Member Info for rbr08

@LTH14 - if you don't mind me asking. At what point did you get into GDR and whats your average.
You seem very confident that GDR will be great but I reckon you have been around for at least 12 months on here,

Has anyone ever seen the exact number of products we stockpiled? I have not and again this something that is also key.
We had those 3 Certificates of Analysis docs but who knows if that's all.

Dave - as I have said, they have not once addressed overheads, instead ask for more money to commercialise products.

Well, if I was 100% committed to my business and its success I would either forgo some salary, reduce overheads and also consider salary to shares options.

I have also seen we have a Chief Commercial Officer - So we have so many ppl focused on commercialisation, together with partners and external distributors!!!

Sally, regarding POC I personally think this has a very good purpose within the testing mix. Both in terms of direct testing for specific sectors and operations but also for quick confirmation of any +ve LFTs.

I do think they are now afraid to make a stance on its real value given the outcome of the lab assay test.

Do I think we should be talking about US for POC. Absolutely not as the FDA give no attention to non-US org unless you have a US partner or US registered subsidiary.

@Winni - I agree, the CEO and Chairman have to take responsibility for the position the company finds itself.
Show genuine interest and desire to make this company a leader in commercialised products rather than proof of concept.

Grow a pair and come speak to investors - and PIs that is. Time to face the music and convince us!!

Sally - what ever games the MMs and brokers play to increase the share price without any news, implies a clear as day agenda. So I can't see the point of taking the OO. In this game, you can't be played all the time!

1) Profit (Loss) = Revenue - Expenses
2) Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

If anyone can explain to me how DB and the board have acted to address cash burn and create a more sustainable business model, I'm happy to listen.

But keeping a cashburn rate of 400k per month and none related to stock manufacture is absurd now.

I need to see/hear commitment from the BoD and/or a revamped BoD.

LTH14 - if the 4.5m they can get from the OO was really to keep the business alive they would have gotten it from the IIs.

6m already secured from IIs and you are saying the company will go bust without more via PIs and OO??!! . You can't be serious OR you have an ULTERIOR MOTIVE.

The AIHL kit is included in the PHE framework tender which we were awarded. So don't think it necessarily requires individual orders - one large order can come through.
Its not a hard sell for other NHS trusts when NHS were directly involved and the lead author of the study is funded by NHS.

@JimiHendrix - Can you confirm who from Walbrook gave you that response?

@Dave, Pacman is correct if he is talking about the first Genedrive device - this is what all the previous assays were based on.
The new Genedrive device (which is still to be CE marked) has been redesigned and improved for the AIHL test (and this most likely for all future developments and potentially current market tests).

Don't know of any 'British only' policy. But there is a change in approval policy for LFTs
https://www.360dx.com/point-care-testing/uk-government-updates-selection-criteria-validation-sars-cov-2-rapid-tests#.YSk2QFPRZkw

I do not share other peoples info, as mine. I was told this directly.
Anyone can email Walbrook to confirm.

There is a plan being implemented by the GDR Board to address the share price. This is what Walbrook has said.

Doozy, the genedrive instrument itself is what all of our assays are based on. ITs the analysis software/ and chemistry int he assays that change.

Hi Jimi, yes you are correct, I stand corrected. It is in fact £4.2m inc recent sales and tax credit (though in the slides DB says is US$0.4m sale to BC but Jonathan seems to refer to is as £0.4m - small differences, yes).

HOWEVER, that small change does not place us in any better position overall in my opinion - with a 10.5 month life on current cash burn.

@Jimi I appreciate your post but think there are 2 issues:
1) Assuming a value on HCV via WHO (Note: it is UNICEF with whom we have a contract with not WHO)
2) Cash available does not seem correct.

1) Yes, DB has said sales for HCV has resumed (in a recent 360DX article) but the scale/ value of sales to date were not given. To assume a 500k to date is 'throwing a dart in the dark', unless you have data/info to support this.

2) In the March 2021 presentation, you can see in the slides that they stated the un-audited cash as of 15 Mar 2021 = £2.8m, plus R&D tax credit of £1.0m, then TOTAL cash = £3.8m. Underlying burn rate of approximately £0.4m pcm, means 9.5 months of cash. Which means till the end of 2021.

Contrary to your beliefs, I would not call this a good cash position at all. For this reason it is ever frustrating to not know how we plan to keep the company as a 'going concern', with even very little comms on the 0-6 months targets as stated in the last presentation, which were:
1) Update on European MoH
2) Registration updates FDA, WHO and India ------ (we only know about India approval and import licence)
3) Launch of Genedrive ® SARS CoV 2 P.O.C. in calendar Q2 2021 ---------- (we know now delayed till Q3)
4) Commercial launch of AIHL and initial sales

YGEN just released the RNS to confirm. But nothign for them listed on bidstats

GDR is in Lot 1: https://bidstats.uk/tenders/2021/W15/748945953

Anyone know if YGEN labs is strictly for their own covid tests?

@Pacman121, on the logic of the CE Marking (if this is accurate as per the EC website) being public knowledge, couldn't we say that any info from the company will become public knowledge at some point?! Then why were RNS' created.

RNS' is for formal communication with current and prospective shareholders, the wider market and all stakeholders. So we can't hide behind the vail of 'it's in the public domain' - this then strongly suggests the desire to suppress the share price. How does one argue for the RNS which curtailed the share movement on the Indian Import Licence news coming into the Public Domain. Applying this logic we didn't need one at all, unless what we have in play are ULTERIOR MOTIVES.

This is my thought and I'm happy for others to share their views/opinions.