Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
Expanding the application and looking at other data sets are all logical steps forward as informed members on here will have predicted.
Let's focus on the company rather than ad hominem attacks and please use more contemporary comparisons to doctors in future as I had no idea who you guys are talking about
They are moving in the right direction and many more quick tests are needed in hospitals, this market has a lot of potential growth. Healthcare systems across the world need to cut costs and rapid diagnostics are an easy way to do that. In the UK these tests would be completed in the time the patient was in triage and awaiting a bed.
Even if a vaccine is discovered there is a very real chance it will not stimulate an immune reaction in the elderly and immunocompromised. The over 65s alone comprise more than 20% of the population.
If herd immunity does require over 80% then in this scenario the disease will probably not be eradicated and testing will be here for a long time.
Shear - you seem not be aware then of the emerging research. What additional testing would you recommend to improve the PPV?
If you're embarrassed about your job then lashing out at others here probably won't provide the satisfaction you are seeking.
Shower - Taken a decent position here. If you are familiar with scientific journals have a look at what some other companies are up to, they are utilising multiple modalities. That is how the PPV will be increased. I am sure your are familiar with all this research though with your extensive training and illustrious, and yet to be disclosed, professional career.
Sharesol - that is why there are mobile PCR tests and rapid PCR tests. These are fast turnaround solutions which when compared to the human and financial costs of coronavirus more that justify the investment when compared to an inferior test.
Everyone should be isolated until tested properly by PCR as there can also be asymptomatic negative cases from the POC test.
Sharesol - the issue is you are already in a health care setting at that point and you still should be isolating the other 50% that are negative as there are the same number of positives in that group.
The slow PCR turnaround just demonstrates they need to increase this capacity.
Hants - Avacta have published research funded by themselves, therefore independent issues. Even in these biased papers, they couldn't get the required level in order to work on covid, they were a long way off. This is why they are struggling to produce the test.
About a third of covid patients appear to have low antigen numbers, maybe 105 or 104 per ml. Multiple orders of magnitude less concentrated than affimers have been show to detect.
If I had to guess I would say they will come out with a test late, that will be fairly poor detection and expensive.
Balanced66 - thanks for that. I could never find the Zika numbers.
Avacta have previously published numbers for threshold of detection of Affimers and it is way below what would be required to achieve the required sensitivity/specificty for covid
Hants - so you haven't read the papers and you haven't done the calculations for the specificity/sensitivity of Affimers?
I'll ask again. What molar concentration can affimers detect?
If you don't know your own product how can compare and question it to others?
Funnily enough, regulatory bodies will be expecting a bit more than 'expecting them to be pretty good'
Hants have you worked in a lab or anything to do with health care?
Mass spec vastly lower in numbers than PCR machines.
PCR machines are relatively simple devices and common.
Mass spec not validated. Lateral flow not even completed yet. Based on the published thresholds of Affimers and antigen concentration in samples of patients with coronavirus, what molar concentration of antigen do you think affimers can detect?
Completely agree, got a bit in here and was going to go for more when it was in the 50s as everything looked solid, the only thing holding me back was the knowledge that management on AIM can screw over the investor at any point.
Today's announcement looks like the management here want to do things fairly
It is way overvalued, even 40p looks too high. Most phase 1 trials fail and nothing they have is unique. The while neutralising effect of affimers is what antibodies do and is nothing new.
Their mass spec test is not even ready mass spec machines are far fewer than PCR machines.
The rapid test looks like it will struggles to be specific and sensitive enough and will be late to market if it ever gets there and rumoured price is far too high.
I expect a few more pump news releases though
Doesn't look good on the AVCT board. Looks like their test is not performing. As the publications suggested, an Affimer based test is going to struggle with sensitivity and specificity. Myles, Richken, Olderandwiser and the rest of the ramping crew that love to lure in unsuspecting investors will have to put in some overtime to limit the fallout from this.
Despite the doom mongers, it looks life PCR lives another day.
Can't remember the posters name on here, but the one who posted on here the other day that he sold out at a huge loss, hope he is ok and made his money back somewhere else.
Bamps - Renalytix should strengthen after covid, although they have a bit in covid the majority of their business is looking at trying to risk stratify patients who have kidney disease with a view to better treatment and cheaper health care costs. Think all health care providers across the world will be desperate to save money after covid. Could go either way for them, either do very well or a competitor beat them to it. This is a very hot area in biotech at the moment trying but consequently competition is tough
In regards to TW I think prime land should always be purchased but they could be in a terrible mess if they blow all their money on land and the market drops further. They could enter into more contingent land deals to mitigate their risk
Oesophageal cancer is awful and any company that is trying to improve outcomes gets my support.
According the account ye 31 Dec 2019 they had net cash of £550M, the RNS says they now have £6M. Is this correct?
If they are saying that land is falling significantly, then they will also be looking at a large impairment of their land bank.
Looks a great opportunity for the builders who have the smallest land bank, not sure who that is.