Member Info for jdt1990

MIKODX - This is actually an interesting read on Abingdon website about how LFT's work.
https://www.abingdonhealth.com/services/what-is-lateral-flow-immunoassay/

Couple of quotes:
"LFDs use immunoassay technology using nitrocellulose membrane, coloured nanoparticles (or labels), and typically antibodies, to produce results."
"The conjugate pad, which stores the conjugated labels and antibodies, will receive the sample. If the target is present, the immobilised conjugated antibodies and labels will bind to the target and continue to migrate along the test."

Ties with the IFU info so not sure you can call BS there, it's probably more a case of LFT's being more complex than many think.

Just popped it in bold for you Regulator - trip to the opticians this weekend maybe?
"The sample buffer provided in the buffer capsule is dispensed
into the swab extraction tube. An anterior nasal swab sample
is collected from the patient using the swab provided, which
is then placed into the swab extraction tube and the tip of
the swab is snapped off, leaving the swab tip in the swab
extraction tube. This is then mixed, lysing the virus and
releasing the SARS-CoV-2 antigen into the sample buffer.
The sample buffer is added to the sample well on the lateral
flow device, using the nozzle on the swab extraction tube.
If SARS-CoV-2 antigen is present in the patient sample this
will bind to biotinylated Affimer® binders highly specific to
SARS-CoV-2 antigen. This antigen-Affimer® complex is then in
turn specifically bound to conjugated microparticles, with the
antigen-Affimer®-microparticle complex migrating along the
lateral flow strip by capillary action until it reaches the test line.
Immobilised poly-streptavidin is present on the test line which
binds the complex via the available biotin label on the Affimer®
binder. Remaining unbound microparticles continue to migrate
along the lateral flow strip until they reach the control line, where
they are captured by an immobilised ANTIBODY specific to the
conjugated microparticles. The test result is then read by visual
determination of the presence or absence of a band at the test
line in conjunction with the presence of a band at the control line."

It's also noted in the product's IFU
https://bioservuk.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/IFU.pdf
"The sample buffer provided in the buffer capsule is dispensed
into the swab extraction tube. An anterior nasal swab sample
is collected from the patient using the swab provided, which
is then placed into the swab extraction tube and the tip of
the swab is snapped off, leaving the swab tip in the swab
extraction tube. This is then mixed, lysing the virus and
releasing the SARS-CoV-2 antigen into the sample buffer.
The sample buffer is added to the sample well on the lateral
flow device, using the nozzle on the swab extraction tube.
If SARS-CoV-2 antigen is present in the patient sample this
will bind to biotinylated Affimer® binders highly specific to
SARS-CoV-2 antigen. This antigen-Affimer® complex is then in
turn specifically bound to conjugated microparticles, with the
antigen-Affimer®-microparticle complex migrating along the
lateral flow strip by capillary action until it reaches the test line.
Immobilised poly-streptavidin is present on the test line which
binds the complex via the available biotin label on the Affimer®
binder. Remaining unbound microparticles continue to migrate
along the lateral flow strip until they reach the control line, where
they are captured by an immobilised antibody specific to the
conjugated microparticles. The test result is then read by visual
determination of the presence or absence of a band at the test
line in conjunction with the presence of a band at the control line."

Regulator - 2nd Nov RNS - READ IT
"The impact of suspension of sales in the UK as a result of the CTDA regulations coming into force will not have a material impact on the Company's anticipated financial outturn for the financial year ending 31 December 2021. As previously noted, Avacta continues to focus on opportunities outside of the UK for the sale and marketing of its AffiDX SARS-CoV-2 Lateral Flow Rapid Antigen Test including markets in Europe and further afield. "

What does that tell you about Avacta's focus on UK market?
Half the public have no idea how carp the Chinese tests are - so why would they buy them when they get them for free (if you can get hold of them).

