Member Info for Okehurst1

Wyn,

Maybe we follow the Chinese route as what happened in Beijing this month? Just a few cases of Covid 19 and
9 million people go into lockdown and into an intense testing programme.

2 of the 4 main U.K. LFT manufacturer’s are public companies and have advised the market that the they have heavily invested in production capacity which is being ramped up to pro rata 270M LFT’s a year, whilst some production will shift to antibody tests it does appear the Uk Government are going to stockpile antigen tests.
U.K. total capacity looks like 350M to 400M annually but if the Government is buying the components who knows how many they will store?

There is a fair chance other Countries will stockpile completed LFT’s and follow the strategy of China / South Korea, both of whom have lived with SAR’S in one more than one format.

LFT’s till the vaccine starts to have affect, whatever volume that may be?

£2 @ 300M tests for a U.K. stockpile? Then global deals?

We just need the Avacta test to be as good as Alister has indicated, a global market will be there for the next few years at least.

Gkb, fair point, it’s one or the other.

At the current share price we are more or less in for free to find out

Scardey, the £250k to Aptimer Group was basically a research grant, can they outperform Avacta’s Affirmer’s?
It’s a small amount of money in the grand scheme of things.
From the Governments point of view it’s worth the punt.

Manx, it’s a good point, what stops them manufacturing their own to sell to the public in the future, makes sense.?

The tweet last week off the new ODX employee basically saying he was working on the Avacta product, so many pointers to where this is going.

Pure speculation but maybe Avacta if they have the best positive predication percentage, which is what’s it’s all about now not S&S in a clinical trial, receive £2 something as an amount, the Government knows how much the components for the LFT’s have cost , they bought them,
the U.K. LFT manufacturer’s have been funded to invest in manufacturing kit via the RTC consortium payment of £75M or Mologic receiving £3M for their additional machinery.

The U.K. manufactures get a labour unit cost per test , Avacta get the same for their biotech

The only tests Avacta order in bulk are for their partnership with Medusa.

Avacta sell the magic bit for £2 to £3 a shot to everyone else? But it has to be a knock out test otherwise the government may as well jump on Alibaba and buy the buffer/ reagent from China themselves, like the one man band Innova, the Dodgy knight of the realm and anyone else jumping on the band wagon, even Surescreen will be using a generic solution.

Think your right Lee, it makes sense.

Medusa do the heavy lifting selling direct to the public on a higher margin, Avacta just provide the biotech to governments / big Pharma.

Avacta get on with next licensing deal via their Platform as we have seen with their latest deals.

It’s clever.

Multiple recent events are pointing to a possible government game plan

The NHS branding their own LFT, being the rebrand of the Innova test, LFT tests may not have a corporate brand moving forward ?

The Government funding U.K.LFT manufacturer’s to tool up, Mologic for example being awarded £3M to buy machinery.

The U.K. RTC being awarded £75M plus contracts / funding

Government purchasing LFT cassettes / pippettes/ Saliva collecting test tubes and importing into U.K.

Government awarding contracts to store all of the above.

Is this the real Moonshot? The Government funds the kit/ commodities and then buys the best buffer/reagent to insert ?

So Avacta’s model is to supply the biotech to whoever as per agreed price per LFT, yes they will also have some made direct but it would be big orders, Avacta just sell the
clever bit on the inside of the LFT, this all of course assumes they have the best solution that is?

This model is then rolled out globally ?

Avacta are developing a skill set to pull off these type of deals, it appears to suit them?

This test is for business’s only - CE stamp
They list who they can sell to, will require a medically trained person to administer

Manufacturing Industries
Warehousing & Distribution
Care Homes
Schools, colleges, educational establishments and FE providers
Pharmacies
Building and Construction
Office based businesses
Retailer
Service providers e/g Barbers, hairdressers

If it wasn’t so serious it would be quite funny that anyone can set up a business like the one man band Innova / even the dodgy Knight of the realm below, drop a few emails to boson bio in China and ship a few gallon of their finest generic buffer/ reagent to the U.K. inside an LFT , repackage , then using a synthetic Covid 19 virus in perfect lab conditions not even on live samples conduct a clinical trial on just 28 people and the directors apply for a CE stamp and say they have best Covid 19 test in the world .

No wonder we are in our 3rd national lockdown

Gk, good research into the source.

I don’t think they have approval, it’s a CE stamp, they have not even been through Porton Down.

No competition here.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/medical-devices-conformity-assessment-and-the-ukca-mark

The Chairman of this outfit has a colourful past, looks a bit dodgy, put aside being investigated once for fraud he flogged ventilators at £40k a pop more than the usual price all via an Isle of Man entity, obviously to avoid tax.

You have to wonder how these type of guys just keep getting business ?

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2005/sep/27/science.businessofresearch

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/excalibur-healthcare-charged-40-000-more-for-covid-ventilators-crhln85nx

Don’t think they have beaten Avacta
It’s a standard CE stamp , this test hasn’t gone through Porton Down

Just another outfit bought the buffer/ reagent on Alibaba and lobbed it into an LFT

The Government won’t give MHRA for home use without going through Porton
LSTM means nothing really ditto S&S data they quote

RD, look how fast Porton cleared the LFT’s checking for the new strains?
This is all lab based now, has to be, although don’t think it was back in the summer.

