Member Info for Merchantbanker

Also just to add -a vaccinated individual would have had no past infection so if the test is also to be used in vaccine efficacy the only thing that matters is can it detect whether the vaccine generates an immune response

Good post.

An antibody test tests for the presence of IgG antibodies based on a reaction to the spike protein. I.e are their antibodies present that bind to the spike protein.

It is not a measure of past infection because past infection doesn't not guarantee antibodies are developed or that could have waned already. The purpose of the test is to test for antibodies to find out if an individual has immunity which is a different criteria to testing for a previous infection although 95% it may mean the same thing. You cannot fail the performance of a test because it doesn't detect something that isn't there.

PHE performance is based on the tests ability to correctly detect IgG antibodies
BMJ report assesses the tests ability to detect a past infection.
No test in the world can detect a past infection if there are no detectible antibodies.

It's unfortunate that inexperienced investors sell out based on fear of losing the lot at exactly the wrong time. Someone else posted earlier they were wiped out. I assume had a leverage position. No doubt anywhere up to 3% of the company could have been leverage long on any of the large spread betting companies hedged or not. When it drops like this people getting stopped or wiped out it creates more sells from hedged positions and it drops further and picks up the next wave of stops. That's liquidity that never comes back at any price and its often those that get wiped out from hedged positions that come back ****ging it off knowing they never make their money back.

showmethemoneysh - I bought most of my stock in the 40-50p range around the time of the placing. Yes i am extremely frustrated that several months later we are back to that range. Do i think the company could have done more to support the share price, well yes of course. Do i sit here today and think this is a bad investment? Not a chance. 90% of the people buying and selling this stock are just looking for statements from the company to influence their own position. Longer term profit is what will achieve growth, and like it or not the company have no interest in ramping. They know like i know if they deliver sales in relation or withing a reasonable utilisation of their planned testing capacity, that they will create profit of multiples of todays valuation. That is what a company should focus on. I work for a large company who's share price has been massively underperforming. Their plan to sort it out isn't to come out and tell you what they plan on doing about it in the hope people believe it, the plan is to improve profitability, reduce debt and improve the credit rating and the sp will take care of itself. There is no better way of achieving share price growth than delivering a great set of financials. It isn't the BODs fault that they have attracted a load of punters that just want to play AIM roulette flipping for the hottest stock every other day. Quite frankly they have enough on their plate in delivering on a highly lucrative business plan.

I don't think they are not bothered about PIs at all. I think they have been very understanding. But that doesn't mean they can come out and make rampy statements to help PIs make a decision whether this week they are a buyer or a seller. Their job is to create a profitable business. Unfortunately a lot of the key drivers of growth are out of their hands. Name me another lateral flow provider that are in a better position than ODX? The market has simply not opened up yet. All ODX can do is make sure when the products are ready, that they are ready. And if you have seen the latest presentation they are clearly doing that.

So yeah very frustrated but when i look at the facts they do not support the market reaction right the way from the good news odx have delivered to the negative media slant.

Would you expect and antibody test to detect antibodies in a person that tested positive via PCR only yesterday? No. BMJ report would fail it on that basis.
Would you expect an antibody test to detect antibodies on a person that had a false positive PCR tests? No. BMJ report would fail it on that basis.
Would you expect an antibody test to detect antibody tests on a person that had a false positive alternate antibody tests?No. BMJ report would fail it on that basis.
Would you expect sensitivity to be less in the population who experience no symptoms? Yes because they may have had a false PCR or antibody test and the immune response may be too weak or not at all. BMJ report agrees, but does that highlight a problem with this specific antibody test? No.
If antibodies are so undetectable because of a lack of immune response do you want them to show a positive antibody test knowing it may lead to an immunity decisio0n that might not be appropriate? Possibly not.

People see a figure lie 84% sensitivity panic and sell without actually trying to understand or interpret it. I am confident that the existing analysis of performance when the test is referred to as gold standard is based on sampling techniques that lead to an accurate representation of what is expected from an antibody test.

I think the 200k is just because at the moment based on what's publicly available 200k is the expectation. Colin only counts what has been banked already

If you google Abingdon health IPO, Hargreaves Lansdowne are showing it in the stock search. Here's the link below, so it is definitely true.

https://www.hl.co.uk/shares/shares-search-results/a/abingdon-health

You have to understand the people writing these reports have their own bias and agenda. Their job from the outset is to play devils advocate and try and catch them out. They will lay traps. If they come out and agree with everything it takes away their self importance in what they are trying to do. It's like anyone that has ever had a job and had to run work through a line manager. It can be 100% perfect, but they still have to find something to criticise and amend just so they can have input and show their own self importance.

