From:
sukieferret
Date: 2002-05-19 16:38:00 UTC
Subject: Re: ADV test kit
> Periodic testing over the course of the year is better.
> I believe people as a whole tend to overreact. Even if we are
> seeing a 1% error rate with the POCT (I don't have any real
> statistics), I believe that the popular forums tend to inflate the
> numbers and make the problem seem much more severe
> than it actually is.
You bring up some important points, such as the importance of
testing, especially independent testing, of tests to know the rates
of false positives and false negatives.
I'll have to see if i still have it but Dr. Stephon once sent me the
results of their in-house testing for accuracy of their approach
hat happened up-front. There were not a lot of tests used
(especially those which resulted in positive readings) so that
itself can cause problems not knowing actual accuracy rates.
Anyway, his in-house inaccuracy numbers were higher than your
hypothetical rates, though still in what many would consider
acceptable margins.
They also were higher than the rates a number of folks other
than he were bandying aorund on the internet. Being claimed as
being better than is possible has only one sure result:
disappointment. If the person wronged is disappointed and the
original claims from rumors are way too good then it blows up.
This differs from things that can't be varified and relay on faith
rather than numbers or other tests.
What is really, really needed is strict independent testing by an
uninvolved third party researcher of large enough amounts of
the tests to have a reasonable degree of believability to the
results. THEN the numbers of false positives and false
negatives will be known.
Avecon had the worst of all worlds for a company that couldn't
point to such independent numbers: first it got built up to the
skies in internet rumors that were far too good to be believable,
then it got bashed over and over when errors did show up. Now
no one has any way to know what believable accuracy numbers
are for those tests.
My hope is that they scale back and for a while and concentrate
on getting their accuracy rates worked up independently by
reputable and non-involved researchers. It would save them at
least as much heart-ache as anyone else.
It would be a shame to lose a test that may prove useful, but until
folks have believable numbers for the failure rates on both sides
there will be questions and the rumor mill does anything BUT
help.
I do agree that internet rumors are usually wrong. That includes
BOTH the over-the-top positive ones and the in-the-basement
negative ones. As a result it is important that people VERIFY
any claims. (Then again, that IS what science is about. It calls
for careful proofs of claims -- not hearsay, nor rumors in any
direction, nor faith that something will work, nor anecdotal
"evidence". Such rigorous investigations work in everyone's
favor. They also logically leave room for margins of error, etc.
We all often hear --but do not always listen -- that if something is
too good to be true it probably isn't true. We do not often enough
hear that if a rumor is terribly bad then it also needs verification
just as strongly. Until enough is known take the worst and the
best of rumors -- including health related ones -- with a boulder
of salt and verify, verify, verify...)