Por lo visto, no se ha insistido lo suficiente en el problema de los falsos positivos de covid-19, otro ingrediente clave para entender lo que vivimos. False-positive COVID-19 results: hidden problems and costs https://t.co/YDM7tbVYMS
@ScientistScott @matthewloop @PoliticsForAlI @guardian Is “The Lancet” suitably nonsensical?: https://t.co/R2fohZvdzt
Unsmart, retest, check
RT @uchida_kawasaki: False-positive COVID-19 results: hidden problems and costs - The Lancet Respiratory Medicine https://t.co/rGM4mwkw8B…
@Hermit_Crab_19 これ、一部界隈では特異性100%が世界の常識って感じになっていますけど、論文↓とかみてると普通に偽陽性はあるって議論がされてたりするんですよね。もちろんほぼ無いって言ってる人もいますけど。実際、去年の3月にCDCが偽陽性率が高いキットの承認を取り消したり、 https://t.co/0hLHaZlmAZ
It was then revealed that the German Interior Ministry hired scientists to develop fake coronavirus model in order to strict lockdown, according to extensive email exchanges obtained by a group of lawyers in a legal dispute. https://t.co/BvYfwxciE9
@ChristineFische @_maulende_Myrte Aber Sie könnten sich auch anderswo informieren https://t.co/cte7jfgEiM https://t.co/4dsMPdNIty Und Ihre Seite geht ja nicht einmal auf die Frage ein, was der Test nachweist. Selbst wenn er zu 100% korrekt wäre, könnte
@Alezia11 @RafitaMendoza10 @FotografoGus1 @StratocasterM68 Es cierto, como el ejemplo que di antes, cuantas mas ampliaciones de la foto mas error. Pero igualmente, el PCR tiene menos del 4% de falsos (+). Fijese lo que dice The Lancet https://t.co/i1b3evZ
@dinabpigen @BDyrekilde @binaole Ja eller Sverige, Spanien, Tyskland osv.? Det er måske en bedre sammenligning end Brasilien. Iøvrigt skal du også huske at tage befolkningstal med for Brasilien. Ifølge denne artikel fra The Lancet er det imellem 0.8 og 4
RT @sonia_elijah: SOCIETAL Misdirection of policies regarding lockdowns and school closures Increased depression and domestic violence (eg,…
RT @sonia_elijah: SOCIETAL Misdirection of policies regarding lockdowns and school closures Increased depression and domestic violence (eg,…
RT @sonia_elijah: SOCIETAL Misdirection of policies regarding lockdowns and school closures Increased depression and domestic violence (eg,…
SOCIETAL Misdirection of policies regarding lockdowns and school closures Increased depression and domestic violence (eg, due to lockdown, isolation, and loss of earnings after a positive test). https://t.co/TmKFVNG0m1
@drphilhammond https://t.co/cdr9dObpR6 Simple Baysian stats. Prevalence is now so low that majority of positives now lively to be false positives.
Kære Magnus, Søren og Henrik. Hvordan forholder I jer til estimerede falsk positive PCR niveauer mellem 0,8 og 4,0%? @Heunicke @SSTbrostrom @henrik_ullum @QvortrupHenrik https://t.co/FShSgY2aui
@sanerefrain @timspector Somewhere between 0·8% and 4·0% is accepted false + rate https://t.co/MeqwkcRqeh
@cidaqueiroz @BlogPequi https://t.co/6vtSfdD3yK e esse aqui?
