Member Info for doze

I think I acted before he posted Timster. He is catching up.

I agree with Bighero I was saying in last post on this thread.

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/duckduckgo-privacy-essent/bkdgflcldnnnapblkhphbgpggdiikppg/related

I agree and LSAI though it may retrace has issued warrants which if exercised would see Medusa actors able to reverse Medusa into LSAI while making a packet on warrants which need to be exercised for the reversal. Savvy operators maximising the market but betting on AffiDX coming good. I took a t20 on LSAI with this in mind at recent low in an effort to recoup AVCT paper losses after reading on LSAI chat about the warrants.

Price of drugs should be lower. Over regulation/safety in the light of new knowledge and excessive developmental costs when Info Tech/software and inert harmless developments like affimers can quickly develop new therapies should be the focus. Charity should be directed at education so they can help themselves. Jabs wasted in Africa as no roads/staff/willing jabees - the same will apply to LFTs supplied by Gates. It just keeps them under. High profits entrenches poor biopharma rollout of 21st century tech which would bring care costs down if allowed to prosper without PD style hurdles.

I spelt it wrong the other day; I think it helps him see through the scams perpetrated by the drug/test makers being an ex chancellor and also how it holds back roll out of superior health conclusions.

networking with the barbie doll, Sarah Gilbert speaks at 9.10-9.40, AS's symposium is off the main hall 12.40-13.40
https://www.escv2021.org/scientific-information/scientific-programme/
https://www.escv2021.org/scientific-information/industry-symposia/
https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/infection-veterinary-and-ecological-sciences/staff/matthew-baylis/
I suppose this is the correct Dr Matt Johnson
https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/biosciences/people/mbb-staff/academic/matt-johnson
https://www.york.ac.uk/biology/news-events/seminars/plant-biology/2019-20/drmattjohnson-autumn2019/
I would prefer action developing therapies/LFTs

I always thought T&T a big waste of money but there again it was going along with advisers. PPE came late to the party and DHSC rushed or had no controls as a result. I think Cummings methodology was employed but without Cummings' oversight causing a rudderless roll out. Businesses with knowledge naturally step in quickest and that is not criminal. Chinese moles in the establishment could have nudged processes at PD and MHRA as reported happened in the US, that would need clamping down on just as I would hate to see affimers exploited in Chinese healthcare without a licence.

There has been best endeavour by Whitty/BJ and MaatH to prevent spread of Covid by getting the R rate down by EUA. Innova had the test and it will have had some effect in use. Huang exploited the opportunity through his Chinese connections because they had the handle on getting the regulations navigated and the DHSC connection got the hotline to Whitty when mass testing was the solution and no other test available.
AffiDX if it had got through PD would have been fast tracked; that was always the plan until jabs took over but BJ has not given up on domestic industry he has been blocked by PD and latest desktop system is to get round it or just straight government procurement under the same scrutiny.
There has been no backhanders or chumocracy; businessmen have delivered a product government advisors saw a worth for. The same might happen for AffiDX unless they have had there backs put up too much by profit chasing shareholders (as a capitalist cabinet is bound to judge it) and they opt for a more pleasant bunch of shareholders.
Political capital out of Innova is a losing strategy for us if we instigate it.

How did MDxExpert morph to mieleg?
I cannot understand why AffiDX is not deemed in a large measure quantitative as it has affimers bind to covid spike protein region before the reagent can indicate a positive test so it must have identified a quantity of infectious virus. PCR cannot do this so is no determinant of infectiousness and interepreting efficacy of LFT by PCR leads to AffiDX failing miserably while cohorts for testing weed out any dubious negatives as identified by PCR thereby skewing the statistics in favour of PCR as gold standard while AffiDX would have had many rejected dubious negatives as non infectious. Include those dubious negatives in a PCR cohort and the PCR will come out with a huge level of negatives identified in an AffiDX LDT as positive in a PCR.
Turn the tables and PCR fails the test!
PCR is not designed to identify infectiousness so it cannot measure the effectiveness of LFTs used for that purpose.
Complaints can be directed at me for revisiting what is considered gold standard PCR testing but the fact is not all scientists of influence have turned the page yet, they do not get it although many are trying now to protect their rears as they examine the logic.
Adeptrix Bams might measure the quantity of infectiousness in a more scientific way than LFT and this would underline the quantitative style of affimers in an LFT. They are molecular bioengineered to bind to specific targets.

