AV-TEST Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) AV.TEST test January - June 2025

[ForgottenSeer 114717]

That makes no sense at all. You're insisting that the only ones who should consider reviews are specialists, but the reviews are made because most aren't specialists!

The reviews are made for people who don't know any better and trust the test results blindly and then make assumptions about the results that are not accurate or unrealistic.

You cannot understand AV test lab and Youtube tester results. If you did, then you would be able to identify the problems, inconsistencies, and know that results have limitations.

 

[ForgottenSeer 114717]

There are groups (some of them include businesses and government offices) that change AVs because the price has gone up, the system has become slower, and/or their system was infected and they argue that Windows Defender failed.

None of that is why most people that participate here switch AV.

It's not like they're changing underwear.

Thank you for admitting that they don't change their underwear.

Several of these businesses and offices rely on testing services, several of which you insist can't be trusted, are being used as marketing tools, and can't be verified. And they don't have the time to verify them.

(a) They can be trusted. "Trust, but Verify."
(b) All AV test labs conduct testing on behalf of the paying clients. They don't do it to provide consumer, enterprise, or government assurances. How do you not know this?
(c) They have the time. They just won't do it.

Try harder.

 

[Szellem]

Can someone explain this test to me?
I don't understand why there are groups 1, 2, and 3. And why didn't all three products participate in all three tests, i.e., groups? What determined this?

 

[ForgottenSeer 94738]

Participation in the tests is voluntary and requires companies to pay for it. Not all companies are willing to do this, so they only participate in selected tests. This can be driven by financial or tactical reasons, such as the likelihood of success in certain tests.

 

[ForgottenSeer 114717]

Participation in the tests is voluntary and requires companies to pay for it. Not all companies are willing to do this, so they only participate in selected tests. This can be driven by financial or tactical reasons, such as the likelihood of success in certain tests.

This is an inherently problematic, inconsistent, unfair, untrustworthy system by design even before the actual malware or security testing even begins.

This is not difficult to understand, but some people just cannot see the problems.

 

[monkeylove]

I'm just really smart with decades of experienced within software engineering, security architecture, IT investigations, and security testing.

I know what I am talking about.


I never said that "no one should be trusted." What I said was for AV test labs "Trust, but Verify" and "Youtube testers cannot be generally trusted as they often do not perform correct testing."

How do you not know this stuff?


Because ISO certifications do not assess, audit, and certify the quality of the service provided by AV test labs. There are no certification organizations that certify AV test lab test methodology, procedures, and accuracy of the results.

For Youtube testers, they don't pay, so they would not find anyone willing to certify them. Besides, who would want to certify non-professional testers in the first place.


How silly can you be? I never said that I do not trust doctors. Only you are saying that I do not trust them. Trusting or not trusting doctors is not even relevant to the discussion.

You OK? Because with some of the stuff that you are saying suggests that you have gone off the rails and your mind is in orbit around Pluto. You are making absolutely no sense whatsoever.


Who said that? I know I never said that.

You need to calm down. You are triggered and got yourself whipped up into a hysteria where your mind is making false interpretations of what other people state.


By obtaining the malware samples, carefully reviewing the methodology, and testing to professional standards all by myself.

My verification testing is for me, and me alone. I don't do it for anyone else. If someone else wants me to test, then it is 2,000 Euros per TTP, plus expenses.


I don't need to open one. I and others opened one decades ago. I'm an owner.


AV test labs and Youtube testers are not verified.


As I stated many times before, I only perform verifications for myself.

I don't care what you or anyone else believes or thinks to be trustworthy. It is your prerogative to trust whomever or whatever.

What I think should not matter to you or anybody else.


(a) Sure they can be trusted. "Trust, but Verify."
(b) Of course they can be verified. Anyone has the ability to verify them with some willingness and effort.


I don't want anybody to trust me. They need to do the work so that they can trust themselves.

I do not certify testers. Don't want to.


Oh, but I have been stating facts accepted and known widely. You are the only one that does not know that what I am stating is factual and you refuse to accept reality.


