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.
PCR is still approximately 10 to 20% more sensitive than Lamp testing question is how important is that. I pose a practical question to you. My son lives in Perth Australia and I am desperate to visit his new home.The Australian government has had very stringent restrictions on entry to the country; which test do you think they will specify to be performed prior to entry when they open up again. Then think on a world wide scale what will be specified for travel and what else will this influence. We know our government has spaffed huge sums on the likes of LFTs etc but not all governments are so derelict in their responsibilities.
B2HS2L
Not so much against the concept of near patient testing as against the concept of not using trained and qualified staff to perform the tests. The danger with non scientific staff performing these tests is recognising when something has gone wrong and then recognising how to rectify the issue. There are no perfect test systems into which you introduce biological material for testing. So what I am against is anything that results in carelessness in performing and interpreting clinical tests affecting human lives. No room for sloppy Joe performing on the road tests.
In my career(clinical scientist) I have developed both antibody detection tests and PCR tests in the field of transplantation science. What I want to say is at any one time there will be the best technology available for a particular assay. At this time the best available assay for detecting the presence of C19 is PCR and Novacyt has a lead on this technology. They are developing an LFT to detect viral antibodies which again is the appropriate technology for that assay there being no equivalent to PCR for the detection of specific antibodies. LFT to detect viral antigen is the wrong test due to lack of specificity and sensitivity. Novacyt are on the money.
I have bought to the maximum I can and shall sit and wait patiently for the price change my intelligence tells me will be inevitable. No one will frighten me of this with their shenanigans, the shares I have are mine and I am keeping them anything else would be foolish. Good luck to all.
VanV, I am a big supporter of Novacyt but you don't want to take the test systems away from laboratories, you want them integrated as the best available test method within them. The problem of non laboratory testing is that it moves towards testing with staff not trained in the quality procedures required for clinical diagnostic testing with disastrous results. Having satallite lab's in strategic places under the supervision of professional lab. staff is what you want in the long term.
There is no capacity anywhere to genomicaly sequence every positive test. Our ability to recognise all known single nucleotide mutations with the SNPsig kit could identify all variants. Keep in mind politicians use scientific terms very loosely.
LFT is a politicians answer to a failed test and trace system. The LFT method for clinical diagnosis would never pass a medical laboratories quality control testing. I would not worry about them as they are there to show the government is doing something even if the tests are of inferior quality. Novacyt tests are for the professional laboratory. I have forty years experience as a clinical scientist before retirement.
Quickdraw18 when sequencing you run your PCR reaction normally with something like big dye terminators and then run the amplicons through the sequencer a two stage operation. The amplification on a thermocycler would normally run up to 96 reactions in about three hours and then the sequencer which would be thirty to forty five minutes per sequence depending upon the length of the sequencing run. 8 days is for badly organised labs or over worked ones.
Quickdraw18 when sequencing you run your PCR reaction normally with something like big dye terminators and then run the amplicons through the sequencer a two stage operation. The amplification on a thermocycler would normally run up to 96 reactions in about three hours and then the sequencer which would be thirty to forty five minutes per sequence depending upon the length of the sequencing run. 8 days is for badly organised labs or over worked ones.
Harv54 - It would be very useful if you could provide this bb with some commentary and expert opinion on the launch of SNPsig. A few questions, if I may?
Assuming SNPsig receives regulatory approval, what are the implications for both C-19 diagnosis and the company once this fully integrated solution becomes available please?
How do you see the future of the q machines, in terms of their applications to other infectious diseases. Might they become as ubiquitous as the thermometer!
Any thoughts on the PCR v LFT debate?
——————————————————
On the PCR v LFT debate, LFT lacks the two important criteria for a diagnostic test that is in comparison to PCR it lacks specificity and sensitivity. No hospital laboratory is going to use LFT tests as it would never meet the regulatory standards of a medical lab.
On the SNPsig great test showing that Novacyt is at the front edge but would not affect patients treatment, as whatever the variant the treatment offered will be the same depending on the patients symptoms. However useful tool to epidemiologists. Q machines should be useful tools as the company progresses to the detection of other infective diseases, all good for Novacyt in my view.
Completely correct, I am a great believer in the company and have a background in this technology prior to retirement. Only wished to clarify on technicalities, look forwards to the company surging onwards.
Rottenpig before retirement and when PCR was relatively new as a test method I used to design and produce PCR reagents for a sector of the NHS. I can tell you that your quoting of 500,000 tests by a workforce of 100 is just rank nonsense. I suggest you trade your ideas with a less informed share chat.