5 Filters

Is there really a huge spike of covid patients in the NHS? Apparently not

Covid
#21

Pontius and Dimac, if there really is 25,000 tests being done without a single positive result, we can be sure it’s not real!

The PCR test, like all tests have a percentage that will return a false result, the more accurate the test (and the tester!) the closer the result will be to 100% accuracy.

An old post from Mike Yeadon but, I hope, will have lost nothing by this:

“Think of any diagnostic test a doctor might use on you. The ideal diagnostic test correctly confirms all who have the disease and never wrongly indicates that healthy people have the disease. There is no such test. All tests have some degree of weakness in generating false positives. The important thing is to know how often this happens, and this is called the false positive rate. If 1 in 100 disease-free samples are wrongly coming up positive, the disease is not present, we call that a 1% false positive rate. The actual or operational false positive rate differs, sometimes substantially, under different settings, technical operators, detection methods and equipment. I’m focusing solely on the false positive rate in Pillar 2, because most people do not have the virus (recently around 1 in 1000 people and earlier in summer it was around 1 in 2000 people). It is when the amount of disease, its so-called prevalence, is low that any amount of a false positive rate can be a major problem. This problem can be so severe that unless changes are made, the test is hopelessly unsuitable to the job asked of it. In this case, the test in Pillar 2 was and remains charged with the job of identifying people with the virus, yet as I will show, it is unable to do so.”

“So, what is the false positive rate of testing in Pillar 2 [Testing in the community]? For months, this has been a concern. It appears that it isn’t known, even though as I’ve mentioned, you absolutely need to know it in order to work out whether the diagnostic test has any value! What do we know about the false positive rate? Well, we do know that the Government’s own scientists were very concerned about it, and a report on this problem was sent to SAGE dated June 3rd 2020. I quote: “Unless we understand the operational false positive rate of the UK’s RT-PCR testing system, we risk over-estimating the COVID-19 incidence, the demand on track and trace and the extent of asymptomatic infection”. In that same report, the authors helpfully listed the lowest to highest false positive rate of dozens of tests using the same technology. The lowest value for false positive rate was 0.8%.”

I hope that this helps in understanding any country (China was mentioned earlier, and now Australia) that are conducting these tests and getting zero positives, are:
a) Not testing!
b) Lying about the tests that are being done!

Regards to you all, Robert

Some thoughts about the PCR test and false positives etc
#22

PP. Don’t know how many times I have already said this but I am going to say it again!

Zero positives (false or true) is easy to manage. Change the primer used on the PCR, or, reduce the cycles!! Then, when “they” want to up the lockdown and/or fear, up the cycles and hey presto, the number of positives will reappear. And the more cycles, the more false positives.

As Kary Mullis said (and its well documented), with PCR, "you can find anything in anyone". It doesn’t mean they are sick, or contagious.

#23

I know it’s possible. Is that what they’re doing, though? I’d like to see some evidence.

How does this work, though?

  • In Oz they justify having a lockdown by running the PCR cycles down to reduce cases.

  • In the UK that justify having a lockdown by running the PCR cycles up to increase cases.

Heads you win, tails I lose.

It’s possible. An alternative hypothesis is that the specificity of the test is good enough to avoid 1 false case in 25,000 tests. This is fairly consistent with what the ONS found in the UK too. And in China as well.

I think there is a lot of confusion about what false positives are and how serious they are. I’ll try and write some more about it soon.

#24

You got me wrong PP - as others below are noting. My observation on the absence of positive tests in Victoria was that this was scientifically impossible as well as verifying the fabrications and falsification of all the testing and claims about Coronavirus presence and absence. If you were to do any test and find no positives in 25,000 samples then you would conclude, regardless of what the test was, that there was a fault in the equipment so all the results were invalid - there are ALWAYS false positives. But NOONE EVER points out this problem! Anymore than anyone ever suggests that testing of so many positive cases in Europe could be inaccurate or exaggerated or underestimated. This is SCIENCE!!!
In fact in Victoria, in its spell of 70 odd days with no positive tests, until the sudden discovery on New Year’s Eve (nay guisin!) in time to ban all the celebrations in open spaces - in that period at least 500,000 tests were conducted with not a single positive case. No-one thought this was odd or questioned if the tests were missing people, but of course there wasn’t actually any virus circulating in the community - but that’s not the point. I despair at the total inability of so many “scientists” to see the gorilla in the footy field.

#25

I have finally found a copy of the Vaccine Choice Canada’s analysis of the PCR “test”. @PontiusPrimate , I’ve referred to this several times. It deals with Bayes’ Theorem as @Bob_sYourUncle has mentioned at least once.

