@WelshGovernment Yu are at risk from a false positive PCR - https://t.co/j180Rlywcw
RT @theotherphilipp: Auch das Fachmagazin The Lancet hat keine Zweifel an "operationalen" falsch-positiven #Corona #PCR-Tests im Bereich vo…
@PlaidBrexit @DavidRowlandsMS Some ammo on FPR and PCR tests - the driver for all the latest policy - https://t.co/j180Rlywcw
RT @theotherphilipp: Auch das Fachmagazin The Lancet hat keine Zweifel an "operationalen" falsch-positiven #Corona #PCR-Tests im Bereich vo…
False-positive COVID19 results:hidden problems & costs. RT-PCR tests to detect(SARS-CoV-2)RNA are operational gold standard for detecting COVID19. RT-PCR assays in(UK)sensitivity & specificity>95%, but no single gold standard assay exists. http
RT @venivici27: The Lancet 👉Estimates of current false positives: Between 0·8 - 4·0%. This could translate into significant proportion of d…
RT @venivici27: The Lancet 👉Estimates of current false positives: Between 0·8 - 4·0%. This could translate into significant proportion of d…
RT @andrewbostom: 2/ Lancet Oped on false-positive C19 results: Individual & Societal Consequences https://t.co/hf067UWxZy https://t.co/HsN…
RT @andrewbostom: 1/ Lancet Oped on false-positive C19 results: “no data suggests that detection of low levels of viral RNA by RT-PCR equat…
RT @venivici27: The Lancet 👉Estimates of current false positives: Between 0·8 - 4·0%. This could translate into significant proportion of d…
RT @venivici27: The Lancet 👉Estimates of current false positives: Between 0·8 - 4·0%. This could translate into significant proportion of d…
RT @venivici27: The Lancet 👉Estimates of current false positives: Between 0·8 - 4·0%. This could translate into significant proportion of d…
RT @venivici27: The Lancet 👉Estimates of current false positives: Between 0·8 - 4·0%. This could translate into significant proportion of d…
RT @andrewbostom: 1/ Lancet Oped on false-positive C19 results: “no data suggests that detection of low levels of viral RNA by RT-PCR equat…
RT @venivici27: The Lancet 👉Estimates of current false positives: Between 0·8 - 4·0%. This could translate into significant proportion of d…
2/ Lancet Oped on false-positive C19 results: Individual & Societal Consequences https://t.co/hf067UWxZy https://t.co/HsNyTbsB6L
1/ Lancet Oped on false-positive C19 results: “no data suggests that detection of low levels of viral RNA by RT-PCR equates with infectivity unless infectious virus particles have been confirmed with laboratory culture based methods” https://t.co/hf067UWx
RT @venivici27: The Lancet 👉Estimates of current false positives: Between 0·8 - 4·0%. This could translate into significant proportion of d…
RT @venivici27: The Lancet 👉Estimates of current false positives: Between 0·8 - 4·0%. This could translate into significant proportion of d…
RT @venivici27: The Lancet 👉Estimates of current false positives: Between 0·8 - 4·0%. This could translate into significant proportion of d…
@allisonpearson
RT @venivici27: The Lancet 👉Estimates of current false positives: Between 0·8 - 4·0%. This could translate into significant proportion of d…
RT @venivici27: The Lancet 👉Estimates of current false positives: Between 0·8 - 4·0%. This could translate into significant proportion of d…
RT @venivici27: The Lancet 👉Estimates of current false positives: Between 0·8 - 4·0%. This could translate into significant proportion of d…
@simondolan @BreesAnna hers some more ammo - https://t.co/gNy7EPJfBO
RT @foogatwo: More data around false positives. This time in the Lancet. For the record, I use 99.2 specificity in my work, which is the lo…
RT @theotherphilipp: Auch das Fachmagazin The Lancet hat keine Zweifel an "operationalen" falsch-positiven #Corona #PCR-Tests im Bereich vo…
Herr @c_drosten bitte in den OP...
