Member Info for Okehurst1

‘Revenue for the full year was £11.6m (2020: £5.2m) which represented growth of 123% compared to the prior year. Excluding revenue from the Department for Health & Social Care ("DHSC"), revenue was £6.5m (2020: £2.7m) representing normalised growth of 138% and highlighting the strong underlying performance of the business.



We launched the AbC-19™ antibody test in July 2020 and sold 1 million tests to DHSC (£5.15m of revenue) with the order completed in January 2021. Payment for these tests is still outstanding at this time, but the Board is encouraged by positive recent discussions with DHSC regarding substantial collection of the amounts due (further detail on this can be found in note 5). We saw limited sales traction with AbC-19™ during the financial year as Governments across the world focused on antigen lateral flow testing and PCR testing.’

So Ballpark …
It doesn’t appear they have paid for any Antibody LFT’s from RTC according to Abingdon RNS

Bizzare situation

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/ABDX/preliminary-results-2giqwuyce1z57mc.html

Snapshot

‘Completed delivery of 1m units of AbC-19™ COVID-19 rapid antibody test to the DHSC - payment for these tests is still outstanding at this time, but the Group has held positive recent discussions with DHSC regarding collection of the amount due’

‘ · Indications of funding support provided by certain of the Group's directors and the Group is investigating options to raise further capital’

It appears that Abingdon will need a fund raise if the DHSC withhold the £8M owed much longer.

Unbelievable situation that a U.K. company has provided a product to the Government -under contract -and the Government has reneged.

On personal level I have felt for a while that Omega has a 90% chance of success but I appreciate there are some risks.

DAM is a good commercial opportunity once HUA U.K./ Test for Travel & EU is secured plus we also have the chance to provide LFT’s to DHSC for Care homes / Hospitals
Discounting USA somewhat until HUA in that region

So we have 3 distinct RNS opportunities that can turn sentiment but without an RNS before tomorrows presentation it’s going to be a fairly subdued affair as all of the above is out of Colin’s hands.

The capacity is in place, the Biotech looks decent up to Ct26 and we have a quality test all round with ease of use included, we just need that break, fingers crossed it lands next 24hrs.

Morning Indy
Thanks for sharing.

Agree on many of your points, I have 2 concerns re cash

- increased Carriage costs may not be a one off, they may well have to built into the business model, on its own it wouldn’t be an issue but the web sites are also funding Ingenuity in effect

- The funding / opex required for Ingenuity, we have no idea currently?

Of interest, posted on Avacta board

Certainly not breaking news as indicated

Can only speculate Mologic are raising their profile, maybe to remind regulators who controls GAD / Mologic ?

https://www.mpo-mag.com/contents/view_breaking-news/2021-10-11/deal-transforms-mologic-into-social-enterprise/

Bline,fair comment

Hi Bella

Worth checking out the MO for Mologic now Bill Gates is in control

https://mologic.co.uk/mologic-to-become-a-social-enterprise-after-acquisition-by-social-impact-funders-and-investors/

Appears they are going to target this market with cheap LFT’s
- non for profit stuff - utilising the GAD engineering capacity coupled with the Mologic biotech

I guess the question Gates will be thinking is it worth paying something to Avacta for their biotech which is 100% up to Ct28 or use what he owns which is similar up to Ct26 - anyones guess

Post being acquired by Gates, Mologic produced a video out lining their goals in Africa, basically saying they will provide LFT’s at cost to Africa.

Bline, positive news for SNG shareholders, genuinely pleased for them
and let’s hope they secure EUA USA, as with Omega they will at this point be waiting on authorising bodies, Tbf to Colin he has nothing to do with USA application, that’s Mologic, although he is responsible for EU / U.K.

I don’t think you can compare SNG to Omega, apples & pears

SNG are spending £40M a year on R&D - are losing similar but that’s understandable - and are pharmaceutical company

Omega are a diagnostic engineer and in the main use other peoples biotech so limited R@D in their business model.

