Member Info for TWatcher

I understand we are all excited that CIGA put out the "it is expected" statement (but left it to the reader to determine would it was that was doing the expecting), that more than 3B antibody tests will be needed, just for those taking the Oxford vaccine. Is there any clinical paper, research, pre-print, or a document from any 1st world gov, that has stated this categorically ? At this stage potentially less than 6 weeks before some vaccines commence, this policy must already be known and available somewhere ? They've had months and months to formulate how vaccine monitoring would work. It's not a deramp, I'd like to know where the expectation has come from ?

I have no experience or knowledge at all in terms of vaccinating for a new diesese, I guess there aren't all that many new ones, so experience may be limited. And the likes of Covid hasn't been seen in my lifetime, so many the is NO best practice for this type of thing.

But given that just about most people in the world will be given a vaccine of one sort or another, surely to assess the effectiveness, not every one of those people needs to be monitored. Just like the various vaccine folks can do reasonable models based on 30-40K people,surely long term modelling of say 5% of the vaccinated population, would give more than enough data for the precise effectiveness and long term durability of a vaccine to be determined ? That's not to say that at the start, maybe the first 1M or so, everyone would be monitored.

"Looking at the link, I'm wondering whether he's had an antibody test outside the trial programme. There is regular testing available to members of the US Congress."

Oh I'm sure the antibody test wasn't from the trial, that would be completely against regulations. But you'd expect candidates to agree in advance that they won't have any independent testing done outside of the trial, unless medically necessary. You could see that congress would be doing antigen testing, but not so much antibody testing.

The frequency of antibody testing for trials will have no correlation to the frequency of testing for a vaccination roll out.

“I had an antibody test in October and it confirmed I had the COVID antibodies,” Daines said. “While there’s no way to know for sure, I believe I received the COVID-19 vaccine.”

Candidates getting knowledge of whether they have antibodies whilst the trial is still "blinded" is a bit naughty. The whole point is that no one is supposed to know who is who, until the data is analysed.

"Omega are not contract manufacturers, they are manufacturing own branded products so in the context of contract manufacturing Omega are not a competitor."

Are they not effectively actiing as a contract manufacturer for the RTC test ?

Haven't seen any evidence of that. Strangely enough, in the abingdon prospectus, in an non-exhaustive list of competitors, Omega does not get a mention, whereas BBI (another RTC member) and Mologic are.

Innova is an antigen testing, RTC is antibody testing.

The phase 4 trial that Innova is on/passed is related to antigen testing. The other 5 are at stage 3. We dont know if the mologic antigen test is among them. The RTC test antibody test is definitely not.

MHRA that abingdon has applied for is for home/self testing of antibodies.
Innova is not being used for self testing or far, so its use doe not require MHRA. its biggest known use thus far is in liverpool where it's being used for the trial, either by professionals or the army, is my understanding.

The word "Oxford" appears exactly once in the prospectus.

"....being targeted at IgG antibodies to the full spike protein of the virus, means it is aligned with the intended use of vaccines including that being developed by AstraZeneca and the University of Oxford."

No other mention, including not mentioned that they had any hand at all in the design of the antibody test, or that the same essay was used in development of the vaccine. Think it's a bit of a miss by them in a prospectus trying to sell the company, not to add the kudos of Oxford uni into the development of the test.

Ciga also does not get a mention in any of the background info around the RTC

In terms of potential uses (their wording) for the RTC test, it's listed as including surveillance testing, immunity
certification, longitudinal population studies and potentially a companion diagnostic for vaccine effectiveness checks.

Trilla1337, thanked you via email for the doc, just thanking you here as well.

....requires UK gov approval. Does not say that any approval has been granted. Therefore it's fair to assume that no RTC tests can be sold by anyone that is currently advertising them, be they in the UK or USA or anywhere.

1st order is 1M out of a 10M Framework, which can be extended by 5M.
In a different place it mentions framework is potentially worth £75M assuming gov places further orders and extends initial 6 month . It's not clear whether this is the same framework (i.e. 15M test = £75M) , but it looks like it is.

Gov can indeed cancel if no MHRA by 25th dec. MHRA for "home/self use". Appears MHRA are reviewing the protcols to demonstrate suitability for home use. If they approval the protocols, then there abi "will perform additional user experience studies"

Clearly MHRA approval is considered as possibly important by Gov if they put the clause in. Doesn't mean they will invoke it, but it was considered important at the time the deal was made.

