Ben Richardson, CEO at SulNOx, confident they can cost-effectively decarbonise commercial shipping. Watch the video here.
Do you think he was paid off by innova and/or importers of Innova??
I think with £3.7bn worth of orders going to Chinese companies, this should be investigated.
Horrayy
I got a reply back from Crispin Blunt ( my local MP). I guess it is about making noises. I explained about the slow progress of the Desktop review.. frozen pig salivagate at Porton Down etc.
Hopefully, they will put pressure on..
Cheers
Black Cat
Dear Mr ******
Thank you for your various emails over Christmas regarding the production of LFTs and the way in which Government policy is contributing the the current shortage. I just wanted to let you know that I’ve written to Ministers to seek further information on this issue, and will provide a full response when I hear back from them.
Yours sincerely,
Crispin Blunt
Somebody like Myles or Ophidian or Poirot or the man himself Alistair Smith..
And just explain it as it is... It would regarded as free advertising.
Also, Private Eye would too love to hear ....
https://youtu.be/h-AjiUkbuh8
This type of news is right up there street..
Puurrrrfect
Meeooooowww
I have looked .. I can only see on the TV schedule Prime Minster's questions ... oh I wish I was an MP for one day.
Does anybody know if there is a live link where we can watch/listen to the debate, or even later afterwards? Thanks in advance.
It makes me sick ... angry ..
Me too
Ophidian
Yep, I have copied the text from the 15th Dec RNS and sent on to Prof. Tim Peto. Yes, it details how successful Avacta's LFT is in detecting Omicron and other variants of concern. Hopefully, it will make interesting reading.
Hopefully, something useful will come out of it.
Ed
I am obviously refering to Porton Down flawed methodology.
Ophidian/Poirot
Prof Tim Peto replied again. His response is as follows;
I am sorry. I didn't realize your kit was detecting Spike. Have you checked that it works against omicrom which has antigenically a very different structure.
Tim
Have we got any official data (a link to an independent journal would be great) that I can direct him to Delta and Omicron performance. I want to be able to give him the methodology so that if required, he can replicate.
If he understands that methodology is flawed, then he might be influential in getting it changed/reviewed.
What I don't understand is why Avacta did not challenge the methodology process earlier?? Especially when they had data from other independent labs demonstrating high performance.
OK, I will keep you updated, but I doubt if Prof. Tim Peto will respond again.
tim_t20 I am sorry for not proofreading my posts. As per my old school reports, I will try harder.
I think Prof Tim Peto got the gist. (I hope I spelt gist properly. I don't want the grammar police to get me).
I sent the following to Tim ;
Dear Prof Timothy Peto,
Thank you for the response. I don’t think it was the LFT kit was the problem. I think it was the pre-treatment (freezing) of the samples/dummy standards that was the problem.
As I have been informed, Freezing causes a topographical change on the surface of the virion with the spikes hinging into the positions they adopt after infection. Therefore when the binding site is in the area of the hinge then clearly this cannot work.
The key question for Porton Down and by extension Prof. Peto to answer is why can multiple independent labs utilising live clinical samples demonstrate time after time with reproducible and consistent results that the AffiDX LFD detects ALL variants of concern for patients with viral loads in the infectious range when the SIMULATED test method employed at PD cannot.
- Answer - the SIMULATED product is not actually truly representative of the model it seeks to simulate. I doubt a Human could actually be infected with COVID19 using their frozen substrate.
It might well be fine for the N protein as there is less deformation and change by freezing but for the S it is clearly a flawed methodology
Personally, I thought that when the ice crystals grow, they rear/rip open the cell wall. This releases so much nucleoside junk that this interferes with the composition and distribution of the constituents. In unfrozen samples; i.e. in real samples this does not happen, but as I stated earlier, my biochemical knowledge is dated (1985) as is my memory.
Somebody else responded with this
1. Ref Lancet paper below (in which you are a contributor) ,how does Table 1 data ( illustrating reducing to nil sensitivity <30Ct ) for poor quality Innova ,lead to a Porton Down protocol ‘pass’?