The clinical trial is separate as we know, this covers the directors for the CE stamp.
Going back to Mologic, they had just 28 people on their trial, Surescreen if I remember was around 100 people, you have to wonder just how independent these trials actually are ? The Government insisting Porton Down carry out their own clinical evaluation indicates they are not viewed as reliable.

Highest positive prediction % LFT Bella
That’s what we need to see, it’s everything to say we have the best LFT

We know pg/ml is a good indicator as a Virus quantification which involves counting the number of viruses in a specific volume to determine the virus concentration.

To be fair to Ophedian I think he’s missed the data from Mologic , they are averaging 225pg/ml with their LFT based on their clinical trial of just 28 people.

However I think we can expect Acacta to beat this, we understand the mechanical Elisa test is around 40pg/ml, if the Affirmers work as indicated by Alister then we may well be 75pg/ml to maybe 100pg/ml on average within the LFT, anything around 50pg/ml would be on par if not beat PCR - imagine !

Suggest we need this low pg/ml to ensure we have a high positive predication 85% plus.

This was discussed before, if the Avacta test demonstrates a higher positive prediction than the rest then they will use their buffer / reagent/ Affirmer, assuming it works.

Makes sense as the U.K. manufacturers can only produce 20M max by Febuary.

Doesn’t matter to Avacta really, in fact this is actually good news, quite pleased.

It only took 8 to 9 days at Porton Down to evaluate all the relevant LFT’s recognised the new strain, quite interesting that point.

It does appear the Porton Down trial’s are possibly lab based and no longer on live samples in the field.

If that’s case then there is good chance we have been at Porton Down since early new year and we can expect news this week.
Personally I don’t think there is an NDA, we have just not had a test to send until recently,other than desktop and preclinical, we have to hope we are close, it feels like we may well be.

Extract below.

‘They have also been evaluated using material cultured in recent days from the variant that was sent here by colleagues at PHE Colindale on 14 December. ‘

Neutronic,
This may help you with your research.

The BMJ carried out a review of the Chinese Innova test, full report below.
This paragraph from the report is just one of the highlights, kind of explains why we are in the mess we are in having relied on the Chinese tests, Innova is 3% accurate according to the BMJ

‘Jon Deeks, professor of biostatistics at Birmingham and leader of the Cochrane Collaboration’s covid-19 test evaluation activities, explained the results. “We found two positives in 7189 students, which scales up to 30 per 100?000 and was shocking in itself, as Birmingham has a rate of 250 cases per 100?000,” he said. “These results are especially worrying for schools:’

https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4941

Omega still ongoing with Mologic TT

https://twitter.com/OmegaDiagnostic/status/1348630379343839233?s=20

Interesting looking at the Surescreen performance data, some neat tricks to manipulate the data, breaking it up in 2 sections over 14 days- am sure Avacta will do the same but it’s playing with the data

Table 1 - days of onset of symptoms

Day 1 to Day 7 is as low as 51% positive prediction
Day 8 to Day 14 is as low 71% positive prediction

The lancet produced a peer review of multiple studies looking at when live samples of Covid 19 could be identified, quite a big sampling size as well.

‘79 studies (5340 individuals) on SARS-CoV-2, eight studies (1858 individuals) on SARS-CoV, and 11 studies (799 individuals) on MERS-CoV were included’

Here is an interesting paragraph

‘0016). No study detected live virus beyond day 9 of illness, despite persistently high viral loads, which were inferred from cycle threshold values. SARS-CoV-2 viral load in the upper respiratory tract appeared to peak in the first week of illness, whereas that of SARS-CoV peaked at days 10–14 and that of MERS-CoV peaked at days 7–10’

So an almost Cochrane style review published in the Lancet couldn’t find any live virus after 9 days although viral load was identified via Ct values

Cross reference this to the results of the Surescreen test and they fall into the same category as Innova & Co , pretty much toss of the coin when people are infectious.
The results are probably better when a professional carries them out and like Innova collapse when its DIY general public.

Surescreen is not going to make the grade, it’s a PR exercise because the Innova test had been that bad.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(20)30172-5/fulltext

This independent report highlights the big difference between a companies own clinical report using quite often synthetic Covid 19 and the results of an antigen LFT when used on live samples and in the field

The S&S data is really a pointless marker, the key data/stat is the ‘positive prediction’ Innova is not even as good
as a ‘toss of the coin’ and stands at below 50%
Surescreen / Abbott , even Mologic will be the same, a standard buffer/ reagent won’t pick up the required Ct ranges.
We don’t even know if Avacta can hit the 85% plus range as yet?

Toss of the coin tests accuracy doesn't offer confidence to the general public.

However this highlights the strength of ODX, it’s irrelevant to us who secures the orders we can make them for whoever, we have manufacturing capacity building each month to 10M tests, whoever wins the contracts will need what we offer, we may not feel it in the share price at the moment but the good news will come for ODX

Quote from the report.

‘It is not fantastic to see that the sensitivity vs RT-PCR drops below 50%. This low accuracy was mentioned in passing from a guidance document1 encouraging the use of this product for mass testing programs. This is also rather different to the product instructions stating sensitivity of 96%.’

https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-paper-presenting-preliminary-data-on-accuracy-of-the-innova-lateral-flow-sars-cov-2-antigen-test-in-the-liverpool-pilot/

https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-paper-presenting-preliminary-data-on-accuracy-of-the-innova-lateral-flow-sars-cov-2-antigen-test-in-the-liverpool-pilot/