Member Info for MR.Spacetomato

I am sure I can smell some rats in this BB....Sniff sniff...

I can also smell coffee brewing, and the sound of good things to come.

I don't know about you, but I can read and also have a few brain cells to know when I a good thing comes along.

I will just say this, learn all you can about the affimers! What are they; how they work; what they are capable of and used for.

Then, listen to the CEO, and some of the team members he has, and what they have to say. Do you trust them?

One thing I will tell you, I am not skimming profits, I am buying more. I am not selling here till the cows come home.

I have been around the block a few times with my shares; oxford biomedica, imperial energy, dragon oil, Barclays (2008 bounce back) and few others. But I always jumped off and on along the way, and regretted later, but I didn't trust them all the way. But here, this is my analogy:

I am strapped to my seat. I didn't eat all morning. I am all geared up. I have a bunch of people with me in this capsule, and under there is the external tank weighed 78,100 pounds empty, and its two solid rocket boosters weighed 185,000 pounds empty each. Each solid rocket holds 1.1 million pounds of fuel, 143,000 gallons of liquid oxygen and 383,000 gallons of liquid hydrogen.
The dam rocket was built by a bunch of scientists I don't know personally, but I know some via a web link, and my brain says " Dude, you read it and it all makes perfect sense to you. Go on"!

And now I am here, putting everything I have and trusting my own judgement and the scientists and the science. I know that someone, sitting in the control centre will start the countdown very shortly, as the rocket has started trembling .

I am here, and I know this is it. If this goes up in flames i know i did all the pre flight checks right, and what hit us was totally out of the blue. But I also know, if we lift off and manage to free yourself from earth's gravity, it will be more than just a dream. It is because I trusted my judgement and science.

I know that my money will be used in Avacta to try bring greater good to humanity than just a more comfortable retirement.

Anyway, this is my take here.

Yet, the say goes:

"OCTOBER: This is one of the peculiarly dangerous months to speculate in stocks in. The others are July, January, September, April, November, May, March, June, December, August, and February". Mark Twain

PL75, "For now, the only reference I have are the 2 Covid antigen tests that are out there in the real world, one has been ridiculed due to its low sensitivity %, the other is 80%, has approval and has added billions to the company’s market value. That’s why my target would be 80%+."

Well, the thing is that Affimers are different. Their broad dynamic assay range meeting regulatory compliance:
"ELISA plates coated with anti-trastuzumab Affimer® reagent (1µg/mL) using standard Fc detection in human serum samples showed a broader dynamic range and increased consistency in performance compared to standard antibody-based methods, whilst meeting FDA and EMA criteria for critical reagents in bioanalytical assays", for starters.

Ophidian, I only ref to accuracy because it was mentioned/challenged.

However, the issue here is with sensitivity! For example, Cheng is 99% sensitive when his humour is not understood. That's 100% accurate.

ST

Cheng and PL75, I am pretty sure the levels of sensitivity and accuracy are way above 90% as mentioned by avacta regarding the Zika virus, for instance in their research paper (downloadable from the site), as well as by Prof Alastair in his presentation. Watch again the last one.

I am at work now, so cannot spend too much time surfing, but can dug it when I get home this afternoon.

Will try shortly to find some ref..

Cheers

ST

I think this argument won me over to AVCT (Not to mention the oncology side):
"Existing tests for Zika and the related flaviviruses use PCR to detect the viral DNA or use antigens to detect the patients’ own antibodies raised against the viral infection. PCR tests are only effective for a short period of a few days after symptoms begin and detecting the patients’ antibodies to the virus only work after the immune response has occurred. These tests suffer from cross reactivity when a patient has been infected in the past with another flavivirus and vaccination against one flavivirus, yellow fever for example, can confound the antibody based tests making it appear that the patient has Zika.  NS1 is a protein that is produced by active flaviviruses from the earliest stages of infection and therefore, if it is possible to differentiate between the different NS1 proteins that are specific to each flavivirus, then an effective and specific diagnostic can be developed. The Affimer binders that have been generated by Avacta make this possible for the first time. "
ST

