We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey 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.
My understanding is lying in the House is frowned upon - unless you are that whatsit bloke
There's so much emphasis placed by folk on Ct number - It's really not relevant to focus so much on the absolute Ct number. "generally", <36 is regarded as positive, 36-40 as unclear, and 40 as the stop point. Depends a lot on how your known negatives look as well. Depends on amount of sample extracted, extraction kit used, amount of purified target used for the assay in question, PCR kit used, COV variant, inhibitors in sample etc - and none of the tests are quantitative. How the magical Ct number compares to "infectiousness" is a can of worms - no magic number that can tell that neither. Ct is a general scale to compare against - the higher the number from 1-40 the less amplifiable target was in the sample, correlating with amount of viral genome (in an ideal setting) but could be all dead or all super infectious. Impossible to quantitatively tie a Ct number to infectiousness though in anything other than general terms.
How about how Boris and Rishi have urged people and employers to pay into "riskier" pension schemes to boost the UK economy by investing in UK startups and growth companies. See the link to the article in Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/aug/04/johnson-and-sunak-urge-uk-pensions-to-back-riskier-investments
How about stop boosting the economy of the country that got us into this mess by spending millions on a chocolate tea pot of a test, and invest here in the UK on a test that can actually get us out of this nightmare.
Sleaze was one of the factors resulting in last Tory longstanding rule coming to an end. Unfortunately when a party gets power for a long time its interest in public service tends to become increasingly secondary to servicing the private interest of politicans. On that front it is hard to think of a worse UK Government in modern times than this one.
You guys who've hung in here and continue to pursue this deserve to do well in view of the way in which the govt has behaved over this issue. I am genuinely disgusted, embarrassed as a Tory leaning voter and really do not get their thinking - or lack thereof. My fingers will be firmly crossed for you.
@AgentB.. you are right on the money with the 40 cycles.. I noted that when i brought it up over on NCYT (where i am also invested) the board police seemed to think it was acceptable. The inventor Kary B Mullis would not have agreed.. in fact they even suggested that the name of the current CEO is a 'coincidence' Hmmmm..
Well at least it's all slowly coming out.. and dawning.. judging by some of the recent comments!
Thanks Apre, here's hoping it makes a difference.
RD - not sure what's next. I know that people have posted parliamentary questions on here before, so it's just a case of keeping an eye out I guess. I'll try and keep in contact with her to keep the dialogue going and if there are updates I'll post them
*previously contracted for the DHSC for 8-9 months
Innova have two very senior employee that previously contracted for the DHSC for 8-9s from end of last summer, then magically started working for Innova. Surely the government have contracts written that would prevent the 'poaching' of staff or from the other perspective, properly vetting staff to be employed by the government in such keys roles as logisitics for the DHSC. Andrew Norman Brogan has no apparent employment history prior to this despite being 45 years old. All I can see is that he was a secretary on his dad's 'Just Trucking' limited company that is long disolved. How does anyone not have linkedin employment history if they are 'contracting'. I could understand if he were of an older generation, but he is the same generation as me. Smells fishy.
Additionally Innova have had the google reviews removed. I would say they either have contacts at Google or the deep pockets are turning their 'cogs' as Neale Hanvey suggests.
Question. Is the Government aware that a U.K. LFT inventor and manufacturer has been forced to have their product validated in Spain because Porton Down’s LFT validation methodology is not fit for purpose?
Good work PL. Pieces like that take a lot of writing, checking and editing, so thanks for putting in your time.
Amazing though that Labour MP's need to be spoon fed ammo to tackle something so important and so obvious. Let's hope it bears fruit.
I have it on very good authority, even a certain "lord" liked this post and has put it on twitter.
When GMCC wrote
This might be a reason the UK mainstream media keeping quiet on Innova - reply from neale.hanvey.mp@parliament.uk>
"Thanks for taking the time to write. Yes I have seen this piece it’s just a shame our media are silent on this, though lawyers acting for Innova have deep pockets and managed to get my piece in the Scotsman removed. Perilous times."
My immediate thought was that the Chinese Government has very deep pockets, and it would seem considerable influence. What is the country coming to?
When will we know they have asked question
And thanks for going this
What a board
This might be a reason the UK mainstream media keeping quiet on Innova - reply from neale.hanvey.mp@parliament.uk>
"Thanks for taking the time to write. Yes I have seen this piece it’s just a shame our media are silent on this, though lawyers acting for Innova have deep pockets and managed to get my piece in the Scotsman removed. Perilous times.
Thanks again, and keep me posted if you turn up anything else related to this or any other issue of concern."
refers : https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-07-28/innova-pasaca-covid-17-antigen-test-british-uk-government
Agent - PCR usage is a different purpose. Infectiousness detection will be used from next month, delivered by LFT’s. Ct 40 is correct for PCR, to confirm if you have/have not got Covid.
PL is it not worth asking why the Government continues to amplify PCR cycles to 40 which means that the test will be picking up non-infectious debris from previous infections, thereby returning a lot of false positives. Surely both PCR tests and LFTs should be accurate to 27 CT which is the upper limit of infectiousness?
Amber list rules require travellers to take an antigen lateral flow device within 3 days of returning back in the UK, but categorically state this cannot be the “NHS” test (ie Innova, Orient Gene). Is the government concerned that these tests aren’t fit for that purpose? If not, why won’t they allow them to be used?
Is the government aware that the so-called “rigorous” test validation at Porton Down was not fit for purpose, and actually disadvantaged UK-developed tests (from Avacta and Mologic) that have been independently verified in real-world use cases as two of the top ten antigen LFTs in the world?
