Member Info for PL75

Don't worry, I can explain, I've finally got a hold of the Presalian calendar. Early May is obviously around the end of Q1. The test will be launched as soon as possible during the summer, so that's shortly i.e. a few weeks in to early May

It won’t be commercialised. It’ll probably get flogged off and any cash from it will end up in Trev’s pocket. Anyway, you’re correct Bein, wrong board, especially given the subject header...

Nice and steady today, I expect the fomo to build as we near CE marking and commercial launch

What's the market? BAMS was kicked in to touch as it wasn't needed and the govt have already built their future pandemic capacity based around PCR. BAMS in theory was better and cheaper than PCR. There are numerous other shoebox concepts knocking around and some like LAMP are already commercialised. In 6 months+, who is going to pay for all that development when there isn't a market as anyone that wants something similar to LAMP or NCYTs PoC PCR have already got them? Where is the money coming from when Trev has already paid himself a fat dividend and removed a chunk of cash? Yes, lovely concept, but as you've said, a risk of specificity issues and I'd add sensitivity issues - a Ct value of 37 is a false positive in practicality as they won't be infectious.

Nope, he’s just a ballbag that mouths off on twatter and can’t understand that a shoebox is an utterly useless concept for mass testing - which is what he claims, he’s not talking about PCR and other applications. You might have fallen for his nonsense (unlucky) but let’s not pretend he’s got anything that will rival an excellent LFD.

I'm genuinely really pleased their useless shoebox is as hopeless as expected. It's as much as that clueless ballbag Carl deserves for mouthing off on twatter. It's a terrible result and it's the stuff of desperation to suggest that today's RNS over there is good. It's an inaccurate impractical piece of junk that will never make it to market. Sorry for the holders suckered in, not sorry at all for Trev and Carl.

Appreciate the research PE, thanks

So Mark, now you’ve admitted you’re just desperately trying to troll but you’re sadly only embarrassing yourself... why not go the whole hog, let it all out, tell us all what made you so butt hurt that you feel the need to do this? I’m betting you bought high, over leveraged and lost it all when in the vaccine drop. Sad times Mark. Oh Mark... it could have been so different...

Oh Mark, just ignoring the fact you were completely wrong huh? How many of your list of tests are home use approved Mark? Why should we care about the govt Mark? We’ll sell everything we make Mark. Mark? Oh Mark... move on, this is embarrassing...

Mark? Mark, you ok hun? You’ve gone quiet for some reason... hope you’ve not done anything too stupid with all that rope I gave you. Clueless clown. Time to set up another new account and try again eh? Try and do some research first.

Oh Mark, you still digging? Slide 18, look it up. No confusion. 100% sensitive at ct < 27.

Oh Mark, you’ve done it again. Look at phase 3b results. That’s the equivalent real world testing. Phase 3a was 200/1000 anyway. Do you know anything? Dear oh dear.... how embarrassing.... try and explain why a 50/50 ratio impacts determining sensitivity. You can’t. Because you’ve no idea what you’re talking about.

‘Not dug up your 200 sample set which skewed results towards positive samples. One way of massaging statistics’

Oh Mark. Trying to be clever, but proving the opposite again. You do realise that positive samples are what are used to determine sensitivity? Deary me, what an utterly clueless clown. This is getting increasingly embarrassing....

Oh Mark. Trying to be clever, but proving the opposite. Do a little research ol’ chum. 100% sensitive at ct < 27 was perfectly correct.

None Mark. Do I win a prize?

How many of them have 100% sensitivity at ct < 27?

None Mark. Do I win a prize?

Whilst it may not be practicable to switch horses? been there, done that, got the swab

No mention of ct and sample type then. Ol’ testicle face doesn’t have a clue

Was just reading about it and found the following on DCN’s website. Affimers temperature range should offer an advantage in stability testing as they will hopefully be able to go higher, getting a better result in a shorter timeframe.

“One of the strategies used to extend stability dating beyond actual real-time stability is accelerated stability testing, which is often done at elevated temperatures. This is based on the observation that chemical reaction rates double with each 10o C rise in temperature if the reaction mechanism does not change. To estimate that a product is stable at 4o C for six months, it could be tested and shown to be stable for 3 months at 14o C, 1.5 months at 24o C, or 3 weeks at 34o C. In practice, only the 24o C (room temperature) and elevated temperature (37o C) are done. Higher temperatures (such as 45o C) are sometimes done, but potential changes in reaction mechanisms make this option riskier for mammalian proteins that have evolved to be stable at about 37o C. Note that real time stability data gathering and analysis continue after the product is released on the basis of accelerated stability data.”

To get an idea of ratio, I’ve googled and found this - https://www.researchgate.net/figure/A-The-breakdown-of-cost-device-of-paper-based-transaminase-test-The-total-costs-per_fig20_236653884

Top cost breakdown suggests 2p for reagents Vs 13p for antibodies in the bottom breakdown. So, antibodies are 6 or 7 times as costly. No idea if they’re equivalent so it might be nonsense....

I don’t think the costs of reagents will have much of an impact anyway. I’d have thought they will be pennies, not enough to provide a negotiation advantage.

I get where you’re coming from speranza, but once those numbers start becoming a reality the price will quickly rerate to the potential value. We won’t stop at 5m so a swift move to double where we are now isn’t unrealistic. Those numbers don’t include OEM, far east, whatever else turns up too. Pure cash, bottom line without considering the use it could be put to accelerating the rest of the business

For starters we’ll have 5m capacity. At £7 a pop, 35% margin for a year, that’s £150m earnings = about 60p. So every 5m is worth 60p, longevity of 18 months instead is 90p. The potential 30m is then 540p. The rumoured 60m is £10.80. All pure cash, discounting any further deals and any other part of the business.

You'll need to copy and paste what he's written as he's blocked everyone that's told him he resembles a testicle and has less knowledge than one