Member Info for doze

Civil Service petulance maybe aswell as incompetence only they did not realise PD was capable of the latter. The Service has been supported by messages lauding them for expertise but post Brexit a new breed of active open achievement will have to emerge or we are all taken down the pan. Robbo might confirm that is Medusa Hughes commenting.

Thanks Fardistant I am pleased to hear that. Maybe an essential cog for being a test developer but not a difficult hurdle. Perhaps BJ has got our back and giving a bit more time with the 18.30 announcement though everthing is beginning to give me a heavy heart.

Fardistant;how do AVCT gainn ISO when they are not a manufacturer? I ask because I would like AVCT to get it soon if possible but thought it was applied to a production line. How HMG will respond to the latest on Innova could controversial but hope they manage to approve of FDA at the same time.

Yes wyndrum, traders prey on peoples emotions. I find it difficult being a trader when I am an investor, you are a confessed trader.

So they encourage leverage with SIPP/share account which sounds predatory to me.

I do try Retireby, I had Cummings' initially but changed it to Cumming's-english not easy

I read the PD field study of the Innova test when their website was running and it was conducted by Falcon which I believe may have been Cumming's idea to bypass the stalwarts at PD and get the ball rolling to avert the criticism for not locking down early enough. We had testimony from Cummings re the conflict he was having and it would have been an easy call for the PM to push through after that series of events. It was also post the No.10 brainstorming with AS et al I believe and maybe slow progress due to the saliva test and PD left the door open for Innova. So not one to lay at Sir John Bell's door because the PM went behind his back. I don't like the prospect of Innova profits being used in a factory to churn out our test with this history but equally I would hope FDA enquiry does not lead to taxpayer money ending up at the US treasury or slow the roll out of a consortium test.

AS is not convinced PCR has any value for validating LFTs, they are only "considered" able to detect infectious. The science is not proven whereas AffiDX in use can quickly establish efficacy in an outbreak by controlling it and PCR can analyse the same samples if positive using their tech for a different purpose(to see the rna sequence and progress/stage of illness in the individual maybe-a use yet to be developed by Roche ). LFTs only for detecting the infectious stage-PCRs are a waste of money for that purpose and no science has proved they can detect the infectious.
It is important that affimers are seen as superior to PCR for infectious detection via the bio engineering (binding) function to the spikes area which PCR does not do. This means use of Ct/pcr is thwarting progress of good lfts which should be measured against other LFTs in the field.
This will pull the rug from under PD and Deeks' current obstructive MO and massively upgrade the importance of affimers and bio-engineering and hence AVCT.
Innova/FDA news has not changed the above and AffiDX is still prey to bad science.

7/6/21 rns
"The clinical data for Avacta's AffiDX® SARS-CoV-2 antigen lateral flow test reported in April demonstrated 100% sensitivity for identifying infectious individuals with viral loads measured by PCR of Ct<27."

A slight dig at PCR here though by the insertion of "considered": 11/6/21 rns
"The results of the recent clinical evaluation of the test at a clinical site in Europe demonstrate the test has excellent sensitivity across a range of viral loads, which would be considered infectious."

I absolutely love his implied reservation on PCRs

The RSS experts stress that the assessment of a test’s safety must go beyond just the safety of the device itself, to include the potentially harmful consequences of false negatives and false positives. PCR cannot tell you what a false positive is because it does not target the infectious and generates more false positives than anything else. All Deeks' statistics are worked out from pcr which is a technology not relevant to rapid LFTs. Sure a pcr can sequence a virus and tell you if you have had it by looking for antibodies and remnant virus. Cobas 6800 relies on this! with frozen samples(so easy for you PD, having a machine do all the work)
The RSS article says " the government would not allow a negative result from a more reliable PCR test to overrule the LFT result." this betrays their utter ignorance. PCR was useless at controlling spread and will not be able to measure a false positive. Deeks is a buffoon, pay attention to Mina and Kary Mullis who despite this article https://fullfact.org/online/pcr-test-mullis/ did stress PCR was for analysis, not detecting a highly infectious individual.
AS will never differentiate his affimers if he cannot win the argument that the infectious in a pandemic can only be isolated through a rigorous testing regime with a new technology where there is an outbreak. Deeks and his stats are unscientific and LFTs can only be measured against each other to see which get the r rate down. Any positives can be PCRed and from interpreting this it should be possible to put the LFT in a band of results from pcr analysis of the same sample and this can be used to inform the results of different LFTs and the R rate in the tested community using one particular test. This keeps the technologies seperate and used as purposed. It might turn out using this method of evaluation that AffiDX does control outbreaks in a community but the PCR analysis cannot explain why. Well I already have an answer if this was the case: PCRs destroy the molecular evidence of the infectious stage.
Bear in mind lockdown has to end and if outbreaks occur no rational methodology for control of covid has yet been put forward by the scientific community so there is no accepted control method with which to educate the public. The RSS article is waffle, if negative results do not rule out infection how on earth does he think outbreaks can be lived with.
Currently without another wave of covid, vaccines seem to be the current saviour but that is a gamble and rising infections if they come will I hope be proved controllable with AffiDX when on the market and as Larsh posts- data will be available.

