Member Info for Wiggly

For further information, please contact your local Avacta® distributor or email diagnostics@avacta.com

Can be long until we hear of the 'local' distributors.

Which is quite incredible after todays update, which leads me to believe that Insiders (of which there must be many now in the know - e.g. 25 distributors, OEMs, multi Gov officials etc) are supporting this price action!

99.9% sure that we have some major contracts in the bag otherwise today would have been a big red % drop!

Talking of AstraZeneca, I see they have raised about 8 billion dollars on the bond markets this week.

Would make sense for them to get a previous Director on-board with AVCT to integrate seamlessly for the upcoming clinical trials.

Scardey,

Language choice is critical and the timing of this release looks to be on purpose.

Interesting to know why information is being held back...

"Over the course of 2020 and early 2021 the test architecture was developed whilst the Diagnostics division also scaled up internal resources, manufacturing and logistics. The test was brought to market around one year after initial development
began. This is a very fast development time for an IVD, particularly given it is the first product brought to
market by the Company."

The test WAS brought to market...

Great spot!

- LFT manufacturers are listed as GAD, BBI, Abingdon “and Others”; who are the others here and does this mean deals are already in place?

Medusa + NCYT + INNOVA + ODX is my guess!!

Massive volumes!

If, as seems likely, Avacta is central to the UK Gov Pandemic Preparedness plan, I think that there is a real chance that Innova will be producing UK LFTs using Affimers as the reagent.

I recall AS guidance was 5-30m AND potentially much higher depending on further investment. Could the further investment be from innova?

What time?

Price for UK Gov = +/-GBP 5 however at this price it should not be used to facilitate international travel!

Price Direct To Airline/Consumer (requirement if you want to travel) should be min £10! No way should Gov be subsidising a £10 test with my hard earned so people can travel mid pandemic!

Must be due soon?

If Positive with Affidx and Negative with Mol/Innova/Surescreen then PCR should be used to verify

If Positive with Affidx and Positive with confirmatory Mol/Innova/Surecreen, then no need for PCR to validate as you are 100% positive.

If negative with Affidx then crack on!

CO,

If Positive with Affidx and Negative with Mol/Innova/Surescreen then PCR should be used to verify.

Exactly this, not sure why it has become a debate, its so obvious;

Currently - use an LFD. Negative, crack on. Positive, get a PCR
Future? - use an AffiDx LFD. Negative, crack on. Positive, get a confirmatory LFD

Add to the above, the Gov could issue packs of 7, right now, to every household in the UK and have them test daily/weekly.

No need for the 'perfect' test as the above delivers the perfect solution.

The consequences of a positive result are quite severe (self isolate for 10 days), so even if 99.9% specificity, why not just validate with a 2nd, different tech/target LFT (cost of +/- £5) to rule out the false positive?

If the Gov are faced with a choice of Sensitivity vs specificity then its a no brainer to select most sensitive and back it up (rule out false positives) with a validation/back up test.

Positive/Positive = Self Isolate
Positive/negative combo should be checked via PCR = self isolate until checked via PCR

They have to select the most sensitive test as the primary. Would make zero sense to select a less sensitive test and miss a high % of infectious. Which means, imo, AVCT has to be selected as the primary Sovereign test.

I hope the offer AS has submitted to the UK Gov is valid until COB today. If not accepted by COB today, the capacity we have with BBI, ABDX and MOL/GAD will be sold directly to Europe.

Bein,

No, while 2 x positives with Affidx would increase likelihood of a positive, there could be something that is detected triggering the false positive. If you were to see 2 x positives using 2 x reagents checking for 2 x proteins, the odds of a false positive would be 0% - thus Gov should use the most sensitive test for daily testing and back it up with an alternative test (diff reagent + protein) to validate. This rules out any false positives.

Ask Mina for his view on this.

As a UK Sovereign test package (e.g. box of 7 contains 5 x Affidx, 1 x Mol and 1 x Surecreeen) its the perfect home made solution to this crisis. Provide clear instrcutions;

- Affidx - if positive;
- Validate with Mol - if positive self isolate if negative ..
- Validate with Surecreen - and if negative, release as odds of both Mol and Surecreen both missing = very low chance of being positive and if positive, not likely to be infectious.

Can someone get onto the Innovation Lord (Bethell) and tell him we have cracked the challenge?

So what are we waiting for?

The proposed solution would deliver 100% safety and could be deployed (e.g. twice weekly testing for the entire UK pop) at times of very low prevalence (e.g. any positive with AVCT could be validated/rectified via the Innova/MOL test). If you really want to avoid the false negatives, how about;

- Affidx - if positive;
- Validate with Mol - if positive self isolate if negative ..
- Validate with Surecreen - and if negative, release as odds of both Mol and Surecreen both missing = very low chance of being positive and if positive, not likely to be infectious.

As above, how much cash is left?

Question - could the 2 tests work together as a package, deployed as separate tests?

Affidx would be the primary test, which would detect the infectious (CT<27) and also very low viral loads that may not even be infectious (CT<31), thus from the sensitivity standpoint, and with focus on false negatives, AVCT delivers 100% of what is required.

Now, if AffiDx detected a positive case, could the Mologic test be deployed as the back up / verification test? If both Affidx (s) and Mol (n) were to detect the positive then the odds of a false positive are surely 0% and the individual should be forced to self isolate - no need for PCR follow up.

Am I leading the way with this idea?