RT @venivici27: The Lancet 👉Estimates of current false positives: Between 0·8 - 4·0%. This could translate into significant proportion of d…
RT @venivici27: The Lancet 👉Estimates of current false positives: Between 0·8 - 4·0%. This could translate into significant proportion of d…
RT @venivici27: The Lancet 👉Estimates of current false positives: Between 0·8 - 4·0%. This could translate into significant proportion of d…
RT @venivici27: The Lancet 👉Estimates of current false positives: Between 0·8 - 4·0%. This could translate into significant proportion of d…
RT @venivici27: The Lancet 👉Estimates of current false positives: Between 0·8 - 4·0%. This could translate into significant proportion of d…
RT @venivici27: The Lancet 👉Estimates of current false positives: Between 0·8 - 4·0%. This could translate into significant proportion of d…
RT @venivici27: The Lancet 👉Estimates of current false positives: Between 0·8 - 4·0%. This could translate into significant proportion of d…
RT @venivici27: The Lancet 👉Estimates of current false positives: Between 0·8 - 4·0%. This could translate into significant proportion of d…
RT @venivici27: The Lancet 👉Estimates of current false positives: Between 0·8 - 4·0%. This could translate into significant proportion of d…
@MayorofGM @William_Wragg @DawnButlerBrent @MetroMayorSteve @Tees_Issues -PCR TEST report from lancet -the level of false positives for the test is the issue
False-positive COVID-19 results: hidden problems and costs - The Lancet Respiratory Medicine . If only @MattHancock and @RobinSwannMoH would take the time to read this. https://t.co/jzHkVqCXbW
@biscuitsgod @DPJHodges Here you go from teh Lancet (29 Sept 2020): https://t.co/xLI6MNki0v. "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%".
@Mark_J_Harper please raise an urgent question we should not be making the decisions we are based on such bad data.
Auch das Fachmagazin The Lancet hat keine Zweifel an "operationalen" falsch-positiven #Corona #PCR-Tests im Bereich von 0,8 - 4,0% "Diese Rate könnte sich [...] in einem signifikanten Anteil falsch-positiver Ergebnisse niederschlagen." https://t.co/sFvBd
RT @venivici27: The Lancet 👉Estimates of current false positives: Between 0·8 - 4·0%. This could translate into significant proportion of d…
RT @venivici27: The Lancet 👉Estimates of current false positives: Between 0·8 - 4·0%. This could translate into significant proportion of d…
RT @venivici27: The Lancet 👉Estimates of current false positives: Between 0·8 - 4·0%. This could translate into significant proportion of d…
When will they accept what has been known by others for a very long time?
RT @venivici27: The Lancet 👉Estimates of current false positives: Between 0·8 - 4·0%. This could translate into significant proportion of d…
@RobertSyms @DesmondSwayne @MPIainDS @SteveBakerHW
RT @venivici27: The Lancet 👉Estimates of current false positives: Between 0·8 - 4·0%. This could translate into significant proportion of d…
RT @venivici27: The Lancet 👉Estimates of current false positives: Between 0·8 - 4·0%. This could translate into significant proportion of d…
RT @venivici27: The Lancet 👉Estimates of current false positives: Between 0·8 - 4·0%. This could translate into significant proportion of d…
RT @17_so2020: Un article du Lancet : les tests sont positifs à toutes les infections respiratoires et pas seulement au Coronavirus. #Dicta…
RT @BothaBoy: Folks, This is a crucial conclusion that needs to be retweeted if you agree with it's findings. @FatEmperor @rtenews @Newst…
RT @17_so2020: Un article du Lancet : les tests sont positifs à toutes les infections respiratoires et pas seulement au Coronavirus. #Dicta…
RT @venivici27: The Lancet 👉Estimates of current false positives: Between 0·8 - 4·0%. This could translate into significant proportion of d…
RT @venivici27: The Lancet 👉Estimates of current false positives: Between 0·8 - 4·0%. This could translate into significant proportion of d…
RT @EthicalSkeptic: Excellent. I am using 1.55% right now. I am glad they recognized what I call 'program false-positives' and not testing…
RT @foogatwo: More data around false positives. This time in the Lancet. For the record, I use 99.2 specificity in my work, which is the lo…
RT @kerpen: LANCET: "The current rate of operational false-positive swab tests in the UK is unknown; preliminary estimates show it could be…
RT @kerpen: LANCET: "The current rate of operational false-positive swab tests in the UK is unknown; preliminary estimates show it could be…
RT @kerpen: DC false positive rate has never been estimated, but if it is similar to the UK then nearly all to all DC positives would be fa…
