Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
Slinkey, for once I’m with ya!!!
For comparison, initial Mologic data was 92%, 100%.
Fantastic initial results, let’s hope it translates across into the larger studies.
Well done to all at Avacta.
Worth a read:
https://www.sharebuyers.co.uk/shares/omega-diagnostics-qa-colin-king-dhsc-contract/
Indeed, this was highlighted earlier in the week and we’ve seen saliva moved to the bottom of the pegging on other docs too.....just makes Boris’ comments this evening re saliva all the more confusing!
The reality is, there is a raft of unanswered questions still, but we will hopefully have some further clarity on a number of these things by month end.
I agree PL and fair enough. I think like you, I'm not convinced on the claims of Avacta being front and centre of an as yet unconfirmed government lead UK sovereign LFT (NOTE - singular...) Moreover, and again as you suggest, the ongoing incompetence of this govnt prevents me from ever getting carried away with any potential involvement they may have. Clearly we have been close to gov for a number of months given the sampling switch etc etc, but my view is that some are adding 2+2 and getting 5 here....
Of course, I may well prove to be totally wrong, in which case great. We will sell all we can make in any case, be that at home or overseas.
Slinkey - If he's posting on a public forum with an anonymous name, why does it make any difference to simply state he is close to or aware of the process in some tenuous way and leave it at that? Otherwise, why do rampers like you decide to take every word of it as gospel despite not having a single idea about his background? Again, this is not a doubt on the guys integrity, I simply asked whether his (pretty bold) claims were assumptions or something somewhat more substantiated than that.........what is wrong with that?!??!
You stick to your echo chamber big man- religiously pumping every bit of positive sentiment that anyone posts just because it supports your confirmation bias. I thought ODX was bad for attracting these sort of zealots, but there’s ample of them on here too.
This sort of religious emotional attachment to a share, to the point where you get so agitated at anyone who wants to debate the merits of the investment case is seriously, seriously unhealthy – both for your sanity and for your bank balance.
Avacta is by FAR my biggest portfolio holding, probably to a less than sensible extent, and I truly believe the company will become a multibillion £ MCAP entity at some point in the future. However, I will continue to call out unsubstantiated flack from ill informed dullards like yourself who take it upon themselves to jump down the throats of anyone who dares to try and seek out answers to legitimate questions or concerns.
Where did he suggest that gemstar? He stated that both Avacta and Mologic were working on a hybrid "2nd gen" LFT solution that would potentially take up the lions share of the recurring testing market going forward at some point in the future.
At no point did he state or suggest that "The UK lft appears to be developing in line with the timescale set in the PA document - manufacturing by BBI and Abingdon may have already started and an announcement of the first lfts rolling of the production line could be imminent." That's a very bold claim and somewhat different to the point that Avacta and Mologic are collaborating to bring a hybrid product to market down the line.
I'm not suggesting Unprecedented is wrong, nor am I criticising him - I'm simply asking for clarity on his thought process, that's all....
Huh?
**** me you really are a prize *******. Suggesting asking questions is trolling ROFL.
The guy has suggested that there will be a single sovereign LFT utilising affimers - a pretty bold claim, of which there is no publicly available information to support.
I am not for one minute trolling OR claiming he is incorrect, but am simply asking where these suggestions and inferences come from, given his posts appear to come from someone who is “in the know”.
There really are some tits on this board. Blind sheep that would walk off a cliff if the likes of RK, Ophidian et all told them too.
Unprecedented - so your assumptions around a single sovereign UK LFT that uses affimers as a reagent and Avacta pursuing AffiDX as a separate test etc are just that, assumptions?
Not a dig at all, just trying to find out whether or not these claims come from some further knowledge that most of us have not been party too....
Unprecedented - without trying to cast any aspersions on your integrity whatsoever - can I ask whether your thoughts are your own insights from publicly available info, or come rather a rather more factual position / being "in the know"? Would be useful for all to understand your background a bit I think (to an extent that you're willing to disclose) given some of the very interesting points you have raised both today and previously.
Appreciate it.
No, what you actually said was my initial post, suggesting there are legitimate unanswered questions that investors have, whilst also saying I think we will have a great test and sell all we can make was “deramping nonsense.”
Suggest we stop clogging up the board with this actual nonsense now, and as I say just filter me if you truly think that’s the case. I’d suggest my posting history indicates otherwise but it’s neither here nor there.
All the best.
I’ll just green box you, suggest you do the same. I’ve literally said multiple times that I think we will have a great test and sell all we can make...you’re just another one of RK’s happy clapping brigade who thinks it’s a crime to pose a question or post anything other than out and out blind praise of an investment case...truly bizarre, illogical behaviour.
You’re a bit simple....both to suggest I’m deramping when simply saying Its an investors prerogative to ask legitimate questions, and to suggest that anyone who is *actually* “deramping” (I agree there are plenty who do it!) on a PI discussion board is going to have any tangible effect on the share price...!
I think you (perhaps deliberately) miss the point somewhat - try and read what I said rather than jumping to hysterical hyperbole.
Innova have done very well with a sub standard test, what’s your point? If Al delivers a “sub standard” test after the months of delays then this would not only be deemed as a failure but would also risk damaging the affirmer IP and reputation of the company. As a result, and as I said previously, I think we will have a great test and sell all we can make (how is that de ramping?)
I simply said there are several unanswered questions to which investors have legitimate concerns - that doesn’t mean they won’t be answered in due course or indeed answered in a manner to everyone’s liking!
If you don’t think shareholders should be able to have questions with regard to their investment and subsequently try and seek out answers to said questions then investing really isn’t for you is it.
All the best.
To be fair Speranza, what he actually said was we have the best performing spike protein LFT in a lab setting, hence given the majority if not all other well publicised LFT’s target the N protein, this is arguably
not saying a great deal. Semantics maybe, but quite a big difference.
FWIW, I think we will have a great test and sell as many as we can make, but there is still a hell of a lot of unanswered questions around a number of subjects - I have no doubt all will be revealed in due course but it’s totally understandable that investors continue to have questions with regard to the science, the performance of the test, company strategy and likely commercial terms going forward.
All the best.
Thanks Leewill, I’ll have a hunt. As I say I’m sure they are happy with it picking up mutations in the lab to progress this far but was just a nuisance I picked up from Al’s interview.
Any insight as to why we are targeting the S rather than N protein more generally, especially given the apparent preference for the latter elsewhere?
At the risk of having all hell come down on me this morning, I noticed a slight nuisance in Al when relistening last night - he stated they have the best analytical performance in a SPIKE antigen test...
Perhaps semantics but both mologic and Surescreen as far as I’m aware target the N protein...in fact can’t find many if any examples of tests targeting the spike or “S” protein - happy to be proven wrong!
It is also the S protein that mutates with the likes of the Kent and SA variant we hear so much about.
Now, I have no doubt the test works re picking up the variants mentioned, but as someone with close to zero scientific background, can anyone post any light on whether this is likely to make any difference to real world sensitivity at all?
Genuine questions. Happy to be told I’m talking tosh!!!