Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. Watch the video here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Are you going to post your reply - I think this could be the start of some serious political pressure to explain the £B spent on Chinese test. Govt will want to pivot before that starts.
Thanks for your efforts
He has minions
Is it javid who has to give the answer?
Is it Hansards
Thanks AgentB, I’ll hopefully hear back via email first, but if not I’ll keep an eye out on that link to see of questions are asked
Thanks PL and AgentB
Thread is what this board has needed for a while, thumb up from me.
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/ PL you can go to this page and choose between questions asked in Commons or Lords. If you click on Commons, you can search by subject matter (eg Lateral Flow Test or Innova) to get to the relevant questions. Most questions are given a ‘due for answer by date’ but I’m not sure how long a department can take before answering.
Sorry missed your post TL. I’m not sure how it works. I can’t remember who had previously posted parliamentary questions. Does anyone have any info on how the submissions / timing of responses work? Do all have to be answered - even if the responses are useless?
Have you seen the post about licensing UK test - maybe ask if its one brand or more. Is it a UK owned company or just a packing machine
(I believe it will be 2-3 different companies all of whom will have submitted self use)
Caught that doze. The veil slipped. Kinda strips credibility if multiple user names are used.
Appreciate your info Doze. As you know, our test is qualitative as it indictates presence of the target antigen (via coloured strip), not how much (quantitative) is present.
As you suggest, I do believe that making it quantitative should be easier based on how sticky our Affimers are, and Spike detection.
Abingdon have the tech (AppDx) to interpret qual strip feedback and transpose it into quantitative data, presenting the user with an ‘infectious’ reading. Wouldn’t that be clever…
How did MDxExpert morph to mieleg?
I cannot understand why AffiDX is not deemed in a large measure quantitative as it has affimers bind to covid spike protein region before the reagent can indicate a positive test so it must have identified a quantity of infectious virus. PCR cannot do this so is no determinant of infectiousness and interepreting efficacy of LFT by PCR leads to AffiDX failing miserably while cohorts for testing weed out any dubious negatives as identified by PCR thereby skewing the statistics in favour of PCR as gold standard while AffiDX would have had many rejected dubious negatives as non infectious. Include those dubious negatives in a PCR cohort and the PCR will come out with a huge level of negatives identified in an AffiDX LDT as positive in a PCR.
Turn the tables and PCR fails the test!
PCR is not designed to identify infectiousness so it cannot measure the effectiveness of LFTs used for that purpose.
Complaints can be directed at me for revisiting what is considered gold standard PCR testing but the fact is not all scientists of influence have turned the page yet, they do not get it although many are trying now to protect their rears as they examine the logic.
Adeptrix Bams might measure the quantity of infectiousness in a more scientific way than LFT and this would underline the quantitative style of affimers in an LFT. They are molecular bioengineered to bind to specific targets.
When do these questions get answered, is HoC in recess, when do they come back to “work”, and if submitted do the questions need to be answered or can they be ignored?
MDx you are seemingly well wide of the mark with respect to the ct infectivity boundary threshold which is acknowledged to be around ct 27 accepting that correlation of infectivity and ct value is an approximation. Comment?
Many thanks doze.
Doze - afraid not. No LFT is quantitative.
Bella - newbie to board but long in the tooth in IVDS and Molecular Diagnostics (MDx)
As well as a question for MP I wonder ifban idiots guide would be useful. If we are still discussing issue such as Ct , sensitivity etc then someone new may struggle.
Now if we only knew someone ....
No problem bein I enjoy revisiting the case occasionally when I discover I know more than last time! Trouble is anyone can do it if they put their mind to it, even the people we pay big money to sort stuff out.
Thanks for the details, doze.
I repeat, PCR is not an equivalent or comparison to our test. Totally different use case and output.
Ct values are worthless Zoom0001, they are for analysis of rna. AS developed the LFT to identify the infectious and he does not acknowledge PCR does this but repeats the concensus view of Ct <=27 is considered infectious as they replicate rna from samples thought from AVCT point of view to destroy infectious virions in their PCR processes. I am not invested in AVCT to prop up PCR science but to say AVCT have a test to control the R rate which PCR is unable to do and what is more, cannot quantify infectious load like affimers are able to as affimers bind via the infectious spike area and is therefore quantitative only in respect of an infectious virion. PCR cannot do this it can only get lucky by hoping some of its replicated rna was from an infectious virion but it will never know because it is not designed to detect/attach to infectiousness.
AVA6000 is FAP protease conjugate with a chemotoxin but just as with the LFT the affimer immune checkpoint blockade attaches to the tumour and because it is linked to the conjugate the toxin is released through FAP where the tumour is.
The point I make is affimers are brilliant and different to PCR and it is time they were put to use in targeting whether diagnostic or therapeutic.
PCR is 20th century tech.
I don't think what md said is that contentious - if so might be better off in a different thread?
Maybe MDxExpert should discuss it with AS. Can’t believe Avacta have spent this long to produce a test to identify the most infectious & we now discover CT values are pretty much worthless.
MDxExpert.. just noticed this appears to be your first post...are you actually an MD or just making out you are with your cover name.
"emphasis on ct number ..." this gibberish seems to conflict somewhat with the infectious boundary threshold put forward and evidenced by Avacta and presented by Al.
Quite MDxExpert, please tell BJ, Sajid David and Sir John Bell and anyone else in cloud cuckoo land who has missed out on the basics and why AffiDX should have been prioritised like Innova and then fast tracked for capacity, after all, we believe it beat that test in a parallel validation. We need to avoid more outbreaks if possible. The Chinese would be keen on AffiDX if they could manufacture it as a pro mass test nation. Please confirm for me that LFTs have a Ct of 1.