George Frangeskides, Chairman at ALBA, explains why the Pilbara Lithium option ‘was too good to miss’. Watch the video here.
Thank you Myles for all your great work on Avacta over the past few years. It is much appreciated and never let the "naysayers" (shorters) get to you ....I suspect you dont :) !!........ "Reet Grand" (as we say in Yorkshire) and please continue to keep us all informed with your insightful views and opinions.
@scardey .......... useful contribution, many thanks
Just out of interest does the term "high viral load" (as used by Jo Churchill) have any meaning with reference to a British Standard defining such terminology (e.g. CT value under 20 = "high", 20-30 = "medium", above 30 = "low"........... or similar) or are there only 2 categories; “high” and “low” (either side of say CT 30)?
From a purely statistical perspective presumably the majority of people being tested, present with a "medium" viral load (CT 20-30) or a "medium" viral load would be collected at the time of testing or< I presume, the median value is probably somewhere in the mid 20s ......... surely a very important measure of any LFT is how it performs (with the majority of cases) i.e. in detecting "medium" viral load............ are there any actual stats on the viral load distribution in people who contract covid? .......... I guess I’m trying to establish at the point of testing what percentage of people have a “high” (Jo’s use of the term) viral load…… as the Innova LFT is clearly very ineffective at detecting non “high” viral load cases.
I found this interesting (fig 2) and note (90%+) of re-infecting people tested had “low” viral loads (figure 2)……. So Innova is ineffective at detecting virtually all cases of any re-infection
Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection Survey technical article: analysis of reinfections of COVID-19 - Office for National Statistics
If (as indicated by the Avacta "trials") Innova does not effectively detect the Delta variant (including “high” viral load cases) this is probably the best line of questioning to currently pursue.
Is there an obvious question(s) to be raised concerning the UK Gov advocating the use of the Innova test in a way that was not intended (I’m thinking of the damning statement by the FDA) or in a way that is not consistent with the use during any of the trials (to which Jo refers) or is not supported by any data ........ i.e. changing instructions for the User, intended as Nano but used as nasal etc etc……… in short, being used in a way not intended and for which there is no supporting evidence / data?
@Gr33ning68
I don’t read here every day but Monkshood was a name I remember as someone who stood out (on the technicals) and apparently knows his "onions".
So over to you Monksood (or similarly knowledgeable contributors).
I guess it’s a matter of imagining you were an advisor to the HSC (but being mindful of the parliamentary protocols and "customs and practices")........ it is not intended for anyone to come out of this with a "bloody nose", incompetence should never be implied (that’s for another day) and it shouldn’t be an "interrogation" .... as this will only illicit a defensive / generic response .................. it should purely be presenting the evidence (as exists in the public domain) with an appropriate easy to understand unbiased explanation of the “technicals” i.e. a helpful “commentary” ……… the questioner is medically qualified so could be seen as trying to be “helpful” rather than an attempt to “call anyone or anything out”……… Although the communication is ultimately presented as a question or series of questions the additional “helpful” content should be subtly crafted in a way that an independent competent reader could only reach one conclusion (i.e. “the answer”)…………… although it will be for the responder to provide “the answer” (effectively, the natural and logical conclusion that any right minded person would reach).
Re the Q&As below (please read to understand the context)
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2021-06-29/24270
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2021-06-29/24269
Can someone here who is more knowledgeable (at a techinal level) please set out the case for Avacta v Innova (based upon the medical evidence i.e. the published data / clincal validation observations - not bb claims ) please include appropriate links ......... the blindingly obvious follow up question to Jo Churchill when she states "....Innova lateral flow tests were shown to detect over 95% of individuals with high viral load or the most infectious cases........." might be please define what you mean by "high viral load" (which, by defintion, presumably most people dont have at the time of being tested i.e its "higher" than the norm) so using your terminology (Jo) can you pleaase advise how the Innova test performs with "medium viral load" (which, by defintion, presumably most people do have at the time of being tested) and also how the Innova test performs with "low viral load".
To cut to the chase, I have the ear of the Health and Social Care Select Committee (and there's an opportunity to steer / input into follow up questions) at a more detailed, technical and searching level (strongly suggest responses are limited to those who can add the appropriate "value"........... or a co-ordinated response by the Sages on here might be useful.
For the record, my feedback at the end of todays webinair / Q&A;..............
