@ikinhippo73 @CartlandDavid Let us put aside any personal insults and look at the facts. The Covid scare is based on the PCR – but this test is untrustworthy. The Lancet accepts that there are serious problems with it. https://t.co/NkPSZtVbRY Essentially
@LarryGreer20 @prwright55 @IanCopeland5 Even the enthusiastic The Lancet accepts that there are serious problems. Others are far more critical, considering that the PCR test is useless for this purpose. https://t.co/NkPSZtVbRY
RT @frei_geist_: @olafstampf Der PCR Test hat die Vorhersagekraft eines Münzwurfes: Die Prävalenz von Corona in Deutschland lag zwischen 1…
RT @frei_geist_: @olafstampf Der PCR Test hat die Vorhersagekraft eines Münzwurfes: Die Prävalenz von Corona in Deutschland lag zwischen 1…
RT @frei_geist_: @olafstampf Der PCR Test hat die Vorhersagekraft eines Münzwurfes: Die Prävalenz von Corona in Deutschland lag zwischen 1…
RT @frei_geist_: @olafstampf Der PCR Test hat die Vorhersagekraft eines Münzwurfes: Die Prävalenz von Corona in Deutschland lag zwischen 1…
@olafstampf Der PCR Test hat die Vorhersagekraft eines Münzwurfes: Die Prävalenz von Corona in Deutschland lag zwischen 1% und 4% (2020: 1-2%, 2021: 2-4%, 2022: 1-3%) Die Falsch-Positivrate des PCR Tests liegt zwischen 0.5% und 4% (Lancet https://t.co/e
RT @AndrewGreenADF: @TakethatCt @PatGear78230818 The Lancet says otherwise (between 0.8% and 4%). https://t.co/jIvaSdDX0d
RT @AndrewGreenADF: @TakethatCt @PatGear78230818 The Lancet says otherwise (between 0.8% and 4%). https://t.co/jIvaSdDX0d
@TakethatCt @PatGear78230818 The Lancet says otherwise (between 0.8% and 4%). https://t.co/jIvaSdDX0d
@jsm2334 @msabouri @mdkatrsk and when you test much much more you "find" much more https://t.co/UAB2gaTZif
@CTVNews What you SHOULD know about the FRAUD: PCR tests run at high cycles are totally fraudulent as that can find ANYTHING, and use that to drive the CASEDEMIC. Even he inventor of the PCR test said it's never intended to be use for influenza type stuff.
@CP24 Not with the casedemic with the fraudulent PCR tests running at high cycles again. https://t.co/FT1hyARcaL
PCR tests run at high cycles are totally fraudulent as that can find ANYTHING, and use that to drive the CASEDEMIC. The propaganda media will never tell you the inventor of the PCR test said it's never intended to be use for influenza type stuff. https://
@dbab1981 @liz_churchill10 Hahah, care to argue the point with The Lancet? ….trust science bruh…https://t.co/DCAOT0MGbY
@TakethatCt @liz_churchill10 Wrong again: https://t.co/DCAOT0MGbY
@Clarenc71494818 How about The Lancet in June 2020 saying PCR tests were giving false positives up to 75% of the time? Again, in December 2020. In fact, The Lancet published numerous articles stating that many labs around the world were cycling the tests w
@HeidiMaam @ScottAdamsSays Also the tests were/are notoriously unreliable. Now factor in health care providers and hospitals being paid for positive test results …. https://t.co/yobKDXXFbG
Verbrechen gegen die Menschheit! (ALLE Beteiligten müssen sich Verantworten, auch der kleine indoktrinierte und ignorante Hans von nebenan.) https://t.co/o4COqL1iz0 https://t.co/5778U1gko2 https://t.co/7kpxTj9cwK https://t.co/OkvSAF1Jgo https://t.co/d
@TakethatCt @john_parsons68 Lancet paper is the source of John's figures. Typical academic merry-go-round of repeating unchecked data found in another paper. https://t.co/ql9zsPxouA I wrote to the authors for their comments. https://t.co/HOlfUQiE1q https:
RT @JackHum78388025: @mcfunny @mrscorer @LummHandy That's not what the science tells us is it. The real world https://t.co/VwvugZqWHK
@mcfunny @mrscorer @LummHandy That's not what the science tells us is it. The real world https://t.co/VwvugZqWHK
Studies: https://t.co/0WF2TGFece https://t.co/GjgB4gwBgt https://t.co/83J8m8GqtM https://t.co/zUTlxKA5Ky "...no positive viral cultures with a CT > 24 or STT > 8 days. The odds of a positive culture were decreased by 32% for each unit increase in CT.
