Member Info for TWatcher

Errhum said
"The BMJ doesn't have an academic readership, it has to re-write and review real scientific papers so that the non-science, non-academic medical professionals can read it more easily."

5 professor in the field of interest seem to have read the paper the morning it was published, and considered it worthy of providing a detailed opinion of the findings. Maybe they were all glad the BMJ dumbed it down for them ?

I note none of the 5 professors who commented referred to either the paper, or the publication that published it, as being a joke or a comic.

So I'm wondering how the capacity (oct 200k, Nov 300k) to currently being used up.

its either
1) They have significant orders for the visitect antibody test. If that's the case, they haven't told us.
2) They are knocking out RTC antibody tests in the belief they will be ordered.

Or alternatively, things have changed since the presentation on the 28th Oct.

"There is no doubt that the UK and other countries will need as many LFT tests as any manufacturer can produce, whether that's test 1, test 2 , test 3, test 4 etc etc. Any manufacturer will benefit from this explosive need for faster LFT tests."

Test 1...RTC test....Gov has ordered 1M, of which ODX gets 175K (not even 1 week's output). Further orders from the Government are now potentially stymied as the 'automatic' selection of the RTC test by UK gov is now in a court case. We all know how quick court cases proceed. ODX is on record as saying the consortium can not sell this test to anyone other than the UK government, without prior approval of the UK government. As it stands the single customer that the consortium has for this test, is likely not in a legal position to order any more. Assuming the gov oks non-governmentatl orders, the peer reviewed paper concluding that it's stats for sensitivity etc are a lot less than advertised, is hardly great advertising material. We on here have been quick to point to far less validated research for competitor tests when they showed bad results.
2) Test 2. the Visitect antibody test. I asked on here and was advised this is the same test as described as "mologic 1" in a separate peer reviewed paper. This paper shows this test perform poorly compared to 3 other LFT tests. There is some evidence that this is selling in the UK, but we have no figures for it. Again, having a peer review paper giving disapointing results isn't great as a advertisment.
3) Test 3 LFT antigen test. We don't have one. the Mologic, the company supplying us with it, currently isn't selling it. They've indicated they would have CE approval, end of oct. They have not announced that. It is looking like we will not be able to produce volume Antigen product until end of Jan, given that any delay @ mologic is a delay for us.

4)ODX has not advised that they have agreements to produce any other covid tests, afaik. Any engagments that they begin now, will not result in volume production for months.

TWatcher - ask any academic. The BMJ is a comic, not a scientific journal. They often get stats wrong.

What are you talking about ? the BMJ did not do the research, the research has been formally peer reviewed. In a world where virtually every piece of covid research is going out "preprint", i.e. not peer reviewed, to have it formally peer reviewed makes this extremely solid research. Ultimately where it is published isn't important.

LOL ! you got to admire the self-belief of some people.
A peer reviewed paper, published in one of the most prime journals for publishing such stuff, and I'm to be reasured by some guy called "justahobby", who has determined the conclusions were incorrect !!

We've been told by the company/ walbrook that that is fundamentally a placeholder. ODX has advised the market it has a order for 175K out of the original 1M.

The BMJ is still 'media'
So its robust

Its not, its a medical journal. And the article in it was not an editorial piece, it was a research paper, in fact a full "peer reviewed" paper.

"notes the recent media comment on the AbC-19 Rapid Test and rejects the conclusions drawn on the performance of the test. "

Over the years I've learned that people choose their words very careful, and you need to read what was written and not written.

Apparently they didn't note the British Medical Journal report. It allows them to disagree with the conclusions in the media, which anyone is entitled to do. A lot harder to disagree with a BMJ report.

"The UK-RTC and ODX *WILL NOT* be issuing a response. They have made it clear that DHSC will be responsible for managing this."

With respect, if DHSC or whoever makes a statement, ODX will have to make a statement to the market as to how whatever the DHSC says affects what they had previously advised the market. And i'd also be of the opinion that if ODX has material indications at the moment, they are obliged to advise the market immediately, unless they are under some higher legal obligation that supercedes their market obligations.

I got into ODX as a covid play, so leaving the HIV/food intolerance aside,

The covid story seems to be drifting for ODX

1) BMJ basically saying the RTC performs poorly
https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4262
2) a different BMJ article also tested the mologic antibody test along with 4 others. Ruling out one that was so bad it was laughable, of the other 4, the mologic one was last.
https://thorax.bmj.com/content/early/2020/08/11/thoraxjnl-2020-215732

3) The mologic antigen test may or may not be under trials by John Bell. We know the Innova Antigen test has reached stage 4. Nothing about the other 5 tests going to stage 4, and nothing to suggest that the mologic test is one of them. We do know that the gov has order loads of the Innova test, and have a massive order for antigen tests that has to be totally fulfilled by March 31st
4) No word from Mologic that they have gotten CE approval for their mologic test, this was highlighted to expect to happen end of Oct. Each extra week or two delay at mologic is likely a commersurate delay in TT to ODX. Xmas to early Jan is drfiting to end of Jan IMO.
5) We now know that positive news regarding Vaccines will impinge on testing companies. We are currently just at the start of a newsflow, several other vaccines are due to report shortly.
6)If vaccines do start to roll out, then by the time we have an antigen test, things might have move onto antibody testing, but the reviews thus far on our suite of antibody tests doesn't exactly fill be with confidence.
7) The legal case, which will probably only be bolsterd by the BMJ article regarding the RTC test performance. Legal cases are NEVER good.

So someone argue the case for me that ODX is still a +ve covid play. Please don't tell me I'm a shorter, or to just go away. Make the argument, and tell me where I'm seeing it wrong.

Its also dated 4 of Nov, so it was not an impediment to anything prior to the 4th of Nov. Whatever the reason there has not been substantial orders for RTC antibody test, this is not it.

That's just what we need, a court case, they always end up being RAPID.

In fact the RNS says that "No new price-sensitive information is disclosed as part of the presentation."

There was no need to RNS it, if anything it should have been an RNS NON.

I have no idea why the posting of that presentation was an RNS. Is the company saying that the presentation had price sensitive news in it that they did not otherwise relay to the market, implying that the people that viewed it ant the time were privy to information not generally available ? If that's the case, it needed to by RNSed 7am the following day of the presentation. If not, it did not need an RNS at all.

It has been agreed by the UK-RTC that they will be leaving it DHSC to respond to the Guardian.

which is al well and good, however unlike the rest of the consortium, odx has a legal responsibility to its shareholders. It appears that there may now be a definite reason for the lack of MHRA, and not one that is either simply red tape, or strategic. If that is the case, ODX needs to inform its shareholders, as the company previously put out price sensitive information based (200k a week locked in for rtc), and if that info has changed, it has to be announced.

didn't suggest = did suggest

Well we are sitting here around 2 months at the earliest from being in a position to manufacture the one we are hoping to get from Mologic, a company that we apparently have a very good working relationship with. How long to manufacture a test from someone they've never dealt with before ?

A couple of issues of uncertainty.

We don't know if the mologic test is one of the 6.
The document released today makes no reference to what comes after the Innova phase 4. It did suggest when or if the other ones will be hitting phase 4. One would have thought, given there are 5 other at stage 3, the report of progress to date would have laid out what happens next.

Thanks, good to know that it's actually being produced.