Managing expectations: Regarding the final Question at today's presentation (that Alistair was clearly very keen to receive and answer) .... .when asked by the likes of Gyles / Paul Hill (Vox) about timelines and "when do you expect that to happen"; may I suggest that the caveats included in your response today e.g. "subject to third party response/performance, that we have no control over" etc. are very clearly identified and stated ......... I believe it may also be beneficial to all interested partys if the workflows and milestones were clearly stated (in such a response), in addition to the response that is given i.e. "shortly" and "in the coming weeks"............. I’m sure it is not lost on Alistair that the market now gives zero credit for any deliverables that may happen "shortly" and "in the coming weeks" or even (in the case of Avacta) “tomorrow” ............ for whatever reason, those particular brigdes have now been burnt (with the MMs). Please give Alistair and the team my thanks for all the hard work in recent months and I shall continue with my long term support.
End
ps ..... just bought a few more at 176p (didnt think wed see sub £2 again)...... especially in the midst of a pandemic with LFT testing expected to be in use for 3-5 years (and will probably be a standard requirement for international travel, in perpetuity, going forward)..... and, lets not forget, Avacta have the "best" LFT test in the world. gla
A very positive RNS confirming the next Business update / Q&A session on 21st June 2021 (under 4 weeks away).
I doubt if the topic of conversation will be focussed on "missed boats", "missed opportunities" and "missed timelines". I dont read every thread on here (far from it) but those who believe a significant opportunity has been missed are IMO "missing something" themselves. I would conservatively estimate that less than 1% of the Worldwide LFT market (over say the next decade) has been produced / sold to date.......... and I'm more interested (as Avacta appear to be) in the remaining 99% and the long term usage that will primarily be dominated by "the best in class" ;) gla
Sometimes it’s useful to stand back from the daily “noise” and review the big picture;
Recent RNS's
7-01-21 - Point
28-01-21 - Bruker
1-02-21 - Affyxcell for Ava6000
8-02-21 - Mologic
16-02-21 - 16-02-21 - Sars Covid 2 LFT
9-03-21 - Biokit
6-04-21 - Abcam
20-04-21 - Clinical validation of AffiDX Lateral Flow Test
Imminent
May 2021- CE Mark and commence commercial LFT rollout
Avacta Share price;
14-12-20 105p
30-12-20 111p
29-01-21 123p
10-02-21 130p
24-02-21 179p
03-03-21 190p
26-04-21 240p
05-05-21 248p
AS is clearly proceeding with very apparent "due diligence" on all fronts and will do things his way i.e. "properly" and on his terms ….. you will note he even considered it prudent (which undoubtedly prolonged the LFT clinical validation process duration) to undertake tests on “competitor’s” LFTs ……Would many have the foresight, confidence and responsibility (on behalf of humanity) to have done that? …… and also published detailed sampling viral load data (most don’t)…….no more than LTH’s would expect from a World leader (in his field)....... watch this space in this transformational period …….
I suspect LTHs will be looking back in a year's time and will not be too concerned about their actual "buy in price"
Recalling those "dark days" in November / December 2020 when there was a theme by some of perceived "missed deadlines" and having "missed the boat" it is worth looking back at the interim period and review what has actually transpired since then;
In recent months I believe the UK Gov has recognised the need to pro-actively "manage" and co-ordinate a robust and resilient long term / permanent diagnostic industry to be "ready to go" in response to COVID II (or similiar future virus - it would be negligent not to) and that, in all probability, Avacta are heavily involved if not "pivotal" to this.......this may be having an effect on current actions/resources and timelines .... indeed, it may well transpire when we "look back" at the Q2 2021 "actuals" that this was a central theme (on the COVID front) during this period......... and everything becomes a lot clearer, as perhaps Q1 2021 is now.
With so many active pipelines It is unwise to focus on one activity and for this to be seen as "binary" in defining (short term) success or failure........ although it is recognised that a % of the SP is currently correlated to the LFT outcome (perhaps overwieghted by some). ........ and, no doubt, when we "look back" at the Q2 2021 "actual progress" (in a few months’ time), everything will be a lot clearer as to what happened and why the associated timelines were what they were.
