Member Info for tecbadger

The key point being so far

I've seen tests get knocked out by viral mutations and no it doesn't take that much especially so for antibody like molecule binding as it is the most specific binding in biology so is disrupted by slight changes In protein structure.

This can happen to any test not just Avactas and if it does happen companies an usually respond to design relatively quickly but then they do have to take some time to demonstrate performance again after the tweak.

Again it's a risk of any molecular test for infectious diseases which is why ODX have a key advantage that should be talked about as they are positioned to adopt any and every LFT antigen test detected by DHSC.

An ODX advantage in an ODX board. Fancy that

Ughhhh. Go and read a basic molecular biology textbook. Trust me the affirmer does not magically change its structure to match any potential change to the protein structure of the ligand.

Do you know what it would be nice to get to discuss the advantages of ODX without butthurt avactalytes hijacking it.

Goldtrig mutations can occur within the binding regions for antibody like molecules or pcr primer binding sites which can knockout performance of any test not just avacta.

In fact I used to have a job where one of my responsibilities was to constantly screen scientific literature for mutations within PCR primer regions and then assess in silico whether there was potential to affect performance.

Coffeecups it's a fair point and one of the reasons I bought odx rather than a developer.

ODX contact to supply any test agreed to by DHSC is massive! Not only can mutations affect performance but so many tests fail in development and lots of companies set up for research find that have a good product in feasibility but don't have the knowledge/ experience to take it through a rigorous, regulated development process.

Distributors in this industry usually make a 50% or higher margin on the price they pay the supplier. As tonic suggests very profitable either way

Very happy to be holding based upon my own analysis. As an investor i appreciate the honesty in recent communications. i can understand why traders dont but hey theres plenty of rainbows out there.

Penance its all about perspective and length of time you are willing to be invested i suppose. Im admittedly in a comfy position sitting on double my investment and im still willing to keep it there for a good few months more to allow it to, in my opinion, realise its full potential.

Its not healthy mentally to stay invested if you have strong doubts or anxieties. Better to sell up and move on to something that you can be more positive about.

I dont buy it. Theres no buying pressure at the moment since theres no newsflow and negative sentiment of PIs because of cautiously written RNS. Give it time for the news to materialise. Theres a formal contract to supply UK gov inked which leaves the share derisked for me. The market just wants to see numbers and pounds flowing into the coffers

Of negativity and Dunning-Kruger it is then.

Ta-ra

Matt you've said you were going 3 times now. Obviously your integrity is as strong as your technical research.

Just remember this is aim and ceo misdirection is its artwork.

Ps as said to many of your fellow AVCT worshippers the precision oncology is quite exciting and if succesful will allow for chemo without some of the horrible side effects In cancers which exhibit unique antigens on their cell surface. Great of it comes off.

Pps technically noone will be dosed with the avct product as its a vector not a drug but can't expect you to know the intricacies can we. Do hope you don't spike too many people with ramps for products in stage 1 trial.

Bye (again)

Tell you what Matty lad. Ill come say hello on your board when the true timeline to market for you is revealed.

Much love x

Hahaha you mean the master of inferring to things with no transparency. AVCT is basically a religion at this point

MattDamon go back to laying your bricks bud you need to do a full technical transfer to every single geographical manufacturing location.

But what would i know its only my bloody field of expertise

goldtrig im really starting to wonder whether you are just trolling me or are actually just this thick.

The mologic test is CE marked for manufacture by mologic and currently in both technical transfer to ODX and evaluation by the government. THEREFORE IT IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE BECAUSE IN THE MDX SPACE NOBODY JUST BUYS A PRODUCT WITHOUT DOING THEIR OWN INDEPENDENT EVALUATION FIRST. EVER.

The Avacta test is not CE marked and is currently in evaluation by the government. Unless there are secret technical transfers going on (why would they be secret as its market sensitive for both avacta and the partner) there will be no test to supply immediately as its not in manufacture. IT WILL NEED TO BE TECHNICALLY TRANSFERRED TAKING MONTHS

therefore it is plausible that Mologic is chosen as the test first and manufactured through the established base. Avacta could then be introduced after it has caught up in timeline and is routinely manufatcured.

Am i taking the wrong pills here. Jesus Christ am i bloody frustrated.

Agree with that Okehurst. Both tests to be used depending upon availability.

You may not be trying to cross ramp but you are posting misleading information about tests and performance data which does not currently exist in the public realm

goldtrig could say the same of Avacta buddy. Wheres your evidence on super duper performance? PS i want to see performance metrics based upon a high % result in 95% confidence interval around the sensitivity and specificity please

goldtrig you are now in the realms of posting fantasy. We know both showed good performance at small scale clinical trial and that they are both under larger evaluation.

Im also not buying this GAD contract means mologic has been chosen. Theres no information on an assessment yet.

i do hope mologic wins as CBA waiting for another TT

Ok Nobbyboy that one got a good laugh!