@greg_travis @ZacBissonnette @AlecMacGillis It's also an issue with rapid PCR. And with any diagnostic test of any kind. If you have very low prevalence, false positives are more common than true positives. It's just math. Here's another article: https://t
RT @giuz73: @maxdantoni @plums_the Il problema dei falsi positivi tramite pcr (tampone molecolare) è un fatto accertato al punto che è desc…
@SilviaNewman4 @little_eee_3 @PrisonPlanet No matter who funds it they were correct. Here is a source that you cannot argue with. The Lancet. They found in September 2020 that false positive rates in the U.K. were somewhere between 0.8% and 4.0% https://t.
@SilviaNewman4 @little_eee_3 @PrisonPlanet Yes... but he clearly misspoke. Here is a source that you cannot argue with. The Lancet. They found in September 2020 that false positive rates in the U.K. were somewhere between 0.8% and 4.0% https://t.co/gTdrfgw
RT @FactCheckedJSY: @Jessdunsdon Here is an extract from The Lancet: “The current rate of operational falsepositive swab tests in the UK i…
@Jessdunsdon Here is an extract from The Lancet: “The current rate of operational falsepositive swab tests in the UK is unknown; preliminary estimates show it could be somewhere between 0·8% and 4·0%” Take if the mid No. of 2.4% = 24 false positives/1000
@Jay3point14 @Sven_Roman @MackayIM @alanmcn1 Här en uppskattad FP-rate i UK på 0,8 - 4%. Det innebär att när man screenar brett, och positiva prov är som nu ca. 7% så kan hälften vara falskt positiva. Därav WHOs uppdatering att göra som förr - även se til
RT @Mary04683675: When low pre-test probability exists, positive results should be confirmed by other means. "False-positive COVID-19 resul…
Well said 👏
@dominiquetaegon @DPJHodges @MichaelYeadon3 This article from the Lancet is pretty clear that PCR False Positive rates are only at 0.8-4%. There's a lot of misinformation circulating. https://t.co/RHNseSuNKm
@GlenSalo That has been a known issue all along. But it doesn't change the issue of excess deaths. https://t.co/GgkkYnNfrg
@ChiddyFluff @cinnibob2 @talkRADIO @thejamesmax Nope, you read it yourself in the Lancet, which is about as legit a source as it gets. But I very much doubt you'll risk reading something that disagrees with your narrative. https://t.co/RHNseSuNKm
@FAO27Ltd @globalhlthtwit @stevie_fish *Everyone* is vulnerable, because *everyone* can suffer permanent organ damage or disability from SARS-CoV-2. See e.g. https://t.co/gTbN4UOCUM. The false positive rate is only 0.8-4.0%: see https://t.co/cvbpZB9gkW
@NaviStarLegal @JoRogersUK @pcrclaims RT-PCR: Enjoy reading. https://t.co/N29txu6xrm https://t.co/zOqul1XWti https://t.co/FZ4wJBAwyS
@DarylMarshallT @Sativa00982728 @Glenntwts It is NOT 90% https://t.co/B7jKnfGXGN
@ShopkeeperAngry @ipswichstar24 https://t.co/kfcfUkgUwb - as of the end of September “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%.” I think you’re ma
When low pre-test probability exists, positive results should be confirmed by other means. "False-positive COVID-19 results: hidden problems and costs - The Lancet Respiratory Medicine" https://t.co/DUqK2EmXRX
RT @giuz73: @maxdantoni @plums_the Il problema dei falsi positivi tramite pcr (tampone molecolare) è un fatto accertato al punto che è desc…
Problems with false positives https://t.co/OmoWxSOv3I
RT @JuliaHB1: You think all this talk of false positives for Covid testing is conspiracy theorist nonsense? Then go tell that to the Lanc…
RT @giuz73: @maxdantoni @plums_the Il problema dei falsi positivi tramite pcr (tampone molecolare) è un fatto accertato al punto che è desc…
@maxdantoni @plums_the Il problema dei falsi positivi tramite pcr (tampone molecolare) è un fatto accertato al punto che è descritto su The Lancet https://t.co/0vqowVM3Hb
RT @hommel_b: Jouw stelling is al lang ondergraven, @P_Bruijning. Hoe kun je dat gemist hebben? Gewoon beschikbaar in de reguliere medische…
RT @microRNApro: https://t.co/qU7EgtnlRd 9/29/20 RT-PCR tests to detect severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA ar…
