Splatt, how long was your former training?
A course? 2-3 months? An actual diploma?
But since all this is rocket science for lay people like me to understand, look what I found:
https://twitter.com/pcrclaims/status/1336679025335545857/photo/1
Very interesting
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/509163-covid-19-test-flawed-withdrawn/
A course? 2-3 months? An actual diploma?
But since all this is rocket science for lay people like me to understand, look what I found:
https://twitter.com/pcrclaims/status/1336679025335545857/photo/1
A degree in Medical Biochemistry specialising in respiratory disease research after the event.
That twitter links is utter nonsense to the extent it needs to be corrected.
Its a case of it being read by people that don't understand the report, dont understand maths and then reposting and accepted by people unable to think for themselves.
It gives a false positive rate of 0.3% (1 in 373) for the initial test (clearly stated, with a breakdown) given that 10 people *on the edge of detection* were then retested (as is common) and found to be negative.
Edge of detection prompts a retest even on standard pillar PCRs (i know a few people who got referred to redo). Its also normal if someone is recovering or recently recovered.
It also shows all the previous sampling yielded genuine positives.
Its actually good for PCR in that it sets an upper limit on the false positive rate of about 0.5% which is significantly less than thought.
Its not "lay person to understand" if when reading the actual report they misread, misunderstand and misreport what the document says.
Its actually a win for PCR in that it put far tighter bounds on accuracy, rubbishing most of the claims about it.
You seem to have picked a site that (i) has an agenda (ii) has been proven to misinterpret previously and accept what its claiming in a post without reading or doing the calculations yourself based on the actual document.
Its actually good for PCR in that it sets an upper limit on the false positive rate of about 0.5% which is significantly less than thought.
Did you read the Article today in LS today?
PCR Test Lab Chaos Exposed by Children’s Magazine
A feature in children’s science magazine 'How It Works' has inadvertently shone a light on the wholly inadequate standards in the PCR testing “megalab” in the spring. Among the accidental revelations of the interview with two lab workers, Beth Cole and Ben Galley, is that the quality control was so poor that the error rate was estimated to be around 30%.
https://lockdownsceptics.org/2020/12/10/latest-news-219/#pcr-test-lab-chaos-exposed-by-childrens-magazine
Did you read the Article by Dr Mike Yeadon?
The PCR False Positive Pseudo-Epidemic
https://lockdownsceptics.org/the-pcr-false-positive-pseudo-epidemic
So much for the accuracy of PCR testing!
Splat, you make statements with an alarming certainty.
Viruses do mutate and recombine, and differences are hard to spot.
Perhaps you could have a read:
https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/set-c/set-c-genome-analysis.pdf
Im fully aware viruses mutate and change which is why im fully aware this particular virus is one of the most stable we've ever seen. Especially for an RNA virus.
Yeah, sure is...
https://nextstrain.org/ncov/global
Just look at the Phylogeny chart.. Thats a lot of nucleotide and AA mutations for a "stable" RNA virus.. And a divergence count already into the 30's and we have only just reached the official 360 day count. Now lets add vaccines to the mix and watch those numbers accelerate even more. Unless we get really lucky.
For reference the SARs CoV 1 virus seem to have been a lot more stable. At least from the data published at the time. But there again we have almost zero reliable data out of the only very large community spread country in 2003, China, so who knows what was brewing in those civet cats and the people in close proximity.