Actually it's 1M by end of 2020. This fits in with ODX doing 500K by Jan, which means abi doing 50%, ODX doing 25% and BBI doing 25%.

abi has received £1M for upfront raw material costs for UK-RTC.

Reconfirms that selling to other than UK gov, requires

"Does the prospectus state what the Abi capacity is?"
Around 1M a week, IPO funds will in part be used to increase capacity to approx 3M a week.

With all the tenders and contracts, perhaps I missed this detail, but looking again, it appears Abingdon has 2 x contract awarded for materials etc for lateral flow antibody tests ? The headlline for both is £10.3M, however the details says £10.272690 for one, and a round £10.0M for the other. Is this somehow the same contract, or does it indicate that abingdon has been given the money to buy the bits for 20M tests ?

Value: £10,272,590
Published 06 Nov 2020
Delivery 02 Jun 2020 to 14 Aug 2020
Deadline 02 Jun 2020 00:00
https://bidstats.uk/tenders/2020/W45/738394601

£10.M
Published 09 Oct 2020
Delivery not specified
Deadline n/a
https://bidstats.uk/tenders/2020/W43/737280030

"Is it at all possible it includes some charge backs for R&D, etc. or sponsoring the manufacturing ramp up?"

I don't think it's for ramp up.

Abingdon was award £10.3M in June
https://bidstats.uk/tenders/2020/W45/738394601

And they announced on the 30th of July that they had acquired enough materials to make 10M tests.

the bit I don't get is that they are very confident that the £75M is for 1M RTc tests ???

"The extract from the same doctored report shared by Twatcher on this board though omitting the fact that it is taken from Richard Tice's tweet and 3. The actual report from Liverpool city council so that everyone can see the changes which are completely manipulated to say something completely different.Unfortunately this is what we are up against though I suspect not for long."

I see that your contrived to bring my username into yet another thread, and once again states a falshood.

Are you determined to mention my username in every thread on ODX that you are going to post. It appears you are taking your horrible day out on me.

Please stop doing it, you are ruining this discussion board.

"The data has been changed to say something completely different. Which you have acknowledged when you read the Echo report. I never said you tweeted. I said you took the doctored data from the tweet from Richard Tice who you say you never heard of. Which had just been tweeted before you shared it. Oh, maybe it was a coincidence? Oh yeah. My mistake. Lol."

And now you are back on this thread again, still talking about me.

And don't know what data was changed where or by whom. The only data I referred to was the data from liverpool council, and i copied it directly from their PDF. But then again, it's impossible to reply to an argument that is totally incoherent.

There are two possibilities here.

1) You aren't reading this forum in thread mode. If not, switch to thread mode for a second then find the thread:-
Lateral Flow Tests, agreed by PHE as 99.7% accurate, show 80% fewer cases in Liverpool
The first post in that thread has a direct link to the liverpool council document...its their document, thats the only one that I referred to. Check the data i posted on the thread versus the data in that document.

or alternatively.

2) You are just a complete loon job.

"Twatcher, you eventually admitted that the story I pointed you to, in the Liverpool Echo shows that the data was from 2 different cohorts. Not from the same cohort which is what the data you shared shows. You have been caught out. I am not replying anymore to this thread. You tried to manipulate this board by sharing dodgy UKIP doctored data straight from a tweet from Richard Tice. Too sad for words."

Nope when asked to cite your source, your reply was " bbc news, google". And then in some tantrum you started a new thread with the title, "Liverpool echo.co.uk 2000 test positive for covid since mass testing began", apparently while you were on the phone. This was the first time you mentioned a newspaper, and you still amazingly, didn't bother to give a link to the story. This carried extra information that is not in the Liverpool city council statistics pdf, but does not cite where it got the extra info.

Everytime you tell a falsehood about me, I am going to correct it, even though you are now ruining this forum by carrying the same falshood across multiple threads.

"I'm not getting into this again. "
And yet strangely, you did.

"And Twatcher is saying he got it from the pdf. The same pdf that was shared on Twitter about a minute before he shared. "

I did not "share" the data on twitter or anywhere else. I did not post the data on here. I referenced a document that someone posted a link to on here (NOT ME !!), used the data solely from that document when making my comments. The pdf is from and hosted by server from, Liverpool district council. If you have problems with the data in that PDF, take it up with them.