https://t.co/qU7EgtnlRd 9/29/20 RT-PCR tests to detect severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA are the operational gold standard... https://t.co/Insa6Z8Y4p 12/17/20 Conclusion: WHO et al., used a problematic test to create a fake
@seizethestick @Sven_Roman @FreddiRamel Ja. Kul om du är intresserad! Här en basic genomgång, som förklarar matematiken fint, med ett antagande om 0,5% falskt positiva (som låter lite, men ger 500 FP på 100K test): https://t.co/EqQ5qfdFBP Här antas dock
RT @JuliaHB1: You think all this talk of false positives for Covid testing is conspiracy theorist nonsense? Then go tell that to the Lanc…
@famillecg @LTSmash420 @Alex451618 T'énerve pas tout vas bien haha. https://t.co/pTR6sIcLiT PCR assays in the UK have analytical sensitivity and specificity of greater than 95% https://t.co/hTkbVLwfBn Bien évidemment il y a aussi des faux positif et le te
#PCRtest onbetrouwbaar recente studie in The Lancet "false-positive COVID-19 swab test results might be increasingly likely in the current epidemiological climate" https://t.co/ohbVba05lw #ikdoenietmeermee #coronamaatregelen #COVID20
WHO admits false positive tests...lots of them... @cspanwj https://t.co/UY9MdQeEQd
@AndyInLondon1 @NealOKelly No, it said "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%". Preliminary estimates based on small studies of tests for othe
@CoralBlob @wilhugs It is well reported: https://t.co/qsIMYEVbVN
RT @sarahjo60329006: Just stop getting fb&£ing tested ffs !!! Scamdemic over!!! https://t.co/Gan5z1CFFS
Just stop getting fb&£ing tested ffs !!! Scamdemic over!!! https://t.co/Gan5z1CFFS
@SaltenasKarolis @BNODesk No "To summarise, false-positive COVID-19 swab test results might be increasingly likely in the current epidemiological climate in the UK, with substantial consequences at the personal, health system, and societal levels" this is
RT @PaulJamesOakley: As the government moves more regions to Tier 3 on the basis of PCR results, Hancock should take a few minutes to read…
@HeadieFore @Oldglorycries How about testing? Need more any more to prove PCR, Sars-Cov2 tests lead to many false positives and negatives. Threshold counts are to high in these tests https://t.co/I41vhMqO4e https://t.co/Z5HReUu3bt https://t.co/xsthHAC8bc h
@c_drosten 2 - FRAUDEMIC! https://t.co/wDyM6KjN6t
@libbi815 @BNODesk How stupid can you really be? 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/IWdqGFoxps
Lancet article from earlier this year. "False-positive COVID-19 results: hidden problems and costs - The Lancet Respiratory Medicine" https://t.co/yNVPHYhaiK
@Azaboutdat @SteveJones3465 @jesuistander There can be false positives with any test, but the rate for SARS-CoV-2 is relatively low, around 0.8-4%, whereas the false *negative* rate is estimated to be between 2% and 33% (https://t.co/cvbpZB9gkW).
@al_hkim انا ما دكتور ولا طبيب ولكن أريد أشارك رأيي PCR يعتبر المعيار الذهبي للكشف عن أمراض فيروسية، ما أظن ان به تحريف، إنما اخطاء errors، وكل المناهج التحليلية معرضة لمثل هذه الأخطاء ما ادري أي نوع من الأدلة تريد، بس أنصح هذا المقال: https://t.co/shNms
HEADS UP! False-positive COVID-19 results: hidden problems and costs - The Lancet Respiratory Medicine https://t.co/BNMykcvDxQ
RT @ifihadastick: @imgrund @Sflecce With a pre-test probability of almost zero, and known operational false positive rates of PCR, you are…
RT @ifihadastick: @imgrund @Sflecce With a pre-test probability of almost zero, and known operational false positive rates of PCR, you are…
@ImagesMD @tmillsNC Here is a good article from Lancet https://t.co/i62MLh7TeW
@Mauerback Define "a lot". "estimates show it could be somewhere between 0·8% and 4·0%." Tech itself seems amazing but the real world is messy: "contamination sampling PCR amplicons/reagents, sample cross-contamination, and other viruses or genetic mate
@TonkatsuBC Too many false-negatives esp in asymptomatic ppl. https://t.co/HNFfdlc6ur
@LPerrins @MattHancock PCR tests aren't worthless. Your article doesn't quote the rate of false positives, here's one that does: https://t.co/TDWHPVmf6K. It's estimated at 0.8 to 4%.