Morning Handome,

The Omega Antigen LFT uses the Mologic biotech - buffer / reagent

https://mologic.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/SDS-AffiDX-SARS-CoV-2-Lateral-Flow-Test_EN.pdf

TW, if the URL is still playing up, jump onto Avacta BB

As mentioned below I lifted the file - Energy Shares 8.46am

How’s that TW?

file:///var/mobile/Library/SMS/Attachments/ba/10/E8801338-9E9A-4146-8DD2-5EAFF5E27B36/SDS-AffiDX-SARS-CoV-2-Lateral-Flow-Test_EN.pdf

But the technical data supporting the application is, that’s the point.

Can you pass one LFT without the other ?

What happens if any of the data being submitted differs between
connected parties ? It must create confusion which then takes time to resolve

We can assume the EU and the U.K. department’s who are dealing with the applications are busy with multiple businesses offering their LFT’s
NCYT advised the market it takes 6 months to get through the EU HUA regulatory framework for an LFT, gives us an idea just how backed up the EU actually are?

I posted this on the Omega Board - Avacta/ Omega holder

‘Mologic in their name file an Antigen LFT using the Avacta biotech
Omega in their name file an Antigen test using Mologic biotech
Medusa in their name file an Antigen test using the Avacta biotech

Just saying … it must create questions & paperwork from the authorising bodies when each submitting party is saying their test is the best ?’

Thinking on … it looks like this

Mologic in their name file an Antigen LFT using the Avacta biotech
Omega in their name file an Antigen test using Mologic biotech
Medusa in their name file an Antigen test using the Avacta biotech

Just saying … it must create questions & paperwork from the authorising bodies when each submitting party is saying their test is the best ?

The link below was posted on Avacta BB

It appears to be a Mologic data sheet showing a timeline of development which may have a relevance to HUA.

It’s pretty clear it’s the Avacta test, first impressions what’s confusing is why ?
Avacta secured ISO on the 14th July 2021 ,why would Mologic file an update on the 8th Sept 2021 in their name? I reckon it’s for GAD who are owned by Gates who are manufacturing the Avacta LFT.

If anything it does demonstrate the complexities of seeking approvals,
Mologic have their own biotech within the Omega LFT but Mologic also manufacture their own LFT in their name with Avacta’s biotech, can only imagine the questions from the official bodies dealing with HUA
saying ‘ just run that past me one more time ?’

RNS snippet 14/07/21

Avacta's Diagnostic Division Achieves ISO 13485 Certification



Avacta Group plc (AIM: AVCT), the developer of diagnostics and innovative cancer therapies based on its proprietary Affimer® and pre|CISION™ platforms, is pleased to announce that Avacta Life Sciences' diagnostics division has achieved ISO 13485 certification for the quality management system for the manufacture and distribution of Affimer® reagents for use in lateral flow, ELISA and immunodiagnostic in-vitro diagnostic devices.



file:///var/mobile/Library/SMS/Attachments/ba/10/E8801338-9E9A-4146-8DD2-5EAFF5E27B36/SDS-AffiDX-SARS-CoV-2-Lateral-Flow-Test_EN.pdf

Good spot TW - thanks for the correction on that point I should have crossed checked, didn’t realise they were back on

Hi Wado,

Looks like a decent amount of samples / narrowed down from
14,000 articles to 214no data sets, unsure on specifics but peer view of peer review stuff - Cochrane review style

‘We systematically searched multiple databases (PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, medRvix and bioRvix, FIND) for publications evaluating the accuracy of Ag-RDTs for SARS-CoV-2 up until April 30th, 2021. Descriptive analyses of all studies were performed and when more than four studies were available, a random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity in comparison to reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction testing. We assessed heterogeneity by subgroup analyses, and rated study quality and risk of bias using the QUADAS 2 assessment tool. From a total of 14,254 articles, we included 133 analytical and clinical studies resulting in 214 clinical accuracy data sets with 112,323 samples’

Simon, reports comments on Surescreen

For the NADAL by NAL von Minden (Germany) and the COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Visual Read by SureScreen (United Kingdom), sufficient data was only available to analyze sensitivity, resulting in polled sensitivity estimates of 58.4% (95% CI 29.2 to 87.6) and 58.0% (95% CI 38.3 to 77.6) and, respectively.

Hi blu
No names/ timescales as such