Corona Virus

Show us exactly where the lancet or any serious studies state 91% false PCR test.

 

An abridged version of Dominic Lawson’s column in today’s Sunday Times:

Radio comedy producer Ed Morrish tweeted last week “If you take away everyone with underlying conditions, Harold Shipman didn’t kill anyone.”

An NHS England statistic that showed of the 47,750 Covid deaths in English hospitals, “only” 3,600 were aged under 60, and, of those under-60s, the overwhelming majority had “underlying conditions”. Translated: look, these are all old and sick people — can’t we forget about them and get on with our lives?

This business of underlying conditions requires examination. It includes those that are either not necessarily fatal, or are eminently treatable. If you look at the data on Covid deaths published by the NHS, you will find specified not just underlying conditions such as cancer but also hypertensive disease — high blood pressure to you and me — cerebral palsy, chromosomal abnormalities (that would be my 25-year-old daughter), transplanted organ status, diabetes, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis and even “ill-defined conditions”.

People can — do — live fruitfully for decades with such conditions. To write them all off as ripe for the knacker’s yard is, at best, faintly sinister. And while it is true that the average age of death from Covid is 82, someone who has reached that age is — according to the actuaries’ tables — due to live for around another nine years. Indeed, based on what we know of the age and medical histories of Covid victims in the UK, the most authoritative academic research suggests that, on average, they were robbed of 10 years of their life. Criticising those who seem to regard that last decade as all but meaningless and hardly worth preserving at society’s expense, the Conservative MP Neil O’Brien wrote: “A decade is worth a lot. For my parents that decade involved the wedding of one son, the birth of two grandchildren ... amazing summer flowers in their little garden; charity work, friends — and being here for everyone who loves them.” He speaks for millions.

thoseaverage-age 82” Covid victims, in their tens of thousands, are — or rather were — also real people, with families and friends. Neither they, nor those with “underlying conditions”, are a less important category of human.

so do we use a different test? I thought the PCR is pretty much - if not exactly - the same worldwide.

and if the test is the same then false positives (and surely they aren’t as prevalent as you suggest) would be the same in each country?

 

Wow, yes, fabulous aseptic techniques at 45 cycles and more when the test inventor suggested a maximum of 35 but you should get a result much lower.
https://m.facebook.com/Channel4News/videos/undercover-in-a-covid-testing-lab/1040974489677291/

And you wonder why I accuse you of lacking curiosity?

Your lengthy cut’n’paste demands more attention than most will give.

 

Although it is worth pointing out.
I think we are all aware that these are lives. No one wants to be discussing deaths as acceptable.We are not refusing to treat anyone
Death is inevitable, however. and the people who died last year or the year before, or the 5200 people who died in Scotland, over the winter of 2017/18, from flu and pneumonia, deserve but did not get, the same considerations that you are giving to the people whom have died of Covid this last year.
It is conter-productive to use this theme at this time.
We are all aware that the people, we are unable to save, have lives.
None of us are considering a withdrawal of care.

We are trying to rationalize figures and graphs, we are both unfamiliar with, and uncertain of, within the bounds of our collective knowledge.

I does seem worth investigating, why we, are experiencing a much faster growth in numbers, than any of the other countries show, no matter whos argument it enhances. Have a nice day.

 

From the day 1 it's accepted PCR is not fully reliable. Still can't see any trace of this 91% false test number you are repeating on all thread you can. ..

 

Long, scientific and in a foreign language but written by a subject matter expert who you will reject out of prejudice and without reading. It is however well supported by evidence.
https://lockdownsceptics.org/lies-d...tistics-the-deadly-danger-of-false-positives/
You can take a horse to water.......
As I said, just wait for the German courts if you doubt the Portuguese.

No doubt your scientific qualifications and experience trump this lot:
https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/

 

wow this page again.. I was asking about serious studies. And still can't see the 91% number. You mentionned the lancet, where is the number?

 

Dr Mike Yeadon is the former CSO and VP, Allergy and Respiratory Research Head with Pfizer Global R&D and co-Founder of Ziarco Pharma Ltd.

 

I know that, and he is strongly disproved by serious searchers.
"former" is maybe a word to better consider. All people going into alternative explanation are "former" something.

 

Freed from the constraints of representing the interests of big Pharm, ( their employers), and free now to publish the very thinking processes that propelled then to the summits of their field.

 

A bit too easy isn't it?

 

How do you mean?

 

I mean that's an easy not convincing explanation. Moreover in the covid context

 

I think it is time to stop providing entertainment for the resolutely stupid. There really is no cure for Hubaxe’s determination to be unconvinced by anything but his prejudices because it sure as hell isn’t countervailing science from genuine experts. He should stick to his art.

 

You still forgot to show us those serious studies 91% number source.

 

cut and paste from Callumity's first link

Because of the high false positive rate and the low prevalence, almost every positive test, a so-called case, identified by Pillar 2 since May of this year has been a FALSE POSITIVE. Not just a few percent. Not a quarter or even a half of the positives are FALSE, but around 90% of them. Put simply, the number of people Mr Hancock sombrely tells us about is an overestimate by a factor of about ten-fold. Earlier in the summer, it was an overestimate by about 20-fold.

 

Cal also talked about these numbers coming from "serious studies" and named The Lancet... hmm
Yes PCR are not reliable, now the number of +90% false comes from nowhere. As the theory of the skeptics is widely based on this unverifiable number, we are like on other subjects with someone building a castle on sand, with biased information.

And what about M Yeadon declaration in december that "the pandemic is over in UK, and the vaccine is not necessary" .. seriously..

 

Testing isn’t great atm Hubaxe,

https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/which-test-is-best-for-covid-19-2020081020734

 

I've read that one times ago. Yes test are not great it's not a secret from day one.
I contest the +90% numbers coming from nowhere used to bias stuff and build theories.

 

Well it’s a brave move for a non scientist to go toe to toe with the former head of Pfizer respiratory research - well, brave or stupid.