@Chrisrooks82 @Keir_Starmer No one is addressing this as it is not true. https://t.co/7zUqOuKloZ
@joobailee Hi Joobai, I’m having this exhausting conversation with this guy, who is insisting as well as, false positives, there are 33 percent false negatives. He quotes the lancet. I’m unable to explain why he’s wrong. Any help please? X https://t.co/oPW
"As such, diagnostic or operational performance of swab tests in the real world might differ substantially from the analytical sensitivity and specificity.False-positive COVID-19 results: hidden problems and costs" https://t.co/Dth8miKfpj
@deuxbeck @AlizadehEslami False positive are somewhere between 0.8 and 4%. Stay safe! https://t.co/3ineUkW1ff
@Mueller_M12 @AiNehRanziGZeke @O901 @blotstroem @cmschueller @GeorgAlbrecht1 @lokfuehrer_tim @ralphruthe Das aktuellste wäre wohl Surkova et al. im Lancet, denke ich. Ich glaube, nachdem was bisher kam, zwar nicht, dass du auch nur eine einzige Studie gel
@kategooden @atalanta44 @SkyNewsAust Sure here is the screenshot, it's regarding the UK. No test that isn't culturing the virus is 100 percent accurate. Would love to know haha. https://t.co/IJM0BPhKZg
@Hasselhoof75 @MichaelYeadon3 The operational FPR is just one element of it. This paper explains well: https://t.co/qWtm44YQ9O
@KamilSzczepane1 "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/1zBBfCqJbN
@sussemani @Patrickdery et les PCR ne sont pas aussi bons qu'on le pense lorsque les individus sont symptomatiques https://t.co/mJ6bdjeR5b (page 7) https://t.co/QpFcWOz35a
RT @AlisonMcClean3: @allisonpearson Have you seen this from the Lancet? It is just devastating that this is being ignored and so much harm…
RT @askjomo: @mynameisjerm And This!!!👆🏼👇🏼 https://t.co/hMSknDicu4
RT @askjomo: @mynameisjerm And This!!!👆🏼👇🏼 https://t.co/hMSknDicu4
RT @JuliaHB1: You think all this talk of false positives for Covid testing is conspiracy theorist nonsense? Then go tell that to the Lanc…
RT @askjomo: @mynameisjerm And This!!!👆🏼👇🏼 https://t.co/hMSknDicu4
RT @askjomo: @mynameisjerm And This!!!👆🏼👇🏼 https://t.co/hMSknDicu4
RT @askjomo: @mynameisjerm And This!!!👆🏼👇🏼 https://t.co/hMSknDicu4
RT @askjomo: @mynameisjerm And This!!!👆🏼👇🏼 https://t.co/hMSknDicu4
RT @askjomo: @mynameisjerm And This!!!👆🏼👇🏼 https://t.co/hMSknDicu4
@mynameisjerm And This!!!👆🏼👇🏼 https://t.co/hMSknDicu4
RT @JuliaHB1: You think all this talk of false positives for Covid testing is conspiracy theorist nonsense? Then go tell that to the Lanc…
@lostlimits1 @SandyEggHoHoHo @Rowvitch2012 @JoeBiden You really don't know what you're talking about. Here, I did your research for you: https://t.co/jJdeCNf9ck For your tldr: between 0.8% and 4% are false positives. So no, it doesn't come back positive e
The Lancet seguro también es conspiranoico https://t.co/6Cxqda5CIV
RT @PaulJamesOakley: As the government moves more regions to Tier 3 on the basis of PCR results, Hancock should take a few minutes to read…
RT @JuliaHB1: You think all this talk of false positives for Covid testing is conspiracy theorist nonsense? Then go tell that to the Lanc…
RT @PaulJamesOakley: As the government moves more regions to Tier 3 on the basis of PCR results, Hancock should take a few minutes to read…
RT @PaulJamesOakley: As the government moves more regions to Tier 3 on the basis of PCR results, Hancock should take a few minutes to read…
As the government moves more regions to Tier 3 on the basis of PCR results, Hancock should take a few minutes to read this article on their unreliability. It's in "The Lancet", so can't be dismissed as a tin-foil-hat-david-icke-anti-vaxx source. https://t.
What idiot doesn’t know by now that the government wants to lie to you and violate you while robbing you of tax money?!
No one in government, SAGE or PHE is listening because it doesn’t fit with their plan.
De wetenschappers zijn heersers geworden, @P_Bruijning blijf alstjeblieft weg van de TV want u bent fake nieuuws aan het verspreiden!
False-positive COVID-19 results: hidden problems and costs https://t.co/UPZCqtvToS
https://t.co/sIjm1goYil False-positive COVID-19 results: hidden problems and costs Note: We got to be careful and don't be like whippets chasing a hare. Take it slow and get it right :)
RT @hommel_b: Jouw stelling is al lang ondergraven, @P_Bruijning. Hoe kun je dat gemist hebben? Gewoon beschikbaar in de reguliere medische…
@Maciej55511501 @ebebemek @TomekDylewski @MZ_GOV_PL wystarczy sobie poklikać w linki i będą W związku z powyższym mogę otrzymać badania, które potwierdzają istnienie #zajob a? artykuł poniżej to też chwila dla Ciebie? nie ma testu złotego standardu, mog
@Comrade_Skhokho @rinmor The current rate of operational false-positive swab tests in the UK: preliminary estimates show it could be somewhere between 0·8% and 4·0%. From https://t.co/38JFwe2HvY
@NOS aub als jullie “experts” uitnodigen om te praten over de #PCRtest, zorg dan dat ze op z’n minst er verstand van hebben 🙄 #Lockdownnl #toespraakrutte #coronadebat
RT @JuliaHB1: You think all this talk of false positives for Covid testing is conspiracy theorist nonsense? Then go tell that to the Lanc…
RT @JuliaHB1: You think all this talk of false positives for Covid testing is conspiracy theorist nonsense? Then go tell that to the Lanc…
RT @JuliaHB1: You think all this talk of false positives for Covid testing is conspiracy theorist nonsense? Then go tell that to the Lanc…
RT @hommel_b: Jouw stelling is al lang ondergraven, @P_Bruijning. Hoe kun je dat gemist hebben? Gewoon beschikbaar in de reguliere medische…