The U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued an alert on Thursday saying there is early data that suggests Abbott Labs’ rapid coronavirus diagnostic test for Covid-19 may be delivering inaccurate results.
It is far better to have no heaven than to have heaven and hell; better to have no God than God and Devil. better to rest in eternal sleep than to be an angel and know that the ones you love are suffering eternal pain; better to live a free and loving life -- a life that ends forever at the grave -- than to be an immortal slave.
View all posts by Nancy_Naive
Published
4 thoughts on “I Informed You Thusly”
So, in a study of only 100 tests, not peer reviewed, using the test specifically AGAINST the instructions, it only worked half the time.
Whoop dee do.
The swabs are supposed to go directly from the patient to the test device. It’s a instant test. The ‘study’ either stored the swabs in transfer media or let them sit and dry out. If it worked half the time misused like that, that’s pretty damn good.
“ The researchers found that Abbott’s test, run on the company’s portable ID NOW system, missed one-third of the infections caught by Cepheid’s test when swabs were stored in liquid used to transport laboratory samples. When the samples were kept dry the test missed 48% of the cases flagged by Cepheid’s test.”
Yes the test was small. But Cepheid seems to have a more accurate system. Wonder if that is relevant?
Flawed testing is worse than no testing for obvious reasons of spreading contagion by “cleared” people.
So, in a study of only 100 tests, not peer reviewed, using the test specifically AGAINST the instructions, it only worked half the time.
Whoop dee do.
The swabs are supposed to go directly from the patient to the test device. It’s a instant test. The ‘study’ either stored the swabs in transfer media or let them sit and dry out. If it worked half the time misused like that, that’s pretty damn good.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That excuse is not clear or proven. The FDA has not shown whether swab and specimen handling was the issue.
I did find it humorous that they were saying that positive tests were valid but that a negative should be established by other means…
Wait, if the disease is present in less than 10% of population, then you are going to have to retest roughly 90% of the time.
LikeLiked by 3 people
“ The researchers found that Abbott’s test, run on the company’s portable ID NOW system, missed one-third of the infections caught by Cepheid’s test when swabs were stored in liquid used to transport laboratory samples. When the samples were kept dry the test missed 48% of the cases flagged by Cepheid’s test.”
Yes the test was small. But Cepheid seems to have a more accurate system. Wonder if that is relevant?
Flawed testing is worse than no testing for obvious reasons of spreading contagion by “cleared” people.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Read the rest of the article.
The Abbott test was not intended to be run on dried or preserved specimens, it was intended to be run on fresh swabs,
That would be like developing color film in black and white chemicals and then bitching about the results.
I wonder who ran the test? Cepheid perhaps?
LikeLiked by 1 person