I don't want you to believe in me and why would I want you to?

You have to figure it all out for yourself. You have a lot of work to do. You better get started as quickly as possible because there's a lot to learn, and so very little time to do so.


They are just questions. Why won't you answer them?


I already have proven them. Not once, but multiple times.


No samples provided. No test methodology provided. No independent, unpaid 3rd party validation of the test methodology or results.


But tests can be verified if the tested samples are provided, a methodology is provided, and an independent, unpaid entity verifies the accuracy and validity of both the test methodology and results.


I am an owner in a test organization. I know how to test. My testing is not verifiable as I do the testing I am talking about here only for myself. The results are not intended for public release.

TriggeredBro, you need to try harder.

"Everything" includes health care, construction, automative manufacturing and repair, and so on. Check out Consumer Reports.

You said that certified businesses and even government offices can't be trusted. I find that argument plus your claim that you specialize in everything as bizarre.

Certifications don't refer to ISO but to third-party auditors that assess them. And since they are businesses and government offices, they can't be trusted, either.

The reason why I referred to doctors is because you insist that you can specialize in everything.

This is how bizarre your arguments get: "As I stated many times before, I only perform verifications for myself." What do you do when you have to verify tests on things that you know nothing about?

So, you've made the following points so far:

Anyone can specialize in AVs like you even though you can't specialize in what they know, like medicine. How does that make sense?

Certification is meaningless for AV testers in the same way that they're also meaningless for businesses and government offices. Thus, no one can be trusted. Apparently, following your new point, one can only trust oneself, but one has to do the same tests as what's questioned. How does that even make sense?

You repeat the Reagan mantra, "Trust, but verify." The only one who can verify them is you. And you likely believe that everyone should do the same, even though you now admit that you don't specialize in everything. How does that make sense?

Finally, how do you verify tests on things in which you know little or nothing about?

 

[monkeylove]

The reviews are made for people who don't know any better and trust the test results blindly and then make assumptions about the results that are not accurate or unrealistic.

You cannot understand AV test lab and Youtube tester results. If you did, then you would be able to identify the problems, inconsistencies, and know that results have limitations.

They're made for people who are not specialists, just as there are tests on products for which you are not a specialist. Get your story straight.

Your last point also makes no sense. There can never be a test that has no limitations, but non-specialists also have to rely on them.

 

[monkeylove]

None of that is why most people that participate here switch AV.


Thank you for admitting that they don't change their underwear.


(a) They can be trusted. "Trust, but Verify."
(b) All AV test labs conduct testing on behalf of the paying clients. They don't do it to provide consumer, enterprise, or government assurances. How do you not know this?
(c) They have the time. They just won't do it.

Try harder.

So, from talking about people in general, you're now talking about only those who access this forum. Nice try.

I didn't argue that they don't change their underwear. Work on your reading comprehension.

Finally, your first point makes no sense: how do you verify, for example, the efficacy of various medicines?

Your second point also makes no sense: they're testing AVs on behalf of paying clients so that the latter will see how they're doing. The results are released to the public. It's up to the latter to assess the findings. How did you not know this?

Next, you argue that they can't be trusted, whether certified or not. Are you claiming that they are producing fake results, including those that release information on samples, the methodology, etc? Let's hear about that.

Your last point is incredibly irrational: do you have the time to check the efficacy of various medicines? To test vehicle performance in various road conditions? To test their safety systems and equipment? The quality of various construction materials?

 

[BSONE]

1. Hey monkeylove & bazang.
2. This topic has extended its welcome.
3. This topic still entertains me. :

 

[ForgottenSeer 114717]

Consumer Reports

Consumer Reports advises everybody to use Avast Free.

Consumer Reports are not auditors and they don't provide product certifications or verifications.

Consumer Reports is independent and does not rely upon paying clients. Which is good. Because Consumer Reports' mission is to provide consumer assurances.

Explain this though - why are Consumer Reports' AV test results so different from AV test lab and Youtube tester results?

