They don’t understand how serious this is. If they can’t tell us the oFPR, our PCR testing is worthless.
Mr Fordham's letter to Lucy Frazer MP for South East Cambridgeshire.
Reference
https://twitter.com/EdmundFordham/status/1332754320459255813
Then there’s the infamous recent case in University of Cambridge, where all students initially testing positive by PCR were negative on retest, for a 100% false diagnosis rate. No virus.
Except that isnt remotely true.
1 in 373 false positives in that. They provided the raw data.
The "edge of detection limit" people were retested (as happens even with PCR). In other words, borderline cases were checked.
So no, it wasnt a 100% false diagnoses rate. It was a 99.5% correct first time diagnosis rate.
Except that isnt remotely true.
Except it is true in the context in which it was written which you are nefariously trying to distort. 'All students initially testing positive by PCR were negative on retest.'
Let's remind ourselves of the accuracy of PCR testing.
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
The PCR False Positive Pseudo-Epidemic
https://lockdownsceptics.org/the-pcr-false-positive-pseudo-epidemic
'They don’t understand how serious this is. If they can’t tell us the oFPR, our PCR testing is worthless.'
https://twitter.com/MichaelYeadon3/status/1337686956449423361
Cautionary Note on Contamination of Reagents Used for Molecular Detection of SARS-CoV-2
https://academic.oup.com/clinchem/article/66/11/1369/5902447
So much for the accuracy of PCR testing!
Then there’s the infamous recent case in University of Cambridge, where all students initially testing positive by PCR were negative on retest, for a 100% false diagnosis rate. No virus.
Except that isnt remotely true.
1 in 373 false positives in that. They provided the raw data.
The "edge of detection limit" people were retested (as happens even with PCR). In other words, borderline cases were checked.
So no, it wasnt a 100% false diagnoses rate. It was a 99.5% correct first time diagnosis rate.
1 in 373 was for the sum of all pools. The last pool was indeed 100% false positives. In a way, you are both right - and both selective in what you present.
Then there’s the infamous recent case in University of Cambridge, where all students initially testing positive by PCR were negative on retest, for a 100% false diagnosis rate. No virus.
Except that isnt remotely true.
1 in 373 false positives in that. They provided the raw data.
The "edge of detection limit" people were retested (as happens even with PCR). In other words, borderline cases were checked.
So no, it wasnt a 100% false diagnoses rate. It was a 99.5% correct first time diagnosis rate.
1 in 373 was for the sum of all pools. The last pool was indeed 100% false positives. In a way, you are both right - and both selective in what you present.
