RT @hommel_b: Jouw stelling is al lang ondergraven, @P_Bruijning. Hoe kun je dat gemist hebben? Gewoon beschikbaar in de reguliere medische…
RT @hommel_b: Jouw stelling is al lang ondergraven, @P_Bruijning. Hoe kun je dat gemist hebben? Gewoon beschikbaar in de reguliere medische…
RT @hommel_b: Jouw stelling is al lang ondergraven, @P_Bruijning. Hoe kun je dat gemist hebben? Gewoon beschikbaar in de reguliere medische…
RT @hommel_b: Jouw stelling is al lang ondergraven, @P_Bruijning. Hoe kun je dat gemist hebben? Gewoon beschikbaar in de reguliere medische…
@P_Bruijning Vergeten te lezen voor u uw verhaal over de pcr test begon te spuien? https://t.co/hQgRXo2DPx
RT @hommel_b: Jouw stelling is al lang ondergraven, @P_Bruijning. Hoe kun je dat gemist hebben? Gewoon beschikbaar in de reguliere medische…
@MariaJonsson1 Lite extra läsning om du skulle vara intresserad, där det talas just om falskt positiva resultat från PCR svabb för Covid. https://t.co/fCO0C6NX9P
RT @hommel_b: Jouw stelling is al lang ondergraven, @P_Bruijning. Hoe kun je dat gemist hebben? Gewoon beschikbaar in de reguliere medische…
RT @hommel_b: Jouw stelling is al lang ondergraven, @P_Bruijning. Hoe kun je dat gemist hebben? Gewoon beschikbaar in de reguliere medische…
@CarlaSpade @DPJHodges 99%? Complete and utter rubbish. If you're genuinely interested, here's a recent article from the Lancet that's says false positives are somewhere between 0.8% and 4%. But I'm pretty sure you won't read anything that disagrees with y
the lancet also mentioned the possibility of cross contamination. https://t.co/UnkbRLkfkK @jhaskinscabrera
@andyoval @BBCBreaking I made the effort to read the thread and you linked&agree with many of its conclusions.For similar arguments re: positive tests from Lancet see https://t.co/TkJYQJQSZZ The fact that this is well known suggests the FOI is not a HU
@jimeekay @CryproShill @Bunnocks @TiceRichard @MichaelYeadon3 @pfizer Hi, please review this publication which is from the Lancet; a prestigious and world renowned journal. https://t.co/kxZPJufS1K
Interesting about false positives 🤔 https://t.co/6YZn4jgNSY
@MalinJ12 @vetcov19 Enligt denna så har man uppskattad det till mellan 0,8%-4%. https://t.co/WzrSjZK7BR
Lancet had to previously retracted their papers ... this is what a court ruled in Portugal ... never trust a Lancet report ever .... https://t.co/esQSsBs87O
RT @Richard_Spoor: @Jonathan_Witt Seems the false positive results are in the range of 1% to 4%. The false negative result is between 1% an…
@Jonathan_Witt Seems the false positive results are in the range of 1% to 4%. The false negative result is between 1% and 33%. In short the number of false positives is not material. https://t.co/qGz9GDvuRx
@tightfandango Heres my answer from The Lancet Respiratory Medicine Its all about the false positives now https://t.co/lAWp7zZRTJ
@DJcalligraphy https://t.co/xsthHAC8bc I'll start a thread for some if the sites I have procured
@DanteLlanten @41Lpo @robintosh_nunez @MxVChile Como no hay evidencia que soporte tu afirmación, te propongo que revises la siguiente. Aquí, Se indica que la tasa de falsos-positivos en UK podría ser de 0,8 a 4% (en otras publicaciones se habla de 10%) de
Interesting Lancet article with discussion about pretest probability, false positives, and #COVID testing. https://t.co/ggy0HqlErw
RT @MGXse: @TERE_LAprofe73 Aquí link con algunas explicaciones y detalle de "papers" que tratan este tema. En rigor 0,4 -> 0,8 % de error…
@TERE_LAprofe73 Aquí link con algunas explicaciones y detalle de "papers" que tratan este tema. En rigor 0,4 -> 0,8 % de error es considerado más que válido y aceptado dada la situación actual. https://t.co/foNv14ErpD
@flat__stanley @AvonandsomerRob @JuliaHB1 The false positive rate from Cambridge at 0.5% is still lower than many other estimates which place it at up to 4% https://t.co/khGCypxsoU
@MikeDeeeeeee @strubbi77 @epsilon3141 Kontamination ist größte Problem. Aber auch bei geringer Prevalenz sind false Positivs relevant: "The current rate of operational false-positive swab tests in the UK is unknown; preliminary estimates show it could be s
Another highly respected source, the Lancet: https://t.co/azAH1E9BA8
@JuliaHB1 PCR Tests - False Positives: Whose taking notice of the Royal Brompton experts? https://t.co/vX4cd1LreO
RT @giuz73: @valy_s Cara Valeria...lo riporta a chiare lettere il "complottista" Lancet... https://t.co/r8kTGdOI9L