You said that certified businesses and even government offices can't be trusted.

I know what I said. You just don't read too good. I never said that they cannot be trust. I said "Trust, but Verify."

Certified businesses and even government offices do not commit crimes? Certified organizations don't have quality of products and services problems?

I find that argument plus your claim that you specialize in everything as bizarre.

I never made any claim that "I specialize in everything." What I said - exactly - is "I'm just really smart with decades of experienced within software engineering, security architecture, IT investigations, and security testing."

Again, you don't read too good. You have problems with reading comprehension. Therefore, you misinterpret what you read, because you cannot understand what you read.

Certifications don't refer to ISO but to third-party auditors that assess them.

There are no third-party auditors of AV test labs and Youtube testers.

The reason why I referred to doctors is because you insist that you can specialize in everything.

Again, I never stated "I can specialize in everything."

Is English your native language? Because your use of the word "specialize" is not how a native English speaker would ever use the word.

I will repeat, yet again, that you have reading comprehension problems. As far as introducing the topic of "trusting doctors" to this thread, it's just a strange and desperate move on your part. It is not relevant.

This is how bizarre your arguments get: "As I stated many times before, I only perform verifications for myself."

There is nothing bizarre about this statement. I conduct the verifications myself. Because I am very smart. And because I capable. And because I can.

What do you do when you have to verify tests on things that you know nothing about?

I hire at least one industry leading subject matter expert (SME) for consultation. I can afford it. Usually I will consult with many SMEs to obtain as broad a perspective as is possible.

Anyone can specialize in AVs like you even though you can't specialize in what they know, like medicine. How does that make sense?

(a) The way you use the word "specialize" is not standard English. It is a very odd use of the word.
(b) Not anyone "can specialize AVs." That is proven since most Youtube testers get wrong - as do the AV test labs occasionally.
(c) For medical matters and topics, I go to one of the medical school libraries and devote the time and exert the effort to do the research. You do know that medical school libraries are open to the public around the globe?
(d) Everything that I have stated makes perfect sense because everything that I have stated is 100% accurate and truthful.

Certification is meaningless for AV testers in the same way that they're also meaningless for businesses and government offices.

(a) There is no certification of AV testers.
(b) Again, what I've said over-and-over is "They can be trusted. 'Trust, but Verify.'"
(c) Take a reading comprehension. Please. It will improve the quality of your life.

Apparently, following your new point, one can only trust oneself, but one has to do the same tests as what's questioned. How does that even make sense?

(a) My point of view is for me. Not you. And not anyone else.
(b) My point of view makes perfect sense because of the reasons that I have stated repeatedly.
(c) Go visit r/swoosh.

You repeat the Reagan mantra, "Trust, but verify."

"Trust, but Verify" existed a few hundred years before Reagan was born. Do you not know history?

The only one who can verify them is you.

Anyone can perform their own verification - and they should. That is part of being a good citizen and consumer.

So what is stopping you or anyone else from doing what is required to perform verifications?

Please, please, please. Take a reading comprehension class.

And you likely believe that everyone should do the same, even though you now admit that you don't specialize in everything. How does that make sense?

(a) I do believe that all people should "Trust, but Verify."
(b) I never said "I specialize in everything" in the first place.
(c) What I have stated makes perfect sense because it is 100% accurate and truthful.
(d) Have you finally realized that you need a reading comprehension class? Or two? Or even three or more?

Finally, how do you verify tests on things in which you know little or nothing about?

Yes, I do. Because I put in the time and effort to learn. In your non-standard English: "I put in the time and effort to 'specialize.'"

TriggeredBro, try harder.

 

[Parkinsond]

Consumer Reports are not auditors and they don't provide product certifications or verifications

So you do not verify independent lab tests (do not like the methodology) and do not accept users feedback as an addition source of date for selection; what "exactly" would you recommend the average use to utilize for selecting suitable security suite?

