The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
17.30 BST equates to 09.30 in San Diego. So the later than usual webinar probably is so AS can talk about stuff that has only just been released into the public domain at AACR. But it would be interesting if he was actually in USA talking to people.
Sooner or later, NICE will have to have a look at this. I think it will be difficult for them to say that is not an important step up for prostate cancer management and as such should receive their recommendation for NHS use - I am sure the price can and would be negotiated down for large scale NHS use. If and when NICE do make a formal announcement of their assessment- with a positive outcome -we will all wish we had bought more OBD beforehand.
I have just read the last 20 posts, which is about as many as I could take before nausea and hopelessness took over. Only one post had anything informative or useful to say, the rest are just puerile backstabbing. Can you lot just think a little about the purpose of this board, and what and why you are posting before you dip your pens in vitriol for your own self-gratification? You're not going to hear from me again unless I have something new to say about Avacta which I think others may not be aware of or may be interested in hearing, so don't clutter up the board with non-avacta replies either : - unless you just want to reinforce my point.
What I find exciting is that pancreatic tumours exhibit one of the highest levels of FAP. We have a FAP activated pro-drug. Pancreatic tumours are common. Pancreatic tumours have a dismal prognosis with generally ineffective cytotoxic treatment options: If early phase 1 indications are that targeted doxorubicin achieves even partial remission, and buys terminal patients some time at least, then Avacta will get a lot of attention, not least because of the proof of concept with other targeted drugs in the pipeline.
It's good that MrRipley has gone. Perhaps he should go to somewhere like South America, where vaccination rates are far lower and the death rates approximately 16 times higher in an unvaccinated infected person. The vaccine is not perfect but it will prevent primary infection and spread in a chunk of the population. It does not stop all spread or prevent all spread but to say it has had no effect on spread because some vaccinated people are still getting covid is a complete misinterpretation of the situation we now find ourselves in.
Mr Ripley says the vaccine doesn't stop the spread. That is plain wrong. In general terms, with everything we already know about vaccines, in a population where a vaccine has some efficacy, spread will be inversely related to vaccine uptake.
The intelligent fingerprinting test may be the best thing since sliced bread, but based on government selection criteria, test quality appears irrelevant. The appearance of a credible competitor is of little consequence for a sovereign test.
An article in this week's BMJ. Overall sensitivity was 40%, specificity 99.9%. In people with a high viral load the sensitivity reached 90% as judged by PCR. It's the old argument as to whether it's useful to pick up some cases that otherwise may not have suspected, versus an awful lot of falsely reassuring, false negative tests. Which are still in use.....
From this morning's ODX RNS:
"Whilst waiting to receive this confirmation, Omega is currently supporting the Government with additional cassetting and pouching services for other COVID-19 antigen lateral flow tests that are being deployed in the UK."
What interests me is the repeatability of a positive LFT test result. The Avacta test is obviously sensitive enough to be very useful in say, an airport and will correctly hoover up most rogue infected passengers. But even at 99% specificity it will generate far too many false positives - 4 or 5 per jumbo jetload. But if the test is then immediately repeated, what are the chances of a second false positive? Is it 1% or 100%? Is it a problem with the passenger or a problem with the test that causes the false positive? If the chances of a repeat false positive are 1% then we have a very simple and workable solution. Does anyone know the answer to this question?
Putting myself in AS's shoes: - If I had something negative to announce I'd do it with a RNS and avoid a load of grief and face to face flak. If I had something positive to announce I'd stand on a stage in front of an audience and we would smile at each other and bathe in mutual satisfaction.
I thought Giles technique was bland, but at least he dutifully presented the opportunities for AS to say what he wanted to say. I had to give up watching the awful Paul Hill show, it was so irritating. He talked more than AS, kept interrupting him and the interview lasts an hour! - largely because 45 minutes of it is Paul Hill who I'm not interested in listening to.
Thank you to the folk above who've distilled the contents for me, there can't be many who have the stamina, I shall rely on you in future.
If you read and understand this:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/968095/lateral-flow-device-specificity-in-phase-4.pdf
It tells you that Innova's test has been ****ged off unfairly and is good enough.
So if it's cheaper than any other test that's what will be bought. It is a competitive market so Avacta's test will not be favoured because it is better. (It may actually not be) Avacta's test needs to be cheaper and available.
The key here is that there is now more recognition that PCR does NOT give certainty and is probably not the gold standard commonly perceived. When you compare PCR with LFT using the SAME sample- that's important - then Innova's LFT comes out as actually being very good. Obviously, using 2 different samples, one may well be much better or worse from a virus load point of view, than the other, invalidating a comparison.