The UK market is not where the value lies - Avacta made it clear. This approval opens up Europe. APAC approvals Due Q4.
They are the hot markets

Bitter ODX holder still can't handle Avacta have now done what the other C19 testing Co's haven't managed to do (**Disclaimer - Avacta is not really a C19 testing Co anyway).
Back where you cam from slimeball

Zoom - just in time for the Agile launch

Abingdon seem confident enough in the test to include “Technical transfer anticipated to conclude this year” in a recent RNS.

https://agiletestservices.com/collections/all

Arf arf arf….roll up roll up for the wyndrum show.

The two shorting strategies have been openly described by the companies themselves as shorts on the small cap sector, not Avacta.
So as long as the SP here remains range bound and AIM in general continues its dismal year they have nothing to worry about.
The problem is, they won’t have done in depth analysis on each stock. A number of near term catalysts here could burn them pretty quickly!

I'm still stuck in the waiting room

Well that escalated quickly...great news, account deleted!
https://twitter.com/Bishop5022

Agreed I have a couple and have sent over too to Avacta asking for it to be addressed.
Either he's in possession of material non public info (very unlikely) or trying to spread misinformation to impact the share price....be in trouble for either

Definitely lurking on the board.....Bishop has already deleted the tweets stating "Medusa Ended the Avacta relationship"

If you're looking at EBITDA then what you have calculated seems sensible - the P/E ratio sounds sensible but the range of P/E's in this industry make it hard to pinpoint a target.
Corporation tax is 35% in Ghana for mining companies (10% higher than standard rate). There is also a 5% mining royalty on revenues.....something extra to consider when looking at bottom line profits coming back into the business

Not sure on that wonga….I think AS is bullish near term on therapeutics because that it’s almost fully in the hands of Avacta. All deadlines have bit hit ahead on that front.
I don’t think diagnostics is going to struggle by any means - IMO AS is now being overly cautious with messaging on that front given Avactas work is done and this is all now in the hands of notified bodies/regulators. Could be a week could be a month….he has no control over that so why be overly bullish

They must just be pinning all hopes on CMEC buying the rest of the coal project now and then all running for the hills?
We’re due $20m in historic costs when EDM finally pull their finger out…so long as CMEC go ahead with the project, vs a £5m mkt cap I still have a slither of hope I might make some of my money back here.
It’s all or nothing on the coal project now!

It would appear Scoot has saved the day. Good to see it was non dilutive to shareholders or I may have flipped my lid.
Poor Scott is up to his eyeballs in the company but to do that he must have some confidence in the main project no?
Have to say, I thought NCCL was going to end up a green Co but looks like coal project still main focus!

mcmullank - instead of making assumptions and throwing your toys out of the pram based on conjecture, why don't you just seek some clarity. Emma is open and does respond to emails. Just ask the questions to the person who can answer them, simple. Yes it should be in the RNS but its not so get over it, I've done it for you....
Good Afternoon Emma,

Firstly, congratulations on officially becoming a gold producer. A fantastic achievement by all involved and no mean feat given the hurdles presented over the last 18 months.

I wanted to ask for clarification on two points relating to the last two RNS's:

1. With regards to the first gold pour of ~14.5kg, I note that in the 17th Sept RNS, the ore stacked on the leach pads was noted as below. Could you please clarify that the full 87,300 tonnes of material (or more) were not used to produce 14.5Kg of gold, as that would imply a recovery rate of around 0.17g/t of or (using 87,300) or potentially less? Assuming the full tonnage has not been used for the first pour, will there be sufficient gold produced to meet the December repayment of 8kg?
"The Company has mined 133,000 tonnes of ore and 385,700 tonnes of waste and stacked 87,300 tonnes of ore on the Heap Leach pads. Whilst this is behind our initial forecast schedule, we are now stacking the balance of the stockpile at a consistent 120 tonnes per hour"

2. In the latest export license RNS, I note the below comments in the RNS:
"GoldStone Resources Limited (AIM: GRL) is an AIM quoted gold exploration and production company. The Company commenced production at its wholly owned Homase Mine November 2021. When at full planned production of 2000oz pcm GRL expects an AISC of

