SO what’s this POSITIVE news about medical tests?

Said it would be Monday, but actually the news broke this afternoon. So an early release from my tease …

Thanks for sharing your hopes about what it might be … I enjoyed many of them … but none were that close.

1/10
For me, positive news would be knowing

1) High quality tests are developed using the best expertise from industry and universities

2)Tests are evaluated in strong robust studies to work out whether they work in the real world for the purposes to which they are put

2/10
3) Study findings report the truth about whether they do more good than harm, and not spun for profit, popularity or reputation

4) Tests are developed to meet the greatest public health needs

5) Tests are affordable and available in the populations that need them most

3/10
This is something far fetched compared to the profiteering, politicised testing policies which we are encountering in the UK.
But compared to much of the world, at least we have access to tests (not that we seem to know which ones to buy and how best to use them).

4/10
So the good news is that a UK test manufacturing company is going to do exactly 1-5.

Mologics, backed by substantial funding from the Soros and Gates Foundations (together with others) is a leading part of a major new Social Enterprise named

“Global Access Health”

5/10
Mologics will no longer be a "for profit" company, but aim to produce the cheapest best lateral flow tests to meet public health needs.

The details are in the FT here:

6/10

ft.com/content/6cec53…
I’ve always been impressed by Mologics approach to test evaluation – ensuring they are properly evaluated and results not overinterpreted

They have done and transparently reported some of the best studies of their tests I have seen from biomarker companies.

7/10
But now MAJOR KUDOS to Mark Davis and @joefitchett for taking the company away from the profiteering business model, and for the Foundations who have seen the importance of funding this.

8/10
So, I am sorry if you were expecting that the positive news would be for here in the UK.

But maybe the news that people in our country put their expertise out there for the best purposes ahead of any profit can make up for some of the meanness of the ODA cuts.

9/10
And I am sure that many will join in wishing Mologics, Mark Davis and @joefitchett well on this venture.

Good luck. 👏👏👏

10/10
But should have been @JosephFitchett!

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Jon Deeks FMedSci

Jon Deeks FMedSci Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @deeksj

15 Jul
This new study suggests LFTs in primary care have sensitivity of 95% and specificity of 89%, but it is FLAWED.

These results are misleading because of PARTIAL VERIFICATION BIAS

A quick lesson ….

1/9
sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
Participants were first tested with LFTs – 810 positive and 1736 negative. The investigators choose to test 217 of the 1736 negatives with PCR – that’s 1 in 8. This wasn’t a random sample as they were influenced by clinical characteristics as well as the test result.

2/9
The sensitivity / specificity calculation is based on all LFT+ves and 12.5% of LFT-ves as follows:

3/9
Read 9 tweets
7 Jul
Even more data on LFTs out today.

@dhscgovuk released report of studies of Innova and Orient Gene, and their interpretation of findings.

Includes unpublished studies

BUT Clear evidence of post hoc interpretation of results based on naïve definition of infectiousness.

1/10
Long link is here:

gov.uk/government/pub…

2/10
@dhscgov define

HIGH viral load as >1,000,000 RNA/ml and appear to consider that these are the only cases which matter.

10,000 to 1,000,000 is LOW (not moderate)

<10,000 MINIMAL.

This is despite acknowledging there is no cut-off that categorises people as infectious

3/10
Read 11 tweets
22 Jun
Results from the LIVERPOOL EVENT PILOTS have been published on line and in the media. Somehow I missed these coming out. cultureliverpool.co.uk/event-research…

No official report from @dhscgov as per normal.
Seems important evidence is being delayed once again.

1/7
The bottom line is that the events were safe.

Kudos to Liverpool PH Team.

But detail is interesting to see why they were safe.

2/7
First the infection rate in Liverpool was very low when the events were held

Negative LFTs required for entry. 5/13263 positive and excluded. Same-day PCR found 4 people positive who had attended with false negative LFTs. So 5/9 were picked up by LFT – 44% missed.

3/7
Read 7 tweets
17 Jun
What do we known about ORIENT GENE used in the Daily Contact Testing Trial by the @educationgovuk and @DHSCgovuk?

There have been claims that this test is as good as others and has been reviewed by @MHRAgovuk for use in assisted testing. This is not right

1/10
The process does not make sense.

The MHRA never review products for assisted testing as they are professional use tests, which go through the self-certification process to get a CE-IVD mark.
MHRA doesn't go near this process.

2/n
In fact ORIENT GENE is not even on the MHRA register of products which is a requirement. You can check here - both for the product and manufacturer (sorry for the messy link).

3/n

aic.mhra.gov.uk/era/pdr.nsf/na…
Read 11 tweets
17 Jun
IMPORTANT: MHRA New standards for LFT self tests for SARS-CoV-2 in people without symptoms.

@MHRAgovuk just published new Target Product Profile.

This is a guidance document based upon the best available evidence and independent expert opinion.

1/12

gov.uk/government/pub…
Important to note that the MHRA see these tests as for detecting “Current Infection”. That is detecting active infection, but is bigger than checking whether people are infectious. It also includes people who are pre-infectious.

2/12 Image
They give guidance on reference standards to detect this. There are challenges here in establishing scientifically valid clinical reference standards. RT-PCR is regarded as acceptable which is what most are using.

3/12 Image
Read 13 tweets
29 Apr
The 1st 2 weeks of school testing did find MORE FALSE POSITIVES than TRUE POSITIVES - data are finally public.

Proportion false were 62% and 55% in these 2 weeks. Of 2304 positive tests, 1353 were likely false, with 1 positive per 6900 tests done.
Remember that the law made kids, teachers, families and bubbles had to isolate for 10 days even when the PCR came back negative, despite the @RoyalStatSoc spending days trying to explain the issues to @DHSCgovuk.

Never ever say tests don't do harm.
To be clear as some still can't see the problem. 2 weeks testing in every school only found 954 true cases. To find each one used 6884 tests (cost £144,564) and 1.4 false negatives were put into unnecessary isolation with bubble and family- 500 person days if a bubble affected 36
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(