The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
VanV - the government need to pretend they are leading and the LFT gives them a way to do that
The issue is whether they are any use and will actually be used. In the hospitals they just aren't used despite some pushing them, because they aren't much use. PCR is used.
No one has actually explained to me where LFTs with a low sensitivity and specificity will actually be used?
Triumph1 - they should have popped the bubble over 10 years ago. They never will, too many vested interests and too many consequences.
Inflation has always been the way out and I don't see any reason to think it will be different this time. All countries will inflate together to erode debt and savings
That is what AVCTs results are trying to look like.
Look at the detail and it tells a very different story. My earlier posts state what I think but I would be very wary and it looks like the market is to.
It definitely doesn't look like a best in class test. The best outcome looks like it will be on par with existing tests and because it is from the UK the government opts for it
My point was be honest about the results. You're a doctor, do you think the way the results are presented makes sense?
He never posts here but has chosen today?
His post is an AVCT ramp with a brief Novacyt statement at the end to cover the ramp.
AVCTs results look very similar to the LFTs currently on the market. You either don't know this or do and are ramping AVCT before you sell. Either way you are not be listened to
They have no innovative cancer therapeutics
If you are so confident why feel the need to post here?
Time will tell.
Why has today's results not stated that?
Science is about transparency. If you are opaque you are hiding something
They will know the Ct 27, 28, 29 etc data but it won't be good and hasn't been mentioned
AVCT need another article to pump and dump this
AVCT results are not good. The percentage value looks good but what matters is the Ct value. There are lots of cases above 26 value. It is a very convoluted way to present the results, the only reason they would be presented like this is because the test can't detect at lower levels ie the real world sensitivity and specificity is poor.
This study can't evaluate specificity as it is the high Ct cases that need to be tested to evaluate that value.
It is hard to tell but I guess in real world AVCTs test has sensitivity and specificity below 80%, maybe a lot less.
As stated the sign off is odd.
There is very little actual scientific substance or terminology to support the argument. This is not how medics or scientists write in journals or medical notes etc.
Most scientists and medics love to debate the subject they enjoy and work in and would want to respond.
It helps me as it supports a share I think will do well, but in the long term I don't posters like that help
My way - a very strange post. Your posts do not sound like that of someone with a medical or scientific background and I highly doubt you are from that background. You won't be back due to the danger of being found out. You stated credentials such as that obscure prize do not led and support to your credentials.
Your post is positive for this board though so people are going to like it.
It might have something to do with the pessimists (shorters) arriving at 8am when they start their day trading/their employer tells them to start posting and the fact they have no facts, research or scientific insight.
You do know you can earn a lot more in a real job and you can get the satisfaction of doing a job that might be useful
Lubumbashi - totally agree and I think it is great that people are looking at all the different potential treatments. Just because there is no evidence doesn't mean it doesn't work. It might do nothing, might work in some people or work in all people in the right situation.
Hopefully, one good think to come from this pandemic is people taking more of an interest in their own health.
What gets me us the exploiters the people that play on fear and drive up the price of medications and people that intentionally spin the truth on things like LFTs.
Is that the GDR which you predicted would get back to low 40s and said would be happy to sell at 80p. Also that the big moves in Covid sticks were done?
All insightful comments. People 'hate' you because you pop in to exploit sentiment and have no understanding of fundamentals.
Hartlebury - just seen your message from last night. I hope for everyone's sake the sensitivity and specificity of LFTs improve but I don't think it will approach that of PCR.
LFTs should be used as part of a multi parameter assessment for Covid to give probability estimates of infection. I guess this will be the next step and I hope people are working on this
Good news today - BarnetPeter is back and the share always performs on his return.
The covid mutations occuring almost certainly confer some conformational change to the 3D structure and LFTs could potentially be designed that would have multi flow strips on one device that could detect the conformational differences and hence the different strains but that would be after sensitivity and specificity issues have been resolved, which they haven't in a year.
Not sure if this question has been answered because there is a lot of nonsense on here from shorters and can't be bothered to read through their posts, lots are green boxed.
LFTs theoretically can detect different variants but in practice will almost certainly not be able to distinguish between them unless they were considerably different in structure, which they aren't. I am not sure what proteins are incorporated into most LFTs but if I was designing them I would go for proteins against multiple epitopes as that should increase specificity and sensitivity. Therefore there could be a trade off where as sensitivity and specificity increases the ability to discriminate between variants declines.
PCR can easily distinguish between variants. All variants must have at least one modified DNA base pair and PCR can target this to distinguish variants.
I'm sure the American market would be very interested in the data.
Is there any information on what clinical parameters have been collected? Is it complete patient notes? They've accumulated a lot of patient data but what format do they have it in? A lot of patient data, is not particularly user friendly in its raw form
Neither have significant front line experience in medicine or science. Neither have a doctorate.
Hina's experience in change management is vague and limited and it is difficult to drive insightful change without having clinical experience.
There is so much potential with the clinical data but without having experience of working with patients and directly understanding their needs then it is difficult for them to offer much.
Doctors won't listen to people without clinical or scientific backgrounds as they have a terrible track record of managing the NHS.
Most management of trusts will continue to come on board because it is revenue for them but if they want insight from clinical staff and ways to improve their products then these appointments won't do that.
I see massive potential here but the staff they are appointing aren't going to maximise it.
Have been looking at this share for a while.
They are accumulating a good amount of data that could generate some useful findings. It would be interesting to know exactly what parameters they are collecting in their clinical data.
One thing that puts me off is the execs are overpaid and the staff appointed today for example are poor and are salesman, not AI or clinical specialists.