Interesting. But are these two tests directly compareable? The way I have understood the Liverpool project, they have used the PCR test on people with symptoms, while the lateral flow test has been used for general screening of the population, most of whom without symptoms. That in itself should account for huge differences in the outcome. Am I missing something?
This is the point... The PCR test identified swathes of asymptomatic ‘positives’. The Lat Flow test basically exposes the real world shortcomings of PCR as a viral diagnostic tool - something for which it was never intended. A Portuguese court having heard all the evidence has just ruled as much. The acknowledged accurate test reveals virtually no community transmission in Liverpool because there is almost no active disease in the population. The PCR test (which cannot differentiate between past and present infection nor minor contamination) is probably a better measure of how many have now had the disease and consequently enjoy immunity. So why vaccinate them? It doesn’t help the Government case.
The long version: Dr Clare Craig FRCPath wrote: ‘The army has begun mass testing of the whole of Liverpool city in a desperate attempt to find cases. Despite being set to work diligently and efficiently, they appear to be failing to find the second wave of the pandemic that is currently supposed to be hitting Liverpool the hardest. Astonishingly, this new test has only found 162 positives after testing 23,170 people, which is only 0.7%. These are almost certainly all false positives. Tests rarely ever manage a false positive rate lower than this. The army has demonstrated, accidentally, that there is no remaining Covid in Liverpool. Could some of the positives have been real? No-one knows the real world false positive rate for the army test (or the PCR test). The manufacturers will always use clear cut examples for both negative and positive groups so their false positive rates tend to be underestimates. When tests are used in the real world they encounter ambiguous situations that result in higher false positive rates. Serious questions have been raised about the false positive rate of the PCR tests resulting from laboratories under immense pressure. The evidence that the PCR tests are resulting in misdiagnosis due to false positive results has been published before. Positive test results in Liverpool have been sharply declining since the beginning of October, while other parts of the North West have seen positive test results plateau. Because of false positive misdiagnoses there is still a persistent rate of allegedly Covid-positive patients admitted to hospital, in intensive care and even Covid being wrongly attributed as the cause of death. If Covid was really driving the admissions to hospital rather than false positive misdiagnoses, then there must be cases in the community for people to catch the virus. The Government therefore has a problem. Where have the missing cases gone? Have the people of Liverpool had enough and stopped co-operating with the testing programme? The army has been called to mass test the entire city. They were so determined to find these cases that they decided to mass test schools without first seeking parental consent. Instead of using swab tests with PCR, a much faster test was used. Previous tests have looked for RNA (the viral equivalent of DNA that viruses use to reproduce). The new test (lateral flow test) finds Covid proteins from which the viral particles themselves are made. The manufacturers claimed that these tests are very accurate although there were questions about whether they could find every case. On this measure the most obvious explanation for their apparent poor performance in finding cases was because most of the ‘cases’ found before with PCR testing were in fact false positives. Even better, these results are going to be cross checked with “gold standard” PCR testing. The worst performing laboratories have a positive rate of 20% for PCR. So even in a worst case scenario only 20% of them will test positive in these laboratories which will drop the number they can claim are real Covid ‘cases’ even further. The ONS carry out random population screening to determine how many Covid ‘cases’ there are currently in the population. They do this using PCR tests in the same laboratories as community tests which are therefore subject to the same serious false positive problems. For this reason, the regions with laboratories with the highest false positive rate have the highest ONS predicted case rate and the most ‘cases’ in community testing. The ONS predicted 2.2% of the population of the North West had Covid in the last week of October. Their prediction for the week of November 1st to 7th will be published on Friday 13th. Assuming the later prediction is not dramatically different to before, this means that the Army tests have shown only one third of the ONS predicted cases. The Government will be left with a choice when faced with the gap between the 2.2% figure from PCR testing and the 0.7% figure found by the Army using the new test: They could argue that cases fell by two thirds, from 2.2% to 0.7% in a week, and risk being proved wrong with the next round of ONS testing. They may claim that these new tests are missing two thirds of cases, and then be forced to abandon the new test as defective. They will then be left with the contradiction of there being no cases being diagnosed in the Liverpool community, but apparently continuing problems in hospitals where everyone is tested. They will have to admit that the 0.7% test is actually more accurate and that therefore there are serious problems with false positives from the PCR test results and finally start addressing those problems. Every medical student has it drummed into them that they must treat the patient not the test results. The Government needs to take a look at the nation as a patient and stop treating the tests. Symptom trackers show symptoms back at baseline; accident and emergency attendances for acute respiratory infections are below normal, hospital admissions, intensive care bed use and hospital mortality figures are all normal for the time of year. The patient is better, but the treatment is toxic and it has to be stopped.’
https://twitter.com/michaelyeadon3?s=21 You won’t find too much ‘debunking’. The graphs were produced from ONS stats by some enthusiastic statistician. Yeadon himself was one of the top men in the field which is why he is appalled at Whitty, Valance & Co spouting stuff at variance with established immunological science.