RT @hommel_b: Ik laat nog even buiten beschouwing dat inmiddels meer dan eens is bewezen dat de RT-PCR ook 'technisch' de nodige fout-posit…
https://t.co/RcMGTW4opJ Według tego artykułu z The Lancet procent wyników fałszywie dodatnich może wynosić od 0,8 do nawet 4%. Tak duża liczba osób bez odporności będzie miała zablokowaną możliwość uzyskania ochrony przed wirusem na następne 6 miesięcy. Pr
RT @CJforeveryoung: @eironeia @ionse @JaniceW78256134 @HowardSteen4 https://t.co/WTZ9fbm9bp False-positive COVID-19 results: hidden problem…
@krnmhndbll @stinuslindgreen @JakobStegelmann Ifølge denne artikel fra The Lancet er var det imellem 0,8% og 4% falske positive ved PCR tests https://t.co/kedWs3Ldj4
@EntropicBazaar Perché i tamponi servono a qualcosa? Aprite bocca per qualcosa di utile https://t.co/yYhvkkhJaR
@Karina_Costa @lucaszanandrez De novo. Volto a te pedir. Leia o fio, a opinião do nosso colega, o artigo que citei da BMJ e mais esse: https://t.co/vd3iCxnkyb
RT @isaacj: Circula una sentencia portuguesa diciendo que las PCR no sirven para detectar el Coronavirus con falsos positivos y lo más cach…
RT @isaacj: Circula una sentencia portuguesa diciendo que las PCR no sirven para detectar el Coronavirus con falsos positivos y lo más cach…
RT @isaacj: Circula una sentencia portuguesa diciendo que las PCR no sirven para detectar el Coronavirus con falsos positivos y lo más cach…
RT @isaacj: Circula una sentencia portuguesa diciendo que las PCR no sirven para detectar el Coronavirus con falsos positivos y lo más cach…
RT @isaacj: Circula una sentencia portuguesa diciendo que las PCR no sirven para detectar el Coronavirus con falsos positivos y lo más cach…
RT @isaacj: Circula una sentencia portuguesa diciendo que las PCR no sirven para detectar el Coronavirus con falsos positivos y lo más cach…
RT @isaacj: Circula una sentencia portuguesa diciendo que las PCR no sirven para detectar el Coronavirus con falsos positivos y lo más cach…
RT @isaacj: Circula una sentencia portuguesa diciendo que las PCR no sirven para detectar el Coronavirus con falsos positivos y lo más cach…
RT @isaacj: Circula una sentencia portuguesa diciendo que las PCR no sirven para detectar el Coronavirus con falsos positivos y lo más cach…
RT @isaacj: Circula una sentencia portuguesa diciendo que las PCR no sirven para detectar el Coronavirus con falsos positivos y lo más cach…
Bueno y con esto y un bizcocho...
RT @isaacj: Circula una sentencia portuguesa diciendo que las PCR no sirven para detectar el Coronavirus con falsos positivos y lo más cach…
RT @isaacj: Circula una sentencia portuguesa diciendo que las PCR no sirven para detectar el Coronavirus con falsos positivos y lo más cach…
RT @isaacj: Circula una sentencia portuguesa diciendo que las PCR no sirven para detectar el Coronavirus con falsos positivos y lo más cach…
@maanspook Vals positief blijkbaar, net zoals veel anderen. Vals positieven bedragen tot 4% van alle tests. Met ongeveer 8,5% totaal positief, kan tot de helft dus vals positief zijn. https://t.co/x26Bssuvhf
Why is this significant, well the number of current (29/3/21) UK cases is: 4,654 Tests done (28/3/21) = 1,641,942 https://t.co/9H6l14pxkb Thus, an FPR of 0.4 = 6,567 There "could" literally be NO new cases, just False Positives: eFPR= 0.8-4.3% not 0.4!