 

[ForgottenSeer 114717]

They're made for people who are not specialists

You are dead wrong. The tests are performed for paying clients and the purpose of the tests are not as consumer assurances, but for marketing purposes. That is why AV test labs exist. To provide a marketing service to paying clients. AV test labs do not exist and function on behalf of the public.

Your last point also makes no sense. There can never be a test that has no limitations, but non-specialists also have to rely on them.

(a) The statement makes perfect sense.
(b) "Non-specialists" do not have to rely upon anything. They can make a choice - to blindly accept what is provided to them - or to critically question what is provided to them. Blindly accepting (trusting) without knowledge is highly problematic. It often makes the consumer disappointed because they were not fully informed and, as a result, made incorrect assumptions or conclusions. And, more importantly, not understanding what one is reading means that one can be easily mislead.
(c) Trusting, but not verifying is foolish.
(d) Do you know what the phrase "Caveat Emptor" means? It means buyer (reader) beware. What it means both legally and practically, is that the consumer is always responsible for being knowledgeable enough to understand, and if they don't know enough, then they should be cautious and skeptical.

 

[ForgottenSeer 114717]

So, from talking about people in general, you're now talking about only those who access this forum.

There is no nice try. What I said originally applied to people who participate here at MT. Go back and re-read. Then re-read another 10 times to improve your reading comprehension.

I didn't argue that they don't change their underwear. Work on your reading comprehension.

I know that you did not argue that people don't change their underwear. I laid a trap. And you were trapped. So you do understand what you read.

What you have been doing the whole time is twisting my words just for the sake of being argumentative.

You are revealed for what you are - a troll. OK TriggeredBro.

Finally, your first point makes no sense: how do you verify, for example, the efficacy of various medicines?

How do you verify efficacy of medicines?

You can do the research. There's lots of studies available of most any medicine available globally. Within an hour of research you can arrive at a general idea of efficacy. However, when it comes to medicines, you won't really know the efficacy until you take the drug. Sometimes efficacy is apparent quickly, sometimes slowly. It might take weeks, months, or years for certain medications to work, such as osteoporosis drugs.

This is not difficult.

Your second point also makes no sense: they're testing AVs on behalf of paying clients so that the latter will see how they're doing. The results are released to the public.

As a marketing tool. Not as any sanctioned consumer assurance.

It's up to the latter to assess the findings. How did you not know this?

The only thing the public will do is look for star and bar ratings, and focus on the ones with "5 Stars and All Green Bars" - because that's how the public is and they don't know whether or not what they think those ratings mean is product reality. Which they do not even know what is AV product reality.

AV test labs do not do anything for the public's benefit. They are for-profit and their contractual obligations are to the paying clients. AV test labs give the "appearance" of working on the public's behalf by adopting AMSTO standards and guidelines, but at the end of the day it is all done for the client.

I know all this stuff because I am very smart, very experienced, pay attention, and do lots of research.

Next, you argue that they can't be trusted, whether certified or not.

There are not certified AV test labs or Youtube testers - at least not in the meaning of the word "certified" that you use.

I said "They can be trusted. 'Trust, but Verify.'"

Try harder troll.

Are you claiming that they are producing fake results, including those that release information on samples, the methodology, etc? Let's hear about that.

No. There is no evidence that current AV test labs are producing fake results.

However, there are multiple cases of AV test labs producing fake results on behalf of clients in the past.

Even if AV test labs did produce fake results, would you be able to make that determination based upon star and bar ratings? Would you be able to identify problems in their methodology? What about if a current test lab makes mistakes during their testing, but decides to release the results anyways without notifying anybody?

You do know that there's been multiple instances of AV test labs performing tests and not even realizing that they were making mistakes, right?

do you have the time to check the efficacy of various medicines?

Yes

To test vehicle performance in various road conditions?

Yes

To test their safety systems and equipment?

Yes

The quality of various construction materials?

Yes

 

[ForgottenSeer 114717]

So you do not verify independent lab tests (do not like the methodology) and do not accept users feedback as an addition source of date for selection; what "exactly" would you recommend the average use to utilize for selecting suitable security suite?