And lateral tests have improved even further, recently, as shown here:

https://avacta.com/2017-04-10/

Enjoy

St

Phantom25, here is Prof Alastair himself, with graphics, explaining how the lateral test works:
https://avacta.com/how-a-lateral-flow-rapid-test-works/

Cheers

St

Benefit of Affimer® immunoassays

Excellent target specificity: Allows accurate and reproducible quantification of antigens of interest across multiple immunoassay platforms

Highly sensitive target detection: Showing no matrix effect and no cross-reactivity with highly homologous proteins Affimer® reagents can be validated to regulatory standards over clinically relevant concentration ranges.

Flexible formatting: Affimer® reagents can be easily modified with functional groups and tags to suit all assay requirements.

Highly stable in a wide range of assay conditions: Exposure to a wide range of pH, temperature, organic solvents and long-term storage has no effect on Affimer® reagent assay performance.

Rapid development: Our proven Affimer® binder process typically takes 12 weeks, helping you to meet tight product development timelines.

Batch-to-batch reproducibility: Affimer® reagents have been validated in accordance with FDA/ EMEA regulatory guidelines for critical reagents.

St

But this is what really worries me:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jmv.25940

Title: Persistent viral RNA positivity during recovery period of a patient with SARS-CoV-2 infection

This damn virus can last months still active in some patients!

St

...basically, more of a salad !

Cheng,

Brazilian, with German, Swiss, Italian and Portuguese heritage, but also a proud British. :0)

"To our knowledge, this study was the first reports finding that saliva got a steady high detection sensitivity in each period after infection onset. We analyzed the sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 detection in saliva and other specimens in different day-ranges of symptom onset. With a high viral load in the first week, each specimen had a good detection rate, except blood. The detection rate in pharyngeal swabs gradually decreased from the second week. Compared with pharyngeal swabs, saliva and rectal swabs had a consistent higher detection rate from one week after symptom onset, suggesting that viral shedding from digestive tract might be greater and last longer than that from respiratory tract.

This finding is consistent with the result obtained with nasopharyngeal swabs and rectal swabs[8]. We found the first evidence that SARS-CoV-2 shedding continually occurred in salivary glands. It’s reported that a various of viruses would have more than 4 log10 reduction of infectivity after exposed in 0.5% hydrogen peroxide for one minute[14]. However, in our study, seven of the ten patients who were virus positive before gargling with 3% H2O2 for three minutes, were positive again at two minutes after H2O2 gargling, and all the ten cases showed virus positive at ten minutes after gargling. Even the re-obtained saliva reported a higher viral load. These findings indicated that the virus continually shed from the salivary glands. It’s reported that the epithelial cells lining of salivary gland ducts are early target cells of SARS-CoV infection in rhesus macaques[15]. Based on these important findings, we suspect salivary glands could be infected by SARS-COV-2. This needs to be confirmed by animal experiments. "

Virus detection results in saliva, pharyngeal swabs, and rectal swabs were adopted to analyze the relationship between viral load and days after symptom onset, because of the low sensitivity of oral swabs and blood. The undetectable viral load in virus negative specimens were assigned a value of 1 log10 (copies/mL). The results showed viral load reached a peak within five days after symptom onset, and then gradually declined. There was a significant negative correlation between viral load and days after symptom onset, either in saliva (Spearman r=-0.3482, p=0.0014), in pharyngeal swabs (r=-0.3095, p<0.001), or in rectal swabs (r=-0.2719, p=0.0080; Figure 2A). The median initial viral load was 4.02 log10 (copies/mL) (range 1.57–5.98), while the median peak viral load was 4.27 (range 1.57-7.94), and no significant difference was noticed between them (p=0.1064; Figure 2B). A significant positive correlation between age and peak viral load was noted (Spearman r=0.3241, p=0·0231; Figure 2C). The median initial and peak viral loads in severe cases were higher than those in mild cases, although not significantly (p=0.392, p=0.055; Figure 2F, G). The initial and peak viral loads showed no differences either between male and female (Figure 2D, E), or between cases with and without comorbidities.

