Member Info for Moab

A thoughtful and incisive comment; unfortunately too bl**dy right! S&M as usual.

If anyone is credulous enough to believe any of the nonsense spouted by posters, here or elsewhere, and to make investment decisions based on it, then they deserve what they get.

MOAB

Thompi

The field is changing very rapidly and the analysis of cf DNA and CTC DNA from a single blood sample may be complementary and may provide the best of “both worlds”. I agree that the degree of overlap / utility between the two techniques is increasing, but it still seems fiendishly complex, with both concordance and discordance between DNA from each technique. I don't envy the researchers putting their findings into clinical practice, although there are plenty of papers to be written and reputations made!

Thompi

I have had a chance to read this article, although I admit some of the detail is way over my pay grade. Note that the authors are all Angle employees. I also note publication was paid for by Angle. Current Issues in Molecular Biology seems very efficient : Received: 5 December 2023, revised 12 January 2024, accepted: 15 January 2024, published: 17 January 2024. So refereeing if any took place within 5 weeks, including a Christmas holiday. I suspect, but do not know for certain, that this is a journal that publishes 'paid for ' material. Quickly.

Having said that, the article (unsurprisingly) makes the case for combined use of cfDNA and CTCs, although accepting that the literature on the benefits of dual analysis is presently slender, and advantages over single analysis not yet established.

No, Carrot, I am not a troll. I just find pointless repetition rather irritating, (as at 10.40 and 10.41) as I suspect do others. I also prefer posts to be accurate, and to the point. I have read the .pdf carefully which I why I made my post @ 10.08. I am not trying to provoke anything beyond an explanation. I repeat; what was your point in drawing attention to this.pdf?

Carrot

This .pdf makes no mention nor has any relevance to AGL. It refers throughout to Illumina's NGS, which they call 'liquid biopsy' and does not discuss, for obvious reasons, the limitations of the technique.

What was your point in drawing attention to this document?

Wow, this sounds potentially very impressive. I wondered what was meant by this slightly coy statement "allowing for continuous production of low-cost, highly differentiated carbon nanotubes close to commercial scale. " Is there a big technical leap from 'close to commercial scale' to commercial scale, I wonder? Any experts out there to help explain, please

Thompi

Thanks for this, which is fascinating, and supports what I have been trying to put across. See section 2. Molecular Advances: The Omics Revolution. Essentially (a quote): "Genomic information (as from ctDNA) can be supplemented with transcriptomic and proteomic data for closer evaluation of tumour phenotype towards more accurate, real-time information for personalised treatment". And RNA analysis from CTCs also has potential therapeutic implications.

MOAB

Carrot

1. See my post 15th March 09.38

2. I was not aware that you had addressed this question to me. I see it was first posted on 14 Mar 2024 @ 22:47, well after my bedtime. To whom were you addressing this ? For an answer I think you will have to ask Illumina, who will have made a commercial decision based on their inside knowledge. They may wish to continue to use their widget for screening purposes only. AGL needs the likes of Illumina more than the reverse.

3 I do not deny the contents of the RNS, but it is bleedingly obvious that more info is going to come from an intact tumour cell than an incomplete shred of DNA in plasma.

PS the Jan 4th RNS was a dreadful load of smoke and mirrors from the old maestro in which there was no new information. It has only impressed the credulous, it seems. The origin of the data was not stated, there were no authors mentioned and certainly no peer review carried out. Please tell me if I am wrong about this. Second thoughts; don't bother.

I am now exhausted by this nonsense and have no intention of going back over the ground again. Ever.

Carrot

I await the answer to my original question. I may not be the only member of this board who might want to filter your repetitive nonsense, with its CAPITALS and its multiple exclamation marks, neither of which add anything to your posts.

Your post of 15 Mar 2024 14:58 followed shortly after your suggestion that I filter you. A pity that I failed to do so, as you followed it up with this nonsense that serves to mislead others:

"If I had metastasized cancer (spread, or in the blood supply trying to re-seed) and I had for example an Illumina CtDNA test so the clinician could decide what treatment I should have I would want it to be as accurate as possible. The CtDNA test is to find actionable DNA variants".

No clinician would want to use the Illumina process once a diagnosis of metastatic disease had been established. The ctDNA test is not aimed at finding actionable variants as incomplete fragments of DNA may be either useless or unhelpful because they are a tiny, tiny fragment of all the DNA that is in plasma as a result of cell apoptosis.

As far as I am aware it can presently be used as a screening test used to establish the possibility that any one of a potential number of malignancies exists in a patient, as I have tried to explain previously. There is no doubt that once metastatic disease exists Parsortix can provide (but not in 100% cases) much better information on potential therapeutic targets from circulating tumour cells containing intact DNA, and that is where the potential of Parsortix lies.

Please try to understand this distinction before you cause more confusion.

Carrot

Why FFS or do you have to repeat your posts, either by cut and paste (8.03 today copies 22.47 of 14th March) or rehash your earlier comments ("First of all I find it difficult to believe a Company like Illumina, valued on NASDAQ at over $5 BILLION etc, etc,. @ 08.03 today and "I find it totally astonishing that Molecular analysis Co's in the World, including Illumina Inc. of USA," at 09.23.)?

Please explain and, ideally, desist.

From the interview: "Right now, Powerhouse Energy Group makes about 2.5 tons of hydrogen every day from 40 tons of waste."

This is simply not true is it?

"SYM wishes to highlight the important 2021 report from the US Environmental Protection Agency"

Why now FFS, just 3 years after publication? What a a dope of a CEO.

I mean HA............

If Hydrogen Australia have this agreement with PHE, then there must be some understanding by HE as to when PHE can deliver. I wonder how long HA are giving them?

The disparity between the cost of hydrogen from AFC's cracker and electrolysis looks very good, but ignores the cost of making the ammonia in the first place. i do not know the cost of "green" ammonia, but this should surely be included in any comparison.

Moab

M22c

Even sillier

M22c

Childish comment without any evidence whatsoever; why bother?

Sounds just a bit flaky. We will see................

How much are they paying PHE?