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.
Also Avacta specificity was 99% not 98%, and the issue with Innova is high false negatives (based on low sensitivity), not false positives. Otherwise, crack on!
Nicely written and referenced. You’ve got the function of sensitivity and specificity the wrong way round. It should be c.1/400 false positives (actually <1/1000 based on latest in-the-field data) and 40% or more false negatives among the infected (not infectious).
You can't blame the independence of the MHRA: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/719170/response/1768848/attach/4/MHRA%20Letter%20DHSC%20COVID%2019%20Self%20Test%2022122020%20Redacted.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1
"the Secretary of State acting as the MHRA is satisfied"
At the stroke of a pen, they were overruled.
Matml - he is having kittens (excess tweets) for sure!
MHRA are being run by politicians. Disgrace. Reckon old Deeksy is having a meltdown!
Good points Ndn. I'm just collecting ammunition, so welcome all input.
Very good summation, thank you. It’s an utter disgrace
Sources:
1 Expenditure on Innova tests: https://bidstats.uk/tenders/?q=lateral+flow+test
2 FDA recall of Innova tests: https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1514
3 Gov rewrites test instructions https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9127345/UK-coronavirus-Department-Health-rebranding-professional-use-kit-self-test.html and
https://www.england.nhs.uk/coronavirus/wp-content/uploads/sites/52/2020/12/C0964-lft-in-primary-care-faqs-v2-jan-2021.pdf
4 Performance of Innova Tests: https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4469
5 Mologic to sue Government: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/06/14/covid-test-maker-mologic-set-sue-government-stonewalling/
6 MHRA extends EUA for Innova tests: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/following-a-satisfactory-review-mhra-extends-authorisation-of-nhs-test-and-trace-lateral-flow-devices
How good are they?
Sir John Bell reviewed the Innova tests and found them to have 99.68% specificity – meaning that out of every one hundred people who actually have the virus the test would identify the vast majority, making it good for identifying those needing to self isolate4.
With professional use, the sensitivity of the test (it's ability to give a negative result for people who don't have the disease) was found to be 76.8%, reducing to 57.5% in the Liverpool test where home use was trialled. Thus more than 40% of people identified as Covid19 cases by the Innova test are false positives.
Even worse than this, the Department of Health has known all along that two UK-based diagnostics companies (Mologic and Avacta) have been developing lateral flow tests which have near-perfect accuracy. In the case of Avacta, the test is:
Specificity 98%
Sensitivity 100% up to 27 CT samples (= infectiousness limit defined by World Health Organisation)
Sample collection by swab in lower nasal passage
Captures all current variants-of-concern but can also be adapted to identify new variants
CE marked for professional use with authorisation pending for home use
Whereas the Government seems to have bent over backwards to facilitate the use of the Innova Lateral Flow tests (through a combination of criminal repackaging and pressure on MHRA), they have apparently done everything in their power to obstruct the development of these 'home grown' more accurate tests which could otherwise have been the cornerstone of a more reliable test and trace initiative. As a result, Mologic has taken the step of launching legal proceedings against the Government5.
To sumarize: UK taxpayer money to the tune of £4bn has been paid to China to procure tests that have been declared unfit for purpose by America's FDA. These tests throw up an unacceptably high level of false positives, elevating the UK 'case' statistics and causing needless isolation of workers and schoolchildren, resulting in loss of economic output and deficient education.
Breaking news!
As of today, MHRA has extended EUA for Innova LFTs for two months until 28th August. Well, nothing to see here then.
Not all of the UK population is pig-ignorant. I urge you to ask questions of your colleague Mr Han****. This waste of money is unacceptable and the truth will come out. The Innova EUA approval is up for renegotiation on 21st June. Many eyes will be watching to see whether our MHRA is truly independent and fit for purpose.
I would like to hear back from you about how you will use the facts outlined above to seek better use of taxpayer money in the UK Test & Trace effort.
You may also be interested to know that Avacta is based in Whetherby, Yorks and also in Whittlesfield – so very local to Saffron Walden.
If I haven't missed anything, I will send to Andrew Neil. But please feel free to correct any errors and perhaps it can form a draft letter that we can all send to MPs. (It's a bit long. Might take a couple of posts.)
Dear Kemi Badenoch,
I am writing to you in your capacity of Secretary to the Treasury about a matter that should be of considerable concern to you, given the fact that your Department seeks to protect the UK economy, use taxpayer money wisely and, above all, open up the economy as soon as possible.
I want to alert you to the scandal regarding the rapid lateral flow Covid-19 tests, which are the cornerstone of the UK’s mass testing programme. According to Bidstats1, a phenomenal £4,011,000,000 worth of contracts to supply these devices has been awarded to the USA company, Innova Medical Group, (a USA-based shell company acting as a sales branch for the test manufacturer Xiamen Biotime Biotechnology Co. Ltd in China).
On 10th June, the US Food and Drug Agency (FDA) warned the public to stop using the Innova SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid qualitative test for detecting infection, suggesting that the tests should be destroyed and binned or returned to the manufacturer2.
The Innova tests were CE marked for use by trained professionals on symptomatic individuals. This is because they require a swab to be taken from the nasopharyngeal area which is the highest part of the nasal passage, causing discomfort.
In a potentially criminal move, the Department of Health:
repackaged these tests using NHS branding3,
re-wrote the instructions for use, stating that the swab should be taken from the anterior nares (lower nostril) area
put pressure on the MHRA to pass them for home use in the UK (on both symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals) under an Emergency Use Authorisation.
These are the tests that are currently being used to test our school children, our care workers etc.