The govt have suggested that all tests in use having been rigorously tested at Porton Down. However, the Porton Down protocols did not follow the manufacturers’ Instructions For Use, and the use of spiked, pig mucin and frozen samples did not simulate the live use cases. Such that high performing tests such as Avacta and Mologic tests failed the assessment. Can the government confirm that the previous “failure” of these tests in the Porton Down process will not cause these tests to be discounted in future, and that the new process will enable them to be validated according to manufacturers’ Instructions For Use, with appropriate clinical human samples (not synthetic positives) that have not been frozen and thawed
Will there be any protections in place to stop individuals who are involved in the purchase of tests from joining the affected companies as executives or consultants now and in the future to safe guard against corruption? What checks are performed as standard when dealing with sums of money this large?
In a nutshell, the govt have protocols in place that have blocked British companies, they have procured tests that are not fit for purpose (possibly using private emails) and given them exemptions for home use and now exemptions from future legislation. These actions are risking lives. As I mentioned and you have acknowledged, Neale Hanvey is continuing to try and pressure the govt on this and if these issues can be raised by all Labour MPs I would hope you'd gain some traction. Tory MPs have been responding with standard wording that does not address the issues such as the corruption related to the huge sums of money, the performance of the tests, the lack of support for British Diagnostics that are world leading and ultimately the safety of the population."
Sending off the following -
"I do not have any professional expertise. The details I provided were compiled by a group of investors on a discussion board. I should have declared my interest, I am currently an investor in Avacta, however I have researched covid testing in detail and my motivations are that the actions of the conservative govt are utterly scandalous and risk the health of the population. It's very clear to me that the vaccination programme has been a fantastic success, however testing can't be pushed aside with inferior options and policies. If we do not have in place adequate regular population testing to supress transmission then we will end up a breeding ground for new variants.
Further to my original email regarding Innova, please see the following article - https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/chinese-made-covid-tests-exempted-from-new-uk-mandatory-safety-standards-law_uk_61058987e4b00fa7af834913
Rachel had asked for some potential parliamentary questions. I have compiled the below:
Why are we importing Chinese made tests in great quantity when there are better British made alternatives available from companies such as Avacta and Mologic.
The PM says he is supporting British industry. In light of 1 above what support to great British diagnostic companies is he giving exactly?
Regarding support to the industry, Abingdon are still awaiting payment for the supply of antibody tests, how is refusing to pay for delivered tests supporting British Industry?
Is the gov willing to publish the Ct levels from their validation studies? With the vaccine rollout, the virus will not shed in the same quantity, so the tests that are used need to be more effective and those being procured are likely to be completely ineffective
Can the govt confirm with published studies the ability of their procured tests to pick up the delta variant?
Why have the govt 'stonewalled' Mologic who have publicly stated they are considering legal action?
Why did the government continue using Innova tests when this info was made available to SAGE "The Liverpool Health Protection Board decided yesterday to pause plans to use Innova Lateral Flow SARS-COV-2 Antigen tests (LFT) in test-to-enable visitor access to care home settings due to the accuracy statistics presented below, derived from data received in the past 24h from DHSC who have been running a Quality Assurance programme"
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/evidence-on-the-accuracy-of-lateral-flow-device-testing/evidence-summary-for-lateral-flow-devices-lfd-in-relation-to-care-homes
Ctd...
Will there be any protections in place to stop individuals who are involved in the purchase of tests from joining the affected companies as executives or consultants now and in the future to safe guard against corruption. What checks are performed as standard when dealing with sums of money this large.
Great work PL.
I’d predict that the govt fall back on the line of all tests having been rigorously tested at PD. So the concern is that the PD protocols did not follow the manufacturers’ IFU, and the use of spiked, pig mucin and frozen samples did not simulate the live use cases. Such that the Avacta and Mologic tests failed.
So I’d ask:
- Is the government aware that the so-called “rigorous” test validation at Porton Down was not fit for purpose, and actually disadvantaged UK-developed tests (from Avacta and Mologic) that have been independently verified in real-world use cases as two of the top ten antigen LFTs in the world?
- Can the government confirm that the previous “failure” of these tests in the Porton Down process will not cause these tests to be discounted in future, and that the new process will enable them to be validated according to manufacturers’ Instructions For Use, with appropriate clinical human samples (not synthetic positives) that have not been frozen and thawed?
www.thesun.co.uk/news/15614601/covid-testing-firm-dumping-kits
Good Morning PL75 et-al thanks for your efforts raising issue with MP.
Q Why did the government continue using Innova tests when this info was made available to SAGE
"The Liverpool Health Protection Board decided yesterday to pause plans to use Innova Lateral Flow
SARS-COV-2 Antigen tests (LFT) in test-to-enable visitor access to care home settings due to the
accuracy statistics presented below, derived from data received in the past 24h from DHSC who have
been running a Quality Assurance programme"
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/evidence-on-the-accuracy-of-lateral-flow-device-testing/evidence-summary-for-lateral-flow-devices-lfd-in-relation-to-care-homes
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/innova-lateral-flow-sars-cov-2-antigen-test-accuracy-in-liverpool-pilot-preliminary-data-26-november-2020
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/innova-lateral-flow-sars-cov-2-antigen-test-accuracy-in-liverpool-pilot-preliminary-data-26-november-2020ntigen_test_accuracy.pdf
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/innova-lateral-flow-sars-cov-2-antigen-test-accuracy-in-liverpool-pilot-preliminary-data-26-november-2020
Ok thanks guys