RT @giuz73: @valy_s Cara Valeria...lo riporta a chiare lettere il "complottista" Lancet... https://t.co/r8kTGdOI9L
@ryszardsys1 @timspector I'm no expert but this lancet article says: "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/n3equqO8Ur
RT @HealthChoiceVT: PCR test results are driving everything right now - but should they be? This from https://t.co/R53L1Y154H Published on…
@Wannabewaxwork @mitter81 @jeremy_hume @davesmith2468 @crisps2014 @T4Recovery @emmakennytv @Unlocked_UK_ @HarvGoldsmith @alanvibe @DEEJAYLADYT @joelegroove the study I found had a high estimate of 4% false positive. I don't know where you're getting 90% fr
@oombaca @Aaron_Derfel In the UK, the current rate of operational false-positive swab tests in the UK is unknown but preliminary estimates show it could be somewhere between 0·8% and 4·0% https://t.co/fY3NRY3Xnc
PCR test results are driving everything right now - but should they be? This from https://t.co/R53L1Y154H Published online September 29, 2020 https://t.co/KSOZWiYHOm https://t.co/96NUedxWWt
RT @giuz73: @valy_s Cara Valeria...lo riporta a chiare lettere il "complottista" Lancet... https://t.co/r8kTGdOI9L
@SkyNews Testing? https://t.co/pVqFDSkNaU
@przemoro @Nanocip @ankapodlasianka @PBasiukiewicz i skończyło się kozaczenie, tak się zawsze kończy jak pokazuje się liczby wyznawcom, którzy czerpią wiedzę z TV. ciekawostka z Lancet. Nie ma testu złotego standardu na #zajob a (mówili o tym w TV, czy ni
False-positive COVID-19 results: hidden problems and costs https://t.co/UJmhnNZpWb
Are we wasting money? https://t.co/vp4fulWnsA #COVIDー19
RT @giuz73: @valy_s Cara Valeria...lo riporta a chiare lettere il "complottista" Lancet... https://t.co/r8kTGdOI9L
RT @giuz73: @Deiana_Luca9 una marea...c'è scritto a chiare lettere anche su Lancet... https://t.co/r8kTGdOI9L
@LBaccio @Giandom84354994 rarissimi... https://t.co/r8kTGdx6Lb
Could England have avoided second lockdown by sticking to tiers? https://t.co/BsoRy1n5AS Do they mean number of 'cases' , or number of apparent positive tests - some of which may be asymptomatic false positives - but still counted? https://t.co/50Af6khvcI
RT @giuz73: @Deiana_Luca9 una marea...c'è scritto a chiare lettere anche su Lancet... https://t.co/r8kTGdOI9L
@valy_s Cara Valeria...lo riporta a chiare lettere il "complottista" Lancet... https://t.co/r8kTGdOI9L
@Deiana_Luca9 una marea...c'è scritto a chiare lettere anche su Lancet... https://t.co/r8kTGdOI9L
RT @Judithsoyyo1: Excelente artículo 👇
Excelente artículo 👇
Entre tanto el @PoderJudicialEs en España... silbando con las manos en los bolsillos
@JimClar74681363 @ZDFheute Tja Jim, es scheint dass Sie am liebsten nur Sachen lesen die Ihre vorgefestigte #Nichtdenker Meinung untermauern, und Ihnen daher die wissenschaftl. Studien zu den falsch pos und falsch neg PCR Testresultaten nicht bekannt sind.
@BryanJFischer As usual, you're spreading all sorts of misinformation. The Lancet estimates the PCR test false-positive rate at between 0.8% and 4.0%. This could possibly have large effects with a low-incidence disease, but that's not the situation we're i
In this comment, experts describe some consequences of false-positive #COVID19 results globally which include: - Unnecessary testing - Increased #depression & domestic violence - Misdirection in #lockdown restrictions Read more from @LancetRespirMe
@John912639 @LBC If you ask an adult nicely, they may be able to explain what all of this means to you. 👇 https://t.co/h6GIVUy9nX https://t.co/LlVWySHq0Q https://t.co/egtKl4dTf5 https://t.co/T4YR6NuI2L
@Antagoniste_net «Results of 43 EQAs were examined, giving a median false positive rate of 2.3% (interquartile range 0.8-4.0%).» J'aimerais connaître les données pour le Qc. https://t.co/QpFcWOhsdC
@Flyck66 A cursory glance at his TL reveals his bias. Here's the very first tweet on his TL: https://t.co/jw3QV98K0z A quick Google search shows how mentally false a claim that is: https://t.co/A5pqguadrS. And this shows it's at most 4% false positive: h
RT @kakeashi_ashika: The Lancet Respiratory Medicine10月29日号の「PCRの偽陽性率0.8-4%」という記事。 全文読んでの結論。検査の技術論に疎い臨床医(海外にも多いんですね)が都合の良い、非主流の、マイナーなソースを引…
False-positive COVID-19 results: hidden problems and costs - The Lancet Respiratory Medicine https://t.co/CDnwfu4Z9C
@dirtroadliving1 @roussin_brent There is a risk of false positives (and negatives), but it is small. “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%.”