@VinxRapz @larcenblack @wagner_maike PCR testing is nothing new and no, not everyone sick gets labeled as covid positive. Also there are more false-negative than false-positive. Get your facts right. https://t.co/0JJiou39cf
RT @WCostituzione: 9. "The Lancet" conferma in un recente articolo il problema della mancanza di un gold standard dei test PCR e dei #tampo…
@migov @MichiganHHS @MichEMHS @GovWhitmer @MichStatePolice @CDCgov False. PCR set at 40 Ct or even 35 Ct (some labs seem to be lowering Ct now, after WHO guidance on "weak positives." 90%+ positives are false. PCR incred. accurate but not for medical diagn
RT @WCostituzione: 9. "The Lancet" conferma in un recente articolo il problema della mancanza di un gold standard dei test PCR e dei #tampo…
2020 Dec 8th 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/s5sGdxKfnE
@DrLiseJanelle @mileslunn @Roman_Baber https://t.co/Td31OW96hG 0.8% - 4% of all confirmed cases could be false positive. But a higher rate of false negatives occurs. Once again from a TRUSTED MEDICAL JOURNAL, that is widely accepted by MEDICAL FIELD.
@neuwirthe https://t.co/wQBMsr2wgR Here the most comprehensive study of PCR false positive results AFTER the WHO's cycle recalibration from early December. Published in THE LANCET in Dec. The rate is 4%. Before November, the cycle threshold was higher and
False-positive COVID-19 results: hidden problems and costs In this article, they also explore the fact that the virus has never been isolated according to the golden standards 👇🏻 https://t.co/sbh62vIS4f
@Tanelihamalaine LANCET kertoo vääriä positiivisia olevan todella paljon, jonka takia VAIN oireilevat ja esitutkitut tulisi testata, kahdesti. Jos % on tuo 0,8, koko väestön testeissä tulisi n 90% vääriä positiivisia. (Hapan juomakin voi väärentää.) https:
@COVIDZeroHero @Baz66753258 @BaldinoRick @bernard_marc @COVIDSciOntario @DFisman So presumably you support this peer reviewed paper from The Lancet, which estimates the false positive rate as being somewhere between 0.8 and 4.0 percent? https://t.co/etzy7w
@IndependentSage WHO advised in Jan. on "weak positives. Has I SAG addressed false positives skewing "case" numbers? PCR accurate, but at 40 Ct amplifies fragmentary, non-viable, non-replicating genetic material. 90%+ clinical false positives https://t.co/
@NPR But no need to push the vaccine. 1)we know that 90%+ of "positives" are false positives i.e. non-replicating virus frag.. PCR tests are accurate but not for med.diagnosis. 2)asymptomatic spread is not a thing.https://t.co/IQl7d1S9ZB https://t.co/D1SA8
@sharrond62 @NHSEngland @GOVUK But why vaccinate?Why push it? 1)we know that 90%+ of "positives" are false positives i.e. non-replicating virus frag.. PCR tests are accurate but not for med.diagnosis. 2)asymptomatic spread is not a thing.https://t.co/IQl7d
@haveigotnews But why the push to vaccinate? 1)we know that 90%+ of "positives" are false positives i.e. non-replicating virus frag.. PCR tests are accurate but not for med.diagnosis. 2)asymptomatic spread is not a thing.https://t.co/IQl7d1S9ZB https://t.c
@Reuters But why vaccinate? Why the push? 1)we know that 90%+ of "positives" are false positives i.e. non-replicating virus frag.. PCR tests are accurate but not for med.diagnosis. 2)asymptomatic spread is not a thing.https://t.co/IQl7d1S9ZB https://t.co/D
@CT_Bergstrom Ok, but no need to push it 1)we know that 90%+ of "positives" are false positives i.e. non-replicating virus frag.. PCR tests are accurate but not for med.diagnosis. 2)asymptomatic spread is not a thing.https://t.co/IQl7d1S9ZB https://t.co/D1
