Member Info for stu485

Gloria,

No I’m not a clinician.

Do i disagree with the statement you highlighted, no.

I haven’t read anywhere, that a clinician intends to use POC instead of an available LAB test and that’s for the obvious reason, i need not have to explain again…hopefully!

AIMO

Eureka,

Seems you don't like the ramp boat being rocked by fact.

1.Yes it was bad news. NICE have recommended Lab over POC , despite all the apparent advantages of POC you and others repeatedly spout…. Why would they do that !?

Why the buy ? Maybe to support the SP in knowledge of the poor NICE result ,maybe many other reasons than the only one answer you’ve conveniently jumped to.

2. Simply to offer an alternative option in the exceptional circumstances that no recommendations can cover in absolute. Very basic stuff to understand for most.

AIMO

No Gloria, you’re wrong!

Wrong both clinically and legally.

You as a non-professional may conclude as you do.

A professional clinician within the specific field , would not conclude the same and would not make such a basic error.

AIMO

Ace,

Yes, totally agree.

The endless, …no blood…hours not days , ramping of the fictional world where clinicians will go against NICE advise , i find deplorable and hence wanting to expose as utter BS !

AIMO

Many here suggest clinicians will make decisions on the appropriate test to employ independent of the NICE recommendations for Lab testing.

Will they really ?

Imagine , where a Lab test was available but the clinician choose to employ a POC and subsequently the patient died as the POC had not determined the appropriate treatment, the Lab test could have.

I wouldn’t want to be defending that one !

To suggest clinicians will not follow the NICE recommendations is insulting their professionalism .

LAB over POC…. Fact !

AIMO

Those who repeatedly point to GD’s test speed as the reason it should be the test of preference are ignoring the NICE recommendations.

NICE have already considered the speed and the cost against LAB testing and concluded, LAB to be the national preferred testing regime .

The recent NICE RNS was bad news not good!

Maybe the above the reason the company has offered nothing regarding potential forecast sales !?

For balance, I’d anticipate POC to gain some sales whilst the LAB capacity is built to NICE recommendations.

AIMO

ECarrots,

Were i a Director i’d be inclined to buy to try and spike/support the SP following a disappointing NICE recommendation for LAB test in preference to the GD POC test.

With the legions of ignorant retail investors here, he didn’t need to!

GLA and goodbye.

AIMO

EC,

No you’re completely wrong , the company can meet the anticipated demand!

How do we know this ? …because the have confirmed it within the NICE RNS .

“….and is fully prepared to supply and meet the anticipated demand.”

With Lab testing being recommended over GD POC , I’m sure they’re statements accurate.

AIMO

Gloria,

No,I’m afraid there’s nothing complicated about it !

NICE is the organization who ultimately call the shots on what is or is not used by the NHS.

It is not a group of local clinicians to decide on national recommendation.

The recommendation is Lab over POC, be that GD or other.

The above being fact and not superstition.

AIMO

S246,

Yes, and with that knowledge recommended LAB over POC.

It’s not hard to understand!!

AIMO

E01,

1. Your answer is an avoidance of the risk associated with the NICE recommendation of further monitoring of the GD test.

2.Agree in general.

3. Your supposition is waffle and ignores the fact NICE have already considered COST & SPEED but still recommend LAB.

Again i accept there will be a limited opportunity for GD poc, whilst the Lab capacity is built.

AIMO

E01,

No, you’re missing the point.

NICE the pertinent & qualified body to asses, have done so and recommended Lab testing over POC.

They recommend building a National Lab testing capacity , not POC, as Scotland will.

I acknowledge that GD have a part to play with their POC test, whilst the National Lab capacity is being built.

Therefore a relatively short term and limited opportunity for GD sales, with the worrying NICE recommendation that where GD POC is used , monitoring of its accuracy should be conducted.

NICE only suggests monitoring of failure rate for GD POC and not other POC tests or Lab test , they recommend,…. why is that ?