If I see potential problems, then I have the capability to perform verification testing myself.

The historical performance of an AV over many years is probably the best guide, but that provides virtually no assurance that the product will protect at the moment that it needs to protect. AV test labs, Youtube testers, other types of AV testers or reviewers - they're data points for consideration.

My suggestion is for people to not be paranoid, not be too focused on security software, and to use what they like and stick with it. Then move onto other better, more constructive uses of their time.

There's a lot of people out there that just want to play with as many security software as they can, mash it up, talk about them, compare notes, ... and I get it.

 

[Parkinsond]

My suggestion is for people to not be paranoid, not be too focused on security software, and to use what they like and stick with it

Couldn't agree more, and I will qoute your famous words "security is a process"; all AV programs (including the "so-called top one") are bad if I insist to get infected, and are all equally good if I don't.

 

[ForgottenSeer 114717]

Couldn't agree more, and I will qoute your famous words "security is a process"; all AV programs (including the "so-called top one") are bad if I insist to get infected, and are all equally good if I don't.

Even with sound security practices, best-in-class security solutions, highly secure baselines and configurations, and exceptionally safe online behaviors - at the end of the day there's only so much anyone or any organization can do.

At least for home users, most data and financial losses and abuses are not on their local system, but instead hacks of 3rd, 4th, 5th party systems that have their data on them. But nowadays it is mostly various forms of social engineering via different platforms and vectors that result in the most security problems. The thing with all that is the user is an active participant that determines the success or failure of the attempted data or financial theft and abuse.

This is a security software forum with a lot of people who want to focus upon security software, which is perfectly OK and to be expected, but there is far too much everyday focus on "install the best available AV." Security software has significant limitations to security overall and it is, without any doubt, the least significant piece of the security process.

The only people that argue that security software is a significant part of the security process are software developers with an agenda to promote their product. They will say things like "You cannot expect the average home user to understand so they best thing they can do is to install security software." What they really mean is for those home users to install their product.

Don't buy into any security software publisher's drivel.

 

[monkeylove]

Consumer Reports advises everybody to use Avast Free.

Consumer Reports are not auditors and they don't provide product certifications or verifications.

Consumer Reports is independent and does not rely upon paying clients. Which is good. Because Consumer Reports' mission is to provide consumer assurances.

Explain this though - why are Consumer Reports' AV test results so different from AV test lab and Youtube tester results?


I know what I said. You just don't read too good. I never said that they cannot be trust. I said "Trust, but Verify."

Certified businesses and even government offices do not commit crimes? Certified organizations don't have quality of products and services problems?


I never made any claim that "I specialize in everything." What I said - exactly - is "I'm just really smart with decades of experienced within software engineering, security architecture, IT investigations, and security testing."

Again, you don't read too good. You have problems with reading comprehension. Therefore, you misinterpret what you read, because you cannot understand what you read.


There are no third-party auditors of AV test labs and Youtube testers.


Again, I never stated "I can specialize in everything."

Is English your native language? Because your use of the word "specialize" is not how a native English speaker would ever use the word.

I will repeat, yet again, that you have reading comprehension problems. As far as introducing the topic of "trusting doctors" to this thread, it's just a strange and desperate move on your part. It is not relevant.


There is nothing bizarre about this statement. I conduct the verifications myself. Because I am very smart. And because I capable. And because I can.


I hire at least one industry leading subject matter expert (SME) for consultation. I can afford it. Usually I will consult with many SMEs to obtain as broad a perspective as is possible.


(a) The way you use the word "specialize" is not standard English. It is a very odd use of the word.
(b) Not anyone "can specialize AVs." That is proven since most Youtube testers get wrong - as do the AV test labs occasionally.
(c) For medical matters and topics, I go to one of the medical school libraries and devote the time and exert the effort to do the research. You do know that medical school libraries are open to the public around the globe?
(d) Everything that I have stated makes perfect sense because everything that I have stated is 100% accurate and truthful.


