Member Info for marik

I would prefer zero interaction with UKGov if I could help it.

The UKGov has carried out multiple methods of cancelling their agreements. In some cases they have refused to pay for goods and services received. i.e. the company like Abingdon makes a net loss. In that scenario, I don't think it's beneficial to interact with them. Prior to signing with any company, it's importance to do the background checks, and if the UK Government was any other company, and they had a track record of not paying up (i.e. poor credit rating), I would refuse to do business with them and preferentially and actively go elsewhere.

You are right BITL. There is no way I'm selling until the company is targeted for a acquisition.

Let me ask you a question. If Avacta was at full capacity of 30 million tests per month and the UKGov asked for you to drop a portion of that to accommodate them, would you?

Also note Abingdon, Novacyt and ODX are trading publicly, had dealings with the UKGov and haven't done as well as expected.

Gates could well be in the picture, but only time will tell.

This month will be fascinating, a lot of the clues will be in the multiple incoming news.

Also if hedge on seeing ODX mentioned in there.

"Agreed BITL. I don’t understand why some people would prefer us not to get a govt contract".

I am one of those people. Abingdon, Novacyt and Mologic can attest to why they wouldn't want a contract with UKGov. Unfortunately, there are too many companies regretting ever having dealt with them. Look at the Novacyt share price, it's lost approx 75% of its share price because of the Gov contract being cancelled. Yet Gov continued with Innova and Orient Gene.

If given a choice to two identical contracts one with the Gov and one elsewhere, I'd rather avoid like the plague. I feel sorry for companies like ODX at the moment who have been royally messed around.

GLA

I'd prefer a clear

I would prefer it if it wasn't us, as I'd like Avacta to focus on NON-UKGov contracts and sales. However, in case anyone missed this:

"We have recently received approval from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) to use a United Kingdom made LFD, a real milestone on the progressive journey of the UK diagnostics and life sciences industry." Jo Churchill 04 August 2021.

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2021-07-19.35656.h&s=speaker%3A25408#g35656.r0

The markets are quite unique for PCR and LFT, and there is no way that PCR testing will become obsolete. However, that doesn't mean that a) a that we won't see a dent in the PCR market or b) that sentiment on PCR testing will drive the share price down for companies like NCYT. I have to say that the company is undervalued as we stand and was invested in them in the past, but won't be returning to that space just yet. It's more a waiting game for the phoenix from the ashes as opposed to RIP.

TaulPaulNY posted the Telegraph article which would be relevant here, (see his separate thread):

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/08/05/ministers-urged-scrap-rip-off-pcr-tests-holidaymakers

It's gone up.

Myles makes a valid point. If say that he's under estimating current production levels.

GLA.

Walsh is well connected in the industry having served a CEO of BA and now working at IATA. IATA formulates industry policy and standards in over 100 countries. It's good news that someone so well connected has such positive news on the use of LFTs.

Being British Airways, the ideal test for them would also be British made.

Very clever and will be filtered shortly if there is anything further.

Nice find.

I'm sure most have you have seen this, it's from this mornings RNS.

https://www.**********.co.uk/articles/avacta-group-begins-shipment-of-affidx-sars-cov-2-antigen-lateral--e2f1abd/

@investor110, this will be a momentous occasion.

I had assumed that the study was independently carried out, otherwise there would be no need to travel to Spain to obtain the data. Following clinical validation, we've subsequently received a CE mark and have a test currently on the market.
GL

Thanks Vostick, I had assumed that it was an independent study because it was a requirement for later validation and acceptance of the work. But it's great having it spelled out here.

GL

Mikey, Timster and Zoom. There are two current methods of dealing with trolls, neither of which is 100% effective.

a) respond to them because new or other investors will see negative (destructive) comments and drive negative sentiment i.e. block their efforts and

b) filter them so that they get very little air time, but you end up with the board over populated by trolls posts.

Here I present a strategy that is far more effective and tackles both methods in three simple steps.

1) filter the trolls DO NOT respond
2) If you are seeing a lot of green boxes, un-filter and REPORT anything that is disruptive, libellous or defamatory etc.
3) post something useful regularly to benefit new comers

This way you provide a healthy discourse whilst we wait for company news (it doesn't have to be highly focused, over technical or expansive). I've picked up useful information from posters who reposted old news or what was previously deemed trivial. Even going over something that we've previously discussed that needs a fresh visit. By posting something it helps take away any airtime for trolls.

GLA