[ad_1]
Two days ago, we reported on the research by researchers at Semmelweis University. The study looked at the effectiveness of two rapid tests for antibodies to the coronavirus, that is, how accurately they could detect the infection. The two rapid tests examined were unacceptably poor: only a third of those actually infected were positive, and 7 to 13 percent of the truly negative were false positives.
The results show that the rapid tests tested for antibodies are simply not currently suitable for the detection of coronavirus infection.
Even the title of the study formulates disability as the main message. In our article, we describe that the university purchased 100,000 CECZ Kft antibody-based rapid tests. Based on publicly available documents. The Ltd. was previously completely unknown in the healthcare market, but one of the consultants from the Ministry of Innovation and Technology, Jr. Iván Kovácsics is the father, Iván Kovácsics Sr. is Deputy Director of Strategy at CECZ.
It is not at all transparent what products CECZ sold. Although we asked the company several times about the type of Chinese fans it delivered to Hungary and whether it provides a service network for the machines, we did not receive a response from them. We were also curious about what they thought of the effectiveness of the rapid tests, but this question was also not answered.
As we wrote in our previous article, “We do not know if the rapid tests examined by SOTE and included in the study were obtained by the University of CECZ, but it is true that CECZ sold large quantities of rapid tests to the university.”
After the publication of this article, the University of Semmelweis has published the following document (the document will be published in its entirety, the contradictions that can be read from it and our additional questions to the university will be described later):
In his article, Two Completely Useless Chinese Coronavirus Rapid Tests, published at 04:30 in the index, he refers to a study for Medical Weekly. However, the publication of the staff of the Semmelweis University did not draw the conclusions of the study in relation to the tests mentioned in the Index, commissioned by the Ministry of Innovation and Technology and CECZ. Rapid tests do not try to detect the virus, but the antibody produced in the body against the virus, but only detect the disease once the antibodies have appeared in the body, which only appear in the days after infection. That is, rapid tests alone are not really adequate for making a diagnosis, but along with other additional tests, the university also uses certain rapid tests in some of its procedures. At the same time, the University of Semmelweis is the call. It focuses on the use of PCR tests, which offer a much more reliable image of the disease, since this test can detect the inherited material of the virus. In doing so, secretions from the patient’s airways (trachea or nasopharynx) are sampled with a plastic rod, placed in a special tube, and the presence of the virus is detected by genetic testing.
In other words, the university affirms that its researchers “did not draw the conclusions established in the study in relation to the tests commissioned by the Ministry of Innovation and Technology of CECZ.” This was not stated in our article. Furthermore, the communication does not refute any of the actual statements in our article. The announcement does not mention the brand of evidence purchased from CECZ Kft.
However, some incomprehensible details become even more apparent after the announcement. Therefore, the university confirmed that rapid tests had been ordered from CECZ Ltd., clearly for diagnostic purposes. But for some reason, if we understand correctly, they didn’t examine the effectiveness of these tests in their study, but two completely different brand tests. Why?
The following questions were sent to Semmelweis University:
- What was the basis for deciding which tests would be verified for accuracy?
- What is the basis for deciding which tests to purchase for diagnostic purposes?
- Why haven’t the same tests been studied that are also used to evaluate patients?
- If no screening tests were performed, how were the tests purchased for diagnostic use determined?
- If control tests were carried out on the effectiveness of the tests obtained for diagnostic purposes, why were their results not made public?
- What brand, what type of tests were purchased for diagnostic purposes?
- From which dealer was the evidence examined in the study obtained?
- On what basis was the decision made to obtain evidence and other equipment from CECZ Kft?
- On what basis was the usability of the devices supplied by Ltd. verified?
(Cover image: Negative rapid tests of employees in the intensive care unit for patients infected with coronavirus at the Szent László Hospital on April 22, 2020. Photo: MTI / Zoltán Balogh)
[ad_2]