@Debunk_the_Funk @TnAlistair @RedMonkeyIdaho @Canadianblondy @Brozi35 @Firstladyoflove @DrKellyVictory @stkirsch Read a bit my lovely troll. "To summarise, false-positive COVID-19 swab test results might be increasingly likely in the current epidemiologic
RT @Zer07jk: @CarolineVonhoff @LaurenceSterre @viruswaarheid @MarionKoopmans Ter informatie https://t.co/SyxY7viQEG "False-positive COVID-1…
False-positive COVID-19 results: hidden problems and costs - The Lancet Respiratory Medicine Anything over 17 cycles will give you a false positive and positive test results is what they needed to push the fear into mass psychosis. https://t.co/FLeno6ARl
@shallit43 @MartinKulldorff lancet. O.001% is a fairytale number. https://t.co/kDolxI4zm5
@TwittterMachine @thatsnotmine125 @MRC_BSU Though, I do read the Lancet too. https://t.co/3iKKwCwjx6
@OddlyApplicable @AlyDaly9 @JoyHenningsenMD @eldowns @lexfridman @elonmusk W out a vaxx or treatment. So how did it help the majority, when the majority would have been just fine w out it? https://t.co/1GBwvqRoI1
RT @WCostituzione: 9. "The Lancet" conferma in un recente articolo il problema della mancanza di un gold standard dei test PCR e dei #tampo…
RT @WCostituzione: 9. "The Lancet" conferma in un recente articolo il problema della mancanza di un gold standard dei test PCR e dei #tampo…
@rieske_piotr @TomaszTukajski @normanpie @k_pyrc @AgnieszkaSzust3 One są obarczone bardzo dużym błędem statystycznym. Im częściej są wykonywane tym większe prawdopodobieństwo "Covida". Wrzuciłem już tutaj artykuł z BMJ na ten temat. Są też inne np. https:/
RT @WCostituzione: 9. "The Lancet" conferma in un recente articolo il problema della mancanza di un gold standard dei test PCR e dei #tampo…
@Invinsed @DylanR07856671 @EBrocardi Des études existent sur l'impact des faux positifs sur la société. Ça se traduit en hospitalisations et en morts (https://t.co/PWbmgoB6LO). Vous posez indirectement la question du coùt de la vie, combien vaut une vie,
@Dozzle101 @JDCBurnhil @PRider1980 @AkermanisJohn @covid_parent False-positive COVID-19 results: hidden problems and cost https://t.co/JWvkNjM0iF
@Dozzle101 @disclosetv "RT-PCR assays in the UK have analytical sensitivity and specificity of greater than 95%, but no single gold standard assay exists.“ https://t.co/R0S7YAFZ5o
@jasonwoody @Magic_Mouse206 @BiggestOrtizFan @canadianpork22 @JustinTrudeau @DiLebouthillier This and cycle thresholds are key. PCR tests and the thresholds we use (d) are problematic. https://t.co/djFxYTpmJQ
@KGoldPhysics @LeezerBeez Oh you know, the CDC notice on cycle thresholds and peer reviewed literature... https://t.co/uiGQbXMYVD
RT @CaringConcern: "No data suggests detection of low levels of viral RNA by RT-PCR equates with infectivity unless infectious virus partic…
@Lizzy_Lang7 @carlsmythe @InCytometry @EdwardArthur5 @hansel21_ @Crazycdn2 @SwaledaleMutton @lazlowoodbine42 @dogvoyages @c_drosten You spoke to me. Why would I do as you say? You can believe that I don't understand how it works. If that makes you feel bet
@janmariatalar @Mordimer12 @JacekWilkPL A PubMed Central legit czy tez zabobony? 🐭 https://t.co/7hw36yNfkr
@Marek39556099 @PiotrWitczak_ Dziękuję za odpowiedź. W załączonym papierze swoistość kliniczna testów w UK szacowano na 96-99,2%. Obliczałem z tego PPV dawno temu i żal było mi bezobjawowych którzy zginęli przez odłożone leczenie https://t.co/JXHH0jT74e
@GeoffGp1951 @lx_x_leanne_x_x Original study: https://t.co/EaAUIHG7L6
@Crimnic1 @MelGee48145926 @StompSava @BildungslandNRW Könnte würde hätte... Die Diktatur des Konjunktiv. Wegen all der potentiellen Gefahren können wir uns jetzt nie wieder frei bewegen. Das ist doch keine Art sein Leben zu leben. Diese ständige Angst vor
#301Wigton22 (for a class) This is a quantitative article I found on false COVID-19 test. I think this is interesting because it’s a real world problem right now, people not knowing their results and it affected their day to day operations. https://t.co
Diagnostic or operational performance of swab tests in the real world might differ substantially from the analytical sensitivity and specificity. https://t.co/Hy0Gcwwl17
