RT @RoyPentland: The guy who designed the PCR test said it wasn’t for the purposes being used. It’s an effiing Scamdemic
RT @RoyPentland: The guy who designed the PCR test said it wasn’t for the purposes being used. It’s an effiing Scamdemic
RT @hashtagyouwish: In short, asymptomatic positive PCR tests should be confirmed via additional lab testing, preferably before locking mil…
RT @RoyPentland: The guy who designed the PCR test said it wasn’t for the purposes being used. It’s an effiing Scamdemic
RT @RoyPentland: The guy who designed the PCR test said it wasn’t for the purposes being used. It’s an effiing Scamdemic
RT @RoyPentland: The guy who designed the PCR test said it wasn’t for the purposes being used. It’s an effiing Scamdemic
RT @RoyPentland: The guy who designed the PCR test said it wasn’t for the purposes being used. It’s an effiing Scamdemic
RT @hashtagyouwish: In short, asymptomatic positive PCR tests should be confirmed via additional lab testing, preferably before locking mil…
RT @RoyPentland: The guy who designed the PCR test said it wasn’t for the purposes being used. It’s an effiing Scamdemic
RT @RoyPentland: The guy who designed the PCR test said it wasn’t for the purposes being used. It’s an effiing Scamdemic https://t.co/KuGmG…
@ScottMorrisonMP @VicGovAu @GregHunt your misuse of the PCR test is been noted!!!
RT @RoyPentland: The guy who designed the PCR test said it wasn’t for the purposes being used. It’s an effiing Scamdemic https://t.co/KuGmG…
RT @RoyPentland: The guy who designed the PCR test said it wasn’t for the purposes being used. It’s an effiing Scamdemic
RT @RoyPentland: The guy who designed the PCR test said it wasn’t for the purposes being used. It’s an effiing Scamdemic
The guy who designed the PCR test said it wasn’t for the purposes being used. It’s an effiing Scamdemic
In short, asymptomatic positive PCR tests should be confirmed via additional lab testing, preferably before locking millions of people down! #auspol https://t.co/9W8MajS6xE
RT @ifihadastick: Consequences of False Positives: https://t.co/ujpU5KTMc2 3/
RT @ifihadastick: Consequences of False Positives: https://t.co/ujpU5KTMc2 3/
RT @ifihadastick: Consequences of False Positives: https://t.co/ujpU5KTMc2 3/
RT @ifihadastick: Consequences of False Positives: https://t.co/ujpU5KTMc2 3/
RT @ifihadastick: Consequences of False Positives: https://t.co/ujpU5KTMc2 3/
RT @ifihadastick: Consequences of False Positives: https://t.co/ujpU5KTMc2 3/
RT @commieleejones: @CBCNews @CBCFletch Are the researchers published in the Lancet “armchair” molecular biologists? https://t.co/NrKd2Ume…
@carolynmarie99 @johnnyV1993 @CBCNews @CBCFletch Sure it has. Here’s a peer-reviewed article in the Lancet about it: https://t.co/NrKd2Ume6D
@CBCNews @CBCFletch Are the researchers published in the Lancet “armchair” molecular biologists? https://t.co/NrKd2Ume6D
@ShawnaGofABPoli Does the Lancet publish conspiracy BS all the time or just on this subject? https://t.co/NrKd2Ume6D
@AndrewOfYFC Is the Lancet reliable? https://t.co/NrKd2Ume6D
RT @ifihadastick: Consequences of False Positives: https://t.co/ujpU5KTMc2 3/
RT @ifihadastick: Consequences of False Positives: https://t.co/ujpU5KTMc2 3/
RT @ifihadastick: Consequences of False Positives: https://t.co/ujpU5KTMc2 3/
RT @ifihadastick: Consequences of False Positives: https://t.co/ujpU5KTMc2 3/
RT @ifihadastick: Consequences of False Positives: https://t.co/ujpU5KTMc2 3/
RT @ifihadastick: Consequences of False Positives: https://t.co/ujpU5KTMc2 3/
RT @ifihadastick: Consequences of False Positives: https://t.co/ujpU5KTMc2 3/
RT @ifihadastick: Consequences of False Positives: https://t.co/ujpU5KTMc2 3/
RT @Loreign83: While the number of daily tests jumped from 11 896 on April 1, 2020, to 190 220 on Aug 1, 2020. https://t.co/6EVNHP0Mzw
While the number of daily tests jumped from 11 896 on April 1, 2020, to 190 220 on Aug 1, 2020.
