RE:RE:RE:RE:Why hemi3tc wrote: I would not know about Abbotts LOD. I did not list an LOD for Abbott
U must have alist of Canned answers and reply from you Pumping crew.
All those other test are FDA approved and the numbers are FDA approved .
Third party validatio is the same as self Validation following FDA guidelines
using FDA authorized equipment.
Abbott also used several Third party Research Universities so their testing results are Third party.
NashDaSlash wrote: None of those are third party validated and Abbott's test LOD is misleading because it's listed as TCID^50/swab not per mL.
hemi3tc,
sorry but you are WRONG on more than one point:
1. Abbotts´ tests are NOT 3rd Party Validated. They said:
In data submitted to the FDA from a clinical study conducted by Abbott with several leading U.S. research universities, This meansthat they used some university labs to help them with their studies. Many Companies do this routinely for various reasons ( Sona theselves used university labs in Scotland and elsewhere on their early testing). In these circumstances Abbott will be in charge of the studies, will set the criteria, the selection process, number of participants, type of participant, high or low viral load for example and the university lab will carry out the testing often with an Abbott scientist present supervising but certainly with Abbott fully informed of each step and making the important decisions.
3rd Party Validation is very different. There the whole process is handed over to, and is the responsibility of , the 3rd Party Organisation. There may be some consultation, but not much, and Sona would have no say in the process in any way. They are then given a report on the outcome.
Abbott DO NOT have 3rd Party Validation from the information that we have been provided and otherwise I am certain they would have specifically have said so.
This is yet another example of their Press Releases being confusing ( purposely?) because it does give the impression of Independent Review.
Another obvious example of their lack of clarity is in the article by THE ATLANTIC yesterday. The 2 independent and expert scientists clearly saw the LIMITATIONS of the Abbott test and its´ unsuitability for Mass Screening. When asked about this the Abbott Chief Scientist completely fudged the issue, avoiding the fact that they have no information to back-up use of the very scenarios that he was trying to suggest might be posssible. He did not acknowledge the less than satisfactory performance of the test in even SYMPTOMATIC LOW VIRAL DOSE some days after exposure and was avoiding going into any fine detail of the study that might have lead to awkward questions. Unfortunately the interviewer either didn´t have the inclination or the knowledge to probe further.
Abbott are not being up-front on many aspects of their test, hiding behind excellent Marketing and their Multinational Reputation.
2. The LODs´ that you compare are unfair. Sona is the only non-machine non-lab test and therefore you are not comparing like with like, a little like Abbott really.
You and your colleagues continue to try to emphasise any possible weaknesses of Sona while also trying desperately to overlook the shortcomings of the competition. I wonder why?