@spectator But why vaccinate? Why the push? 1)we know that 90%+ of "positives" are false positives i.e. non-replicating virus frag.. PCR tests are accurate but not for med.diagnosis. 2)asymptomatic spread is not a thing.https://t.co/IQl7d1S9ZB https://t.co
@sailorrooscout But why vaccinate? Why the push? 1)we know that 90%+ of "positives" are false positives i.e. non-replicating virus frag.. PCR tests are accurate but not for med.diagnosis. 2)asymptomatic spread is not a thing.https://t.co/IQl7d1S9ZB https:/
@brianklaas Why vaccinate? Why push? 1)we know that 90%+ of "positives" are false positives i.e. non-replicating virus frag.. PCR tests are accurate but not for med.diagnosis. 2)asymptomatic spread is not a thing.https://t.co/IQl7d1S9ZB https://t.co/D1SA8e
@DrLeanaWen @NewDay @CNN But why push a vaccine? 1)we know that 90%+ of "positives" are false positives i.e. non-replicating virus frag.. PCR tests are accurate but not for med.diagnosis. 2)asymptomatic spread is not a thing.https://t.co/IQl7d1S9ZB https:/
@jonsnowC4 Why vaccinate? 1)we know that 90%+ of "positives" are false positives i.e. non-replicating virus frag.. PCR tests are accurate but not for med.diagnosis. 2)asymptomatic spread is not a thing.https://t.co/IQl7d1S9ZB https://t.co/D1SA8ebYZv https:
@darrengrimes_ @AstraZeneca But why vaccinate? 1)we know that 90%+ of "positives" are false positives i.e. non-replicating virus frag.. PCR tests are accurate but not for med.diagnosis. 2)asymptomatic spread is not a thing.https://t.co/IQl7d1S9ZB https://
@BBCBreakfast But why vaccinate? 1)we know that 90%+ of "positives" are false positives i.e. non-replicating virus frag.. PCR tests are accurate but not for med.diagnosis. 2)asymptomatic spread is not a thing.https://t.co/IQl7d1S9ZB https://t.co/D1SA8ebYZv
@NatGeo And why vaccinate? 1)we know that 90%+ of "positives" are false positives i.e. non-replicating virus frag.. PCR tests are accurate but not for med.diagnosis. 2)asymptomatic spread is not a thing.https://t.co/IQl7d1S9ZB https://t.co/D1SA8ebYZv https
@BogochIsaac But why vaccinate? 1)we know that 90%+ of "positives" are false positives i.e. non-replicating virus frag.. PCR tests are accurate but not for med.diagnosis. 2)asymptomatic spread is not a thing.https://t.co/IQl7d1S9ZB https://t.co/D1SA8ebYZv
@GoodwinMJ And why vaccinate? 1)we know that 90%+ of "positives" are false positives i.e. non-replicating virus frag.. PCR tests are accurate but not for med.diagnosis. 2)asymptomatic spread is not a thing.https://t.co/IQl7d1S9ZB https://t.co/D1SA8ebYZv ht
@SebastianEPayne Okay, but why vaccinate? 1)we know that 90%+ of "positives" are false positives i.e. non-replicating virus frag.. PCR tests are accurate but not for med.diagnosis. 2)asymptomatic spread is not a thing.https://t.co/IQl7d1S9ZB https://t.co/D
@PoliticsForAlI @BBCNews Why vaccinate? 1)we know that 90%+ of "positives" are false positives i.e. non-replicating virus frag.. PCR tests are accurate but not for med.diagnosis. 2)asymptomatic spread is not a thing.https://t.co/IQl7d1S9ZB https://t.co/D1S
@Newtral Okay, but why push it? 1)we know that 90%+ of "positives" are false positives i.e. non-replicating virus frag.. PCR tests are accurate but not for med.diagnosis. 2)asymptomatic spread is not a thing.https://t.co/IQl7d1S9ZB https://t.co/D1SA8ebYZv
@ashishkjha Most don't need the vaccine 1)we know that 90%+ of "positives" are false positives i.e. non-replicating virus frag.. PCR tests are accurate but not for med.diagnosis. 2)asymptomatic spread is not a thing.https://t.co/IQl7d1S9ZB https://t.co/D1S
