Member Info for Muck165

CO - I used Prenetics when I travelled back from Spain in Sept. it was a Hughes test. Did it all myself following online instructions, without video supervision. Just had to register the test, photo the result, and then got an email with confirming the result.

As NDN says, an “approved” test is one approved by the Sec of State under s34A.

All that section says is that no test can be placed on the market unless approved in accordance with s38A(5), which provides that they must approve if the conditions set out in s38B are satisfied. You can see these conditions here - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2021/9780348224795/regulation/6

We meet them I think.

S38c requires the Sec of State to maintain and publish a register of tests they have approved. You can access the register at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-test-validation-approved-products, which was published on 18/10 and updated on 20/10. There are just 2 entries!!

So unless I’m mistaken, a CE mark is not enough but we should nonetheless meet the criteria.

Just to note that this vacancy appears to have been reposted by Cubed today

https://jobs.cubedresourcing.co.uk/vacancies/2586/project-manager.html

An interesting tweet from the MP…

https://twitter.com/kevinhollinrake/status/1450714178260439043

Hi GLR - don’t worry I didn’t take your reply in that way at all!

All the Biosure email says is the launch is delayed till December and they currently have no stock to distribute. It doesn’t say Vatic won’t be on any approved list, (although I accept the likelihood is diminished).

Hi GLR - I have only ever asked Biosure about the Knownow test, ie the Vatic saliva antigen test. That is what I asked about yesterday, and what Julie replied in respect of.

I’ve looked, and as far as I can see it’s impossible to buy the test either from Vatic direct or any other distributor. This is what Vatic say on their site

“We're so pleased that you'd like to order our KnowNow?? Tests. At the moment we are running some pilots with a few key partners, before distributing our tests more widely.”

Would be very happy to be proved wrong!

Lots of good points, although you only have to look at Innova and Novacyt to see that being first mover can mean much more than a little…

Throughout this year I’ve been asking Biosure when the Knownow test will be available to buy, and I had been told that the launch would be October.

After enquiring again yesterday I have now had the following from Julie Mitchell at Biosure

“Thanks for getting in touch again. Unfortunately the launch has been pushed back to December so we currently have no antigen tests to supply you with”.

I hope my history shows that I’m an honest posters and I can assure you this is a real email, but of course anyone can check with Julie.

Not the best news…

Yep, although weirdly he hasn’t updated his LinkedIn to reflect that resignation, and is still declared as being the MD of M19 on their site (even though they have updated that page to show the addition of Stuart). Wonder if he is in fact still involved, just no longer an Executive Director.

* meant to say “Richard Hughes at the helm”.

I notice that a chap called Stuart King was appointed a Director of M19 Healthcare, M19 Ltd and Saturn Pass Limited, on 1 October, albeit on a contract basis. Interesting timing after a few months with only Andrew White at the helm…why would M19 recruit a finance Director, and why would Stuart join them, unless something was in the works?

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/officers/Y0jSis31FYXg_WtWdcZrnz7YGcM/appointments

https://www.linkedin.com/in/stuart-king-969071b2/?originalSubdomain=uk

Wasn’t there quite a bit of talk about M19 Life Sciences when it was incorporated last year?. Peter Whitehurst, it’s sole Director had been the CEO Arcis Bio for nearly 10 yrs before leaving setting up M19 LS as well as Agile Life Sciences

https://www.linkedin.com/in/peter-whitehurst-521a835/

https://arcisbio.com/

THE Aim rule 26 disclosures were last updated by Mosman on 29/3. Aren’t they supposed to update this every 6 months?

Posting for info this parliamentary question, answered last week. Sorry if previously posted.

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2021-09-10/47063

Agreed - this will be a massive week for ABDX.

An ABC19 contract would be a nice surprise, and we’ve had our tier one opportunities hanging around for a while now. But tbh I’m not holding my breath on that and note that even the FDA have de-prioritised home use serology testing and sample collection.

From Toby Lowe, page 1 in the latest FDA town hall transcript..

“So first you may have noticed that yesterday we updated one of our FAQs. It's the FAQ related to-- sorry I think this was Monday, actually, not yesterday-- but the FAQ related to how we prioritize review. That was updated to indicate that for at-home tests and home collection tests, we are prioritizing diagnostic testing there. So we are not prioritizing home tests or home collection for serology or antibody tests at this time. We will continue to evaluate the priority there for those types of tests. And corresponding to that FAQ update, we removed the serology home collection EUA template, from the website, just to avoid any confusion there.”

https://www.fda.gov/media/153122/download

Just for info, but I see Cubed posted a couple of ads on Friday

https://jobs.cubedresourcing.co.uk/vacancies/2528/production-laboratory-technician.html
https://jobs.cubedresourcing.co.uk/vacancies/2045/production-operatives.html.

Things to note for me are;

- The ads say they are looking to recruit a “number” in each role
- They’re all permanent. That’s interesting because only a couple of months ago, when I enquired about a temp role, Cubed told me that ABDX were concentrating on using temp staff to flex with workload. So what’s changed….? More long term work?
- the first ad refers to a “rapidly growing” team. It seemed to me that ABDX recruited heavily in anticipation of DHSC sales only then to have to swing the axe when they weren’t paid by the DHSC and future ABC19 sale contracts weren’t forthcoming. If they’re rapidly growing again then what’s the reason? Vatic? Biosure? Avacta? Or all 3?

Agree - this will have zero effect on the SP and I certainly didn’t post it to de-ramp!

Well this is a bit annoying..

https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2021/2595.html&query=(.Abingdon)+AND+(health.)

It’s the latest procedural ruling in the GLP case against the DHSC, with ABDX an interested party - published 30/9. It deals with a few matters, but most prominently is an application by the DHSC to introduce expert evidence, that evidence being a report from a highly prominent economist that which substantively concluded that “ the sums advanced to Abingdon were on market terms”. That is highly relevant because it would serve to strongly refute GLP allegations of state aid granted by the DHSC to ABDX, those allegations being the fundamental reason the govt is refusing to pay ABDX until this GLP action is concluded.

What’s annoying is that the court is refusing permission to allow the DHSC to introduce that evidence, not because it may not be pertinent, but because the DHSC has failed to go through the necessary procedural hoops for it to be admitted.

This whole action is an exercise in mud slinging by the GLP against the DHSC, with ABDX getting caught in the crossfire and being subject to the sheer incompetence of DHSC lawyers

Apologies if this has already been posted - I just haven’t seen it.

It seems that our lawyers have continue to ask the GLP to cease making misleading and inaccurate statements about ABDX, the purpose of which they allege are to promote a GLP funding drive for its legal action - the latest of which was on 1 October and can be seen here - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Tn3J2yLVQixkhDUS4lBlQDEMXBKX7PBX/view

The GLP posted a copy of that letter and gave their response on 11 October - https://goodlawproject.org/update/abingdon-law-firm-accuses-lying/

Posting for info, but it does strike me that the GLP are starting to sound a little more on the back foot amid suggestions they’re mischaracterising, and taking evidence out of context, in order to secure more public donations.