Sometimes it’s useful to stand back from the daily “noise” and review the big picture;
Recent RNS's
7-01-21 - Point
28-01-21 - Bruker
1-02-21 - Affyxcell for Ava6000
8-02-21 - Mologic
16-02-21 - 16-02-21 - Sars Covid 2 LFT
9-03-21 - Biokit
6-04-21 - Abcam
20-04-21 - Clinical validation of AffiDX Lateral Flow Test
Avacta Share price;
14-12-20 105p
30-12-20 111p
29-01-21 123p
10-02-21 130p
24-02-21 179p
03-03-21 190p
3pm 26-04-21 240p ish
AS is clearly proceeding with absolute "due diligence" on all fronts (he is probably leading the Government in this respect) and will do things his way i.e. "properly" and on his terms ….. you will note he even considered it prudent (which undoubtedly prolonged the LFT validation process duration) to undertake tests on “competitor’s” LFTs ……Would many have the foresight and confidence to have done that? …… and also published detailed sampling viral load data (most don’t)…….no more than LTH’s would expect from a World leader (in his field)....... watch this space in this transformational period as Avacta take the lead on the World stage……. gla
Recalling those "dark days" in November / December 2020 when there was a theme by some of perceived "missed deadlines" and having "missed the boat" it is worth looking back at Q1 2021 and review what has actually transpired since then;
Recent RNS's
7-01-21 - Point
28-01-21 - Bruker
1-02-21 - Affyxcell for Ava6000
8-02-21 - Mologic
16-02-21 - 16-02-21 - Sars Covid 2 LFT
9-03-21 - Biokit
6-04-21 - Abcam
Did anyone "call" the above correctly?
and ....................
Avacta Share price;
01-01-21 111p
29-01-21 123p
10-02-21 130p
24-02-21 179p
03-03-21 190p
31-03-21 220p
In recent months I believe the UK Gov has recognised the need to pro-actively "manage" and co-ordinate a robust and resilient long term / permanent diagnostic industry to be "ready to go" in response to COVID II (or similiar future virus - it would be negligent not to) and that, in all probability, Avacta are heavily involved if not "pivotal" to this.......this may be having an effect on current actions/resources and timelines .... indeed, it may well transpire when we "look back" at the Q2 2021 "actuals" that this was a central theme (on the COVID front) during this period......... and everything becomes a lot clearer, as perhaps Q1 2021 is now.
With so many active pipelines It is unwise to focus on one activity and for this to be seen as "binary" in defining (short term) success or falure........ although it is recognised that a % of the SP is currently heavily correlated to the CE mark / clincal validation outcome (perhaps overwieghted by some). ........ and, no doubt, when we "look back" at the Q2 2021 "actual progress" (in a few months time), everything will be a lot clearer as to what happened and why the associated timelines were what they were.
AS is clearly proceeding with "due diligence" on many fronts and will do things his way ie "properly" and on his terms i.e. highly transparent and with all "compliance" boxes ticked (which is key to being viewed in a positive light by "partners" in the Worldwide medical profession and "buyers" of the Avacta products in general)......... and, of course, as "sleaze free" of any politicians/politics.
No more than LTH’s would expect from a World leader (in his field)......... watch this space. gla
Well it could work both ways ......... AS doesnt stike me as a great "fanfare" sort of person (although no doubt the next Paul Hill interview will add some "gush" and financial context) .......... the announcement / results maybe issued this week in a fairly low profile / "matter of fact" sort of way ........ as if it's "much ado about nothing" (i.e. the Validators have purely recognised what we already knew months ago)......... whilst, in the interim, dilligently putting together a series of excellent deals quietly in the background and making sure all the ducks continue to lined up on various fronts ...........obviously the media will be focussing on the Harry and William "re-union", the Meghan "sicknote", the re-building of the Andrew profile. and our future King (Charles, isnt it?).............. hopefully, amongst the media circus, the Queen will get a mention too! (but just like AS...... she doesnt do drama and just gets on with it)........ watch this space.gla
With Prince Philip’s death it might well be that any major announcements / significant Government news/business is put “on hold” during this coming week………. a bumbling Boris "fanfare" full of positivity, enthusiasm (that can only be matched by Paul Hill) and "catchphrases" doesn't feel appropriate during a sombre week of National mourning ........this week will focus predominantly on the Royals.......... and yes, there are sometimes unavoidable and valid reasons for "delays" (or rather intentinally putting things back by design)
MMs dont give up do they.......... trying to grap any shares with 5% stop losses ....of course you wont be able to buy a bean during this period.... criminal really what they get up too......... shame its not (effectively) regulated!!
