Patrick Vallance clip

[fungussingstheblues]

Patrick Vallance is admitting in a clip I can't seem to attach that PCR tests can return positive results when a person isn't infectious.

It's from the daily briefing on 10 February.

What proportion of tests does this? Pretty crucial to know the answer, isn't it, considering the entire lockdown policy of the country has been based on these tests for more than a year now??

Hold on and I'll write the text verbatim.

@Nerdygirl yes, I also thought the WHO advised that the PCR ct should be reduced a few months ago.

off-guardian.org/2020/12/18/who-finally-admits-pcr-tests-create-false-positives/

Dr Fauci stating that anything above a cycle threshold of 36 is "just dead nucleotides, period"

OP - this was a useful thread. I thought everyone knew about the inherent problems with relying on PCR tests for providing 'case' number but it shows that even discussing this now risks being sneered and belittled.

It's a really important topic. It's not simple. It is prone to misdiagnosis, which can have implications when scaled up (or for locking down ...).

It's not true that it gives lots of false positives, though.

^In Australia, despite hundreds of thousands of tests conducted every week, there are vanishingly few positive results. In New South Wales, the state that I live in, we conduct more than 115,000 tests every week with

[quote TravellingTilbury]@Nerdygirl yes, I also thought the WHO advised that the PCR ct should be reduced a few months ago.

off-guardian.org/2020/12/18/who-finally-admits-pcr-tests-create-false-positives/[/quote]
"Off Guardian" and YouTube clips out of context, yes really credible sources you have there.

@TravellingTilbury

OP - this was a useful thread. I thought everyone knew about the inherent problems with relying on PCR tests for providing 'case' number but it shows that even discussing this now risks being sneered and belittled.

It's a really important topic. It's not simple. It is prone to misdiagnosis, which can have implications when scaled up (or for locking down ...).

You are completely missing the point. The number of positive tests is a useful indicator of future hospitalizations and deaths. It's quite simple... it's about changes in the number, not the actual number...

Watch the whole Mullis interview instead of moan that I've posted it! Jeez.

Mullis did actually say the words “anything in anybody” – but his quote has been taken out of context and presented in a misleading way by claims on social media.

The line comes from a discussion panel Mullis spoke at in 1993, a clip from which has been shared widely on social media pages making false claims about Covid-19 or the effectiveness of PCR testing, such as this one.

Specifically discussing the experience of people with HIV, Mullis said that “someone with HIV generally is going to have almost anything that you can test for”.

“If you have it, there’s a good chance you’ve also got a lot of other ones,” Mullis said, so “to test for that one and say that has any special meaning is what I think is the problem, not that PCR has been misused.”

He said: “If they could find this virus in you at all, with PCR, if you do it well, you can find almost anything in anybody, it starts making you believe in the Buddhist notion that everything is contained in everything else.”

The claims on social media have left out that Mullis was specifically discussing HIV and the experience of people with HIV who also contract other viruses.

Moreover, Mullis’ views on HIV and AIDS have been widely discredited. Mullis was a proponent of a theory led by a scientist called Peter Duesberg, first published in 1987, that HIV was not the cause of AIDS – it is.
www.thejournal.ie/kary-mullis-pcr-testing-factcheck-debunk-hse-5271830-Nov2020/

Why are you so protective of the PCT tests?! It's a pretty bloody important thing to be aware of and not just dismiss.

And I am not missing the point. The PCR test could be good as a screening tool, yes - but not to base worldwide lockdowns on. You are missing the point.

It would depend on the cycle threshold - higher ct, more false positives, lower ct, fewer false positives.

This is nonsense and not what defines a false positive.

yes, I also thought the WHO advised that the PCR ct should be reduced a few months ago.

But they didn't - see previous post.

The factcheckers have tied to debunk Mullis words - falsely

How about people watch the actual video and work it out for themselves, rather than rely on the 'fact checker' site...

Yes, in the video, Mullis discusses AIDS. He answers a criticism from the audience that the PCR technology is being misused:

"I don’t think you can misuse PCR. [It is] the results; the interpretation of it. If they can find this virus in you at all – and with PCR, if you do it well, you can find almost anything in anybody.”

As another commentator said, Mullis does not explicitly say that the PCR technology is unsuitable for detecting a meaningful presence of COVID-19. How could he, given that he died before it came to light? But such a conclusion can safely be inferred:

"It starts making you believe in the sort of Buddhist notion that everything is contained in everything else. If you can amplify one single molecule up to something you can really measure, which PCR can do, then there is just very few molecules that you don’t have at least one single one of in your body.”

