Read on Twitter
Rise of the Coronavirus Cranks – Quillette
This is dull & I apologise for boring you with things I’ve shown repeatedly before. If you were hoping for something new, apologies.
This person apparently has lots of time to spare, but is incorrect. https://quillette.com/2021/01/16/rise-of-the-coronavirus-cranks/
This is dull & I apologise for boring you with things I’ve shown repeatedly before. If you were hoping for something new, apologies.
This person apparently has lots of time to spare, but is incorrect. https://quillette.com/2021/01/16/rise-of-the-coronavirus-cranks/
1. Author asserts I’ve been wrong to be concerned about the rate of false positives in PCR testing. I was probably first noticed in relation to this in early autumn, when I’d demanded Matt Hancock disclose the operational false positive rate of the PCR mass testing system in U.K.
This is a crucial characteristic of any diagnostic system. As far as I’m aware, no medical diagnostic test is in use in the NHS which isn’t characterised in this way (& others such as false negative rate). Despite Govts own scientists warning SAGE not to deploy this system...
...unless and until the oFPR was established, they did so anyway. At the time, the prevalence of the virus was very low. Hancock eventually confessed to a false positive rate which someone else gave him (“under 1%”) but it was clear he hadn’t a clue what it meant let alone...
...what the implications are of the oFPR in conjunction with the prevalence. I’m glad he didn’t because otherwise it would have meant he was lying. I say that because on Oct 14 Lord Bethel, in a written answer in the Lords, disclosed that “Govt doesn’t know the oFPR...”
I found that shocking. It meant then and it’s STILLZ true now that, when the newsreader tells you “there were 50,000 new infections in the last 24h”, in fact what there have been is 50k positive test results. oFPR varies with context, pressure on the system, experience of...
...those doing the work & more. What fraction of those positives are genuine, we are not told. I’m not even sure Govt knows. What we can say for sure is it’s not the number we’re being told. It’s theoretically possible it’s none. Because there’s been a total lack of openness...
...I long ago learned to make a mental note to discount (not believe) the “cases” reports.
To the authors mistaken & inexpert ramblings I say try reading this paper. https://www.rcpjournals.org/content/clinmedicine/early/2020/11/26/clinmed.2020-0839.full.pdf?download=true
To the authors mistaken & inexpert ramblings I say try reading this paper. https://www.rcpjournals.org/content/clinmedicine/early/2020/11/26/clinmed.2020-0839.full.pdf?download=true
By happy coincidence, at around that time, a group in Swansea had decided to investigate the 30/something positive tests obtained in several thousand PCR tests through their facilities. I don’t recall the fine details but rest assured the vast majority of positive tests were...
...shown to be negative, so we’re false positives. If I recall correctly, something like an 80-90% false diagnosis rate. Pretty much as I’d calculated.
The critic claims I must be wrong because my maths was based on those being tested being perfectly representative of the...
The critic claims I must be wrong because my maths was based on those being tested being perfectly representative of the...
...wider population. If I’d been smart, I’d have appreciated that “as only those with symptoms get tested, that increases the prevalence & so lowers the false diagnosis rate” (my paraphrasing). Well, perhaps. It’ll help. But I did run the numbers & the extent of enrichment...
...he needs is just completely unfeasible. Do note that the symptoms required are so minor & non specific that pretty much anyone qualifies. So that just doesn’t wash, as the results of Healy et al showed. On top of that, I saw adverts from local authorities trying to help by...
...going door to door so as to “track down the virus”. No. They weren’t screening only those with symptoms & it wouldn’t have been enough anyway. Shortly after that, hundreds of thousands of students were tested, then locked in their rooms based on the positives in this...
...test which, without proper characterisation, is generating fear & not medically useful results.
Turning to his second substantive point (if there were others, I’d got bored by then & stopped reading) was that I’d claimed that London was at herd immunity by late spring.
Turning to his second substantive point (if there were others, I’d got bored by then & stopped reading) was that I’d claimed that London was at herd immunity by late spring.
In an article in mid October, I laid out three major errors made by SAGE. https://lockdownsceptics.org/what-sage-got-wrong/
You can find the conclusions but it’s easier to look at the one illustration, which makes three predictions about the pandemic if I’m roughly right & contrasts these with what...
You can find the conclusions but it’s easier to look at the one illustration, which makes three predictions about the pandemic if I’m roughly right & contrasts these with what...
...you’d reasonably expect if SAGE’s calculations were correct.
One is that the outbreak would NOT reignite in the capital.
One is that the outbreak would NOT reignite in the capital.
Scroll forward & check out, not “covid19 deaths” (because, per my first point, if I’m right & testing is wildly in error, over-diagnosing cases in people who aren’t infected, we’ll end up with masses of misattributed deaths) but all-causes mortality. If there’s a lethal virus...
...sweeping the land & nothing much had changed since spring, we’d see excess deaths take off again. Is that what we see?
No, we don’t. In fact, apart from the huge peak of excess deaths in the spring, the only time we see excess deaths is briefly in the mid-Aug heatwave. But autumn & winter: crickets. Lots of deaths attributed to the virus but, it is claimed (surely with dark humour) FEWER than...
...usual deaths from all other causes, with no net excess deaths. So the critic is wrong again, this time based on public data which he clearly didn’t bother to check. Instead, he spent hours attacking others, who each have done the research. In my case, this is what I do for...
...a living. I’m a biology a PhD plus 32y in new medicines R&D. Looking at complex datasets, looking for patterns & inconsistencies is how I’ve led the choosing of new projects & leading their advancement, sometimes to selection of clinical development candidates. The patterns...
...I’ve been looking at last 9mo are trivial compared with much of that history.
No, it’s clear. We’ve a misleading PCR mass testing system & this produces fear inducing ‘cases’ & ‘covid19 deaths’ numbers which are a gross exaggeration. We can see this plainly in lack of excess..
No, it’s clear. We’ve a misleading PCR mass testing system & this produces fear inducing ‘cases’ & ‘covid19 deaths’ numbers which are a gross exaggeration. We can see this plainly in lack of excess..
...deaths recently in London. You’re being lied to for this level of deceit cannot any longer be ascribed to incompetence.
Next time someone writes a slur job, I recommend far fewer words & a lot more brain power. It’s pathetic.
Next time someone writes a slur job, I recommend far fewer words & a lot more brain power. It’s pathetic.