Located ~15km north-west of AngloGold Ashanti's Obuasi mine, in the mineral-rich and highly prospective Ashanti Goldbelt. Homase Mine is a series of shallow open pits producing approximately 25,000oz pa of gold, with a recently commissioned CIC treatment plant, for the Heap Leach operation. First gold was poured in November 2021, and the Company will be ramping up production during the first quarter 2022"

Is this full planned production number of 2000oz pcm and 25,000oz pa a retrospective "equivalent" number for 2021 should the first gold pour have been completed when originally anticipated? My confusion comes as in the interim results the below was stated, so is 25,000oz an extrapolated figure based on the first pour but the plan is still to ramp up production to nearer the 50,000oz pa through 2022?

The Company expects to increase the planned gold production from the Company's original guidance of 14,400 ounces, stated in the Definitive Economic Plan ("DEP") announced on 19 June 2019 to around 50,000 ounces of gold per annum within the first year of production, which would represent an increase of more than 300% from the original production schedule.

Clarity on those points would be much appreciated.

Kind Regards,

This could also put a spanner in the works for the IPO. As of 3rd Dec (coincidence in the date?) all new listings need to have a min MCAP of £30m FCA have increased this from £700k. A great move to stop people like LC rinsing PI's with shell companies/lifestyle companies!
https://mondovisione.com/media-and-resources/news/uk-financial-conduct-authority-confirms-new-listing-rules-to-boost-growth-and-i/

mcmullank - I don't think you give the BOD, especially Bill Trew the credit they probably deserve for their experience in the industry. Here's Bill Trew's bio....
"He has since gained over 37 years' experience in the mining and engineering industry worldwide. In 1986 he founded MAED Limited, a specialist project management and engineering design company specialising in constructing gold processing plants for the gold mining industry. Under his leadership, MAED has designed and constructed 23 gold processing plants around the globe including Mali, South Africa, Uganda, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and the Philippines. He was Chief Executive Officer of Oxus Gold plc, where he oversaw construction of three new gold mines (Amantaytau, Vysokovoltnoye and Jerooy). Since then he has held a number of other executive and non executive roles at listed and private mining companies where he has continued building and refurbishing Gold Mines. He is currently chairman of the MAED group of companies and a director of Gold Mines of Uganda and Paracale Gold Limited. "
He isn't just some cowboy who stumbled on some gold in his garden and built a washplant to extract it. he is a veteran of this game. Can you hand on heart tell me that if there was a risk of 50 40 or 10% efficiency, with liabilities due (in physical gold) in a months time that they would exhaust their stockpiles of ore during that process? You would logically use a sample of your ore to test what the grades coming out of the elution facility are Vs the in ground sampling.
Emma hasn't helped herself as usual with her smokescreen of information BUT you have to trust that these people know what they are doing. A lot of hurdles here have been due to regulatory issues as opposed to ineptitude around the mining process itself.

As I said, the previous production schedules are not worth the paper they are written on - don't disagree with that and we have seen miniscule gold versus what they anticipated to produce in the first 8 months.
What I am trying to put across here is some logical thinking around the notion that the full stock pile of ore was used to generate 14.5Kg of gold.
The ore has been tested for gold content and a resource estimate produced based on that. The grades in the ground haven't just been made up as a finger in the air number. Some simple maths suggests if that ore pile of 87K tonnes (or more) has produced that 14kg of gold, yield is 0.16g/t or lower when the resource estimate has proven over 1g/t.
Of course the yield from production will not match in the ground sample yields, but only extracting 10% of that grade seems absurd no? Which is why I personally am fairly confident the full stockpile wasn't used for first pour....plus with the Dec payment due, it would be a poor judgement to put everything into the commissioning runs when you know it is likely to be inefficient.

Sorry DJ who is that post aimed at?