I have now re-examined this document:

BAYES' THEOREM: The basic reason we get so many false positives to COVID19. The disease is so rare that the number of false positives greatly outnumbers the people who truly have the disease: THE MATHS:
https://t.co/oLHyxYJW9H

"Suppose that you are worried that you might have a rare disease. You decide to get tested, and suppose that the testing methods for this disease are correct 99 percent of the time"

"Suppose this disease is actually quite rare, occurring randomly in the general population in only one of every 10,000 people. If your test results come back POSITIVE, what are your chances that you actually have the disease? LESS THAN 1% chance that you have the disease!"

"The basic reason we get such a surprising result is because the disease is so rare that the number of false positives greatly outnumbers the people who truly have the disease"

Say mass testing of the contagious virus was done to 1 million people. In that million, 100 will really have the disease, 99 will be correctly diagnosed as having it. 999,900 of the million will not have the disease, but of those about 9,999 will be false positives! #BayesTheorem

They are now saying my tweets are misleading. It's another lie. They are the ones who are misleading, and I will now prove it in this thread. They are lying about the safety of the vaccines:

"Why was vaccination with the COVID-19 vaccine AstraZeneca suspended?" Paul-Erlich Federal Institute for Vaccines & Biomedicines,

"A specific form of severe cerebral venous thrombosis associated with platelet deficiency (thrombocytopenia) and bleeding has been identified in seven cases (as of 15 March 2021) in temporal association with vaccination with COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca."

"1. It is a very serious disease that is also difficult to treat. Of the seven affected individuals, three individuals had died."

"2. The affected individuals had ages ranging from about 20 to 50 years."

I have studied the pandemic response of many countries. One of them got a key element right, which resulted in very few deaths: Japan. Their response was to keep people OUT of hospitals. A policy of early home treatment works best, hospitals only for severe cases & NO INTUBATIONS

JAPAN: "No restrictions were placed on residents’ movements, and businesses from restaurants to hairdressers stayed open. No high-tech apps that tracked people’s movements were deployed." RESULT: Among the lowest deaths in the

Saving the NHS simply means providing early treatment kits in pharmacies & avoiding hospitals for Covid19 patients. For Covid19 infections during a pandemic, hospitals are the problem, not the solution.

I have read accounts of people with high fever literally turned away from hospitals, yet being told by phone what treatment protocol to follow. That was the best pandemic response by far, NOT lockdowns.

JAPAN had some of the lowest Covid19 mortality in the world:
-NO LOCKDOWN
-NO TEST AND TRACE
-NO BUSINESS CLOSURES
-NO HOSPITAL FOR NON CRITICAL CASES
-HOME TREATMENT
-HEALTHY DIET
-LOW OBESITY

"PCR is just a process..it does not tell you that you are sick."

Kary Mullis Inventor of the PCR test & Nobel Prize in

Masks. A short thread. In June last year my GP advised me that wearing a mask even for a short space of time would be harmful for me on two fronts. One - I have painful rosacea on my face. It’s a horrible condition and it’s lifelong. I can at times look scary!

Putting on a mask simply makes it worse. Two - I have hypertension. Manageable and controlled. GP also advises that mask wearing even for short periods can raise cortisol levels and make them dangerous to me.

On that basis and given the dreadful treatment us non-maskers have to suffer and to appease the abusers I have three times asked my GP to issue me with a letter relating to my conditions.

On each occasion she has said that there is no need. Whilst she won’t admit it straight up, all conversations suggest she’s been told not to. I happen to agree that no-one should need to reveal their medical history to anyone other than medical professionals responsible for me.

I’ve researched mask wearing in relation to what they are supposed to be used for ref *Covid* - I’m no thicko - I prepare risk assessments (and I’m qualified to do so) every day (or did) - and the evidence *for* is weak. Very weak.

I know some people who seem (to me) more concerned with receiving VALIDATION for their mental health issues than solving them.

They seem to care most about other people BELIEVING their problems are real.

I'm curious about this.

Like, it's more important to them that people know how debilitating their anxiety is, than to overcome the anxiety.

Or it's important to them that others believe that they're actually depressed, not "just sad."

Or they want people buy into the narrative that they've been traumatized, and might be something like offended if someone minimizes that.

What do we make of this?

1. One possibility is that if solving the problems seems hopeless or even just really hard, you need external support to be able to cope.

If no one cuts you slack because of your mental health stuff, maybe you're in a really bad place, so you need people to believe you.

DR CHRIS MACKIE (@Healthmac) is London’s Medical Officer of Health and a government advisor.

Yesterday, he said schools being open, “SLOWS the spread of COVID.”

For context, let’s look at 23 other times he misused data or gave a bad unsupported take.

🧵A THREAD🧵

...1/24

...2/24

...3/24

...4/24

...5/24

#OTD 1901, Queen Victoria's funeral took place. Here's a little medical history THREAD (1/9) about one of Britain's longest reigning monarchs. 👇

"Queen Victorian on her death bed" by Emil Fuchs.

(2/9) On 7 April 1853, Queen Victoria became the first monarch to use chloroform to ease the pains of childbirth. Prince Leopold was born within 53 minutes of administration of the drug, which Victoria described as "delightful beyond measure.”

(3/9) The anaesthetic powers of chloroform was first discovered in 1847 by the Scottish physician James Young Simpson. He and his two friends experimented with it on the evening of November 4th. At first, they felt very cheerful and talkative. After a short time, they passed out.

(4/9) Impressed with the drug’s potency, Simpson began using chloroform as an anaesthetic. In December 1847, he delivered the first baby using it. Simpson nicknamed the girl “Saint Anaesthesia.” Her real name was Wilhelmina Carstairs, pictured here.

(5/9) During this time, Queen Victorian was pregnant with her sixth child. She heard of Simpson’s discovery and was keen to benefit from it, but royal doctors cautioned against it, claiming that painful contractions during labour were ordained by God.

@sbarnettARK Epigenomic biomarkers are becoming more established for #LiquidBiopsy and #CancerScreening, and we have seen the big players positioning themselves in this #epigenomics race recently.

Catching signs of #cancer early is crucially important to the disease management and survival rates, so the question is: how can we find out if there is something wrong going on early enough?

The first generation of high-throughput technologies was predicated on finding mutated (tumor) DNA in the individual's body (somatic), different from their (normal) DNA. Tumor/Normal (T/N) comparisons of the individual's samples, biopsies or ctDNA will indicate if there

are signs of cancer already underway. So why do we need #epigenomic profiling if we can do all this with the detection of mutations? Well, the argument is that if you can see sufficient mutated copies of DNA, cancer may already have progressed beyond the initial stages.

Then people asked the question: is there an earlier mark that we can detect for earlier stages of cancer before the Tumor/Normal mutations signal amps up? Here is where #epigenomics profiling took hold.