2. If above (1 )passes, if you make a Cf profile of Affidix data , how does this product not pass the evaluation? Compare and contrast.
3. Several commentators have criticised PT analytical efficacy. Please comment in full defending these criticisms .
Regards .
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(21)00204-2/fulltext
Since there is such a dire shortage of LFTs in the UK, would it be reasonable to repeat the work with unfrozen samples/standards at Porton Down?? A quick test of Affidx (or others) on unfrozen samples at PD would prove the point.
This would give a dramatic impact on LFT availability and support to UK biotech.
It seems reasonable to demonstrate that these and others obviously work since this has been a major hurdle to selling the product in the UK. We would not have to import inferior Chinese products into the UK.
I think in the very near future, the media will show a very strong interest in the above. As I understand, the UK government have spent north of £3bn (I guess that includes PPE too). It is great that the HMG invested in Astra/Zeneca/Oxford vaccines. It is a shame that HMG did not support the UK diagnostic industry in the same way.
Ki
I got a reply from Prof Timothy Peto
I am shocked with his reply.
Ophidian, are you able to put a suitable response (as I don't want to get wrong) or shall I forwards to AS?? Tim's reply is as follows;
All the LFT kits are tested the same way and many have passed the original screening test which includes the freeze/thawing process. I am unclear why your particular kit should be less resilient to the freeze/thawing process.
Tim Peto
I have sent him my basic letter thoughts on frozen samples vs real sample. Though it is great to go into detail (when required) most lay persons (Government folk) won't understand what you are talking about. It is as if you are talking a different language..
Don't forget KISS
Keep It Simple Stupid..
Which somebody once said to me a very long time ago
He can verify the wisdom of using frozen samples against real life samples/standards; esp. when analysing Avacta's LFT.
Who would use frozen samples? When in real life you use live/real/unfrozen samples.
I sent to Prof Tim Peto today..
The Chappy going to the HM Government investigative committee should query the methodology used at Porton Down regarding the wisdom of using frozen samples when testing the performance of LFTs.
Dear Prof. Tim Peto,
Happy New Year 2022 to you!
Its a very long time ago since I did a Biochemistry degree at Leeds University (graduated 1985). I am a massive investor of Avactor. As I understand, you sanctioned/supported the use of 'frozen samples' as opposed to 'real life' samples for analysing the performance of the LFTs.
I am very disappointed that you did not repeat the analysis using real samples; (i.e. unfrozen samples). From memory (as I understand) the freezing process creates ice crystals that grow which literally tears open the cells masking the spike and hinge proteins found on the outer surface of cells. Obviously, this reduces the performance of Avacta's LFT and gives it a poor (limit of detection) sensitivity/performance.
These 'apparent poor results' (in real life who will uses frozen samples) have inadvertently scuppered the opportunity of bringing Avacta's LFT to the UK market. We have the ridiculous situation where the Avacta product is CE marked for sale in Europe and rest of the world, but not in the UK. Considering the lack of availability of LFTs in the UK, and are reliant on inferior Chinese imports, what would be required to repeat/review these experiments using real unfrozen samples?
My sincere apologies to you for being direct and blunt with you and if I made any incorrect assumptions. I am becoming increasingly very desperate for Avacta to succeed. I strongly believe that this Company will grow significantly and will be a massive success on the world stage. I am sure you would want the UK Pharma to be successful in the future.
What steps/firery hoops would it take to repeat these experiments using real life unfrozen samples?
Kind regards
Ed ****** BSc MSc
Get Outlook for Android
As I understand, Tim Peto (mad professor at Oxford) is the chap who stateed that is OK to use frozen samples other than real samples. He will know that ice crystals will tear the cells open complicating the soup.. It also does not represent real life. He is the person that significantly ruined Avacta's opportunity of world domination.
It did not say why the test failed at Porton Down. The Porton Down test involved freezing the samples. Freezing the samples destroyed the cells. In real life samples, nobody would freeze the samples. This is really important. Porton Down test procedure was flawed/inappropriate. This has significantly cost Avacta.. Other countries recognise that real samples are not frozen and don't freeze. So under 'normal' conditions, the Avacta tests are best in their class.