Saturday, April 2, 2022

FDA turns tricks with the authorizing of 425 different tests for COVID

Just in case you thought that FDA would help to standardize the tests that are used in the US to diagnose COVID-19, you were sorely mistaken.  Yesterday, FDA announced the current number of tests it has "authorized" for this purpose:  425 different tests.

Just in case you thought FDA might inform the public as to the most accurate tests, or provide information so that we can compare the different tests to aid in choosing or interpreting them, you would again be mistaken.

Finally, if you thought after two years it was time for FDA to actually start "approving" some tests, so that we might feel secure that they met established standards, you would again be wrong.  

It has become only too obvious that the EUA is a trick being used by our federal health agencies to ensure the persistence of COVID confusion, while eliminating all responsibility and liability from the agencies themselves, the manufacturers and all those who administer the products or tests. 

Below is FDA's announcement dated April 1, 2022. 

  • COVID-19 testing updates:
    • As of today, 425 tests and sample collection devices are authorized by the FDA under emergency use authorizations (EUAs). These include 293 molecular tests and sample collection devices, 84 antibody and other immune response tests and 48 antigen tests. There are 74 molecular authorizations and 1 antibody authorization that can be used with home-collected samples. There is one EUA for a molecular prescription at-home test, two EUAs for antigen prescription at-home tests, 15 EUAs for antigen over-the-counter (OTC) at-home tests, and three for molecular OTC at-home tests.
    • The FDA has authorized 28 antigen tests and nine molecular tests for serial screening programs. The FDA has also authorized 910 revisions to EUA authorizations.

1 comment:

Gregg Kishline said...

You might explain the distinctions between Approval and EUA status for COVID19 tests, in terms of stricter protocols, legal status, etc. I'm still trying to extract the possible explanations for foot-dragging at the FDA, for obscuring accurate data on which critical decisions should be made, etc., without assigning motive.