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.
Just added 45k @ 46.77 that should show as a buy onwards and upwards dyor GLA
No offence Roquet but you are not up to this. Going through home approval is not the same as achieving home approval. I have not claimed Avacta won't achieve home approval, I just don't think it will solve the challenges we have.
Not sure about my nervousness. I have a realistic approach to investing and I haven't assumed anything. That's very healthy. If BRH doesn't work out I will just accept it and I won't carry that as baggage to then run around like a prat on everyone elses board because .... oh it's all so unfair like you have (fact).
You come to this board to talk about another company so expect to get some feedback that you might not like. Your a total idiot for posting the way you do on this board. This is quite evidential and absolutely a fact.
I have to say I learn nothing from Roquet based on his messages here. Any casual review of the official Avacta information reveals he makes a lot of assumptions without fact.
Also we need tests that detect infection BEFORE the infected person is infectious to be able to control transmission of the virus. Next generation tests will do that. Avacta specifically targets those that are already infectious because it isn't sensitive enough to do otherwise. So it's useful but it isn't fit to prevent general transmission of moving population - hence professional use.
I'm surprised you can think Rocquet with all the blood rushing from the rest of your body to that hard on you have for Avacta.
Ugh, can’t resist.. yes! It is excellent at finding 99% of people outdoors. It does not look for those indoors and therefore they are not in the percentage. You said it yourself.. Ct 27...
So once more, your device is excellent at finding those outdoors on a summer day, we can assume most will be enjoying the sunshine (like me after this post!) but the parameters have to shift to catch those indoors, and that is where LFT’s become pointless. The article states ‘false negatives’. Understand how this happens.
Nonsense, LFT’s can only see people on the streets, gardens and parks on a hot summer day. Paraytec’s device can see all the people on the streets, gardens and parks plus those who remain indoors, sitting in cars or at the shops.
Broaden your mind! Paraytec’s device does scale because one device can repeatedly do 1000’s in a day. One device can carry out daily testing for an entire school, as an example.
Rocqeut, I never mentioned false positives. One last time to try and explain, imagine you are in space looking for a specific person. You have a telescope, you can see the country, you can see the city, you can even see a network of streets, but that is your limit. Therefore you cannot find the person, now switch to Ct 35-40 and you can now see individual streets, individual houses and individual people, now you can find that person.
bbrq648 I disagree, we have done our research but there are newbie investors who have not, plus we have rocquet constantly turning up here bashing BRH. Marmited Keep posting facts is no problem.
Fair points, I’ll shut up now. Just sick of that share being pumped over here, for months!
Marmited,
All investors carry out their own research prior to investing in a share.
Most of us knew our competitors, and you don’t need to explain to us.
Justification are well known.
You don’t need to elaborate.
Thanks.
bbrq648
I feel like a parent who’s brainwashed child needs to be restrained and physically removed from the cult for their own safety and well-being.
You have NO RELIABLE evidence to ensure your device can protect the public.
It has NOT been independently scrutinised with results made public
It has NOT carried out a strong study
It has NOT been tested in the settings YOU expect it to be used
Due to its Ct value it WILL have many FALSE NEGATIVES causing harmful consequences.
It failed at Porton Down which simply backs up all the above.
When you stop talking about AVACTA on this board i will stop talking about AVACTA on this board.
Experts call for new standards for diagnostic tests to address testing problems during the COVID-19 pandemic
The Royal Statistical Society (RSS) has today published its review of the statistical evidence needed to assure the performance of future diagnostic tests, so we are better prepared for future pandemics.
The RSS Working Group on Diagnostic Tests, which is co-chaired by University of Birmingham’s Professor Jon Deeks, is calling on the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) to review and revise the national licensing process for in vitro diagnostic tests, to ensure that reliable evidence about the performance of tests is available and public safety is protected.
Present legislation does not require tests to be evaluated in the settings where they will be used, and for the evidence to be independently scrutinised and publicly available. Currently, the performance of diagnostic tests is not held to a common statistical benchmark in either the UK, US, or EU, whereas the regulatory regime for drugs and vaccines is more stringent. Covid-19 has brought this longstanding problem to the fore, as tests have come to market without evidence of their accuracy for many of the uses to which they are being applied and have been marketed with claims not supported by strong studies.
The RSS experts stress that the assessment of a test’s safety must go beyond just the safety of the device itself, to include the potentially harmful consequences of false negatives and false positives.
“Investment in well-designed studies evaluating tests in the real-world settings where they are used must become standard practice. We must learn from the mistakes made during the pandemic and put in place requirements for stronger science, better regulation and more transparency.”
https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/latest/2021/06/covid-diagnostic-tests-problems-new-standards.aspx