Member Info for tecbadger

The mologic sensitivity is lower because the reference methodology is not particularly comparable.

LFTs test for antigens whereas PCR tests for nucleic acid. It's been known for a while that it's possible to be PCR positive but clear of the virus as the nucleic and from destroyed virions can persist in the system up to weeks afterwards.

This then accounts for false negatives in studies in LFTs as the reference PCR calls a positive and the LFT actually creates the correct call as negative for the virus.

Some people are choosing to unscrupulously ignore this complexity and present the results as being solely due to the quality of the LFT.

As ever DYOR

Sagetrade if GAD are then why has he misled the market by not announcing market relevant technical transfer news?

Goldtrig I've already explained my hypothesis to you at least 4 times. I actually don't have the energy to do so again (this is probably your end game so fair play)

Can you explain to us why you are so confident that Avacta will be markedly better based upon the publicly available trial information. I doubt it as there is nothing to back it up but bluster and straw man arguments about mologic.

Even if avacta is better there is a lead time to getting the technical transfer to manufacturers done (as also explained more than 10 times) and there will be a gap to fill with another test.

ODX, the manufacturer, wins regardless

Leave the data analysis to the scientists lads. I think there's some play doh around here somewhere for you. Non toxic too!

Fair enough! Enjoyed the Irish inflection on your Jesus there. Picking that up from the Mrs?

Satellite. Exactly my friend. The laughable part of this all is I actually like avacta and if odx had rocketed first I would have redistributed my portfolio to buy there. I feel that opportunity has gone now as the market cap is too high for my taste with where they are at.

I'm more excited by the precision oncology over there than the covid stuff

i dunno about lawyers but i could use a good psychologist after being on this board over a year

i mean sure why would you listen to people who have experience in that area

"were sick of experts!" "someone blame the EU!"

God modern Britain is fun isnt it.

The argument that the Mologic test must be poor because it hasn't been selected by the government yet does not wash with me at all.

If i were setting up that study at porton down id be banking samples and then using aliquots the same samples to assess all candidates against the reference result at the same time ensuring that the sample hasn't been through any additional freeze/thaws or other processes which may alter the result between testing candidates. In this study design you would need to reach the end of the study and then conduct the statistical analysis of all candidates at the same time therefore mologic having been CE marked already gains no timeline advantage in the assessment of DHSC candidates.

It does however gain the advantage of now being widely commercially available. If i were Omega or mologic i would be looking for sites to seed with free of charge tests in return for quotes from them or, ideally, published papers on the diagnostic performance from multiple customers post commercialisation.

hahahaaha that is excellent StarBright and i must confess i do get caught up in items 1-3

for the love of god.

You have to TT to each unique geographic location. Yes you can have a blueprint. In fact a blueprint is necessary but it doesnt mean you can just install and go. Most companies choose to produce 3 batches and demonstrate performance as part of a TT to mitigate the risk of manufacturing and releasing poor product.

The burden of proof is not on us to prove you wrong. As you are claiming something the burden of proof is on you to prove yourself right.

For the benefit of anyone who isnt already aware (do they exist anymore) both mologic and avacta showed very good performance in small scale clinical data however we cannot read too much in to this data until we see the results on a large scale clinical study. The performance in small scale is very vulnerable to being biased by the sample size and has wider potential error margins.

The mologic test has now passed a technical transfer and CE marked by 2 different companies which means it is now available to order by interested parties. The government tender cannot currently be filled by mologic as DHSC are still evaluating multiple tests at porton down. The group includes mologic and avacta.

Timeline if they choose mologic is immediate as ODX are planning launch in April. On the available evidence the timeline to avacta availability is longer as it is not yet CE marked and requires technical transfer to manufacturers as Avacta dont have the manufacturing capacity themselves.

My opinion: It is likely gov will choose mologic first due to immediate availability and then transition to avacta when the timeline suits so long as it shows greater performance.

Goldtrig where is your evidence the mologic test is inferior?

One point of note. Opinions are not facts i would refer you to the episode of father ted where ted explains to dougal the difference between reality and dreams.

Shelley ODX gave their new director share options at 89p for a reason ;) big confidence in a rerate from that point

Regulator. They can't CE mark their own test. They are a 700m market cap IVD company without the required quality management system in place...

Never underestimate the avacta shareholders ability to draw gold plated conclusions from incomplete data

Goldtrig you cannot back up that statement with publicly shared information.

What I'm saying is that it's entirely possible for both avacta and odx to profit together but one thing I like about odx is that the risk of test knockout harming the business is somewhat mitigated as they will have multiple potential partners

GreggsStottie no I don't have any information to speculate on that except experience that TT can be a very difficult process. It's remarkable how a change of location can throw snafus into defined manufacturing processes. I'm also frustrated at the timeline.

It's not an extreme mutation. A single nucleotide change translating to an amino acid change can both knockout a test and also have no impact on pathogenicity of the virus depending on the target location