Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. 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.
CO thanks for putting me right, I think most invested here believe affimers and spike protein detection to be effective. Lets hope they don't fail in the fight against covid like N protein antigen testing and rna PCR has done. No argument over their failure we just wait for affimers to have a go without those failures interfering with their +ve and -ve results . The proof will be in the data as the professionals are all over the place in disarray with arguments. Affimers deserve an equal shot at it as the rest after all AS has waited long enough in the shade and AVCT has to have the spotlight on it to prove up affimers but fairly. We might have a good future in those circumstances.
It would be better if the LFT's gave a result as infectious or not infectious,as we know it's not about positive and negative thats for the PCR test,but i think that would be clearer for the masses,hopefully Al will clear this up if he gets invited to the downing st briefing
“CO believes PCR and rnaLFT detect as early as affimers”
I’ve never heard of an RNA LFT. Most of them detect N proteins. It’s PCR that detects RNA. Regarding earlier timing of detection, I just haven’t seen good evidence or arguments to support that targeting S proteins give us an advantage. Still waiting and hoping to see it!
Sleepydave I think your right somebody I cannot remember who on BBC news yesterday about schools in England, positive LFT won't be subject to PCR testing, I guess it's down to cost and knowing brain ticklers won't be carried out properly
sleepydave, I don't think there would be so much confusion had AffiDX been in use now but the Innova test has more false positives. The government have not been transparent enough about our LFT/moonshot and of course putting rules in place for ours before it is in the box will fail. If the professionals had been apprised of the cunning Cummings plan the debate and policy could have been rational and included the term 'affimer'
I believe that the gov then backtracked Doze
Confused.com
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56321537
trader72
The News at One on the radio said all positive LFT must be confirmed with a positive PCR
Trouble is CO and PL, in the early stages these N protein/RNA antigens and PCRs don't work to control anything so we have lockdown. You can't confirm a false positive with a test that throws up more false positives than the LFT but the original post was pointing out that the confirmatory PCR is going to throw up a false negative thus rubbishing AffiDX. CO believes PCR and rnaLFT detect as early as affimers even though innova says they do not and PCR imo do not detect spikes and cannot be a home test for mass use.
Coming out of lockdown you have to have the right regime. PCR and rnaLFT are not part of a successful one but recipe for failure.
The Government no longer requires a positive LFD test to be confirmed by PCR. They dropped this practice around 4 weeks ago.
Eggy,.... I mean Ndn71 has been banging on about that on twitter
Hi doze, thanks for taking the time to reply. To be clear, I’m not arguing for the opposition, just to resolve the difference between what I understand and what I read here. I might have been missing something very positive, but I’m not yet convinced that is the case.
I think you’re making the assumption that PCR and N protein antigen tests will only detect positives after the virions naturally break apart. This is incorrect. They each use a “lysis buffer” solution that breaks the virus apart as part of the test.
Either way, I strongly agree that mass LFT testing is the way to go, and the best chance to detect and isolate the most asymptomatic and presymptomatic infectious cases.
Are we talking viral mush again? PCR is more sensitive than an LFD so if there's an LFD false positive and it's confirmed negative by a professionally taken PCR test then fine. The chances of false positives are small, so why not confirm them?
As I&B has said, ideally with BAMS. Ideally - Take your daily LFD, if it's positive, stay isolated whilst you order a dribble pot that goes to the BAMS lab for confirmation one way or another. The BAMS (or PCR if we must..) confirmation might at some point get dropped if it's shown that the LFD is exquisitely specific.
Research hospitalised cases with mass spec but asymptomatic and mild vaccinated persons just test again until negative. The regime has to be a simple return to normality not isolating the non infectious for ages. Sorry to monopolize I hate being front of house but the LFT has to have the right roll out to be accepted and I fear for that not being the case with the latest edict.
I don't know the science well enough but I think in the end it is best if we can ditch PCR to check positive tests and use BAMS instead. BAMS is cheaper and has the virtue of being an effective aid to triage
AgentB - PCR is lab based and the graph is not proven but conjecture on the part of scientists making a nice picture. They are wrong, the affimer is the only solution to control spread. Only usage data will prove me right/wrong but the slow results from PCR plus usage data are already discredited as a pandemic control so cannot be used to monitor mass testing.
viral RNA is not present early on CO as one infecting virion will break down creating minimal detectable RNA but 1000s of new virions with spikes that our test will pick up but a pcr won't. It will take a day at least, maybe more for those new virus proteins to break down for other test to detect. You keep arguing for the opposition CO and to date the opposition has failed. It is madness to instigate a procedure that is still in hock to the opposition. The virtue of mass test is it is cheap and repeat use can take the R rate to zero-nothing else works so try mass testing with repeat test to show when negative.
https://avacta.com/interim-results-for-the-period-ended-30-june-2020-webinar-presentation/
Please see slide 24 @ around 26.35 minutes. The graphic seems to indicate that PCR testing and antigen testing are roughly the same in the early days of infectiousness.
I agree with you about the practicality of PCR vs LFTs but in our bid to talk up how wonderful LFTs and in particular Avacta’s offering will be, let’s stay realistic and not go too enthusiastically off-piste with the science.
Spike proteins are part of the virus. If they’re present at the start of infection, the virus will be present, along with viral RNA, which PCR tests should in theory detect.
Anecdotal evidence to the contrary is just that. The plural of anecdote is not data.
14.57 post CO- the evidence is that lockdown was the only solution and we are now hopefully trying mass testing but I predict it will fail due to this PCR confirmatory test.
The debate is not about the tail end. Assume you test positive with the LFT, the powers that be now say you have to take a PCR test so most likely NCYT one that you will sernd off to a lab but you have to mingle to acquire the test and then wait for the result which may not pick up the spike proteins of the early infectious so you are free to go to school etc at the most infectious time.
“ as you know as an AVCT investor, PCR does not identify the early infectious”
I do not know this. Can you support it with evidence please?
There is no innova LFT, they are in a government plain box(if not some have been) as a sovereign test which will be filled with our offering as soon as possible so procedure has to be established correctly for it. A positive LFT should cause isolation until you get a negative LFT. The News at One on the radio said all positive LFT must be confirmed with a positive PCR and as you know as an AVCT investor, PCR does not identify the early infectious. Mass testing is to isolate the early infectious/asymptomatic. AffiDX cannot do its job if the PCR is going to trump the LFT with a negative result, it is a totally mindless strategy.
I know nothing about Deek's son but Deeks has slated the innova test but as you know the government do not specify manufacturer it is to be seamless transition to us but apparently the whole mass testing will be pointless because the infected will be allowed out with a false negative PCR result because they do not detect the early infectious.
*less likely
The debate is more around the tail end of detection, whereby in theory LFTs stop reporting positive results when people are less unlikely to be infectious, but PCR report positives for a longer tail, from residual non-viable viral RNA still in the system.