(a) There is no certification of AV testers.
(b) Again, what I've said over-and-over is "They can be trusted. 'Trust, but Verify.'"
(c) Take a reading comprehension. Please. It will improve the quality of your life.


(a) My point of view is for me. Not you. And not anyone else.
(b) My point of view makes perfect sense because of the reasons that I have stated repeatedly.
(c) Go visit r/swoosh.


"Trust, but Verify" existed a few hundred years before Reagan was born. Do you not know history?


Anyone can perform their own verification - and they should. That is part of being a good citizen and consumer.

So what is stopping you or anyone else from doing what is required to perform verifications?

Please, please, please. Take a reading comprehension class.


(a) I do believe that all people should "Trust, but Verify."
(b) I never said "I specialize in everything" in the first place.
(c) What I have stated makes perfect sense because it is 100% accurate and truthful.
(d) Have you finally realized that you need a reading comprehension class? Or two? Or even three or more?


Yes, I do. Because I put in the time and effort to learn. In your non-standard English: "I put in the time and effort to 'specialize.'"

TriggeredBro, try harder.

Do you think Consumer Reports and others are wrong about Avast Free? Why so?

In relation to that, it looks like you don't trust any tester other than yourself. What are your suggestions, and do you have verifiable information to prove that?

Before this, you argued that no business or government office can be trusted, even if verified. Now, you're claiming that CR can be trusted, even though you laugh at their suggestion about Avast Free. How do you explain those two contradictions?

I think the results are different because they use different malware types and testing procedures. That's why as others have pointed out in this forum you can only look at different results and then weigh them out and decide. But you're claiming that none of them can be trusted.

How do you verify tests? For example, how did you know that the CR results are reliable?

I wasn't talking about committing crimes; rather, your insistence that no one can be trusted. How rational is such a view?

What you actually said is that people can learn to specialize in AVs. I told that that they can't because they're too busy specializing in other things, but you keep insisting on your beliefs. Why specialize? Because you kept arguing that tests can only be trusted if they can be verified, and verification means repeating the tests yourself and seeing if the outcome is the same. Isn't that something that only specialists can do, and specialists with money to get equipment and hire personnel?

For certification of AV testers, what about EICAR and others?

You're not getting it: you insisted that people can specialize in AV testing and thus not only understand but also question and verify such test results. And then you insisted on that a second time. Many of those people specialize in other things, like medicine, the law, accounting, banking, and so on, and I don't think they have enough time to do what you argue, and yet you believe otherwise. That's why I asked: can you specialize in medicine such that you can understand reviews of various pharmaceutical products, in the same way you insist that they, including doctors, can specialize in AV testing?

That said, the problem isn't that I lack proficiency in English. Rather, you're not thinking straight.

"There is nothing bizarre about this statement. I conduct the verifications myself. Because I am very smart. And because I capable. And because I can."

"I hire at least one industry leading subject matter expert (SME) for consultation. I can afford it. Usually I will consult with many SMEs to obtain as broad a perspective as is possible."

See, this is what I mean: are you claiming that "they (anyone who reads AV tests)" can do the same?

I'll make it simpler for you: "Specialize" means to be an expert in something. In your case, you claim to be an expert in testing AVs, and that all AV tests can't be trusted because (a) they're all "marketing tools", (b) they can't be verified, and (c) there's no certification, and certification is useless if any organization commits "crimes". Never mind the point that you've not proven anything about what you said, and even about yourself, but can you assume that others can do the same things that you do?

Your next points show the weakness of your stance: one can argue that tests for the reliability of certain drugs can't be trusted because (a) they're marketing tools, (b) they can't be verified, and (c) and either there's no certification or certification can't be verified because of "crimes". Your solution: go to a library and study. Maybe after that you'll hire industry experts to consult you.

One wishes the rest of the world has the same leisurely time, intelligence, and wealth as you.

 

[monkeylove]

So you do not verify independent lab tests (do not like the methodology) and do not accept users feedback as an addition source of date for selection; what "exactly" would you recommend the average use to utilize for selecting suitable security suite?

