Neil.

Hope a full recovery is made

The market doesn't understand it.

Show me where they've said the launch date is anything else...

As it stands, where does it say it isn't launching in April?

Hi Bermondsey

Yes some next steps would be nice. At the moment we can only make assumptions.

Do we need kit from Bio-Techne? Does it need final data from Moffitt albeit that may end up commercially sensitive given it's their data and their patients data.

I believe Allan quotes "near future".

It may well be on track for launch. It doesn't say either way.

But behind the scenes it looks like there is a process and method for the test already complete.

When you ask Google AI, "is it the lab or the test that requires a CLIA?"

It answers:

"Under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA), the laboratory, not the individual test, requires certification. Any facility performing tests on human specimens for diagnosis, prevention, or treatment needs a CLIA certificate."

So looking at today's RNS and this specific section;

"The accreditation process involved an evaluation of a laboratory's operations, including its testing procedures, quality control, personnel qualifications, and compliance with regulatory requirements. Labs that achieve COLA accreditation demonstrate a commitment to maintaining high standards of accuracy, reliability, and patient safety in diagnostic testing to ensure they meet CLIA standards and can legally operate."

I still wonder why we have jitters? I believe a previous RNS might have indicated a direction at that time to get a lab without certification certified.

This is now no longer necessary as the lab we are using is.

I'm still thinking this in that because the lab has the appropriate accreditations, there is no delay and that we are soon good to go.

I cannot see anywhere that the test itself is what needs accreditation.

Please do correct me if I'm wrong in this.

AIM rule 26 does not apply as this is not listed in AIM.

It depends where one holds shares.

If shares are held in nominee accounts then only the nominee accounts are named in order to prevent double counting of held stock.

Probably because it's not an oiler where people ramp off COS. Or a mineral explorer where people don't realise they need nine figure budgets to operate before becoming profitable...

Instead we have someone else footing the bill for our product and the market doesn't understand it.

When there isn't the stock for it it's the MM's job to "make a market".

This is why it does move off low volume. We all know it moves off low volume.

Dragged it down to accommodate the order?