Mullis also talks about what should be considered 'meaningful', which is the central issue with the use of the PCR tests. ie do the ‘case’ numbers actually mean anything? Judge for yourself:

"That could be thought of as a misuse: to claim that it [a PCR test] is meaningful. It tells you something about nature and what is there. To test for that one thing and say it has a special meaning is, I think, the problem. The measurement for it is not exact; it is not as good as the measurement for apples. The tests are based on things that are invisible and the results are inferred in a sense. It allows you to take a miniscule amount of anything and make it measureable and then talk about it.”

Mullis continues:

"PCR is just a process that allows you to make a whole lot of something out of something. It doesn’t tell you that you are sick, or that the thing that you ended up with was going to hurt you or anything like that.”

This is not surprising given the issue of the cycle thresholds. If the ct is low, few people will test positive, if the ct is too high then nearly everyone will test positive.

Assuming you are genuine and not trying to smear this important issue then be wary of some of the fact checker websites. Some are paid per post (eg fact checker gets paid by facebook to post on facebook etc). Many fact checker sites will conflate some facts with misinformation to try and debunk the whole article and do not usually link to credible references. The whole aim of a fact checker site is to discredit an article by any means, you are naive if you think otherwise.

The facts remain; all tests produce have a trade off between sensitivity and false positives. Again - this is fine if it, say a voluntary health screening - 'better to be safe than sorry', but not when many of the 'case' numbers are based on false positives and being used to shut down society.

Anyone who has studied Signal Detection Theory in Stats modules (I did it in my recent Neuropsych masters) knows this. These people are my friends and colleagues and are being silenced. I don't know why. But I DO know it is happening.

Yes, it's all a conspiracy. Pointless debating with someone who (from your posting history) thinks that offguardian, UK column, YouTube conspiracy videos, Russia Today dry are credible sources, no matter what they did their Masters in.

@TravellingTilbury

The factcheckers have tied to debunk Mullis words - falsely

How about people watch the actual video and work it out for themselves, rather than rely on the 'fact checker' site...

Yes, in the video, Mullis discusses AIDS. He answers a criticism from the audience that the PCR technology is being misused:

"I don’t think you can misuse PCR. [It is] the results; the interpretation of it. If they can find this virus in you at all – and with PCR, if you do it well, you can find almost anything in anybody.”

As another commentator said, Mullis does not explicitly say that the PCR technology is unsuitable for detecting a meaningful presence of COVID-19. How could he, given that he died before it came to light? But such a conclusion can safely be inferred:

"It starts making you believe in the sort of Buddhist notion that everything is contained in everything else. If you can amplify one single molecule up to something you can really measure, which PCR can do, then there is just very few molecules that you don’t have at least one single one of in your body.”

Mullis also talks about what should be considered 'meaningful', which is the central issue with the use of the PCR tests. ie do the ‘case’ numbers actually mean anything? Judge for yourself:

"That could be thought of as a misuse: to claim that it [a PCR test] is meaningful. It tells you something about nature and what is there. To test for that one thing and say it has a special meaning is, I think, the problem. The measurement for it is not exact; it is not as good as the measurement for apples. The tests are based on things that are invisible and the results are inferred in a sense. It allows you to take a miniscule amount of anything and make it measureable and then talk about it.”

Mullis continues:

"PCR is just a process that allows you to make a whole lot of something out of something. It doesn’t tell you that you are sick, or that the thing that you ended up with was going to hurt you or anything like that.”

This is not surprising given the issue of the cycle thresholds. If the ct is low, few people will test positive, if the ct is too high then nearly everyone will test positive.

Assuming you are genuine and not trying to smear this important issue then be wary of some of the fact checker websites. Some are paid per post (eg fact checker gets paid by facebook to post on facebook etc). Many fact checker sites will conflate some facts with misinformation to try and debunk the whole article and do not usually link to credible references. The whole aim of a fact checker site is to discredit an article by any means, you are naive if you think otherwise.

The facts remain; all tests produce have a trade off between sensitivity and false positives. Again - this is fine if it, say a voluntary health screening - 'better to be safe than sorry', but not when many of the 'case' numbers are based on false positives and being used to shut down society.

Anyone who has studied Signal Detection Theory in Stats modules (I did it in my recent Neuropsych masters) knows this. These people are my friends and colleagues and are being silenced. I don't know why. But I DO know it is happening.

But we aren't shutting down society based on the number of positive tests. We are doing it based on the number of hospitalizations and deaths. Why can't you acknowledge this? The number of cases is an early indicator, it doesn't have to be accurate.

@CoffeeandCroissant

Yes, it's all a conspiracy. Pointless debating with someone who (from your posting history) thinks that offguardian, UK column, YouTube conspiracy videos, Russia Today dry are credible sources, no matter what they did their Masters in.

I agree.

