RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Fda and manufactuiringLMFAO Listen to this guy...no angle...right! I know longs, don't engage the bashers etc, but buts the heck out of me to try and cast doubt. 96% Bud.. what you want the formula's..lol
What do you want them to do...print a Scientific Journal in a NR... Investors want to know the bottom line... A top Level 4 Lab tested it 96% speciaficity and sensitivity..LOD twice as sensitive as the closest.. means u can pick up virus at half the Virul Load than preveiously able.. Pretty good iMO. Who has done better? Tell me..... I invite anyone to go to their website..a ton of information... and they answer emails if one has a legitimate questions.... This Mikey shows up and thinks he can speak with authority on SONA..
MikeyH wrote: All I'm interested in is seeing decent quality testing - I truly hope SONA achieve this but I'm skeptical because of the complete lack of clinical data reported. July's NR reported in-house lab data. Realizing good in-field clinical sensitivity in LFAs of this sort is incredibly challenging - the May NR stated that MRIGlobal had been engaged "to provide analytical and clinical validation studies for Sona's COVID-19 rapid detection, point-of-care, antigen test which will be used for submission to Health Canada for regulatory approval and the FDA for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)"
July's NR did not report any clinical validation studies, instead relying on a very basic lab-based study to determine a sensitivity % and stating another CRO was going to perform clinical validation. Why?
I have no angle beyond wanting to see decent testing come to market. I have worked in the field for 20 years. I know this post will get shot down and I'll be ignored and labelled as a basher but I'm not and I'm certainly not trying to 'cheat people out of their stock'