No problem bein I enjoy revisiting the case occasionally when I discover I know more than last time! Trouble is anyone can do it if they put their mind to it, even the people we pay big money to sort stuff out.

Ct values are worthless Zoom0001, they are for analysis of rna. AS developed the LFT to identify the infectious and he does not acknowledge PCR does this but repeats the concensus view of Ct <=27 is considered infectious as they replicate rna from samples thought from AVCT point of view to destroy infectious virions in their PCR processes. I am not invested in AVCT to prop up PCR science but to say AVCT have a test to control the R rate which PCR is unable to do and what is more, cannot quantify infectious load like affimers are able to as affimers bind via the infectious spike area and is therefore quantitative only in respect of an infectious virion. PCR cannot do this it can only get lucky by hoping some of its replicated rna was from an infectious virion but it will never know because it is not designed to detect/attach to infectiousness.
AVA6000 is FAP protease conjugate with a chemotoxin but just as with the LFT the affimer immune checkpoint blockade attaches to the tumour and because it is linked to the conjugate the toxin is released through FAP where the tumour is.
The point I make is affimers are brilliant and different to PCR and it is time they were put to use in targeting whether diagnostic or therapeutic.
PCR is 20th century tech.

Quite MDxExpert, please tell BJ, Sajid David and Sir John Bell and anyone else in cloud cuckoo land who has missed out on the basics and why AffiDX should have been prioritised like Innova and then fast tracked for capacity, after all, we believe it beat that test in a parallel validation. We need to avoid more outbreaks if possible. The Chinese would be keen on AffiDX if they could manufacture it as a pro mass test nation. Please confirm for me that LFTs have a Ct of 1.

The new desktop regulatory process is bypassed when the government have procured a test for distribution free of charge. This bypass could be applied to Affidx in an emergency but unfortunately emergency use seems inapplicable now despite that it would level the field with Innova. HMG must have thought they had solved the domestic dilemma caused by PD but obviously there is a perceived favouritism when they feel the need for the level playing field for domestic tests via desktop review but not for Innova and Healgen.
I would expect this problem to resolve itself naturally with capacity build up and what I would attack is the belief that PCR somehow is better than LFTs when it is not. In cooler weather the virus spreads easier is my homespun theory because it does not rise above reach of nostrils . It seems jabs might be circumvented by lambda? and Affidx is better at stopping spread than PCRs so when cool weather resumes jabs and PCR will fail.
I know it is not popular to think that the cabinet is not trying hard but if lessons are learnt about how to support industry post brexit then this is good.

The statutory instrument covers Innova with a new inclusion in this latest edition
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2021/9780348224795
"They also provide for exemptions from that procedure for public service use and provide that the Secretary of State must establish a register of approved coronavirus test devices. There are transitional provisions in respect of devices placed on the market before 31st October 2021. Regulation 10 requires the Regulations to be reviewed, and a report published on or before 31st December 2022."
DHSC/Sajid David/BJ have been working night and day as Neave was told in the House so this is the result of the hours put in.
Waugh should not be stirring as it seems to me effort is finally able to go into the UK diagnostics from now on. How do you cope with a pandemic in the beginning with no tests and with PD/regulation in the interim and criticism in the finale? It has not been easy but AS and the cabinet have actually been remarkably aligned by the obstacles in the way and best endeavour to find a way through.

iPhone the government has just created a desktop review regulatory body with a different remit which Innova does not need to pass but those firms blocked by PD can, potentially. Not sure if your " government document stating this has been out for months"is directed at this latest development of 5 days ago or not? if not, what document?
28/7/21:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/covid-19-test-approval-how-to-apply?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk-notifications&utm_source=08b8bf3b-5a84-4d08-affc-0bdb795d3871&utm_content=daily
update 30/7: Removed test performance guidance and technologies validation group guidance.

A transition from Innova requires legislation to protect the government from liability. Going forward performance in use will select the best and as long as AffiDX can prove itself there will be lots of LFTs that can be added to the brand in the coming months!

Certainly looks like a clear run for AffiDX now and well done to all the agitators who have brought this about. They have been effective where AS could not really raise his voice but only allude. I did notice the PD approval had gone before reading comments, it was my bone of contention. Good job done on this BB.

Only panic if you take PD seriously, yet to be outed for incompetence.

You must feel strongly about this to break your no post status after 12 years membership! I share the frustration but with AffiDX about to come into use there will be some useful data or anecdotes as to usage soon.