"The most important finding was that saliva was more sensitive for SARS-CoV-2 detection than other specimens including pharyngeal swabs, the most common used in clinical. Compared with pharyngeal swabs, saliva was significantly more sensitive in SARS-CoV-2 detection, evaluated by positive rate per time. Of the fifty-eight saliva specimens and pharyngeal swabs taken obtained at the same time, 49 were positive in saliva, among which 8 were negative for pharyngeal swabs. Moreover, we found in two patients that, after four weeks since symptom onset, pharyngeal swabs reported negative for three consecutive days, but the saliva showed a positive detection. These findings suggested that using saliva to detect SARS-CoV-2 could better avoid false negative results. Using saliva in virus detection has many advantages".

Findings: From January 26 to March 27, a total of 538 specimens were obtained from 49 patients. The SARS-CoV-2 detection rate by positive cases in saliva, oral swabs, pharyngeal swabs, rectal swabs, and blood was 90.2% (37/41), 49.0% (24/49), 83.7% (41/49), 63.6% (14/22) and 17.4% (4/23), respectively. The detection rate by positive times was 83.3% (70/84), 40.5% (30/74), 53.7% (130/242), 52.7% (49/93) and 8.9% (4/45), respectively. And saliva had a higher detection rate than other specimens in each day-ranges after infection onset. The viral load in saliva obtained after gargling with 3% H2O 2 was higher (median 3.581 log10copies/mL) than before (median 3.286 log 10 copies/mL). The viral load was high since symptom onset (median 4.02 log10copies/mL), peaked within 5 days (median 4.27 log10copies/mL), and gradually declined one week after symptom onset. Peak viral load had a positive correlation with age (Spearman r=0.3241, p=0.0231). During infection, leukocytes, neutrophils, regulatory T cells, D-Dimer, C-reactive protein, lactate dehydrogenase, and sodium were significantly increased; while creatinine declined.

Interpretation: Saliva is a better specimen for SARS-CoV-2 detection, as it is protective, sensitive, and time-saving. The high expression of ACE2, high detection rate of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in saliva, and continuous viral shedding in salivary glands, all suggest SARS-CoV-2 infection in salivary glands. The viral load peaks within five days since infection onset, indicating that SARS-CoV-2 can be transmitted easily even in mild cases.

". I will increase this short further Monday depending on price movements, I was looking for 150 to open the short but saw the movements Friday and moved. To be valued at 287m on nothing but hot air is ridiculous. Still no product, already behind and behind on self given timeframes. From a technical analysis it is also highly over bought".

This bozo (gggg) surely deserve a lovely reply post on the NCYT bb when his/her pseudo short (yeah, right) on an aim stock (genius in it's own merit) metaphorically slaps his/hers rouge-ladden lip gloss right off!

Sure

St

Rb40, don't listen to PL75; PL75 likes mind games; I keep changing targets because of him/her. :0/

ST

RK, 3 billion? You are right in saying this is a conservative valuation! Despite what has been said earlier I a post, I don't think Prof Alastair and the board are only the only the "white scrubs lab types" with aloof minds and no time for money talk; they definitely know what they have in their hands, as they bloody design it.

And to top it all, Prof Alastair is a darn good salesman and promoter of his company. He understates and over delivers! I could not ask for a best CEO!

And my valuation of £10 billion is not based on 1 year time frame by the way.

ST

Old trader, I second that.

ST

Anyone wondering on specificity and accuracy still? This video is from 2016 on another presentation:

https://youtu.be/5FWk-qpXnu0

High Throughput Screening of Affimer Proteins using SPRi Label-Free Technology

Why I say AstraZeneca? They too already know and work with Avacta, and before Danahar, if I am not mistaken.

;0)
ST