Member Info for sleepydave

..........as the Bishop said to the actress.

Its a framework tender awarded on 2 Nov last year.
A bit like the 75 mill one relative to the consortium for antibody tests which ended up only being crystallised for 1 mill tests.
Its non exclusive and according to regulator on ODX who knows his stuff its for lab based services with some professional POC elements.
Nothing much to see here.

yep
imo Medusas antibody test is a big convenient red herring.

Good Post Red
And we know now cos we have had sight of tender conditions that government NDA'S prohibit you from even acknowledging their own existence (as anyone who has dealt with NDA'S knows anyway).
How much more does that apply to those involved in moonshot?
Some of the Posters on here are not very good at logic so I'll make this simple;
Good Communicator+ things going on+ secrecy= Very Good reason for secrecy.

Must be Mologic.
They've given themselves a CE mark.
A bit of a "meh" 2 rns's from ODX today.
The only new news is no more antibody orders from the government.
So it follows they will probably shoot up over a pound.

Ozaztec
Thankyou for your posts of 23.23 and 23.18.
I would encourage everyone to click on the links and read them.
Of course the transaction at 23.23 has indeed been RNS'd already but there are new quotes and its interesting that in this industry magazine (unlike the RNS) antibodies are not dissed. Obviously its prudent to be aware of the sensitivities of established players.
I found some of the articles in the 23.18 link very useful For overviews of some of the areas affimers will be addressing in months and years to come. Take the article on antibody - drug conjugates penned in October 2020. Its a summary of an ebook on the subject. It points out that although 9 ADC's have received FDA or EMA approval they have "yet to become a universal success".
Quite a few therapeutic programmes have been abandoned because of "dose limiting toxicities" when side effects become too severe at doses high enough to control a tumour.
So researchers and companies are tweaking the drug payloads and chemical linkers and beginning to use milder drugs.

I think we know of an alternative to these tactics don't we?

Hi ab8dct and RD.
You may be correct ab8dct that the current LFD's are using antibodies (not that the companies concerned are generally speaking letting on) which may go some way to explaining their current performance level.
Of course antibodies have been around for donkeys (cue for snidey remarks) years.
They are used in diagnostic and therapeutic areas. There are antibody-drug conjugates to tackle cancer. They are (as you say) a reagent for tests. And they are (as merchantbanker who is a fan of theirs would say) tried and tested.
BUT relative to testing they have high production costs large molecular size and batch variability issues.
AND relative to cancer treatment they have limited ability to penetrate cancer tissues and side effects.
That's why antibody mimics and alternatives are needed.
And that's the context in which I thought that it was irrelevant to mention antibodies in my last post.

Theres been a bit of chunter about this subject.
Can't see why theres even any need to debate.
I've never seen a claim that aptamers are sensitive to detect spike protein at less than a millionth of the level of the most infectious.
I've never seen them described as having exquisite specificity.
Affimers are easier to manufacture more robust easy to store and last longer (can we therefor infer they are cheaper?)
They are good on consistency of batch quality.
I know of no one who has credibly argued that aptamers have ANY advantages at all over affimers in a LFD context.
Nothing in life is certain apart from death taxes and visits from Merchantbanker.
But really as slam dunks go this opportunity is surely hard to beat!

I admire your chutzpah!
Can't help asking tho'
Have you asked yourself what historically has constituted the biggest risk for u on AIM.
Attempts to trade or buy and hold

re giving ourselves the best possible health options at this time do research Fruitflow.
I value my daily tablet above my statin amitryptolene and ramipryl. Was prescribed aspirin also but don't choose to take that

You've been proved wrong many times Merchant ever since the first debate we had on the ODX board when you tried to persuade me that the NCYT PCR test was an antigen test!

NCYT figures coming up shortly have the capacity either to wow or disappoint. In any event the market will be watching whether it can use its war chest to transform eventually into something more than a covid company.
ODX will be very busy as manufacturers for other parties (mainly in the first instance imo the government) for the foreseeable future. Again however beware the eventual figures. They could wow or disappoint depending on margins.
GDR kinda look as though they are withering on the vine atm. Details of their test have been largely kept under wraps.
AVCT for me is now the least risky of the foursome (and with the most potential). AFFIMER usp is second to none. The covid factor it seems has barely begun to be built into the price yet. Short term there is the potential for price explosion. It is no longer a viable position to take imo that their covid tests will fail. When they succeed it will dawn on the market that their is a double whammy. Firstly there is the profit from the tests. Like what NCYT are currently enjoying. Secondly (and by way of a turbo charge) there is the effect of that profit in forwarding the exciting and dynamic therapeutics and general diagnostic businesses.
IMO all we shareholders need to do is keep researching and keep holding.

is the amount of greensters in my filter bin.
Not one of them has posted in the last two hundred posts.
Confirms my good judgement imo.
If they won't post during the good times I am not interested in hearing from them in the bad

grammar Zoom?
Surely Grandmother?

IMO the NDA is likely to set forth details of how the test is to be validated and by whom.
I suspect also it will set forth a framework for deciding terms in the event of a contract of supply. It will imo contain required specifications.
It will imo have a condition to the effect that parties are not allowed to disclose the terms of the NDA nor even disclose that there is an NDA.
It won't stop AVCT commenting on the nature of their test but will I think stop AVCT commenting on the specifics of the trial(s).
The professional thing for AVCT to do (unlike some others) would be to not comment in detail on sensitivity and specificity until full validation was completed.
All imo (but I do have some experience revising NDA's albeit in the employment sector).

Hi Hippyboy
I'll take you at face value.
The delay makes sense if
It is importantant for the company to make sure that their speedy non nasopharyngial affimer driven potentially at home potentially with a saliva option EXTENSIVELY tested totally scalable economucally viable LFD test (with which they are very pleased indeed) is for reasons of Future Company Integrity and NAtional Importance..........
Well let me put it in the words if my Scots compatriot Eddie Reader;
Its gotta be........
Perfect

or vice versa

thanks for that Leewill.
So AVCT own the diagnostic patent and exclusively license the therapeutic one?

Not sure that's right Leewill.
If you google AVCT patent for affimers its obvious (and indeed its obvious from the Avacta website) that the patent for affimer technology covers diagnostics and therapeutics.
Leeds Uni I think have the right to use affimers for academic collaborations,.

Post of the day so far imo.
What a lot of anxiety over surescreen doing their best to maximise their window of opportunity and the government doing its best to show they are doing something.
I suspect the moral of the story is "Only over extend yourself if you are sure of your ground"
PS I am what most of you would probably describe as over extended and I am sure of my ground. I have the credible evidence and I am "very happy indeed" with our satisfactorily scalable LFT test.