March/April, 2020, most people tested in the UK were severely ill patients admitted to hospitals Since then, the number of COVID-19-related hospital admissions has decreased from more than 3000 per day at the peak to just more than 100 in August https://
RT @ifihadastick: Consequences of False Positives: https://t.co/ujpU5KTMc2 3/
RT @ifihadastick: Consequences of False Positives: https://t.co/ujpU5KTMc2 3/
@KlCee1991 @Reuters Here is the second link I mentioned. https://t.co/Dm1ABlXZaP
RT @ifihadastick: Consequences of False Positives: https://t.co/ujpU5KTMc2 3/
RT @ifihadastick: Consequences of False Positives: https://t.co/ujpU5KTMc2 3/
RT @ifihadastick: Consequences of False Positives: https://t.co/ujpU5KTMc2 3/
RT @ifihadastick: Consequences of False Positives: https://t.co/ujpU5KTMc2 3/
Consequences of False Positives: https://t.co/ujpU5KTMc2 3/
@maxmelbin @vinayaravind @dhanyarajendran @ajay43 Lots of false positives have been reported. https://t.co/bGy8klo8vV https://t.co/jnOvPZqFiI https://t.co/smMsI2BJuy
RT @DiverNinja: @Only1neTruth @anne82353645 @Ay_lannister @nytimes Citations: Surkova 2020: https://t.co/mpaAtSO64X Halem 2021: https://t…
@Only1neTruth @anne82353645 @Ay_lannister @nytimes Citations: Surkova 2020: https://t.co/mpaAtSO64X Halem 2021: https://t.co/EpJ2Cs1LFA.
@iamzero The Lancet is ook niet meer wat het geweest is. ''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/6g6jrXrWNn
@LisaMarOz @Virg2101 False-positive COVID-19 results: hidden problems and costs https://t.co/1Z5Ujia4tZ
@cjsnowdon @FreedomIsrael_ Ask the Lancet... Or the ONS. https://t.co/vEloPQjlIO
@KatyMcconkey @whoooosh4 @judysimpson222 There’s plenty wrong with it according to this study, or are these people “covidiots” too (btw, get a new vocabulary, give yourself an upgrade, eh, you deserve it).https://t.co/aWX2dMn9f3 https://t.co/wZZWfNee6z
RT @fantasticmusic: Well, we have people griping at people because they are not scientists and “couldn’t find the on button” on a PCR but,…
Well, we have people griping at people because they are not scientists and “couldn’t find the on button” on a PCR but, it boils down to this: you don’t have to play a flute to know the orchestra is out of tune. https://t.co/aWX2dMn9f3
False-positive COVID-19 results: hidden problems and costs - The Lancet Respiratory Medicine @TakethatCt an old article I know but estimated false positives between 0.8-4.0. Given that the current figure given by ONS seems surprisingly low. https://t.co
RT @AndrzejPaprota: @AnnaSiarkowska Pani Anno czy mogłaby Pani zapytać jaki jest zakładany wskaźnik występowania wyników fałszywie pozytywn…
@AnnaSiarkowska Pani Anno czy mogłaby Pani zapytać jaki jest zakładany wskaźnik występowania wyników fałszywie pozytywnych. Jeśli zejdziemy w okolice tego poziomu będziemy mieli zawsze zakażonych i nigdy nie skończymy testów. https://t.co/EzVJcLg2ZW
A lab goofs up on his contamination controls for a split second and a whole batch could appear positive https://t.co/iLHFBRDtoH
@mcfunny @Y_Cornelius_1 @kathiroussel @AlexBerenson @UCSanDiego Even the pro propaganda have it tallied higher than you. And as you say, 'old infection'. How old exactly? Does that make someone positive now? Cross contamination! Instructions not followed!
@MZ_GOV_PL Jaki jest zakładany przez Ministerstwo Zdrowia wskaźnik wystąpienia wyników pozytywnie fałszywych? W UK zakłada się od 0.8 % do 4%. Aktualnie mamy poziom 4 % testów pozytywnych. Możliwe, że wszystkie one są efektem błędu pomiarowego. https://t.c
@ozicosama @nevugila @drahmetrasim https://t.co/OmXlInbzNO 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,
@rehtaeh1628 @thehowie @MollyJongFast No, I'm talking about covid PCR tests, and I know how they work and that they're highly specific. The rate is still not 0, and it appears to be higher (by a bit--still low) in the mass testing context. https://t.co
@loomz13 Lol you fail to understand RRR vs ARR, there is a very big difference between the two. I see you love to high numbers though. Oh and the PCR test is picking up strands and fragments of RNA, not just DNA https://t.co/1p2BK4B047
@lawfulhamster @wierdduk @jessevdh @LucyLucykm @RHoogland @BartNijman Vals-positieve PCR-tests zijn duidelijk een probleem, zoals onderkend door RIVM en gerenommeerde instituten zoals The Lancet. https://t.co/An9j9uSOCV Of en wat de situatie in Israël daa