@DrLeanaWen @NewDay @CNN Why push a vaccine? 1)we know that 90%+ of "positives" are false positives i.e. they contain non-replicating virus frag.. PCR tests accurate but not for med.diagnosis. 2)asymptomatic spread is not a thing.https://t.co/IQl7d1S9ZB ht
@AP Why push a vaccine? 1)we know that 90%+ of "positives" are false positives i.e. they contain non-replicating virus frag.. PCR tests accurate but not for med.diagnosis. 2)asymptomatic spread is not a thing.https://t.co/IQl7d1S9ZB https://t.co/D1SA8ebYZv
@kaitlancollins Why push a vaccine? 1)we know that 90%+ of "positives" are false positives i.e. they contain non-replicating virus frag.. PCR tests accurate but not for med.diagnosis. 2)asymptomatic spread is not a thing.https://t.co/IQl7d1S9ZB https://t.c
@MPRnews Why push a vaccine? 1)we know that 90%+ of "positives" are false positives i.e. they contain non-replicating virus frag.. PCR tests are accurate but not for med.diagnosis. 2)asymptomatic spread is not a thing.https://t.co/mpQnL4AUK0 https://t.co/g
@nicocardemil @ministeriosalud @dgalarce Hola ¿como que 40% de falsos positivos? ¿De dónde salió ese número? Según entiendo y se indica en The Lancet se estima que los falsos positivos en deberían rondar entre el 0.8% y 4%. https://t.co/DK0xkvSIFB
False-positive COVID-19 results: hidden problems and costs https://t.co/vLMnV2amyB
@Zils98322619 @hvanc @FKeuleneer Bedoel je dit artikel uit The Lancet: https://t.co/2Nk7DdJu2n "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%."
@oddyesses @SkyNews I admire the gall to say that the false positive rate is that high. Here is a journal in the lancet showing false positive rate is estimated at its highest as 4% I also challenge you to explain how it is wrong. Bearing in mind I have a
@mzelst @rivm Beetje flauw, maar misschien dat je hier iets mee kunt. (hint: zoek op 'history') https://t.co/RP5P0WEtmO https://t.co/X73xYIIBlP https://t.co/rht1ElMJ8O
@WestEndBluenose "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%.2, 6 This rate could translate into a significant proportion of false-positive results
@CBrunsholm @jonasholmdk Sandsynlighed for smitsomhed er bare ikke godt nok, når konsekvenserne er så omfattende. Hertil kommer, at man ofte ikke ved, om virusfragmentet stammer fra det swap, der er taget, eller om der er tale om contamination fra testtag
@pfau @alanjames Have not been able to find good stats on false positive rates for these tests so 0.1% is a guess. https://t.co/Tq3fhxI9FU suggests much higher false positive rate for PCR, but not sure its believable.
@erstmal_denken @1Mathelehrer @BoSaibot @c_drosten @AlexanderKekule @FrankfurtZack @jensspahn @SHomburg @wodarg @Baloo24 @ChanasitJonas @hendrikstreeck @jens_140081 „contamination during sampling (eg, a swab accidentally touches a contaminated glove or sur
@BoSaibot @jens_140081 @c_drosten @AlexanderKekule @FrankfurtZack @jensspahn @SHomburg @wodarg @Baloo24 @ChanasitJonas @hendrikstreeck @erstmal_denken der ist doch schon älter https://t.co/sf9ThRi5wn interessant ist auch https://t.co/88pyNdQSl5 .
@BoSaibot @jens_140081 @c_drosten @AlexanderKekule @FrankfurtZack @jensspahn @SHomburg @wodarg @Baloo24 @ChanasitJonas @hendrikstreeck @erstmal_denken https://t.co/vTis1ywuro Wurde im September 2020 veröffentlicht.
@angrybklynmom @NateSilver538 Actually the more you test, the more false positives you get relative to actual and the more likely you OVERSTATE the infection level. https://t.co/2fnoE0KbsD
RT @SylvainL_Cote: @TakethatCt @EWoodhouse7 @iahphx @kerpen 12/ References: https://t.co/Mx4LPlNnGT https://t.co/gWVltyqLDf https://t.co/…