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.
Contrary to many, I am not expecting our LFT to outperform that of Sona. We need to be mindful of the fact that Saliva is undoubtedly more difficult to test than nasopharyngeal swab samples (as used by Sona & all PCR tests). Even with the high affinity & specificity reportedly attributed to Affimers, they would be doing exceptionally well to beat 96% on both counts. If you listen to David Wilson on the Cytiva/Avacta/Sona webinar he clearly states that during development they may have to cede some Specificity in order to obtain an acceptable Sensitivity (which they see as being of paramount importance). If you keep convincing yourselves that we are going to beat 96% on both counts you could well end up very disappointed & set us all up for a fall!
Don’t get overly complacent. Obtaining suitable performance on a Saliva test is incredibly difficult. If we get close to Sona we will be doing exceptionally well with a Saliva matrix & it will be a good result. To think we will beat 96% at this stage is pie in the sky thinking & people would do well to remember that.
perhaps you should watch this
https://avacta.wistia.com/medias/wls4u1wqgi?hss_channel=tw-2279270671
Amphiprinion. Hhhhmmm 1 post and just joined as member you either work for sona or
Heavily invested and worried avac will out perform sona test and your sp drops
Avacty is aiming very high and will reach it
Trust me
Just looked up 'Amphiprion' Clown fish
what would you do if you were big Al, IF the techies have attained 96%-96% already, but said give us a couple of weeks and we can do better
Looks like Winnifrith or one of his side kicks Is back....short no doubt!
Yes, I have already watched & read every single piece of literature in the public domain relating to Avacta. And yes, I have just joined. I don’t normally post anything at all, but felt compelled to in this instance as it is clear from reading the posts that you are being delusional. I would like nothing more that to beat 96% on both counts, but by setting your expectations so incredibly high, investors who read this board are going to feel very deflated IF we come in below that level. You are setting us up for a fall! Is that your intention??
And yes, we have all heard Alastair saying that the test currently works, & I have no doubt that it does. But that doesn’t mean that it works in the same way that management aspire to. There can be a gulf in between.
It is quite feasible that we currently only have 75% sensitivity for instance, & that we are. Ow working to bring that up to an acceptable level. What I am saying is that if we do not manage to match Sona’s 96% when testing Saliva, it need not necessarily be seen as a failure. If we have a Saliva test that works at anything over 90% on those metrics I would see that as a positive.
Conversely, your sky high & unreasonable expectations will only lead to disappointment if not met, & a falling share price. Is that your intention??
Yaaaaawn....another green box
I think we are all aware there are risks, in fact PL75 had a fantastic post at the weekend ;)
what we have been told by the company is in the presentation I posted:
https://avacta.wistia.com/medias/wls4u1wqgi?hss_channel=tw-2279270671
Thanks Timster, but I can’t take credit for Sir Al’s list. Clownfish - expectations of a high performing test are based on the communication from Sir Al in the link provided by Timster. As you’ve seen everything related to Awacta, you’ll already know that.
I’m not even convinced Sona will match a 96/96% performance in clinical trials. Please stop abusing those stats. Pretty sure we’ll get there on specificity but I’ll be incredibly impressed if either company meets 96% sensitivity “in the wild”. But as discussed before, you don’t need to hit that to identify and isolate the most infectious spreaders, and in do so put a massive dent in the R factor.
The webinar with Klaus, where he was cautious, I definitely got the impression that antibody based tests were hard. Bigger molecule which might. E harder to keep stable.
No idea, but maybe a question for his next appearance. Which is easier to work with affimer or antibody. Hope the answer is the one we hope for :-)
Agreed CO, I reckon specificity is in the bag thanks to the joyous wonderment of affimers. For sensitivity, I’ve said before, 80% is useful, 90% very good indeed and 95%+ would be unbelievably incredible. Can’t wait to find out
CO, the very good LFT antigen tests in the world can offer in-field test sens rate ranging 80%-85%. And these are the tests approved by FDA, etc.
https://www.healthinsuranceandprotection.com/covid-19/aviva-uk-healths-dr-subashini-mm-testing-times-%e2%80%93-antibody-tests-and-pmi?utm_source=Adestra&utm_medium=email&utm_term=&utm_content=Aviva%20UK%20Health%E2%80%99s%20Dr%20Subashini%20M%3A%20Testing%20times%20%E2%80%93%20antibody%20tests%20and%20PMI&utm_campaign=News%2020.07.07A&user_id=&tracker_id=
Source : Health Industry Industry Bulletin
I hold AVCT this might be of interest and be good to hear thoughts from the knowledgeable.
Indeed, but I can assure you that nowhere either in writing or on video will you find Alastair stating that they can meet (for instance) 95% Sensitivity/ 95% Specificity. It simply does not exist. What does in fact exist is a lot of hopefulls putting words in to his mouth, & in my opinion that is a dangerous exercise with the potential of creating an awful lot of disillusioned investors if we produce something around 85% or 90% or even below. You must be mindful that NOBODY on the entire planet has EVER produced a POC saliva based antigen test (without having even the benefit of the holy grail PCR) & had it assessed. It is totally totally unknown, a world first, & we simply do not know how it will perform. It's all well & good Alastair producing the (very good) video describing LFT performance criteria & what we would ideally want to achieve. That does not for one minute say that we will in fact achieve it. This is cutting edge science & I for one still see a very useful place for this test (as it is saliva based & easier to sample) even if we achieve a less than ideal result (within reason). It matters not that Sona may achieve 96/96 - they are DIFFERENT TESTS, albeit trying to achieve the same objective, & there is ample room for both - & more!