Himself. But he won't tell you what to use.

 

[monkeylove]

You are dead wrong. The tests are performed for paying clients and the purpose of the tests are not as consumer assurances, but for marketing purposes. That is why AV test labs exist. To provide a marketing service to paying clients. AV test labs do not exist and function on behalf of the public.


(a) The statement makes perfect sense.
(b) "Non-specialists" do not have to rely upon anything. They can make a choice - to blindly accept what is provided to them - or to critically question what is provided to them. Blindly accepting (trusting) without knowledge is highly problematic. It often makes the consumer disappointed because they were not fully informed and, as a result, made incorrect assumptions or conclusions. And, more importantly, not understanding what one is reading means that one can be easily mislead.
(c) Trusting, but not verifying is foolish.
(d) Do you know what the phrase "Caveat Emptor" means? It means buyer (reader) beware. What it means both legally and practically, is that the consumer is always responsible for being knowledgeable enough to understand, and if they don't know enough, then they should be cautious and skeptical.

Please prove that AV-Test is marketing AVs. Are you also arguing that the results are fake?

One more thing: they don't accept things blindly. Rather, they do so because they have to rely on testers and reviewers because they're too busy with other things. For example, I have a sister-in-law who's an investment banker, and she has no time to go to libraries and hire experts to verify AV tests.

 

[monkeylove]

There is no nice try. What I said originally applied to people who participate here at MT. Go back and re-read. Then re-read another 10 times to improve your reading comprehension.


I know that you did not argue that people don't change their underwear. I laid a trap. And you were trapped. So you do understand what you read.

What you have been doing the whole time is twisting my words just for the sake of being argumentative.

You are revealed for what you are - a troll. OK TriggeredBro.


How do you verify efficacy of medicines?

You can do the research. There's lots of studies available of most any medicine available globally. Within an hour of research you can arrive at a general idea of efficacy. However, when it comes to medicines, you won't really know the efficacy until you take the drug. Sometimes efficacy is apparent quickly, sometimes slowly. It might take weeks, months, or years for certain medications to work, such as osteoporosis drugs.

This is not difficult.


As a marketing tool. Not as any sanctioned consumer assurance.


The only thing the public will do is look for star and bar ratings, and focus on the ones with "5 Stars and All Green Bars" - because that's how the public is and they don't know whether or not what they think those ratings mean is product reality. Which they do not even know what is AV product reality.

AV test labs do not do anything for the public's benefit. They are for-profit and their contractual obligations are to the paying clients. AV test labs give the "appearance" of working on the public's behalf by adopting AMSTO standards and guidelines, but at the end of the day it is all done for the client.

I know all this stuff because I am very smart, very experienced, pay attention, and do lots of research.


There are not certified AV test labs or Youtube testers - at least not in the meaning of the word "certified" that you use.

I said "They can be trusted. 'Trust, but Verify.'"

Try harder troll.


No. There is no evidence that current AV test labs are producing fake results.

However, there are multiple cases of AV test labs producing fake results on behalf of clients in the past.

Even if AV test labs did produce fake results, would you be able to make that determination based upon star and bar ratings? Would you be able to identify problems in their methodology? What about if a current test lab makes mistakes during their testing, but decides to release the results anyways without notifying anybody?

You do know that there's been multiple instances of AV test labs performing tests and not even realizing that they were making mistakes, right?


Yes


Yes

Yes


Yes

First, you talk about the public. Now, you're talking about forum members.

You refer to a metaphor which you now argue is a trap. What the....

Doing the research means looking at studies. But AV tests results are studies! You're arguing that those tests can't be trusted because they're marketing tools and that certification is useless. One has to verify the tests by auditing them and even replicating them.

That's why earlier you said that you even have to hire industry experts to consult you!

And you think everyone else who looks at AV tests can and should do the same.

Finally, before this you said that you're not a expert on everything, but now you claim that you can do everything, from checking the efficacy of various medicines to testing all sorts of safety equipment.

Prove it.