Stephan Bernstein, CEO of GreenRoc, details the PFS results for the new graphite processing plant. 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.
The information on sample swabs isn't clear as day and neither is the quoted sensitivities specificities. Most using nasopharyngeal results despite saying nasal swab which is something else entirely with different results. Nasal swab is an umbrella term being heavily used in wider industry rather than stating whether anterior or mid turbinate.
See eu list of antigen tests thread link, see mologic ce mark statement
*or not
*Nasal swab includes oropharyngeal seemingly too
Bare in mind current industry swabbing terminology seems to nasal swab (anterior/mid turbinate - NS) and nasopharyngeal - NP. Really can't compare tests given you don't know whether nasal swab refers to mid turbinate or anterior. Avacta's is anterioras stated, and now with this news, extremely likely only anterior (not oroparyngeal alongside) but of course it would be.
Whether innova is mid turbinate or anterior, ot uses oropharyngeal as well so bye bye innova.
Dropping of oropharyngeal is significant because a lot of these tests have been using it as a crutch to stand on to boost their sensitivity while reducing to anterior or mid turbinate from nasopharyngeal.
“ proof that the test was run with actual human sample - for example, the inclusion of a control line specific to human mucosal antigens”
Weren't people filming themselves using orangeade to make the Innova test come up positive?
Ah Jaylarc & Penny - that makes total sense!
always have been Tim.
There are only one or 2 now that I have seem to have gotten under the skin of, but that's of no import to anyone, (least of all me)
I read the “proof of human sample” via a control line as being a way of proving someone has actually done the test, as opposed to just putting a clean swab in the buffer.
A way of making it less easy to cheat when done at home.
“ proof that the test was run with actual human sample - for example, the inclusion of a control line specific to human mucosal antigens”
I think this means the inclusion of an additional control line on the actual LFT to prevent someone using for example just the buffer solution and not the AN sample as well.
Possibly to prevent cheating or idiots not using it correctly?
JVTech -
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/assessment-and-procurement-of-coronavirus-covid-19-tests/protocol-for-evaluation-of-rapid-diagnostic-assays-for-specific-sars-cov-2-antigens-lateral-flow-devices
Just to be clear PD's protocol has always been spiked samples in phase 2 and then real human samples in phase 3.
The puzzle is why PD didn't put AVCT through to phase 3 for those human samples. Clearly AS wasnt happy with that decision so decided to go to Europe and skip the bulls*it red tape process at PD
ah well, we're all friends now....
Unless Sir Al doesn't deliver then we will all turn on sujood :)
Seriously, if I had known the difference it would have made to you all I would have done it earlier :0))
(this will make you smile)
I have never gone out of my way to be antagonistic!
(Clearly its a gift, and like most gifts, it can be a curse too)
Its wyn 2.0.
One line replies and spaces between paragraphs. :)
I'm very happy Tim, and its nice to see you are too. have a good weekend :0)
come on wyn cheer up its Friday you miserable fecker
How many candles would you like on your cake Tim?
@jvtech
Also, “ proof that the test was run with actual human sample - for example, the inclusion of a control line specific to human mucosal antigens”
that's exactly why Avacta stated they would test on real world samples and not the synthetic ones Porton Down use
Can I get an A
A
Can I get a V
V
Can I get an A
A
Can I get a C
C
Can I get a T
T
Can I get an A
A
What do we want?
AVACTA AVACTA AVACTA
Why don’t they just bite the billet and change the criteria to say it must be a test developed by Abakta?
Meanwhile, tipp-ex sales are going well as Innova will be frantically changing their instructions- that’s how it works isn’t it? No need to check, just change the sample type.
Significance is this:
This list is written in priority order: lateral flow devices submitted with a specimen collection method higher up on the list will be prioritised for validation. A lateral flow device will only be considered for validation when all lateral flow devices with a higher priority specimen collection method have been considered for validation.
So no brain OR tonsil ticklers anymore! Which is interesting as the initial bidstats tenders did say specifically Nasopharyngeal was no longer being accepted and now Oropharyngeal has gone too. Could they be happy with developments in the AN space? hmmm
Nasopharyngeal Definition
A nasopharyngeal swab is one of the swabs used in COVID-19 testing and is designed to reach far back to your nasopharynx, an anatomical term that you may not have heard before. Your nasopharynx is part of the musculature that makes up your throat and nasal cavities, the pharynx. More specifically, the nasopharynx is behind your nose but above the soft palate of your mouth.
When used to collect a sample for a coronavirus test, a nasopharyngeal swab is inserted through the nasal passage all the way to the back of your throat. The process is fast, but may cause some minimal discomfort.
Oropharyngeal Definition
An orophayngeal swab is designed to reach your oropharynx, another part of the pharynx. Your ororpharynx is located below your nasopharynx; at the back of your throat and below the nasal passage openings.
When used to collect samples for COVID-19 or other coronaivurses, an orophayngeal swab is inserted via the mouth to the back of the throat. Some people find this a more comfortable and preferred method than the nasopharyngeal swab alternative.
sounds like that was tailored for one test in particular :)
When going by the manufacturer instructions it does probably mean that Innova no longer fit the bill but as we all know the government are happy to ignore manufacturer instructions anyway as they are currently doing (Innova test as a AN). Interesting but not sure much changes.