Has anyone got any data that shows the 80% false positive proof of the PCR test? I have a deal going on that the guy will join KBF if I can prove it and I can't find bugger all o my computer.
I got my initial information from watching Kary B Mullis the inventor of the PCR test, in his videos he says it’s not suitable for testing in a desease situation. You find him on utube
Carl Heneghan put the gov link on Twitter 3 days ago, the comments following this are of interest
The percentage of false positives produced by the PCR test is irrelevant and cannot be calculated. Why? It's best summed up here by David Crowe (who died recently)
"They couldn’t do a real analysis of false positives in terms of determining whether a test is correct or not because that requires a gold standard and the only gold standard is purification of the virus. So, we get back to the fact that the virus is not being purified. If you could purify the virus, then you could take a hundred people who tested positive and you could search for the virus in them. And if you found the virus in 50 out of a hundred and not in the other 50, you could say that the test is only accurate 50% of the time. But we have no way to do that because we haven’t yet purified the virus. And I don’t think we ever will.”
You might find within here although this is a dead end @stevehabberley, it wouldn’t matter if they were all positive positives 🤔 😆 because -
what is it looking for? The virus hasn’t been isolated so you have no reference to compare against.
the test finds fragments of RNA but cannot differentiate between live RNA or dead or even from all kinds of different viral RNA. Like finding a pube in my front room and declaring that I must be having sex with my cat! 🤷🏼♂️
If I find the data set, I’ll share. Simple question for your pal - if this method has been approved for use, please share the reproducibility and repeatability study that is always done on any measurement method to prove its efficacy
I got my initial information from watching Kary B Mullis the inventor of the PCR test, in his videos he says it’s not suitable for testing in a desease situation. You find him on utube
Carl Heneghan put the gov link on Twitter 3 days ago, the comments following this are of interest
The percentage of false positives produced by the PCR test is irrelevant and cannot be calculated. Why? It's best summed up here by David Crowe (who died recently)
https://christiansfortruth.com/how-the-gold-standard-pcr-test-for-covid-19-has-been-misused-to-create-a-fake-pandemic/
"They couldn’t do a real analysis of false positives in terms of determining whether a test is correct or not because that requires a gold standard and the only gold standard is purification of the virus. So, we get back to the fact that the virus is not being purified. If you could purify the virus, then you could take a hundred people who tested positive and you could search for the virus in them. And if you found the virus in 50 out of a hundred and not in the other 50, you could say that the test is only accurate 50% of the time. But we have no way to do that because we haven’t yet purified the virus. And I don’t think we ever will.”
You might find within here although this is a dead end @stevehabberley, it wouldn’t matter if they were all positive positives 🤔 😆 because -
what is it looking for? The virus hasn’t been isolated so you have no reference to compare against.
the test finds fragments of RNA but cannot differentiate between live RNA or dead or even from all kinds of different viral RNA. Like finding a pube in my front room and declaring that I must be having sex with my cat! 🤷🏼♂️
If I find the data set, I’ll share. Simple question for your pal - if this method has been approved for use, please share the reproducibility and repeatability study that is always done on any measurement method to prove its efficacy
Downloaded from Gov.uk.