@PremierRP @michaldworczyk Jakiego testu?Testu z dużym prawdopodobieństwem błędów, o których wielokrotnie pisano?Ten test to włóżcie sobie tam, gdzie Chińczycy wkładają waciki europejskim i amerykańskim dyplomatom z Bożej łaski. https://t.co/P3PsZrD9Hw
@chimilyne @roro21307837 @DirkLc120 Ce texte bourré de faute d’orthographe n’est pas la réalité. Voilà une source, un peu plus sérieuse, qui s’attaque à ce sujet. Je ne cherche pas la polémique c’est juste la réalité des choses. Les faux positifs & n
@DirkLc120 @chimilyne @roro21307837 C’est incorrect. Je vous invite à lire des études publiés sur The Lancet à ce sujet. « The current rate of operational false-positive swab tests in the UK is unknown; preliminary estimates show it could be somewhere be
@rsidd120 Although IPL case is little different, this report mentions, FP rate estimates are 0·8% to 4·0% in UK (till Dec 2020). That is huge if we see total testing numbers which are in millions. https://t.co/PVuJSdO4AF
@PiotrWjtowicz6 @RBednarska @MZ_GOV_PL @KMetaKowalski Dokładnie dokształcamy się - wszyscy https://t.co/GaJF6VBIqy
This looks like a useful article: 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/vuMp88Ihys
@BMcKort @highgrader9536 @pearltastic91 @alex_n_boyd @dougquan Here is a useful article from the UK @BMcKort and @highgrader9536 : RT-PCR assays in the UK have analytical sensitivity and specificity of greater than 95%, but no single gold standard assay ex
@RobRafuse @Tim_Bousquet Most mainstream experts agree that regular mass asymptomatic PCR testing creates more noise than signal. But nothing like that seems to matter anymore. https://t.co/bu7bTJ61kz
RT @CaringConcern: "No data suggests detection of low levels of viral RNA by RT-PCR equates with infectivity unless infectious virus partic…
@gnox4 @SakowiczPawel @DoRzeczy_pl Dodatni wynik PCR to pewna infekcja. Skąd inaczej miałby się wirus wziąć w organizmie? Oczywiście zdarzają się (niewielki procent) wyniki fałszywie dodatnie, bądź fałszywie ujemne - cały czas jednak prowadzone są prace na
@VP_Ketchup @kanadafirst @Tim_Bousquet Is the Lancet the same kind of stupid? https://t.co/bu7bTJ61kz
@xmasb @ahjapb Det er en hel del for den som vil bruke tid på å lete. " ... significantly lower than those in early April, when positivity rates reached 50%" tror du 50% av de testede hadde covid-19? Dette var den første som dukket opp. https://t.co/9he
Voor alle haters op deze tweet. Verdiep jezelf in statistiek en hoe de PCR test precies werkt. Dan snijdt deze tweet ineens hout. Om mee te beginnen: https://t.co/unafUyOpdc https://t.co/4CoPHEccMg
@annstrikje Ik weet niet hoe de PCR test precies werkt maar alleen al puur op basis van statistiek zou men wel iets kritischer naar de overheid en het gebruik van de PCR test mogen zijn. Maar ja, op jou haten is een stuk makkelijker https://t.co/unafUywOlE
@ShariaTwaat @ce11co11ecti0n @cryptolobopt @jpfpenedo Provar o que? 😂 O que vocês falam já é mais que batido. Mas já agora leiam em sítios de jeito. https://t.co/tP4lsHMl8a
@Ben78__ Argue with The Lancet, assuming you know who they are. https://t.co/7M3C0RH3PQ
RT @aruaugust: Why is there perception in US ( my friends told me) that India is not sharing data on sequencing.. is it true? @JoeAgneya ?t…
Why is there perception in US ( my friends told me) that India is not sharing data on sequencing.. is it true? @JoeAgneya ?they said even China has shared...
RT @vakibs: @JoeAgneya Do we sequence all the tested positive cases? Or only a small fraction? My question is if there are false positives…
@JoeAgneya Do we sequence all the tested positive cases? Or only a small fraction? My question is if there are false positives in the RT-PCR tests. I don't know how well this is studied, in different countries. Here is one study I found. https://t.co/hGHA
「予備的な見積もりでは、0・8%から4・0%の間のどこかにある可能性があることが示されています。2」」 https://t.co/6aigHq73UJ
@ConMurphyCarlow The positivity rate is also within the false positive range. https://t.co/wiCPEr8TkW
RT @agustinasucri: Por lo visto, no se ha insistido lo suficiente en el problema de los falsos positivos de covid-19, otro ingrediente clav…
@Nanon20001 @Khill9981 @TiffanyT80s And THATS even assuming the diagnosis of having Covid followed a credible test From the Lancet: "Epidemiological and diagnostic performance (Risks) Overestimating COVID-19 incidence and the extent of asymptomatic infect
@MrZ70914564 Ce que vous avez immédiatement nié https://t.co/tI85xOf3Vy
RT @agustinasucri: Por lo visto, no se ha insistido lo suficiente en el problema de los falsos positivos de covid-19, otro ingrediente clav…