Member Info for PotatoInvestor

Wanted to add my .2p to this article kindly shared by ShaunP on LFTs.

In short, the said research compares a LFT that looks for antibodies (Ab) targeting a viral capsule protein (Roche) to another that looks for Ab that target the spike protein (UKRTC). The said research decided the the capsule protein Ab is the reference standard for a “positive” result. This is a flawed experimental design because that was never the intended purpose of use for the UKRTC test.

The study fails the recognise the UKRTC’s LFT’s purpose - it is to pick up IgG Ab against the spike protein which is the underpinning mechanism of the Pfizer, Moderna and Azn1222 vaccine. If you were to use the LFT that the study used (Roche’s) to test for Ab response from vaccination, you will probably show that none of the three vaccines are “effective” because you won’t detect Ab that target the capsule protein. Does this mean the three vaccines are rubbish then? Clearly not as they’ve shown to be protective at least in some.

It is absolutely shocking to see such poor science being allowed to come to a journal like the BMJ.

I think as long as the data is out in full, it can be dissected and looked at in full. No problem with that.

Mark my words, more of this type will come out when Pfizer and Moderna publish their full results. If anyone has dipped their toes in medical research, you would have seen things like this coming miles before. Things do go wrong and that’s just normal... no pharma company will come up front with issues when they are breaking the trial results.

In all seriousness though, I think this is only a slight blip on the journey. The vaccine will still ultimately prove to be effective enough and get rolled out.

Personal opinion of us getting out of this pandemic remains with effective testing strategies supplemented by population wide vaccination.

Sorry I meant “15m in 2021” not 2020

Don’t forget to account for 25% profit share between RTC members for covid profits though.
£170m/4= £42.5m ODX to take home.
Anyone know how much profit the other members generate?

I remain really quite confident with this. Considering we have a base of ~£15mil revenue from CD4 and food intolerance test in 2020 (which will grow from 250k to 1m by 2023), even if we say covid income is not a recurring thing and disregard it when valuing the company, I would really think a market cap of £200million is minimum - that would take us to ~£1 per share. Now add covid income in a diminishing manner over the years.. say 40m (2021), 20m (2022), 10m (2023), surely £300m market cap is easily achievable!

Please correct me on the numbers if people have more accurate guesses! All IMO, DYOR.

The mologic technology transfer is pending.. there is still a week or so before deadline and delivery is mid December. Patience...

Filtered dodge100. Sick and tired of derampers like this talking out of their backsides without engaging the brains.

As much as I would love to see those numbers given ODX is my biggest holding, I’d be careful valuing non-recurring covid profit using the multiple earnings model.. particularly when broker companies who have looked at covid stocks predict tailing off of demand by late 2021. The main clincher would be the underlying stable business (eg. WHO CD4, food intolerance etc) that should really have the most effect on our marketcap/share price. Covid is really just the booster to our business.

Thank you for the bullish post though! DYOR..

Just another 10,000 share buy from another director in after hours RNS...

This is awesome

"Exercising the option" means the buyer is opting to take advantage of the right to sell the shares at the strike price. The opposite of a put option is a call option, which gives the contract holder the right to purchase a set amount of shares at the strike price prior to its expiration."

Investopaedia.

@ Safy

I share the exact same view about emphasising the whole UKRTC test being specific to the antibody generated by AZN/Oxford vaccine. 100%

This, is our money shot guys.. Don't let it slip!

@chriszzr

In short, focus on point 6 of their statement - our test look for antibodies that vaccine would generate. Whilst the Roche’s test used as the reference standard looks for something else. Basically it’s like using a standard quartz clock to say the world standard atomic clock is inaccurate in measuring time.

“6. With regards to methods of analysis, having noted that there is no reference standard for COVID-19 antibody testing, the authors proceed to use an assay with totally different specifications to the AbC-19TM IgG assay as a reference standard. The AbC-19TM assay is designed to detect IgG antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 full trimeric spike protein: the type of antibodies which are developed as immunity develops and which vaccines are designed to produce5.6. The reference standard chosen; the Roche pan antibody assay to nucleocapsid protein (NP) (Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV2), is designed to detect IgM and IgG antibodies to a different immunogenic portion of the virus; not to those binding to the spike protein. Assays for the detection of antibodies to nucleocapsid will not be useful to indicate who has generated immunity or who has produced IgG antibodies to the spike protein following vaccination. This is a very important difference and the assays have very different use cases.”

In summary, Roche’s test focuses on detecting presence of antibody that target the core portion of the virus. UKRTC looks for antibody that target the s-spike protein that is also the underpinning target of the vaccines we currently know of (moderna and Pfizer). That settles it for me. Our test will be useful in validation Vaccine response while Roche’s actually doesn’t..

Excellent response from Abingdon. Highlights a lot of issues with the BMJ’s paper’s methodology and lack of understanding in the positioning of each test.

Took less than an half and hour to change your opinion there eh Jester ??

Deeks again eh.. the guy never stops bashing LFTs. He was out in full force on Twitter again this week about it all. Not surprising.. I hope UKRTC’s response is timely and swift in mass media format before it damages our reputation!

I hope that’s not the same attitude that ODX runs their investor relations lol.

As the days go by the disappointment grows.
Just see across the street NCYT’s action to reassure investors. They have not RNS’d new sales or contracts etc. But look at their management buying more shares. None of this tweeting to hope people see sense. Why can’t ODX management do the same? There are more ways to reassure investors than just tweeting.. real test of patience here!

THAT IS HOW YOU REASSURE INVESTORS! Odx really needs to watch and learn from NCYT...

@Baldingquickly. On the first read of your initial post, it just seemed the reasoning behind pushing the test's high specificity by the government wasn't very apparent to you. Thanks for clarifying. Anyway, I actually think having all the information on the page is good enough.. if you were to read an RNS, does it really matter if they say "performed beyond/below expectation" at the very start or at the very end?

mmm, LSE won't let me link. But please google specificity and sensitivity..

To understand specificity and sensitivity further, may I recommend a quick read: https://ebn.bmj.com/content/23/1/2

High specificity is good because that means accurate identification of those being covid negative and can go out and carry on as normal!

With Innova being so far ahead in the validation process, I am struggling to be optimistic but happy to be proven wrong...
*ODX is my largest holding.