My personal view is that we will come out below Sona & still launch as there will still be massive demand, while at the same time undergoing a process of refinement over the coming weeks & months before launching V2. If we come out anywhere near Sona when using a saliva matrix I will personally be ecstatic. But do not bank on it! And I encourage you to listen again to David Wilson towards the end of the Cytiva/Avacta/Sona Webinar where he alludes to the fact that we may have to cede some specificity in order to obtain a decent sensitivity. It is easier after all to secondarily PCR test all the false positives, than to miss the positives in the first place.
That’s why I have been saying get the test out ASAP and get your feet into the market then refine the product. No point in holding out whilst others take pieces of the market even with inferior tests.
I disagree, get the test the best and most accurate on the planet and forever more they will be using Avacta affimers for all testing in the future for similar viruses.
The best test = all global business and huge partners to manufacture.
Quite right, he didn’t say 95/95. He said they’re aiming for 98/95 xx.
Good luck Sir Al. In Klaus we trust.
Amphiprion, I don't know how they could 'cede specificity' to enhance sensitivity due to the fact affimers do not cross react with similar viruses. I could be wrong and there are more qualified than me that could correct me. But I am led to believe that affimers are highly specific by nature.
There’s no point debating what Sir Al said, it’s in the video. They’re aiming for the highest performing test possible and said they believe the minimum is 95/90. He then has a dig at Sona, saying swabs are useless, good ol’ Al. The summary starts at 9:10.
Whilst Sona may be 96% accurate at detecting the virus on a swab (tested only 30 times on a perfectly prepared sample) - this doesn’t account for the difficulty in making nasal swabs. Especially by non professionals...
Some links that demonstrate real world accuracy likely to be better with saliva sample.
https://azbigmedia.com/business/asu-researchers-develop-cheaper-faster-saliva-test-for-covid-19/
Saliva tests may be even more accurate than nasal tests, said Joshua LaBaer, executive director of the Biodesign Institute. Nasopharyngeal swabs involve inserting a cotton swab into the nose and pushing it to the back of the palate, where the sample is collected. The swab then is put into about half a teaspoon of liquid, mostly saline.
“But in the case of the saliva test, the entire sample is produced by the person,” he said. “So, if there’s virus in there, there’s probably a little bit more virus in the saliva test. So, in our hands, it’s as effective, and in at least a couple of cases it looks like it might be a little bit more effective.””
The authors found that oropharyngeal swabs significantly outperformed nasal swabs in terms of both sensitivity and accuracy: throat swabs missed only 14 percent of positive cases, as opposed to almost 60 percent that were missed by the nasal swabs.
https://www.labroots.com/trending/clinical-and-molecular-dx/18056/throat-swabs-prevent-covid-false-negatives
from what I heard ****y Winnifritth has more important things on his mind, namely trying to work out how the fukc hes getting him and his mates out on the shorts they hold in EUA
good luck with that one you bunch of Cokcwommbles
(1/2)
@Amphiprion1 Good morning. I have just had a chance to read your post from yesterday. I appreciate your stance and support the need to not get too carried away about the LFT needing to reach the top levels of performance, or indeed match Sona, in order to be successful.
I'm going to give you my opinion now but please do take it in the context of it being an opinion, that is my opinion only.
I hear loud and clear the argument that high performing saliva based antigen tests are not the norm, if indeed achieved to date.
I tend to take a logic based approach to investing based on information that is available from the company, tested by what I find out from other sources. An approach I dedicate a lot of time to. I am not a scientist, nor have I worked in the field and I do try to recognise that as I go along.
My opinion.
Despite reservations about the way the last placing was handled, I feel my trust in what Dr Smith says, is well placed.
With David Wilson as head of the diagnostics division at AVCT, there is ample well respected experience within AVCT, such that statements made on their aims for both the LFT and the BAMS test, should not be taken too lightly.
Furthermore, it is for me not just the release of the diagnostic performance video that is key but the timing of it as well because it came out 1 day before the working LFT test was announced.
So when Dr Smith states that in AVCT view "the minimum hurdles for a rapid antigen test for use in the general population is a sensitivity of 90% or better and a specificity of 95% or better" and that statement is made 1 day prior to the working test parameters being known, it is for me a strong indicator that the test is capable (at least at this stage), of meeting that criteria.
This is further compounded by the fact that Dr Smith goes on to state that "we are aiming for a high performance test with both the LFT. . . and the laboratory based test with Adeptrix."
In the table given earlier in the piece, an example of a high performing test is given as 95% sensitivity and 98% specificity, which again must be taken in the context of this video conveniently being released, just 1 day prior to the working test announcement.
Anything is possible but it is highly unlikely that AVCT published this video 1 day prior to these results, purely by chance. It is also highly unlikely that AVCT are blissfully unaware that it may just be construed, that their test can meet their own minimum requirements or better, because of the content they themselves decided to publish, on that particular day.
All of which is further compounded by the fact that Dr Smith appears on a IG interview 9 days later and openly discusses the need for 100s million of tests and the logistics of putting enough manufacturing in place for it. That being smack bang in the middle of the optimisation process, which defines the final product.