So here is the real data in the study:

They have sensitivity at 92.5% based on confirmed PCR tests. However 17/268 or 6% of the sample had a positive test less than 21 days ago. This could be 1 day or 21 days. We know antibody tests are more accurate after 21 and 30 days due to the time taken to develop. They also say sensitivity is lower in those that didn't have symptoms. How do we know these people did not return a false positive PCR test? I think all this shows is that you will come up with different sensitivity and specificity and can even manipulate the outcome based on your sample selection. Do we expect an antibody test to be 100% accurate within 21 days, no. Are PCR tests 100% accurate, no some anywhere between 50 and 90%. All this really proves is no test is accurate and different sample criteria produce different results. What is the fairest sample criteria for assessing a test, perhaps the one that takes the most variables out. Tests that perform the best in the lab will stand up the best against tests that perform less well in the lab which will have the same inconsistencies in such a peer review. Am i worried about the ABC test not being what it was made out to be.... no.

"Among 268 (9.4%) EDSAB-HOME participants who had had a positive PCR test for SARS-CoV-2, test sensitivity was 92.5% (88.8% to 95.1%) (table 2). In this group, the first positive PCR test had occurred a median of 59 days previously. Days since first positive test was 21 or more in 251/268 cases. Sensitivity was estimated to be substantially lower among the 12 participants who reported no symptoms (sensitivity 58.3%, 32.0% to 80.7%) than among the 256 who reported symptoms (sensitivity 94.1%, 90.6% to 96.4%), and may decline slightly in PCR positive people with longer times between symptoms and blood sampling (table 2; figure S1)."

Just another PI mugging going on and people are falling for it like you wouldnt believe

Just reading the report the first line says it all with the very cleaver title. Stings of bias journalism.
"Not as simple as ABC"

There is however a technical floor in the study. The sensitivity that claims it is at 84% is based on comparison to results of those testing positive for antibodies confirmed positive from the Roche antibody test. Roche antibody test itself has been reported as showing only 84% sensitivity. So to discredit a test based on comparison to another test which has been criticised itself for accuracy seems highly inconclusive.
They declare it is 92.5% from those that have returned a positive covid test which is a much more trustworthy comparison.

https://www.belle.org.uk/news-1/2020/5/26/are-the-roche-and-abbott-antibody-tests-really-more-accurate-than-other-tests
https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m2066

Good news on UK RTC = Yeah but your only making 200k per week
Bad news on UK RTC = End of the world

Kicking us when we are down.

No doubt it will be proven that the UK RTC test is what we are told it is and will be used for mass testing.
Lets not forget we have another antibody test that is more profitable to us and this test and the antigen test are planned to take up 80% of production

Wow seem to have missed another fun morning walking the dog.

Not much CK can do at the moment. Telling the market what their current capacity is and that they are using it and what the planned capacity is based on their expectation of demand is about as simple as it can get. Why do people keep ignoring that and reacting to other noise.

Unfortunately the progress of both products that we want to here are in the hands of others, and that may well be held up by governments or regulators. The lateral flow market is about next year. Just hope i can add more at this price next week.

Kong thanks. Some excellent points. I concede to your better judgement

£5 can’t be avactas they were told theirs is worth £20 each.
It looks like contracts will start coming out left right and centre. Enough to go around for quality tests

Calm down guys get the chip off your shoulders genuine question and a couple sensible enough to give a genuine response. Accept avacta have no expertise in lateral flow manufacturing but surely a good opportunity to start to put together a small scale manufacturing set up if you are serious about affimers having long term diagnostics reach. Would be worth a couple million quid investment even if it takes a year or 2 to fine tune, especially as they identified manufacturing capacity could be a bottle neck early on. The set £10m aside for diagnostics expansion they could have head hunted an expert to oversee it.

Question.... can anyone tell me.... if avacta are so confident in their test, why did they not invest the £48m raised in building their own manufacturing capacity and buying their own kit?

Of course it isn’t Abingdon have been advertising their lateral flow capacity to the world.

Apparently there are 6 tests reaching final stage assessment. Spare lateral flow capacity could be absorbed by any of those tests. Plus they already have a world class test of their own.

Why am I not surprised!!!!