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.
Goldtrig,
Can you stay off the drugs today.
You managed to constantly upset and ruin the LSE board of 3 companies yesterday.
No-one wants to hear your perpetual negative musings.
In fact, sod it, it's green box time.
Apologies that was uncalled for, hopefully taken as slightly humorous.
Ok you are between 90 and 95% likely to be a fwit. You'll be missed (0-5%)
Itâs ok, no need to be defensive. Youâre in a safe space, thereâs not 15 threads with your name as the subject on here :-)
Itâs the same as all the others, shove a twizzle stick up your hooter, spin it in some buffer and drip it on a test. The list that was on here the other day shows there are a number of decent tests out there. In the short term, we just need to match them with a user friendly sample method. In the long term, the very best Molabakta test will come to the fore.
Goldtrig, you are truly a fwit, at least you are consistent in that. Suggest you go and look into that test.
As I stated we have being sovereign on our side.
Plug the numbers in here... itâs awesome. As itâs a sample of 26, itâs 86.4% rather than 88%. The principle stands, 13thmonkey is right, we wonât be able to make a comparison until we get the full results of the full validation - complete with CIs.
https://awesome-numbers.com/covid-19-post-test-probability-calculator-app/
Still doesnât mean I care about that US test. I do care about stats, theyâre important.
Pl75, couldn't recall the exact numbers, and the smaller numbers makes the range larger.
13thmonkey is 100% correct (apart from we had 26 negative samples).
No argument. No debate. Itâs maffs innit.
I've got a sub ÂŁ1 average, been here for a while.
I suggest you take a stats course, this whole industry is built on stats, sample sizes of 30 are tiny, it would only take 1 extra result to knock the result down by 3%. that's why confidence intervals exist, so that comparisons can be made and so that the range of likely outcomes can be understood.
It's not a matter of honesty, it's almost dishonest to not give out the intervals.
For the record, I think we've a very good chance of being the better test, we're also sovereign.
You seem a bit dim tbh gold, so second thoughts don't bother trying to understand it.
But goldtrug, that's the point. There isn't much research to do. Sample size too small. Hopeful of the upside given the technology but comparisons really can't be made at this point. Take a look at the innova report avacta referenced and the difference between ct value definitions of phe and ph glasgow. Even on that basis you can't compare. Grassroots reasoning is that affimer tech allows greater density of reagent in the strip, innately greater affinity to the target protein, etc and then theres the manufacturing/logostics/green benefits. All the research that can be done atm.
Maybe, maybe not, the stats we've seen so far for specificity with our 30/30 results could be as low as 88% correct without that 30/30 being seen as being odd. The other result of 29/30 is between 82% and 99.9%. because their sample size is so much larger than our the range of those results is much smaller, so they could actually achieve a better result than us without either set of results being stated incorrectly at present.
If that were true goldtrug thered be no need for larger clinical trials. Hopeful of good wider clinical results, but perhaps that one false negative was happenstance and in wider trials fewer statistical false negatives appear or more.
You do understand that the 100% specifcity that we reported has a confidence interval around it that is proportional to the sample size (30?) So our 100% is actually 9n.m% to 100% taking into account confidence intervals. And our 96.9% is a range from somewhere below that number to somewhere above it. Confidence intervals are perfectly normal and should really be stated and they would come out better than ours by that measure as they have a greater sample size if the 140ish figure is correct.
Thanks PL. ????
Theyâve been discussed before. Theyâre not a threat to a sovereign test and theyâre not a threat in a market where demand vastly outstrips supply. Weâll sell all we make, simple as that. How many weâll make is another question
Apologies SS was 97.1/99.5 with accuracy at 98.8
So I take it these guys are not a threat? Looks like the tests are CE Mark certified, approved by the MHRA in the UK, and have pending approval by both WHO (EU) and FDA (EU). That total trial had 605 specimens across US and CH 97.1/98.8 SS
DaProhet
Yes the gypsies round by us are the same, will tarmac your drive but only if you live 50 mile away
Pennyfortheguy
Yes lot easier to just put 94.335% acurate saves all the extra pointless numbers
Any person or company trying to be clever to hide the true number, almost the same as using 99 to sell anything because it looks better or constantly moving stock round the super market so you have to look for stuff, and then might buy something you didnt want
Just be straight and let the facts sell them selves Avacta is the mutts nutts imop
They don't give you great sense of confidence do they...
And there willing to sell internationally but not locally.. Hmmmmm
Am I the only one who chuckled at â99.3% accuracyâ at â*95% Confidenceâ
https://youtu.be/5ccp-lEmoAE
I think it was tested in the states c 140 people and in China also 400.
Well its american for a start... So would probably manufactured in china and covered in chlorine...
The large error range indicates a very small sample that this was tested on.
Hi all. I am heavily invested in Avacta and have been for almost 1 year. That said my knowledge of testing intricacies
Are limited. Those in the know, what do we know about these guys and how they compare to our test compares. Thanks in advance.
Relative Sensitivity: 97.1% (83.8%-99.9%)*
Relative Specificity: 99.6% (97.7%-99.9%)
https://www.aconlabs.com/sars-cov-2-antigen-rapid-test/