@mcfunny @GregoryMcGrat12 @thereal_truther @timothywjohnson According to this Lancet article no gold standard assay exists. So comparing them against each other doesn't answer that question. https://t.co/RC4FeQuDs3
@viggo1986 @MetteKjaer7 1/2 Den anden kilde: https://t.co/zw5hmgHA0B "There is another scientific article cited in the judgment of Relação de Lisboa ( “ False-positive COVID-19 results: hidden problems and costs ” , published in the scientific magazine Th
@Waengertner @EduardoLeite_ @pgers Não há comparação, volto a dizer, há uma constatação de algo piamente errado. A Influenza existe há décadas, seus sintomas são similares a COVID-19, e podem estar sendo diagnosticados como COVID-19 erroneamente. Indícios?
@Cshall8 @BorisJohnson And studies carried out in the UK by independent scientists who have criticised PCR testing said false positives occur in around 0.8 to 4% of cases. While false negatives occur in 2 to 33% of cases. https://t.co/Niw3FLyP0I
RT @21WIRE: @McPatza @wesleydoesmusic @markgongloff You obviously didn't bother reading those article then - my initial point which is that…
RT @21WIRE: @McPatza @wesleydoesmusic @markgongloff You obviously didn't bother reading those article then - my initial point which is that…
RT @21WIRE: @McPatza @wesleydoesmusic @markgongloff You obviously didn't bother reading those article then - my initial point which is that…
RT @21WIRE: @McPatza @wesleydoesmusic @markgongloff You obviously didn't bother reading those article then - my initial point which is that…
RT @21WIRE: @McPatza @wesleydoesmusic @markgongloff You obviously didn't bother reading those article then - my initial point which is that…
RT @21WIRE: @McPatza @wesleydoesmusic @markgongloff You obviously didn't bother reading those article then - my initial point which is that…
RT @21WIRE: @McPatza @wesleydoesmusic @markgongloff You obviously didn't bother reading those article then - my initial point which is that…
@McPatza @wesleydoesmusic @markgongloff You obviously didn't bother reading those article then - my initial point which is that the PCR Test cannot be used as a diagnostic test and you everyone is doing it, and getting junk data as a result. Again, The Lan
@eringobiteme2 @Noahpinion Fuckin read a book idiot..or better yet, read what Kary Mullis, the inventor of the pcr test has to say about his own test. I really can't believe dems now trust pharma/gov, use your brain. Stop using google too. JEEZ https://t.c
👇👇👇👇👇👇
@MDArturoRdz @sussy44 En Reino Unido tienen hasta un 4% de falsos positivos. https://t.co/Oci24yH3BT
@WWakeUpTime @Manky_Pidgeon Here is a cross reference https://t.co/uzd7jQwvXO
@MichaelYeadon3 RT-PCR assays in the UK have analytical sensitivity and specificity of greater than 95% (em better if said 99%) https://t.co/XjOdtAOdmN
The Lancet no less..
@jkenney “False-positive COVID-19 results: hidden problems and costs” The Lancet. https://t.co/BQiLNeeNL4
@Tim_Bousquet The main scientific articles relied on by the Court were these two: https://t.co/JHheSC4ily https://t.co/MhkWH52Nmo
@Joannew68022274 @wakethesheepnow @GalensGhost @NYoumind @MattHancock And more actual facts https://t.co/F8IexPbvqP
@CharlotteSlalom @hartl73516271 @jayrobi41853275 @BreezerGalway @BottomleyFiona @MHKiwi @Jimmy_bail @TheFreds https://t.co/DQYfrbwkih very useful link what classifies a lot
@Dr_D_Robertson Why is it assumed the rapid tests are wrong and the PCR tests are right? No one knows because none of these tests are fit for mass surveillance testing. In this Lancet article you'll see. "No single gold standard exists". https://t.co/RC4Fe
RT @jerseyshoremam1: Well said @BillSpadea lets not forget to #UnMaskAmerica too https://t.co/xpLjDvfUNl
@___decipher___ @BBCNews Here's the lancet. https://t.co/eL9OMWfoue
False-positive COVID-19 results: hidden problems and costs - The Lancet Respiratory Medicine @agahaydin Mesela bu makaleyi bir okuyun, The Lancet’de yayınlandı. Eminim benden daha iyi biliyorsunuz; dünyanın en eski ve bilinen en iyi tıb dergisi https://t
@ChrisRESIST @rinmor 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/QU1FpSYSj5