Simon Jordan (ex Mobile phone / C Palce boss) was talking about using LFTs to open up sports venues on Talksport last year (Oct / Nov time)............. he even mentioned Avacta by name as potentially being much more reliable / accurate than the current offerings and in the context of the "next generation" of LFTs.......... This current "delay" certainly seems to have been politically motivated in order to wait until the majority of (older/vulnerasbles) people have been vaccinated........... but those that operate at certain levels (including the likes of David Cameron)....... are almost certainly in the know and have been for some time.
Its the content (ie milestone) that's important........... not the "indicative" target date (which is basically no more than a guesstimate on the performance of others e.g.lab technicians/validators and other things e.g samples, percieved by some as a critical timeline or even "deadline"............. which it is not.......... the actual duration of this activity will only be known once the outcome is announced, until that time it's actual duration is largely irrelevant (other than investors would like to benefit sooner rather than later).......... Dont forget AS has a track record of delivering "better than expected".......... even if some consider it to be "a little late".
creating 500-1000 new jobs*
Yes I noticed that.......... new warehousde capacity creating 500-1000 (in Daventry)
Not that its of any great strategic significance to Avacta's fortunes (one way or t'other) ......... but the organisation and timing is interesting (its not as if the general economy will be booming anytime soon).
Lets just say AS knows he's holding all the aces ........ it sometimes takes time in negotiations for the other party to fully appreciate whos bringing what to the party............ third party's will probably be putting forward their standard T&Cs / rates as their opening positions............ but AS is letting them know, there's nothing "standard" about the Avacta products.......... and will be achieving deals on his terms (delays maybe more to do with third partys "waking up and smelling the roses"....... and that particular timescale is not under ASs control)
Another piece in the ever revealing jigsaw puzzle;
Recent RNS's
7-01-21 - Point
28-01-21 - Bruker
1-02-21 - Affyxcell for Ava6000
8-02-21 - Mologic
16-02-21 - 16-02-21 - Sars Covid 2 LFT
9-03-21 - Biokit
6-04-21 - Abcam
w/c 5/04/21 - ???
w/c 12/0421 - ???
Avacta Share price;
14-12-20 105p
30-12-20 111p
29-01-21 123p
10-02-21 130p
24-02-21 179p
03-03-21 190p
01-04-21 232p
AS is clearly proceeding with "due diligence" on many fronts and will do things his way (ie "properly" and on his terms) ........ no more than LTH’s would expect from a World leader (in his field)......... watch this space. gla
I believe that w/c 5th April is most likely to be the week in which CE mark / CV news is released........ obviously the sooner the better for all concerned, for no other reason, than it provides clarity. However we know, with some certainty, that very significant news (either way) will be announced within the next say 7 trading days.
In the meantime, the share will trade moreso on investor's "belief and sentiment" as opposed to the company fundamentals. The LTHs, not over exposed, will see any drops as great buying opportunities ....... the remainder may get spooked into forced (panick) selling as the SP "falls". Presumably the imminent trading update, if read in isolation, may not justify the current SP (by a long chalk) and may be spun as "(very) disappointing" by de-rampers.
At the start of each trading day the SP will inevitably fall (for no other reason than there was no 7am RNS)......... thereafter it will find its true "on the day" level. Of course, an RNS can be published at anytime 24/7 which will immediately give rise to a significant re-rate (either way), based upon the content.
Some see this as a period of great "uncertainty"......... but all that is "unknown" is the content of the CE mark / CV announcement.......... the only "uncertainty" is, are you a believer or not? (that should be easy, for you, to answer) and at what SP level does "value" exist / not exist (that's almost impossible to answer, within the context of the current SP movement..... unless you can "correctly" assess the probability of the contents of the fortcoming announcement ..... which will predominantly be seen as binary; "success" or "failure")........... I'm a LTH and my assessment of "success" (ie very good LFT s/s and accuracy values) is 75%+ (any "issues" are more likely to be with the "samples" (eg abnormal characteristics / "contamination" etc) rather than with the performance of the test........ For the record, I had a chat with a fellow investor last week in which I put forward the view that the recent SP rise up to 275 was a bit "ballsy" in the context of the last 6 month's SP activity and felt 235-250 was a fairer reflection (at that time) ........ I also said "true value" was difficult to assess (until the outcome of the CE mark / CV is known)...... but (IMO) at below 220 would start to represent "value" again, during this "waiting period" ............ alternatively, probably the wisest thing to do right now, is to just switch off from all the ramping / de-ramping nonsense until the announcement is made......... there's virtually nothing useful to be gleaned from anyone, in the interim.