AIMO

j****,

more data question ?

answers in both the rns & nice report !

rns - “implementation assessment “

nice - 3.21

“the committee encouraged centres using the genedrive cyp2c19 id kit test to take part in data collection to further determine the accuracy and failure rate.”

i don’t really understand the fringe aspects being debated here when the most important aspect of nice following scotlands lead to develop national lab testing over poc, when having considered poc cost and time savings is undoubtedly the elephant in the room !!

aimo

I think you’re correct regarding an evaluation and the NICE recommendation of continuing assessment of failure rate might suggest. See below .

Having now thoroughly read through the links within the RNS, i won’t be investing .

NICE have recommended Lab testing, as the optimal.

That determination is made considering costs and patient outcomes, so the POC advantages are not considered to be more beneficial than Lab testing as far as NICE are concerned.

Lab testing is the route, GD has a small part to play during the build up in Lab capacity for National role out, as Scotland have already initiated.

GLA

AIMO

“Research considerations

3.21

The committee encouraged centres using the Genedrive CYP2C19 ID Kit test to take part in data collection to further determine the accuracy and failure rate.”

EC,

Appreciate the reply but it doesn’t really answer the question.

Why specifically recommend continued monitoring of GD test accuracy but not Genomadix Cube test.

I feel there’s something significant to this point, good or bad I’m unsure. I’ll do my own research and try to arrive at an objective answer.

EC,

Yes, i think all already aware.

Why do you think NICE are specifically recommending ongoing monitoring of GD’ poc accuracy?

Could it be a future case might be made for NICE to recommend the GD POC over the Lab tests they currently recommended, with further collection of data ?

Research considerations

3.21

“The committee encouraged centres using the Genedrive CYP2C19 ID Kit test to take part in data collection to further determine the accuracy and failure rate.”

…any thoughts ?

My last post!

State of play?

The reason for SP decline is not due to shorting or some trading conspiracy others would have you believe. They make such claims for a particular reason which will become apparent.

It’s actually and very simply, the risk/reward when viewed by informed Professionals, is unfavorable. Particularly the moving target of resource and costs to conduct the necessary Car-T trials.

See FP third party paper substantiating the later as true and factual.

Further funds are required, the company has stated!

The working hypothesis of some is;

Funds will support through to preliminary trial results and if favorable, more non-dilutive funding will be easily available.

I disagree. Firstly i suspect further funds will be required prior to patient trials AND preliminary results. I have previously explained the reasons why.

I also disagree with the ease of further non-dilutive funding in the event of favorable “preliminary”results,Why?

Durability of response!

The nemesis of Car-T treatments .let me explain.

Let’s assume first patient results are an initial complete response . No doubt some here would quickly pronounce a cure for AML . Well ,… no !

It’s not unusual for Car-T treatments to result in a CR , and it’s not unusual for the “Durability” of such a response to be so short lived to be unsuitable even for a potential bridging therapy.

So, i would not expect knowledgeable professional biotech investors to pile in unless and until a clinically significant durability is proven.

The JFH/Digitt hypothesis of funding and particularly its likely timing, is unreliable as a significant time post initial treatment is required to demonstrate durability.

My last post, why ?

It’s becoming more apparent to me that some genuine LTH’s are suffering both financially but more importantly mentally.Unfortunately my posts appear to antagonize which is not my intention.

So I’ve made clear my opinions and shared independent third party papers to substantiate.

I will not be responding further with the exception of ;

1. I’m proven wrong.

I would then return only to publicly admit my error.

2. Upon future RNS with subsequent request by any forum member for my comment.

I will only post again in those circumstances, 100% promise ( not a JFH 100% ) and considering the two exceptions above ,… expect it’s the last from me!

AIMO

GLA

JFH,

There’s no contradiction to the company statement’s and Haywaine’s comments within the paper.

As of June 23, there’s 92 x Car-T clinical trials in progress for the treatment of R/R AML and they all share an inherent aspect that makes YOUR hypothesis on future funding and it’s timing unreliable.

AIMO

JFH,

Have a good read of this and see if you can spot the problem with your hypothesis.

https://www.mdpi.com/2038-8330/15/4/63

AIMO