The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
@baldingquickly
I didn't want to name the deramper directly or post on their thread as it gives them the unnecessary attention which they are probably craving so early in the morning :)
This is for the deramper that clearly has no clue about vaccines and how they work. Free education time for you. Read this slowly so you can process it and learn something new today. No vaccine is 100 percent effective.
Let's have a look at the effectiveness for the NHS FLU immunisation programme.
Across all age groups including children, the flu vaccine prevented 15-52% of flu cases between 2015 - 2020 (see research by Public Health England on the effectiveness of flu vaccines) Low percentages yet we have a national NHS flu vaccination program for decades. I'm sure you know many people that have taken the flu vaccine. Maybe you did yourself who knows.
Clearly there are benefits otherwise it would have stopped a long time ago.
In contrast if the AZ covid vaccine is 70% effective its still looking much better than the flu vaccine already.
In the USA, the FDA are reportedly willing to approve covid vaccine that are 50 percent effective.
Deramper or just clueless, you now are smarter than you were when you woke up this morning.
Will be interesting to see whether to government would want two negative antigen or antibody test results. (I have a feeling it will be the antigen test that the gov is referring to )
However having two separate antigen tests would also help combat any issues with false negatives / false positive results.
The article also mentioned "Omega Diagnostics has antigen and antibody tests in its portfolio." We don't have an antigen test...yet.
The thing I find interesting is that if you go to the online version of the article, it has the BMJ logo on the top right next to the Yale logo.
Yet werent the BMJ the ones that keep on slamming the test?
Another point is that article also cites papers written by dismal Deeks.
@Smishman75
This is true. However MHRA is independent to the gov and if they approve a test that is sub par to their own standards (just to please the gov), their international credibility is at stake.
A few days ago I made a post on the positive aspects of ODX. To make it balanced, I felt it was appropriate to list some counter points regarding issues that are affecting and can drop the SP in the future. Some are farfetched and scrapping the barrel but felt it was worth mentioning.
1) Currently Sneller has gifted shares to the charity. Its likely the charity are selling them hence the SP drop however lots of investors have bought them. If it was not for the institutional sellers in bulk we would have a higher and more stable SP
2) Good Law project litigation issues - to sue the gov regarding contract allocation. Will be interesting to see how this how this pans out
3) If no MHRA approval = gov will cancel orders as per the consortium contract. Orders may not be as high as anticipated.
4) Mologic –would be ideal to see the results of the tests & how they are performing. There might issues/delays with MTA transfer. They might turn around and decide not to MTA with ODX (being very sceptical I know)
I find it interesting that they openly say the first test is "convenient at-home RT-PCR test provided by LetsGetChecked", the second test "LAMP test provided by Collinson" and the third test is an at home self collection saliva sample.
For the third test there is interestingly no name on who provides it, is it a LFT, etc.
An interesting article by sharebuyers which shows that BMJ has a chip on their shoulder. Not to mention dismal deeks was named too.
https://www.sharebuyers.co.uk/shares/the-bmj-continues-to-be-used-to-bash-the-uk-rtc-and-its-all-starting-to-look-very-questionable-heres-why/
@MIKODX
Chrispthomas13 is a new user to the forum and most of his/her posts are negative and deramping. Clearly has little idea and seriously question if they are invested or their motives.
Interestingly the drop was at the same time as the drop on NCYT and GDR.
Fair point Mikey-P
I have become tired of sentiment. Very emotionally draining. Definitely prefer the hard figures/sales.
I'm even more so sceptical as to the events this past week. Planned attack and slander created to get the big boys in at a cheaper price. Dare I say buy out? Better not!
Now we know why Abingdon wanted to float.
The tweet also says that the test also detects Ig antibodies also produced by the Pfizer vaccine.
The test will cover both vaccines by Oxford/AZ vaccine and the Pfizer one.
Game on!
I believe its easier to get tested at a covid hub, you don't need a health care professional, just someone monitoring. You get the results and recording of them at the same time with no delay. If it needs to be repeated due to a equivocal result, you repeat the test there and then.
If its return via postal system it could add delay to the final result if a second independent interpretation is needed. Then people would have to maybe isolate till then maybe?
If its an app to record the results like in the track and trace thus could work best however it still in the works and who knows when it will be ready.
@chriszzr
The authors mis understood the Abington antibody test and its scope/where and how its meant to be implemented. If you don't understand the test and how its meant to be used, how can you assess it properly?
The authors didn’t use MHRA methods to valid the study results
The authors assumed the number of covid cases in the key worker by using a statistical model and not physically checking if they had it or not. You can't assume someone has covid without testing them. The statistical test could have said a key worker could theoretically have had covid but of course they would test negative for antibodies because they didn’t have it, we assumed they did (hope that makes sense)
They used different standards to compare the AbC-19 antibody test. Its like trying to compare apples with pears saying they are the same. Then blaming the apple for not being a pear.
BMJ article rightly scrutinised.
"authors misunderstand the purpose of our test "
"An initial study2 performed at Ulster University used methods as defined by Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA)"
"authors perform a theoretical statistical modelling exercise with “assumed” incidence of SARS-CoV-2 in key workers of 10% whilst their own data "
" authors proceed to use an assay with totally different specifications to the AbC-19TM IgG assay as a reference standard"
"The reference standard chosen; the Roche pan antibody assay to nucleocapsid protein (NP) (Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV2), is designed to detect IgM and IgG antibodies to a different immunogenic portion of the virus"
Our customer, DHSC, is satisfied with the performance of the test, as is the UK-RTC, and will continue to use and roll out the use of the product.
Game on!
@sharebel
Great post & thank you. I wish this could be pinned to the top of the board.
@chuggley
There's no accountability unfortunately. The only thing left is morals of which many lack so its business as usual for them
Cleverly planned attack by poor journalism, poor PR, poor RNS, poor support for PI by the company. Everything is aligning up and when it rains it pours.
If the MHRA was truly independent, I’d be very surprised if they delayed the results and would question how independent they really are.
Putting the BMJ article and MHRA review for home use aside, the antibody test is CE marked for professional use which the sensitivity and specificity are very high. There is still a market for this.
Thinking laterally (excuse the pun) sometimes it is better for healthcare professionals (HCP) to administer such tests to remove user error. Its just as how with the nasal and throat swab in the drive through centres/testing centres there is someone there (not always a HCP) that guides the public on how to use the test properly to ensure a proper sample is taken. Same as the use of the army in Liverpool doing a similar thing. This is just to get a “simple” nasal/throat swab.
I can almost guarantee that if this was a BMJ article reviewing a new home pregnancy test, the manufacturer claims vs study findings would be different too. Yes it’s as easy as urinating on a stick but people still get it wrong. No wonder people do pregnancy tests more than once.
Building up on this, for a home antibody test imagine then having to self take blood, pipette it on to the cassette and use a buffer. More steps and it becomes more complicated for the public to grasp. I can see any home antigen test having a user error too.
On paper home testing sounds like a good idea however in reality its not as practical.