RT @Shoeboxnre: Once again, PCR "positive" results without knowing what cycle they were deemed "positive" on, have diminishing value...espe…
Once again, PCR "positive" results without knowing what cycle they were deemed "positive" on, have diminishing value...especially as % positive goes below 4%
RT @kerpen: LANCET: "The current rate of operational false-positive swab tests in the UK is unknown; preliminary estimates show it could be…
RT @kerpen: DC false positive rate has never been estimated, but if it is similar to the UK then nearly all to all DC positives would be fa…
RT @kerpen: DC false positive rate has never been estimated, but if it is similar to the UK then nearly all to all DC positives would be fa…
DC false positive rate has never been estimated, but if it is similar to the UK then nearly all to all DC positives would be false positives. https://t.co/n6aeccVqtM
False-positive COVID-19 results: hidden problems and costs https://t.co/uF5La2bZhH
RT @LancetRespirMed: NEW Comment—False-positive #COVID19 results: hidden problems and costs From E Surkova & colleagues https://t.co/rReQa…
RT @EthicalSkeptic: Excellent. I am using 1.55% right now. I am glad they recognized what I call 'program false-positives' and not testing…
RT @moon_bio: #Atchoummatuer La contamination lors de l’échantillonnage, la contamination par des amplicons ou des réactifs, la contaminati…
RT @EthicalSkeptic: Excellent. I am using 1.55% right now. I am glad they recognized what I call 'program false-positives' and not testing…
@SDReyley @Tony__Heller @SBengali Let me try and help you with what r deemed credible sources, not some shitty news articles... I won’t say it again, sit ur b*tch a** down! https://t.co/aoo5S8lJL0 https://t.co/EPbxaOJH1L https://t.co/QPXN6l8QRs https:/
RT @EthicalSkeptic: Excellent. I am using 1.55% right now. I am glad they recognized what I call 'program false-positives' and not testing…
RT @EthicalSkeptic: Excellent. I am using 1.55% right now. I am glad they recognized what I call 'program false-positives' and not testing…
RT @MarkReady47: @MichaelYeadon3 “The current rate of operational false-positive swab tests in the UK is unknown; preliminary estimates sho…
RT @kerpen: LANCET: "The current rate of operational false-positive swab tests in the UK is unknown; preliminary estimates show it could be…
Des CT à plus de 30 et Contamination during sampling, contamination by PCR amplicons, contamination of reagents, sample cross-contamination, and cross-reactions with other viruses or genetic material could also be responsible for false-positive results. h
@carachisteguiri @carmencartiaga Se puede encontrar fácilmente en internet información sobre el tema https://t.co/1aYRIrKBjN
@libdemdaisy Well done on your speech today, You might find this interesting on the false positive rate of the PCR test as we are being lied to over this as well, please read & I hope you bring this up in Parliament. https://t.co/syXRTUXiw2
False-positive COVID-19 results: hidden problems and costs https://t.co/6IQsLCSaFB @allisonpearson
RT @foogatwo: More data around false positives. This time in the Lancet. For the record, I use 99.2 specificity in my work, which is the lo…
RT @foogatwo: More data around false positives. This time in the Lancet. For the record, I use 99.2 specificity in my work, which is the lo…
RT @foogatwo: More data around false positives. This time in the Lancet. For the record, I use 99.2 specificity in my work, which is the lo…
RT @kerpen: LANCET: "The current rate of operational false-positive swab tests in the UK is unknown; preliminary estimates show it could be…
RT @moon_bio: #Atchoummatuer La contamination lors de l’échantillonnage, la contamination par des amplicons ou des réactifs, la contaminati…
RT @kerpen: LANCET: "The current rate of operational false-positive swab tests in the UK is unknown; preliminary estimates show it could be…
RT @kerpen: LANCET: "The current rate of operational false-positive swab tests in the UK is unknown; preliminary estimates show it could be…
RT @MarkReady47: @MichaelYeadon3 “The current rate of operational false-positive swab tests in the UK is unknown; preliminary estimates sho…
RT @MarkReady47: @MichaelYeadon3 “The current rate of operational false-positive swab tests in the UK is unknown; preliminary estimates sho…
RT @foogatwo: More data around false positives. This time in the Lancet. For the record, I use 99.2 specificity in my work, which is the lo…
RT @EthicalSkeptic: Excellent. I am using 1.55% right now. I am glad they recognized what I call 'program false-positives' and not testing…