The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen here.
IF, and that is obviously a massive if, Abakta can avoid being gobbled, then their IP, if its potential can be realised, could propel them to be amongst the big boys. Personally, I'm only holding out for £800, but I'll allow £1200-ish.
It does state:
"Actual Study Start Date : July 16, 2021"
Which the glossary clarifies:
"Study start date
The actual date on which the first participant was enrolled in a clinical study. The "estimated" study start date is the date that the researchers think will be the study start date."
Which reads to me that AVA6K is already inside someone.
They all can't be on holiday: they MUST be doing something whilst we wait for news.
Larger CV is happening.
FDA EUA?
Home use authorisation is a known goal.
Persuading big players to swap over from Mabs to Affimers?
Finally clearing PD?
Sovereign test?
Will Mologic/Gates use us?
Still an exciting share for a ramper.
Go me. I got a new one of my blue:
Thank you for contacting me about testing for coronavirus.
I note your concerns about where the UK sources its testing kits. Prior to the pandemic, the UK imported goods from all around the world and Covid-19 has not changed that. Moreover, coronavirus is a global pandemic and all countries are working towards the shared goal of ending this virus. This means we can work with our international partners to share information and research, strategies and the production of goods, including testing kits. I would like to reassure you that the Department of Health and Social Care take the procurement of all coronavirus-related equipment extremely seriously and have set out very high standards and strict specifications that manufacturers must meet.
I contacted him quite a while ago, so I guess it was getting towards the allowed limits on how long he could fob me off.
I don't see Abakta buying manufacturing capabilities - it just doesn't fit with the licencing model they have used so often in the past. They like to get others, who are good at what they do, to do the heavy lifting.
Also, why buy a UK manufacturer? Even owning the company would they be able to make them cheaper themselves than a far eastern manufacturer could, inc. shipping?
My guess is this: now Abakta can cut all ties to expensive UK manufacturing and concentrate on selling to whomever will buy them and therefore maximise their margin per unit.
But the door is still open to get GAD, ABDX, ODX et.al. to make them for us in the unlikely event that HMG actually want a sovereign test.
The important thing to note on page 17/18 of the link Muck just posted is that Orient Gene only manage 88% sensitivity at a high viral load (VL >1M copies/ml), which equates to Ct=18.2
Ct=27 which we can do 100% of the time is a viral load about 500x lower than Healgen can manage only 88% of the time.
They are replacing the Innova test which anecdotal reports throughout the media as being unreliable with a LESS sensitive test.
I know I should be doing my own research, but some of you may have this information to hand...
1. Does anyone know where I can find the claimed sensitivity vs ct levels for Orientgene's LFD? The IFU only has overall sens.
2. Does anyone know of any official sources that suggest what the ct level cut-off is at which someone is considered infectious?
3. I seem to recall reading somewhere what HMG/DHSC have decided this ct level is (I seem to recall it being rather a low value, perhaps in order to make their choice of test look better than it is). Does anyone know what the value is and where I could find it?
Thanks in advance and apologies for my laziness.
Updated CV data (Al said we’re trying to get the decimal places on the spec. value)?
Porton Down's seal of approval?
An advertising/marketing blitz (even if a company knew about Avacta, how would they even know who to buy the tests off?)?
FDA EUA (Mologic got it t’other day, but months after they got their CE mark)?
I'm just putting together my latest weekly moan to my MP and I found this:
https://www.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxford/media_wysiwyg/UK%20evaluation_PHE%20Porton%20Down%20%20University%20of%20Oxford_final.pdf
Which states in 4. Pre-clinical evaluation (phase 2 evaluation)
"LFDs were
evaluated against known PCR-negative controls consisting of saliva collected from healthy adult staff volunteers.
The virus positive dilution series consisted of saliva from SARS-CoV-2- negative individuals that had been spiked
with SARS-CoV-2 virus stock"
They ran spiked SALIVA samples on the LFDs.
How could our test which was, at one point, designed for saliva samples fail?