Member Info for Muminr

It was very positive Stephen.

From my notes:

The pilot is prior to mainstream implementation next year. That means national commissioning.

Dr Hargroves stated there nice had presented a convincing case for routine testing. There are 100,000 new TIA/stroke patients a year. Nice had stayed lab test preferred. However in the real world that’s within around 3 weeks. The turnaround times are a challenge.

The pilot will use 4 sites: Salford, Doncaster, Exeter and St George’s. Salford will use POC - this is where the lead , Dr Sharma is based.

There will be a mixture of POC and lab tests. There will be cases where poc is more suitable. There will be cases where lab tests “would work”.

POC has significant opportunities and advantages.

Some of you are already using POC with local deals.

Dr Sharma: It is a misconception that poc is inferior. At this point poc tests for wider range of alleles. Quite a few of you are already using poc testing. Would welcome their feedback to feed into the pilot.

Yes it seems that there were others besides the Salford centre that are using the POC test. So perhaps as Eureka has stated, GDR only felt the need to inform about the Salford centre because of its preeminence.

The company may provide further updates in the results ( due end of this month?)

hi johnlay**** lionel1 and any others present at the webinar, i’ve just come off the call. what did you make of the presentation? i think it was extremely positive for poc! dr sharma is the lead and he’s based at salford, so doing the gdr test! a couple of time he interjected to promote poc.

in any case ultimately everyone was agreed it will be a mixture of poc and lab. i feel after the pilot it’ll be majority poc and less lab. to scale up the lab tests is just too costly and “challenging”.

@ emeraldcarrots, whilst I apply the sentiment, your repetitive posts are making the BB difficult to read. Even your own good posts loose their impact in the sheer volume.

Yes UserSteve, that’s odd and it’s not just these last two times. The SP often drops after very positive news. My personal take is that this is because we don’t have institutional shareholders which would give more stability. Rather, we have too many PIs who think their holding is a lottery ticket and expect a 1000% jump every time. When it doesn’t materialise, they sell.

I do however think a massive SP increase will come eventually with either a national roll out post April 2005, specialist commissioning of MTRNR1, or FDA news.

* the issue is do you want to buy in before or after such an announcement? Or play the day trading game and risk being locked out at that crucial moment.

You’re absolutely right bankruptstock; means nothing without a large contract. However, a large England and or Scotland contract is looking increasingly likely in due course. The issue for investors is don’t want to buy in before after that announcement?

Thanks for that Lionel1 (and the other interesting links you’ve previously posted). That a very decent paragraph about GDR. It shows that we’re certainly on the radar of crucial decision makers.

It is very intriguing Technik. I think that bizarre RNS about Gilham’s 10 months old involvement in Cytox must have been related to his appointment at Novcyt. So the board obviously see some connection. Would also explain the sudden departure of Cheek if this had been mooted back then.

Importantly, the gdr test can detect 5 LOF variants compared to only 2 by genomadix. This is crucial for considerations of equality and diversity.

He left in January. It’s odd to release this at any time, let alone 10 months later. Gilham’s been a director at a dozen different companies, including at GSK.

Thanks for posting JCL, EMQN must be expecting MTRNR1 to take off and become routine, as anticipated, for them to get involved.

It states "a pilot of bedside CYP2C19 testing" at St Mary's. Other sites will "consider the use of laboratory based CYP2C19 testing". The bedside test must be us. However, I'd speculate that the laboratory based one may also use our test - and this would provide a true comparison.

Hi Pensioninvestor, how would that work and where would that leave PIs? I've read on this board that this would have to be at a SP equivalent to a 12month high, is that so?

I just finished watching Dr McDermott’s talk. There is absolutely no doubt about the quality of GDR's tests (the CYP test actually performed better than the reference test – using Sanger sequencing!).

However, having said that, I am getting tired of hearing how good the products are. If they are not in wide use, no one benefits.

I really do not understand why there haven’t been mass sales. Cheek’s baffling departure followed by Gino’s radio silence just doesn’t sit well with me. In any case, I’m in such a loss that all I can do is sit back and hope.

Gloria, neither Dr McDermott nor Prof Newman are shareholders- you have insinuated the same previously. However, the declaration they both made in all their peer reviewed publications is that they have no financial interest in GDR.

Hi Jimi, I also know that addenbrookes hospital at Cambridge had looked into using MTRNR1. I was told they’d deploy it routinely once it was “more readily available.” I don’t know what that means exactly - financial or supply considerations?

Thanks all for clarifying. On average 152 days from recognition to approval was all I could find :

https://medicaldeviceacademy.com/breakthrough-device-designation/

Thanks a lot for posting that FDA link Mrgeeebeee. Am I right that you say FDA approval is 2-3 months after the breakthrough recognition? Where is that stated please?

If that’s correct then we could achieve approval this month or next!

Come on Guy, he’s just thinking wildly ahead, in the best interests of LTHs, all very altruistic of course.