Ben Richardson, CEO at SulNOx, confident they can cost-effectively decarbonise commercial shipping. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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 :-)
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.
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 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
Yaaaaawn....another green box
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??
Looks like Winnifrith or one of his side kicks Is back....short no doubt!
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
Just looked up 'Amphiprion' Clown fish
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
10/10 for effort
perhaps you should watch this
https://avacta.wistia.com/medias/wls4u1wqgi?hss_channel=tw-2279270671
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.