The Portuguese court ruling on the use of PCR tests (sorry, it's only via google translate as I don't think it was fully published elsewhere):

translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=pt&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dgsi.pt%2Fjtrl.nsf%2F33182fc732316039802565fa00497eec%2F79d6ba338dcbe5e28025861f003e7b30

Court observations and summary: “Based on the currently available scientific evidence this test [the RT-PCR test] is in and of itself unable to determine beyond reasonable doubt that positivity in fact corresponds to infection by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, for several reasons, among which two are paramount (to which one would need to add the issue of the gold standard, which, due to that issue’s specificity, will not be considered here): the test’s reliability depends on the number of cycles used; the test’s reliability depends on the viral load present.”
Citing Jaafar et al. (2020;) “if someone is tested by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (as is the rule in most laboratories in Europe and the US), the probability that said person is infected is

Look, I've got no agenda. I'm genuine. I was calling for early, strong, mask-wearing lockdowns last March. I watched nearly every bloomin press conference and tracked all the worldometer figures from end of Feb. I couldn't understand why people weren't more concerned about the approaching coronovirus last year. I also thought we opened up too soon in the summer. I thought eat out to help out was a terrible idea. I was glad the deaths were falling but was cautious over the summer. And then, they begun to fuck around with the data at the end of the summer and also change the way they were suddenly measuring things (focusing on cases based on positive PCR tests and also measuring deaths if within 28 days of a positive test) and I knew - from my lessons and books - this was wrong. And I didn't think I could be the only person thinking this (if only because there were quite a few others on my course, plus the tutors etc). I realised that, actually, lots of people had similar concerns.

Btw I hadn't even heard of UK Column or anything like that back in the summer (and I'm not on social media except for here). I came to my own conclusion at the end of the summer based solely on my own experience and what I'd been taught. I dug out my books and research, made contacts and realised I wasn't alone. It was - and still is - dissonant to think about.

But, take it or leave it, false positives can be a major issue if incidence of an 'event' is low.

And for completeness, the person who should take the blame is Dr Christian Drosten who proposed/developed the PCR test to be used for Covid-19 despite knowing the implications of using such a test in this way.

Here are the papers re: the ongoing legal cease and desist case against him for this issue:

archive.org/details/cease-and-desist-papers-prof.-dr.-christian-drosten-by-dr.-reiner-fullmich-unoff

I have no time for Dr C Drosten. I also have little time for the people that have tried to smear a few journalists (eg Julia Hartley-Brewer and co) who have done the maths, understood the implications and -at least - asked questions. Shame on anyone else trying to censor the PCR false positive issue.

Im not entirely following all the posts, but am posting as was anxious I had a false positive. Im cv and was semi shielding (no shops/only walking outside etc) and got a positive which would 9bly be explained hy outdoor transmission. My family didn't test positive so I was worried I might not be protected

I was tempted ti do an antibody test (although now I have had the vaccine!) But wasnt sure if you aleays made antibodies/you could be immune without them?

Try not to be anxious or stress about the actual result. Probably best to assume the positive is a real one (ie isolate) but not overthink it. Assuming you are not feeling unwell now, hopefully you won't get any symptoms either

Thankyou. My positive was a month ago so we all isolated. My asthma symptoms were worse and I felt under the weather but I have a few conditions so it may or may not have been. I was fully expecting hospital and not to be able to breath if I got it.

My fear now is I didn't but will be classed as having had it so msy onlh get one vaccine when Im still cv.

Or maybe I had it. .. I hate not knowing.

TravellingTilbury

Your theory’s all very well but in fact the false positive rate is at least as low as 0.05%, as evidenced by the number of positives we were getting last summer.

If you like YouTube videos I suggest you watch this one by Professor David Spiegelhalter, leading statistician and member of SAGE.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=XmiEzi54lBI

OP, issues over false positives with the PCR test have been widely discredited. It is a highly sensitive, highly specific test .

TryingNotToPanicOverCovid

If you had symptoms and you tested positive you can be as certain as anything that you definitely had Covid19.

All this talk of false negatives ( which has been massively misrepresented) only applies when testing is done at extremely low prevalence e.g. low community spread and mass testing without symptoms.

I think you mistyped negatives for positives there everythingthelighttouches.

Julia Hartley Brewer notoriously got her maths horribly wrong on the subject of false positives, was rightly monstered for it, and IIRC simply ignored her error rather than correct it and let her false and misleading tweet stand.

Most of the sceptical arguments on false positives start with “so let’s assume the test has a false positive rate of 1%/2%/5%” and do the maths from there to get a huge percentage of positive cases which are false. But we know from the ONS work last summer and testing in Australia and NZ that it’s a lot lower than 1%.

If we were doing blanket PCR testing of people with no symptoms, and the population rate was very low, then we might need to think harder about false positives. But in the current state of play there is no reason whatsoever to expect that they are having any noticeable impact on December/early Jan’s rapid exponential rise in cases, followed by late Jan/Feb’s equally rapid fall. What, apart from an outbreak, would show that pattern?

This is a good explanation www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/false-positives-coronavirus_uk