Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
And this is why we need UK govt endorsement, to separate ourselves from the exaggerated.
Mologic and Avacta are working on something together, that's for sure. Avacta is at the centre alongside Mologic of the rapid test consortium, Avacta are reagent providers, so for Avacta not to involve their reagents in whatever capacity, it seems v unlikely. What else does the consortium need of Avacta? An S+N test with Avacta/Mologic being coy about its development, an N test using Affimer reagent and Mologic N protein breakdown tech or simply just the Avacta as is standalone test (I personally am leaning towards the 2nd). Either way good for Avacta. Anyone saying it doesn't matter if Avacta don't win a govt contract is trying to dampen expectations or trying to reassure their own concerns that Avacta will still do well without it. They might do ok in my mind but entering foreign markets is a lot easier with uk govt endorsement. The amount of misinformation in the lft market as is (sen/spec figures based on nasopharyngeal despite advertising nasal swab, which btw is in itself a confusing detail, usually means mid turbinate and can be easily conflated with anterior only) is pervasive, how is Avacta meant to separate itself without uk govt endorsement? Being the best S test isn't good enough imo.
Regarding MHRA self test accreditation, I'm sure this will come quickly if it is not already being assessed for self test by PHE. Sampling method is key here, a consistently sensitive anterior test should be all thats key given that Innova MHRA accreditation was essentially based on a test with a converted sampling method that should be easier to administer consistently at home. Professional accreditation should just be a formality. I wouldn't be surprised if govt forced through Innova self test just so they had a self test test to offer over the past weeks because their Liverpool self test results were far from good.
I agree baldingquickly about the ODX separate manufacturing lines meaning **** all. The recent Mologic data isn't quite good enough to be the standalone test. That being said, given the callout in Feb for reagents for a nucleocapsid targetting test, I think it is equally likely the test is essentially a "1.5th" gen test. If the 2nd gen test targets both s and n protein, it could be that the sovereign test is one step down in being just n targetting using Mologics tech to breakdown the n protein in solution with Avacta Affimers that target n to enhance the sen/spec. Avacta could never have went for an n protein targetting test without partnering up because they didnt have the tech to break the n protein down (Aptamers own test similarly) and Avacta probably didn't need to (high sen anyway) and maybe even preferred the higher specificity of the s protein (for the inevitable low prevalence setting). It probably is v similar in design to the Avacta test if not the same as we know Avacta was central to getting a scaleable standardised design with BBI. I believe this is possibly even better than the sovereign test being the Avacta standalone test because of the licencing opportunities thereafter. Most lfts on the market are n protein targetting so an Affimer detecting n protein could (as far as im aware, could be wrong here) be easily substituted in these already established lfts particularly if Alistair has said they themselves have a standard test that just needs substituted Affimer to detect another target. It should be easier to enter foreign markets like the US this way rather than trying to compete with lfts with feet already in the door even if Avactas test is better. Avacta can then still sell their standalone test simultaneously. The timing of the callout possibly aligns with Avacta failing PHE first time round but as we know since then it has improved and the PHE assessment method was not kind to s protein targetting lfts. Govt may still have backtracked and gone with Avacta's s protein. But govt may still have pursued n protein given it is less mutagenic regardless of whether science says the effects are minimal on s protein detection (risk mitigation to an extent) the same way govt went with anterior despite science saying saliva was just as good if not better.
Some speculation.
Wow wow Energyshares I thought we were going to move both Sang and Matt to the 5x tables at the same time. If not, i fear Matt will fall behind even more
Sp might be ahead of itself by a quarter or two, idk. Some revision possibly on next update but organic growth is there. Onward and upwards. High margin business in high growth industry. Blinx, rhythmone is a long lost nightmare by now surely. I agree management back then was questionable but that was different management.
Idk, I'd of thought you'd have filtered him by now
You know I've followed this board for years but the same classic lse poster battles keep repeating and repeating. Not a slight, keep going I love it, but sometimes I wonder whether it's the same person on both sides. Perhaps it's the same poster with a schizophrenic diagnosis...who knows.
You're such a curious thing stt. I've not seen a deramper with as much conviction as you. Gota respect that. You've been doing a good consistent job of pruning the low volatility long term investors from the speculators and I appreciate that.
But goldtrug, that's the point. There isn't much research to do. Sample size too small. Hopeful of the upside given the technology but comparisons really can't be made at this point. Take a look at the innova report avacta referenced and the difference between ct value definitions of phe and ph glasgow. Even on that basis you can't compare. Grassroots reasoning is that affimer tech allows greater density of reagent in the strip, innately greater affinity to the target protein, etc and then theres the manufacturing/logostics/green benefits. All the research that can be done atm.
If that were true goldtrug thered be no need for larger clinical trials. Hopeful of good wider clinical results, but perhaps that one false negative was happenstance and in wider trials fewer statistical false negatives appear or more.
No research goldtrug, takeover offerings in the billions on even loss making pharma is normal. All about the ip. Affimer ip till 2030s, no clash with current antibody ip like competitors may have
But...its very normal....for pharmaceuticals....to be priced.... in the billions even....thought they're loss making...
The information on sample swabs isn't clear as day and neither is the quoted sensitivities specificities. Most using nasopharyngeal results despite saying nasal swab which is something else entirely with different results. Nasal swab is an umbrella term being heavily used in wider industry rather than stating whether anterior or mid turbinate.
See eu list of antigen tests thread link, see mologic ce mark statement
*or not
*Nasal swab includes oropharyngeal seemingly too
Bare in mind current industry swabbing terminology seems to nasal swab (anterior/mid turbinate - NS) and nasopharyngeal - NP. Really can't compare tests given you don't know whether nasal swab refers to mid turbinate or anterior. Avacta's is anterioras stated, and now with this news, extremely likely only anterior (not oroparyngeal alongside) but of course it would be.
Whether innova is mid turbinate or anterior, ot uses oropharyngeal as well so bye bye innova.
Dropping of oropharyngeal is significant because a lot of these tests have been using it as a crutch to stand on to boost their sensitivity while reducing to anterior or mid turbinate from nasopharyngeal.
1 inch or 1 cm is anterior can't right remember. But have seen some demonstrations of these tests and the people testing themselves end up with their eyes watering, so not anterior.