As @Dimac has said, the absence of positives in 25,000 samples is impossible

The summary, using the manufacturers own specifications, you get 88% false positives and a 0.32% false negatives!

If you are short of time, watch from about 7 minutes. And don’t miss the 1 minute between 31:30 and 32:30!

#26

Thanks for the links @PatB I’ll take a look.

So just a question to both you and @Dimac:

Is it your belief that anywhere in the world that tests a population of more than 25,000 people and finds zero positive results is basically lying?

It’s literally impossible to test 25,000 and find zero cases?

Is that an accurate understanding of what you’re saying?

#27

I’m not saying anything except this. It’s people much smarter than me that say all the stuff I’ve repeated ad nauseam.

The PCR “test” is not a test. It’s a diagnostic tool that is being abused. I know nothing about the testing regime, controls (as highlighted above by @Bob_sYourUncle), or the cycles used.

But, that said, what I am saying is that in a police state (e.g. Victoria) lying about statistics would not be too surprising.

#28

Hi @Dimac

I know that wasn’t the point that you were making - it’s the point I’m making. I’ve seen a lot of data from the real world that indicates to me the problems of false positives for PCR is not a big issue. The Australian data is part of it. The Australia data is entirely consistent with a lot of other data that I’ve seen elsewhere in the world.

Just to clarify then, as I asked above - does it mean that anywhere in the world that we see a positivity rate of less than 1 per 25,000 PCR tests, you would say that is fraudulent?

#29

Hi @PatB

I’m watching the video now - thanks. You did say this:

So is it impossible or not?

#30

Nothing is impossible PP - just so improbable as to be practically impossible. And if 25,000 without a positive is not enough for you, try 500,000! I haven’t looked at the stats, but every day since around November when the “second wave” finally petered out and there was a day of no positive cases, there have been between 15,000 and 30,000 tests done, until by NYE there had been 65 days without a positive case.
I’m not sure how much more it will take to persuade you that yes they did “lie”, and the thousands of scientists and experts who allowed this totally fraudulent deception to be passed off and proclaimed around the country also “lied” by keeping quiet. Did the labs put control positive samples in each batch? No-one ever asked. Did the labs find positive samples and retest them to find if they were false? No-one ever asked.
But not only that, nor the finding of virus in millions of litres of waste water from towns that didn’t have any cases, but back in ?September there were three cases in a town in Northern Victoria at a tyre shop visited by a positive-testing truck driver from Melbourne. This wasn’t revealed until almost two weeks after his visit, so a list of all the places the three had visited in that fortnight went out and a call for anyone there or with symptoms to get tested. Thousands queued up for hours to get the test, and totalled over 15,000 tests, but NOT ONE positive case was found, showing not only that the test didn’t find anything, but that the virus is so uncontagious other than by direct contact that only the people directly in contact with the known case were infected.
No-one noticed this, nor questioned the need to wear masks in public places or all the rest of the nonsense, and those who did got fined, like the pregnant woman whose house was busted for posting a notice on Facebook about an anti-lockdown rally. She has now been fined.

#31

Hi @Dimac

And yet that exact specificity for the PCR test is found all around the world, including in the UK, New Zealand, China, Taiwan, USA etc etc etc. Surely claiming it to be “improbable” is begging the question? Actually it might be normal. Clinging to theoretical arguments in the face of actual real world data is the same problem as mathematical modellers who get too attached to their model, when the data doesn’t support it but refuse to give up.

I’m still confused about this (as I indicated above). Do you believe that the authorities are falsely claiming that there are zero cases? Does that mean that you think there really are cases, and they are being hidden for some fraudulent purpose? That makes no sense to me - I must have misunderstood you. Why would the Australian authorities hide cases by falsely claiming zero cases, and the UK authorities simultaneously overstate cases to fan the flames of a “casedemic”. My logic circuits have fried…

I’ve not read that - but that is interesting. It reminds me of a study by a chap at Oxford who claimed to have found dead virus particles in the wastewater in Madrid from Summer 2019. I didn’t hear any more about that, so I’m not sure how accurate that turned out to be.

I’m not 100% surprised by this. I’ve been pointing out for months now that this virus doesn’t seem to spread uniformly, but rather makes abundant use of superspreaders. It’s one of the reasons that I think it is feasible to stamp out Covid, and one of the things that makes it different to 'flu.

Overall, I think that there is a lot discussion around false positive results from PCR that is just not that helpful. I used to think that could be a big issue, but as time has gone on I have changed my mind, and I no longer think that this is a big problem at all, for reasons that are becoming clear through this discussion, and for more that I am currently writing up.

Cheers