How much more proof do we need as a country to say NO to these #casedemic inducing PCR community tests? 👇🏼
🔄 This weeks report from Cambridge Uni’s COVID-19 screening programme has been doing the rounds on social – but the report screenshot is hard to read, doesn’t tell the full story, and is a little hard to follow.
🤬 What’s funny is that this report is causing yet more raging arguments as sceptics are saying “see, 100% FP rate” and fans of restrictions and testing say “the FP rate is 0.3%, dummy!”.
❓Who is right?
Both are right, but only the sceptics are being honest regarding the ramifications that this screening programme is highlighting in plain sight…
MAKING SENSE OF IT:
So, in an attempt to help make sense of it all, here’s a more consumable summary of the screening programme that has been in operation for 2 months:
🔸The service has been ramped up to 10K students tested weekly. For efficiency sakes, households pool their swabs into a single test tube. Tests are performed in the uni’s microbiology lab – vs the private low-quality lighthouse labs.
🔸Students from PCR Testing Pools that come back positive are asked to perform an individual PCR Confirmation test.
🔸Last week, 11 testing pools across Cambridge Uni-owned and private residence came back positive, representing 0.5% of total test pools.
🔸There were NO STUDENTS, zero, that had a positive confirmation test. That’s approx 50 tests all with a negative result.
🔸 What this means is that 100% of the positive results were FALSE.
❗️ This is absolutely cause for concern, as we are not performing confirmatory public testing, meaning massive disruption as people need to isolate unnecessarily, and those individuals if hospitalised/die of other causes will be marked down as covid.
🔸 Now, this is not the False Positive Rate of the test. FPR is calculated by taking dividing the False Positives by the True Negatives. Cambridge Uni state this is currently 0.3%.
❗️ But, you are being duped if you take comfort in the 0.3%. Why? Because when you test lots of people without symptoms and prevalence is low, the majority of results will indeed be false.
🔸 Look at Cambridge’s “Asymptomatic” Prevalence. At most it was 1.5% mid Nov and is currently 0%. Why is it so difference to the community prevalence? Well, that’s what happens when you weed out the testing FP’s with confirmatory testing.
🔸 “Hang on a minute – maybe this was a fluke week!”. Fair enough, let’s look at prior weeks false results. It’s been averaging at 60%, with the week before last being 91%!
ℹ️ Moreover, the pattern we are seeing is broadly consistent with the observed seasonality of coronaviruses and other common respiratory viruses. We expect a drop off, followed by a second hump in Jan.
🥼 aka – nothing to see here, if we leveraged actual honest science. Science that we’ve known for a very long time – whether it be about seasonality, diagnosis, poor testing accuracy, masking, lockdowns etc.
🤦🏻♂️ Alas (to steal one of Bojo’s words), science is well and truly dead in 2020. It’s left the building, and what’s left is politicking and scaremongering propaganda masquerading as “science”.
🛑 Stop getting tested!
✋Stop fuelling the #casedemic, the falsified hospitalisations, and the gross mis-certification of deaths.
- The Cambridge Uni COVID-19 Screening Programme
- AdapNation’s analysis on Common Respiratory Virus Seasonality
Enjoyed the read?