RE:RE:This not a cancer cure , how much time What are you talking about? With all due respect have you actually read anything on rapid antigen tests. They are, by their nature not as accurate as the gold standard PCR tests. They are well understood to be most accurate and useful when catching individuals at their most transmissible.
None of the tests that have met FDA EUA criterion, received their CE mark (which AcuVid has by the way), met with HC approval or been authorized by other jurisdictions is as good as a PCR test. In fact the most dominant test in this group thus far, BinaxNOW by Abbott Labs has the same limitations and the same Sensitivity and Specificity as AcuVid.
As for the comment "....not good enough as noted in Thrms news." Where did you come up with this?
I "cherry picked" some of your comments over the years and discovered you struggled to say something positive on just about every stock you follow. You're either 1. terrible at choosing stocks to invest in or 2. Have an investing strategy that requires constant "soft" bashing. One should also note that you rarely, if ever, state facts ....just vague assertions with little to no merit.
Do you own shares of THRM?
Cheers!!!
hemi3tc wrote: Even if the FDA changed the rules for screening tests. The high viral load screening tests Dr Mina has been promoting are still no where getting started to getting FDA EUA . Thrms test accuracy are cherry picked high viral loads. not all comers test. so i suspect it will be another test not good enough. as noted in Thrms news.
Icekold wrote: do you think FDA needs to look at this. Do you reallly think it takes months to look at something like this, sorry this is a FAIL.