- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Antibodies ...why are they not getting any love?
Posted on 5/3/20 at 7:40 pm to Buckeye Jeaux
Posted on 5/3/20 at 7:40 pm to Buckeye Jeaux
quote:
Now fully convinced that you are a Big Pharma shill.
quote:Bet away. Have you not seen the criticisms of their study by many more than two equally or more highly respected people?
Two respected Stanford MD/researchers designed and executed that study. And one is also professor of Statistics at Stanford. I'd bet the farm on the validity of their study
quote:That depends on the true prevalence in the population. If the true prevalence is less than (1 - specificity), then the results will be nearly meaningless. Garbage.
However and antibody test at 80 or 90 percent accuracy is perfectly acceptable to test larger samples (1000+ people)
0
Posted on 5/3/20 at 7:41 pm to Buckeye Jeaux
quote:Yes, and with better tests and sampling methods.
Dream on, Slick. These studies are underway all over the world.
Posted on 5/3/20 at 7:42 pm to Buckeye Jeaux
quote:Great. Hope they do. Maybe the forthcoming studies will use scientific methods that are not slammed in peer review.
Dream on, Slick. These studies are underway all over the world.
Posted on 5/3/20 at 7:58 pm to Cosmo
quote:
False. Abbott test 99% sensitive and specific for wuhan coronavirus.
Who says it is, other than Abbott.
Not sure about this, but it seems strange that Abbott'ds test could be 99% sensitive if it doesn't detect IgM.
Posted on 5/3/20 at 8:09 pm to Diamondawg
quote:If the Big Pharma researcher/puppets had NOT slammed the Stanford docs studies, I would have been very worried.
Great. Hope they do. Maybe the forthcoming studies will use scientific methods that are not slammed in peer review.
Posted on 5/3/20 at 8:29 pm to Buckeye Jeaux
quote:
If the Big Pharma researcher/puppets had NOT slammed the Stanford docs studies, I would have been very worried.
So, in your mind, data is only valid if it is debunked by numerous highly knowledgeable people. Par for the course around here.
Posted on 5/3/20 at 8:46 pm to Disgeaux Bob
either shite tests or there is no immunity after infection. 2 MD's in L.A. got infected then later tested no antibodies.
Posted on 5/3/20 at 9:00 pm to Buckeye Jeaux
quote:
Two respected Stanford MD/researchers designed and executed that study.
And did a shitty job of it.
quote:
An antibody testing result that shows that millions have the antibody
And to date none of those studies exist.
Posted on 5/3/20 at 9:20 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
And did a shitty job of it
Silly comment.
And where is the antibody testing from the fabulously well funded CDC/NIH and their affiliated foundations? They have done zip, zero, zilch.
Gotta love the statistics purists on this thread who have no problem with the CDC/NIH failing to perform the most basic study imaginable... i.e. what is the damn denominator???
How many Americans have contracted COVID-19?
How many Americans have contracted COVID-19?
How many Americans have contracted COVID-19?
How many Americans have contracted COVID-19?
How many Americans have contracted COVID-19?
How many Americans have contracted COVID-19?
Without antibody testing, we HAVE NO CLUE!!!
Biggest fail EVER by the CDC and NIH. Period
People who exhibit symptoms are only the tip of the iceberg. The antibody test isn't accurate enough? bullshite/
This post was edited on 5/3/20 at 9:24 pm
Posted on 5/3/20 at 9:21 pm to Buckeye Jeaux
quote:Not the way it works.
However and antibody test at 80 or 90 percent accuracy is perfectly acceptable to test larger samples
The Miami test had about 90% specificity, and at that rate it could produce almost 70% false positives. Meaning about 70% of those who took the test assumed they had had COVID, but didn't.
That sounds crazy, but its not.
And, it does make one wonder why the FDA is not even regulating these tests. North of 50 companies are marketing these tests while the FDA sits on its hands.
Maybe because it fits the narrative of those wanting to downplay the severity of the virus.
Posted on 5/3/20 at 9:28 pm to texridder
quote:
Not the way it works.
Your anecdotal Miami story changes nothing.
Dade County Board of Health numbers are:
The test is 95% accurate in computing that between 4.4% and 7.9% of the population-sample tested have the COVID-19 antibody. Thousands were tested.
The Stanford team broke the dam, have highly effective testing techniques, and antibody testing is in progress all over the world.
