Member Info for Okehurst1

After today’s news that Manchester / Sheffield and Liverpool local authorities have suspended what we suspect is the Innova test, plus the barrage from Jon Deeks, it looks like the Government have been forced to consider the LFT Contracts, Ophidian asked the question ...

https://twitter.com/Ophidian18

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55188183

Guess Innova/ Chinese need to flog them to someone now they are being suspended by local authorities

Step forward Medatest , their turn .

Bumping this to top - it’s a scandal , see Medatest below

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/04/experts-question-claimed-accuracy-of-covid-19-saliva-tests

You probably couldn’t make this up.

So Medatest https://www.companysearchesmadesimple.com/company/uk/12565939/medatest-ltd/

Formed 7 months ago,

Operates from this address
https://goo.gl/maps/UEW3x5fyJWVKNKH59
Looks like an office under a block of apartments or in an apartment

Selling antigen tests £18 a go to the unsuspecting public who think they are then Covid free in some cases.

We can speculate it’s the same reagent / buffer / film / cassette as Innova and every man and his dog sells - that isn’t accurate

This should be administered by a health professional, we have to guess to say it won’t be, logistically it would be impossible

MB,
Mologic’s reagent / buffer won’t be materially different to all the others out there, Abbott , the Chinese , even the one Avacta will be using, even the film/ paper whilst very important it’s just a commodity, as is the plastic cassette.

Suggest we have to look at the Viral load, say day 2 of Covid 19 it’s 1.10E+03 it then increases over 5 to 7 days reaching 7.10E+05 as group of numbers ,then drops back off to 1.10E+03 then to zero - at this point we feel ill

If all the buffers/ reagents produce the same result and require a certain composition of mucus then a test needs something else to cover the range for the days above - for self administered home use.

I suggest the Affirmers are more mobile than the Aptamers as they don’t bind to protein which is theory should make them shall we say more ‘mobile ‘ than the Aptamer, this looks like it’s key with the LFT - assuming Avacta have got it work

Handy short explanation on the difference below

https://avacta.com/2014-06-20/

Hi MB
Good debate

My main point would be the Innova test is not 99.68% for the self administered home use market, the BMJ have conducted a peer review which found it was 57%.
Don’t disagree it works when administered by a medical professional but not for the general public according to this study.

Of course we don’t know as yet if Avacta have achieved a higher percentage, it’s going to be an interesting read once the peer review for their test comes out.
For what it’s worth I think Avacta have cracked it with the unobtrusive nasel test and will have the saliva test to follow in Q1 2021.

We will soon find out though

Aptamers had been considered old technology, will be interesting to see their S@S
Mologic were always the dark horse - excellent diagnostics business

It looks highly likely Acacta have ditched Cytiva, it makes sense that Klaus didn’t join their most recent of live web cast alongside Avacta, we can only speculate but it does look that way, other than their ‘ film ‘ am not sure what Cytiva could offer that Abingdon/ BBI or Omega couldn’t offer?

Based on past performance of the Aptamer technology the Mologic test may not be able to match the Avacta S@S - assuming ours works that is - it’s antibody based, I wonder if they can call it an antigen test ?

Interesting development either way.

https://www.labome.com/method/Aptamers-and-Affimers.html

https://twitter.com/DHSCgovuk/status/1334535366796320769?s=19

I know we have discussed on this BB the framework of the science behind the antigen LFT but it does look highly likely that the Innova LFT is just a generic liquid made up of a regent/ buffer / film that works when there is enough mucas collected.
However the general public are not able to self administer the nasopharyngeal Swob to access the quality of mucus required and coupled with the generic solution above as a standalone it just doesn’t work for Home use.

It doesn’t seem to matter who is producing the LFT they all have the same problem, reason being no one in the diagnostics world has produced a Home test that identifies infectious people.

If Avacta using the Affirmers can prove they can offer a high sensitivity to identify people when they are at their most infectious then they have the self administered Home use market world wide, there is no one else out there at this moment of time except maybe Mologic ,but unless they have some technology we don’t know about them it will probably fall into the same S&S as Innova / Abbott/ Biozek etc

The Affirmer model in this case may not work, either way I guess we will find out soon enough

Moagli,

Like many on here I am not anti vax but this mRNA treatment is new technology and Pfizer don’t distill confidence as they have the highest volume of criminal prosecutions of any pharmaceutical company in the world,
Below is a short description of their ‘rap ‘ list

Health -related offences
government-contracting-related offences
safety-related offencese
competition-related offences
environment-related offenses
off-label or unapproved promotion of medical products
False Claims Act and related
drug or medical equipment safety violation
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
kickbacks and bribery

Just since 2000 they have over 80no convictions totalling almost $5B in fines / settlement

Worth checking out - they do look a dodgy outfit.

https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/pfizer

Scardey, well balanced post, fully agree all points.

Requires someone with medical training to administer.

Guess it’s the same basic solution as the Chinese tests and everyone else out there , being made up of a reagent/ buffer/film, relatively wise it doesn’t look that difficult to do, no real IP involved.

This is a big test for the Affirmer Technology

Scardey,

It’s a Oropharyngeal swab ( tonsils ) or Nasopharyngeal ,
neither going to cut it for the self administered home use market

God bless anyone shorting if there is big news 7am in morning

Thanks Monk.

Infinity, yeah that’s the basis of the thesis.

Should have added CT from say 15 to 30, you need something else to pick up the full range
The Innova reagent / buffer can only pick up a section of this range?
That’s how it looks to me

Monk, apologies will rephrase

The Innova test is a buffer/ reagent / film, it’s pre - set, to either pick up either low or high CT, if it goes too low it won’t have the full viral load range that it is required.
It works fine from a nasopharyngeal point of view because it’s been developed for this purpose
We can assume like other antigen diagnostic providers that Innova couldn’t get the test to work accurately for lower nasal collection.

So the only marked difference - assuming the Affirmers work - between the Avacta test and the others is the Affirmers are floating within the buffer/ reagent solution and this expands the percentage chances of picking up the spike protein?

Monk,
Yeah really good post, could you consider the following?

Would that mean the CT value has a relevance to the viral load ? So in the case of the Innova test it may be more accurate say at a low CT / low viral load but once the CT hits above 24 as a number and the viral load increases maybe above 4.00E+ 03 then it cant pick up the full range of days when an infected person is at their most infectious?
The Innova test is ‘ fixed ‘ at all levels including CT value ,it doesnt have the Affirmer’s which are the variable - assume the Affirmers work

Any view?