The ingredient that kills the virus is cetypyridinium chloride, which is also in many fresh breath sprays, and also Chloraseptic throat sprays.
This is worth 5 minutes of listening (but no doubt he isn’t who he says he is yadayadayada.....). Evidence to Alberta Covid enquiry. https://www.bitchute.com/video/hWPjDdXOWkOo/ Newspaper https://www.westernstandardonline.c...ians-playing-medicine-media-driving-hysteria/
I can find Yeadon's tweet, but not the tweet that reads "that chart has been discreditted multiple times". I wish people, Yeadon included, would post links to the source material. It would save me a lot of time.
No, me neither. Funny that. Just some suggested tweaks. I note Hubaxe’s offering appears to be from a French language account......
Found the original >> https://mobile.twitter.com/jon_statistics/status/1327390865170554882 Found a tweet that disagrees >> https://twitter.com/gordonrlove1/status/1328634175201619971 Now looking for explanations. I'll probably end up concluding that Twitter is useless because everyone asserts but doesn't explain.
Hi Garethr, No, no source link from yeadon, not at all, I guess he did the plot chart himself from ONS data (well.. ) Found that the day I posted it in a few seconds from Yeadon's tweeter's page. I just looked for you, and cannot see it anymore. more than probably deleted. Anyway you still can compare with the ONS real chart some posted. Being a bit alone to face the conspi flooding, I'll let it as is, and will stay on bike, other pleasant topics that don't imply politics and funny reading about.
Actually Mike Yeadon DOES explain “Look, I can’t be more direct. We can’t have a lethal pandemic sweeping the land, killing thousands of people & it NOT show up in the total mortality charts. Not unless someone is hiding dead bodies. And they’re not. Its MISDIAGNOSES. Please wake up. It’s not even new.” So, no excess deaths = diagnostic errors that label everything Covid while other conditions shrink. What he has said throughout is that the whole problem stems from the PCR tests which, until recently, have been the sole measure of Covid. Because PCR is so indiscriminate (in the strict meaning of the word) it cannot distinguish between recovered, recovering and active cases nor lab contamination or where someone’s immune system has killed virus still present but dead in their nose/throat. Look at Liverpool test results that take a city from ‘rampant’ to ‘negligible’ in a weekend..... That in turn tells you all of the ‘cases’ aren’t which is wholly consistent with Austria? where 97% of cases were demonstrably not infectious. It is fizzling out for now....... but it has moved from clinical to political and financial.
flood flood.. France, Direct covid related cases in hospital +428 last 24 hours. https://covid19.cartosport.com/ See you on other "normal" threads
I don't know about France, but in the UK, hospital admissions are not necessarily being treated for serious COVID-19 symptoms. They are just people who tested positive for COVID-19, or are, in the case of Wales, suspected of being infected. https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/det...tive-numbers-of-patients-admitted-to-hospital ENGLAND England data include people admitted to hospital who tested positive for COVID-19 in the 14 days prior to admission, and those who tested positive in hospital after admission. Inpatients diagnosed with COVID-19 after admission are reported as being admitted on the day prior to their diagnosis. Admissions to all NHS acute hospitals and mental health and learning disability trusts, as well as independent service providers commissioned by the NHS are included. NORTHERN IRELAND Northern Ireland data include confirmed COVID-19 admissions by admission date. SCOTLAND Data for Scotland include admissions into hospital for patients who tested positive for COVID-19 in the 14 days prior to admission to hospital, on the day of their admission, or during their stay in hospital. The data are published weekly by Public Health Scotland. WALES Wales data include confirmed and suspected cases, and are the numbers of admissions to the hospital in the previous 24 hour period up to 9am. The numbers of admissions are not comparable with other nations. It surely cannot be that difficult to identify the patients who are actually ill, can it?
