(Total Views: 674)
Posted On: 09/24/2020 11:10:55 AM
Post# of 9144
Nope.
From the article you linked:
"Under the agency’s template, released July 29, the FDA said at-home tests should correctly identify positive cases at least 90% of the time. This sensitivity threshold is higher than antigen tests the agency has authorized for point-of-care or lab settings.
The agency also wants companies to conduct studies on how tests work on patients. The FDA recommends studies with at least 150 people, of which at least 30 people test positive for the virus.
Two companies, Gauss and Cellex, last week announced a rapid antigen test being studied in clinical trials. Gauss developed an app with detailed instructions for users. Cellex's rapid antigen test has demonstrated nearly 90% sensitivity, the FDA's minimum for such tests."
I'm fairly certain Nanologix's virus test is much more accurate and sensitive than the guildelines stipulated above.
From the article you linked:
"Under the agency’s template, released July 29, the FDA said at-home tests should correctly identify positive cases at least 90% of the time. This sensitivity threshold is higher than antigen tests the agency has authorized for point-of-care or lab settings.
The agency also wants companies to conduct studies on how tests work on patients. The FDA recommends studies with at least 150 people, of which at least 30 people test positive for the virus.
Two companies, Gauss and Cellex, last week announced a rapid antigen test being studied in clinical trials. Gauss developed an app with detailed instructions for users. Cellex's rapid antigen test has demonstrated nearly 90% sensitivity, the FDA's minimum for such tests."
I'm fairly certain Nanologix's virus test is much more accurate and sensitive than the guildelines stipulated above.
(1)
(0)