This post was edited on 5/3/20 at 9:41 pm
Posted on 5/3/20 at 10:01 pm to Buckeye Jeaux
quote:
Your anecdotal Miami story changes nothing.
quote:The tests were not "95% accurate". You are probably confusing the 95% CI. The tests they used were only 90% specific, which given the low true prevalence rate means they might as well have pulled the estimated prevalence figures out of their asses. Why even bother reporting the results when approximately 75% of your positive tests are false positives?
Dade County Board of Health numbers are:
The test is 95% accurate in computing that between 4.4% and 7.9% of the population-sample tested have the COVID-19 antibody. Thousands were tested.
quote:
The Stanford team broke the dam, have highly effective testing techniques
quote:You'll see how ineffective that Stanford team's techniques were when the results from better tests with less biased sampling come in.
antibody testing is in progress all over the world
Posted on 5/3/20 at 10:09 pm to Korkstand
^^More phony double-talk from our Big Pharma shill
This post was edited on 5/3/20 at 10:11 pm
Posted on 5/3/20 at 10:20 pm to Buckeye Jeaux
quote:Here is information about CDC testing and here is information about their surveillance strategy.
And where is the antibody testing from the fabulously well funded CDC/NIH and their affiliated foundations? They have done zip, zero, zilch.
Unlike your precious little Stanford team, the CDC has to make sure the tests are accurate, the techniques are sound, and the results are useful. That takes a little more time.
quote:You clearly have no idea how difficult it is to answer that question precisely.
How many Americans have contracted COVID-19?
Without antibody testing, we HAVE NO CLUE!!!
Biggest fail EVER by the CDC and NIH. Period
quote:The ones used in your favorite studies are not accurate enough, no bullshite. Not only are the sensitivity and specificity nowhere near good enough for the prevalence thus far, but the manufacturers can't even be sure that their figures are accurate. This virus and these tests just haven't existed long enough for rigorous testing to have been done.
The antibody test isn't accurate enough? bullshite/
You need to stop latching on to every little thing that says what you want to hear, and start looking at things objectively. The tests used in the Stanford study and the Dade County study were shite, and worse, we don't even know exactly how shite they were. Throw in the obvious selection bias and they're even more worthless.
Just stop. Wait on the results from the studies with more accurate tests.
Posted on 5/3/20 at 10:22 pm to Buckeye Jeaux
quote:Double talk?
More phony double-talk from our Big Pharma shill
If you consider anything I've said "double talk", then there is no hope for you to understand anything about this.
Posted on 5/3/20 at 10:30 pm to Disgeaux Bob
Getting the quest direct antibody test tomorrow. Anyone can do it for $130. Doesn’t require a doctor’s directive. Although if you can get one, insurance would probably pay some of it. Not a big deal so just paid out of pocket. Go to clinic and get a blood draw and 2-3 day wait for results.
Posted on 5/3/20 at 10:36 pm to Korkstand
You lost ALL credibility when you claimed current antibody testing isn't capable of producing valuable data.
Then you faceplanted by saying we should wait for "accurate" tests from the CDC... the agency that sent out hundreds of thousands if test kits contaminated with the COVID virus!!!!!
Unbelievable!!! Great entertainment!!! Thanks for the chuckles!!!
Then you faceplanted by saying we should wait for "accurate" tests from the CDC... the agency that sent out hundreds of thousands if test kits contaminated with the COVID virus!!!!!
Unbelievable!!! Great entertainment!!! Thanks for the chuckles!!!
Posted on 5/3/20 at 11:10 pm to cahoots
quote:
The holdup is producing good tests at scale. Do you really think it's some huge conspiracy that we don't have 330 million accurate antibody tests ready to go in the blink of an eye?
You think we need 330M tests?
Posted on 5/3/20 at 11:31 pm to Buckeye Jeaux
quote:
You lost ALL credibility when you claimed current antibody testing isn't capable of producing valuable data.
How is 90-95% accuracy valuable data?
He's right.
Edit to add... even 99% accuracy isn't valuable data.
This post was edited on 5/3/20 at 11:32 pm
Posted on 5/3/20 at 11:41 pm to meansonny
quote:
How is 90-95% accuracy valuable data?
He's right.
Edit to add... even 99% accuracy isn't valuable data.
NOT sufficient for individual testing - agree
But, ABSOLUTELY for testing large samples (1000+ people) where individuals are NOT given their results.
This post was edited on 5/3/20 at 11:42 pm
Page 3 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News