I'll tell you what I think! Innova plan was to utilise cheap LFT that was doing the job in Wuhan. HMG needed capacity provider and a way to bulk up AffiDX when regulations permit. The Rhymney facility is HMGs mates with cash made being able to repay HMG by manufacturing AffiDX and it will earn them more than using the Biotime test and mean supply of UK test. Only tories could carry off a plan like this and it is not a bad one, innova test do help isolate positives, private enterprise will expand AffiDX supply to everyones benefit.
The spanner in the works atm is the CE certificate for the AffiDX home use in EU when a regulatory authority obliges (and awarding of ISO imo).
Ridiculous that the test best capable to bind to variants of covid and prevent spread should be held up. PCR does not detect infectious, the inventer said it was not for that. Rapid tests are a totally different tech to PCR and it is pointless measuring efficacy with with PCR. LFT should be eliminated by measurement against each other only . MHRA is medicine and health and should be easy for EU country to accredit an LFT diagnostic, it is not going to harm anyone and the best will sell.

A bit naff of them not to promote LFDs. AS should have a strong word
https://www.fticonsulting.com/emea/insights/fti-journal/covid-19-vaccination-shot-arm-health-economy

Stop looking at PCR, "Powered by Nobel-prize winning PCR, Roche’s leading diagnostic solutions continue to transform molecular testing. Roche introduced the world to PCR and is committed to driving laboratory innovation into the future."
https://diagnostics.roche.com/global/en/products/instruments/cobas-6800.html#productInfo
Affimers attach to the virion, pcr tests / electron microscopy / RT PCR cannot bind with a virion, the process only detects what it can replicate and forms a rna sequence with cycle thresholds to identify/ analyse regenerative bits of the virus. The spike is the operative transmission piece and affimers bind using the spikes as a guide. Spikes are the infectious phase.
https://www.rightcountry.com/nobel-prize-winning-inventor-of-pcr-test-goes-off-on-dr-fauci-he-doesnt-know-anything-and-id-say-it-to-his-face/ See that! Roche-powered by Nobel prize winning PCR but the winner, Kary Mullis says pcr is not for detecting the infectious.
Your comment about the curve is based on PCR analysis, the last century tech using machines/heat/centrifugues/Ct, AVCT are using bio engineering- an affimer produced in billions and searching for the spike of covid and binding to the virion, all done safely at home by shaking a test tube applying to the reagent impregnated paper strip and reading the result.

Extraordinary patience needed Pigster. HMG have to protect key workers and the vulnerable. They have always known we are fabbo and will provide free of charge in the health setting. HMG already imagine your responsible attitude for employers and our test once the government are buying it ( it will not be white labelled as may have to go ahead without any emergency legislation) will have a go to status. Medusa will be up and running and other wholesale outlets for commercial sales.
The big reveal is dependant on roadmap as adjusted, manufacturing and home use status of test.

PCR is never going to match Affimers, they are different tecnologies. Covid requires our technology not last centuries.

Affimers are a new molecule which can be tweeked or engineered (bio engineering) to attach itself to a target antigen (covid virus in our LFD's case) and reagents then colour up the captured virus on thew LFD. PCR is for analysis only, by identifying the rna by growing the bits of virus they know you have been infected. The methods of capture are not sensitive to a whole virus (virion) (and therefore not prone to interference like affimers) as they rely on growing the genetic evidence even if an old infection.
AVCT have analysis machines for detecting new variants in their labs but I should imagine they can rely on the web to obtain new sequencing from afar and design affimers for a new variant using software.
Affimers are a totally new tool in the locker that dullards at PD cannot get their head around. Affimers are like that film where a miniature sub went into the body- for therapy they will target the exact antigen they want. The LFD just does this outside the body and it is not a chemical reaction but an inert one, just picking up a covid virion.

rocquet, there is a big issue with pcr as the way for verifying good LFDs at Porton Down. Unfortunately PCRs cannot pick up the infectious which our test is designed for so therefore pcr cannot select positive cases for AffiDX to pass CE/CV whereas the inferior tests that will not fail but also will not pick up infectious do pass. They will not stop spread of delta and theta https://www.msn.com/en-ph/news/national/doh-says-covid-19-surges-still-manageable/ar-AAKLsz2

nonsense testing anyway, pcr does not detect infectious so cannot measure true efficacy. For detection affimers are required to 'collect'virions and indicate in the LFD. Not in a lab/pcr.

Originally added to forestall US enqiuries. The new wording does the same but also announces that we have a test which we could not say until Monday! so a more positive wording.

Why do you think we don't tank with the delays? The press know about us and the test and go along with the undercover Government games while all their connections build a stake. Same applies to MMs connections. I can see a boom coming especially with this pernicious ear gangrene variant.