@bbcbrasil 1 - Justamente pelos milhões de testes falso positivos do teste RT-PCR: https://t.co/wDyM6KjN6t
@Sergiolandd @eldabrot @RodrigoRedondo8 @BeatrizTalegon Le dejo este estudio por si le resulta interesante. https://t.co/9NvD56Ns4x
RT @ferjor10: @Lailabeke además la revista científica Lancet https://t.co/hZkkCKs24e, publicó este estudio que incluso explica el daño, eco…
@Lailabeke además la revista científica Lancet https://t.co/hZkkCKs24e, publicó este estudio que incluso explica el daño, económico, psicológico, social debido a los falsos positivos del PCR, pero nos encontramos en medio de un concurso "balar en twitter"
RT @CaringConcern: "No data suggests detection of low levels of viral RNA by RT-PCR equates with infectivity unless infectious virus partic…
@DaChangeling @SAILOR36 @michaelrulli @inforenique The tests produced hella false positives. The WHO changed the cycle count which was too high when Brandon was inaugurated because of this. Therefore the numbers aren't legit. https://t.co/9BQZ1JzGCW
@Roses4noses @GrandBeggar @davidrieff @GrayConnolly Your B.S. gaslighting isn't working https://t.co/G6oeVPkZPP "To summarise, false-positive COVID-19 swab test results might be increasingly likely in the current epidemiological climate in the UK, with s
@JohnBoweActor Depends on what magnification they are using too. False positives are anywhere between 2-40% according to various studies. If you magnify It enough you can find anything. Look up the name Kary Mullis on bitchute. 🙏🏻 https://t.co/LRYF4Ake
@atrupar Has anyone actually read the excerpt or the following from the story. This was a lame revelation. Bad test results? “Trump, Meadows says in the book, returned a negative result from a different test shortly after the positive” There’s a reason you
@LetsRoc137 Thanks. While supportive, that paper not peer-reviewed & appears to have a methodological flaw. It doesn't appear to account for false positives in PCR diagnotics; up to 4%; meaning actual reinfection rate & severity would be lower th
RT @AnttonMntyvaar1: Tässä Lancetin artikkelissa mainitaan, että virusdiagnostiikassa pitäisi olla aina osoitus akuutin infektion olemassao…
RT @AnttonMntyvaar1: Tässä Lancetin artikkelissa mainitaan, että virusdiagnostiikassa pitäisi olla aina osoitus akuutin infektion olemassao…
RT @AnttonMntyvaar1: Tässä Lancetin artikkelissa mainitaan, että virusdiagnostiikassa pitäisi olla aina osoitus akuutin infektion olemassao…
RT @AnttonMntyvaar1: Tässä Lancetin artikkelissa mainitaan, että virusdiagnostiikassa pitäisi olla aina osoitus akuutin infektion olemassao…
RT @AnttonMntyvaar1: Tässä Lancetin artikkelissa mainitaan, että virusdiagnostiikassa pitäisi olla aina osoitus akuutin infektion olemassao…
RT @AnttonMntyvaar1: Tässä Lancetin artikkelissa mainitaan, että virusdiagnostiikassa pitäisi olla aina osoitus akuutin infektion olemassao…
@joh_public @duttonlouis @frankbulldozer Once more with feeling https://t.co/renwF1gsWw
Tässä Lancetin artikkelissa mainitaan, että virusdiagnostiikassa pitäisi olla aina osoitus akuutin infektion olemassaolosta, ennen kun sen syytä lähdetään selvittämään: https://t.co/xIX3FFy9km
@petterik72 Testi toimii väärien positiivisten periaatteella, joita on jopa 0,8-4% näytteistä. Kaikki positiiviset maassamme mahtuu tuohon virhemarginaaliin. https://t.co/XJUDf2jeca
@KrisCoMedie @HLN_BE @destandaard @vrtnws @demorgen @Nieuwsblad_be with other viruses or genetic material could also be responsible for falsepositive results https://t.co/r49iA3QStK
RT @TwiSuppotr: В статье в Британском медицинском издании The Lancet Respiratory Medicine говорится, что по оценкам в Великобритании уровен…
В статье в Британском медицинском издании The Lancet Respiratory Medicine говорится, что по оценкам в Великобритании уровень ложноположительных ПЦР результатов находится в диапазоне от 0,8% до 4%, в то время как ложноотрицательные могут достигать 33%. htt
@tuhnaajapoika @Klaaraa @WoodyW00dlegger "The current rate of operational false-positive swab tests in the UK is unknown; preliminary estimates show it could be somewhere between 0·8% and 4·0%" https://t.co/lvPSatNbVR