I invite people to run the thought experiment: “what if the ‘cases’ data is inaccurate?”
Ignore ‘cases’, look instead only at excess deaths (per M Levitt’s tweet). Does that look characteristic of an epidemic? It’s completely diff from spring or any winter flu outbreak.
London:

@ukiswitheu Can anyone explain why there is no ‘2nd wave’ of excess deaths in London, without invoking herd immunity?
It’s not lockdown. See NW England:
This is the largest #SecondaryRipple (which I predicted).
@ukiswitheu https://t.co/b0rT5Lq9HI
Now check the 3 predictions I made months ago. They’ve all happened. Compare predictions from SAGE’s statements: they’re all wrong.
Even neutrals at this point might ask themselves “if he’s been right on all predictions, maybe he’s correct now?”
@ukiswitheu I’ve been saying since the Lighthouse Labs got up & running that I’m deeply sceptical about the trustworthiness of their ‘cases’ data. I showed how, at low virus prevalence, the PCR mass testing data was throwing out potentially 90% positives being false?
https://t.co/7tdvEaNSvN
@ukiswitheu https://t.co/t4qQN4rH0u
I got ‘fact checked’ a LOT over that statement. This paper just published, about precisely that time period I speculated about. Turns out that high-80s% of Dr Healy’s positives by PCR were FALSE. This alone is sufficient in my view to throw severe doubt...
@ukiswitheu ...on the trustworthiness of PCR mass testing. And Healy’s findings pre-date Lighthouse Labs! So this was tail end of accredited, well trained NHS path lab testing data. It’s not their fault. I’m not criticising them. It’s a consequence of using a completely unsuitable testing...
@ukiswitheu ...methodology, PCR mass testing, as our surveillance system. Now scroll forward to today. Lighthouse Labs are a small group of private facilities, running completely outside the orbit of usual checks & accreditation to which ALL path labs in the NHS are subject. No one is...
@ukiswitheu ...checking their methods or results. They’ve never subjected this testing system to independent 3rd party assessment (like lateral flow tests, rigorously evaluated by Porton Down before being used). Govt admitted it does not know the operational false positive rate for PCR...
@ukiswitheu ...mass testing. That’s like driving a petrol tanker at speed without an MOT. And the driver isn’t HGV trained. It might be fine. That’s Govt’s assertion. But it’s never been checked. Non scientists have often criticised me, saying the oFPR can’t possibly be large enough to...
@ukiswitheu ...make that much of a difference.
I say “Yes, it can”. We need to know what is the false diagnosis rate of the PCR mass testing system, because it’s the DOMINANT dataset driving national policy in every way. And there have been examples in the past, notably when using PCR,
@ukiswitheu https://t.co/PxH4XNHowG
@ukiswitheu I ask you to acknowledge that PCR mass testing has failed in the past. In the famous New Hampshire episode, there were hundreds of apparent cases of whooping cough, with ‘confirmed cases’ coming from PCR testing. But not a single patient was found, by culture, to actually have...
@ukiswitheu ...the infectious agent on board. It was a PCR false positive pseudo epidemic. Now, I do believe there really are some cases of SARS-COV-2 infection & covid19 deaths, just FAR fewer than Govt says, because the PCR mass testing system is untrustworthy & is generation an unknown...
@ukiswitheu ...number of FPs. For goodness sake: it’s the work of a day to prove me wrong. I’d need independent 3rd party evaluations now to convince me. So send in the independent scientists, perhaps from Porton Down, and oversee determination of the oFPR. It’s quick, it’s cheap & would...
@ukiswitheu .. raise confidence in the dataset Govt is using to lock us down. Or it would show they’ve been driving an HGV without a MOT for months, and we’re that close to rolling over in a ball of flames.
Do the checks now, while there is still a country to salvage.
Why is Govt so...
@ukiswitheu ...resistant to doing this quick, cheap & ROUTINE evaluation of what is a glorified medical diagnostic test? Every other such test in use in the NHS has this certification. Not this, the PCR mass testing system, THE MOST IMPORTANT test we’ve ever done in U.K. history.
Why are...
@ukiswitheu ...we in this ridiculous position, where people like me, Dr Clare Craig, Dr Jonathan Engler, Joel Smalley, not one of whom has an agenda other than trying to find out why our PCR mass testing system is generating results completely at variance with every other dataset which...
@ukiswitheu ...bears on the incidence of acute respiratory illness in U.K.? If you look at Smalley’s latest ‘Questions for U.K. Govt’ presentation, which draws only on public data, shows a completely different picture to the one you see on the BBC?
Why are we reduced to writing legal...
@ukiswitheu ...letters to Matt Hancock, trying to get answers to simple, routine questions of fact?
https://t.co/i1QhuYZ3M8
Do you think he’ll reply?
Don’t YOU want the truth, too?

More from Yardley Yeadon

I urge all followers who have read my criticisms of PCR mass testing in U.K. to carefully read Mr Fordham’s carefully worded letter. Note that the innovation minister in the Lords, Lord Bethel, already admitted that the PCR system doesn’t have the equivalent of an MOT. https://t.co/zXzeDMKCBb


Without this information it’s impossible to interpret any result. If the oFPR is 4%, for example, and if the true prevalence is 0.3% (it’s probably less), then for every 10,000 tests, 400 positives would be false & 30 positives would be genuine. So 93% of positives are false.

As Mr Fordham points out, almost all policies pivot on PCR mass testing. Hancock previously admitted on talkRADIO to Julia Hartley-Brewer in late summer that the FPR was “just under 1%”. That was a flat lie (possibly inadvertent but he’s never corrected the record). The reason...

...we are sure Hancock told a lie is that they have never known the FPR. Those including Hancock who believe that the oFPR can be estimated by inspection of the lowest positivity ever recorded, while logical, is completely wrong. Changes in personnel, throughout, testing...

...architecture & the like can radically alter the oFPR. Since Hancock’s remark in late summer, PCR mass testing has moved into the Lighthouse Labs & this creates a new & urgent need to continually assess oFPR. I’ve good reason to believe it’s now VERY much higher now that the...

More from For later read

You May Also Like