Peer-Reviewed Study Confirms Fatal Flaw in PCR Testing: 42% False Discovery Rate for SARS-CoV-2 nonQ-RT-PCR Test. This means COVID-19 Vaccine Outcomes Rate Data are Unreliable and Invalid
Peer-Reviewed Study Confirms Fatal Flaw in PCR Testing: 42% False Discovery Rate for SARS-CoV-2 nonQ-RT-PCR Test. This means COVID-19 Vaccine Outcomes Rate Data are Unreliable and Invalid
All COVID-19 Vaccine Studies Used nonQ-RT-PCR to determine case status. All of the estimates of outcome are unreliable. This is the most important study we will ever likely publish in our journal.
Thanks, good one. Kudos to all those who had the strength to say "No, no way" when their doctors broached the idea of using a Covid test for a presentation of what could be a viral illness (like allergies, lol.). Stay strong and Happy Halloween.
According to Dr. Lee, all PCR positive test results should be verified by sequencing as the CDC advised for SARS-CoV-1 and the FDA advised for enterovirus
Nucleic Acid Amplification Assay for the Detection of Enterovirus RNA
It is *important* that studies like this one get into the arsenals of lawyers who are prosecuting against the mandates and government overreach. Dr. JLW, perhaps you’d like to reach out to pampopper@msn.com. She is affiliated with Make Americans Free Again, which has been filing lawsuits - and winning some! - against the entire Covid insanity. Other organizations, such as AFLDS, are also pursuing legal action. Your scientific studies are the fuel that can win this war!
I'm unvaccinated and because of that, I was required to get a PCR test prior to having a biopsy. If vaccinated people are getting covid anyway, then this is a clear discriminatory practice by a major hospital in New Jersey, and I'm sure elsewhere.
And simply stated, there was NO pandemic. No grounds for lockdowns. No grounds for schools to be shut down. And there were no grounds to approve an experimental vaccine using mRNA under the EUA. The entire thing was founded and based in lies. The damage is done, so now what will happen?
Thank you for this super-clear explanation. This non-scientist is able to grasp what you are saying, and now I can go and share this information with other non-experts.
One of the things I have most loved about Substack over this past year is that it is a place where expert specialists (credentialed, usually) and non-expert generalists can come together to share ideas and expertise, to cross-pollinate and inform. It has removed some of the former segregation of gatekeepers and paywalls that previously prevented "the rest of us" from having this deeper understanding of valuable information which should be available to all of humanity.
Wow! We knew all along that the entire narrative rested on the tests.
I informed the county health director in Genesee County that even if the false positive rate were only 1%, at any point in time during several months in Michigan, there would be over 10,000 residents unlawfully detained by the quarantine orders for close contacts.
All the harm that was done based on the unreliable tests and the lies about asymptomatic infection/transmission!
I'm a bit dense today. Can someone point me to the math for this conclusion: 42% false positive rate -> for every 5 true positives, 400 false positives will be reported? Doesn't this depend on the percent of true positive in the sample?
If we start with hypothetical 1000 people, and we say 100 are true positive and the test is 42% false positive. Then among the 900 true negative, we get 900*0.42 = 378 false positive. So for 5 true positive there are 18.9 false positive.
If we start with hypothetical 1000 people, and we say 10 are true positive and the test is 42% false positive, then among the 990 true negative, we get 990*0.42 = 415.8 false positive. So for 5 true positive, there are 207.9 false positive.
If we start with hypothetical 1000 people, and we say 5 are true positive and the test is 42% false positive, then among the 995 true negative, we get 995*0.42 = 417.9 false positive. So for 5 true positive, there are 417.9 false positive.
So the claim "for 5 true positive we get 400 false positive" is contingent on the percent of people tested being truly positive equaling exactly 0.5222%, right?
Is that what the real-world data really show? Shouldn't you mention the ratio is contingent on that? How are you confident the true positive ratio is exactly 0.5222%?
If, according to #4, the number of "cases" via positive PCR has been overstated by a factor of 80:1, does that mean the number of covid deaths have also been overstated by that factor? Or is it even worse because sometimes a positive test wasn't even involved in the decision to label a death as a covid death?
The problem compounds: when the prevalence the disease is low, most positive PCR tests will be negative. With a 42% false positive rate applied to 1000 people, 5% of whom are infected, only 50 positive tests can be true positives, but an expected 400 will be false positives. Under CDC’s “infection = disease” paradigm, 400 people without SARS-CoV-2 infections have to be quarantined for every 50 true infections.
This analogy is way off. There is no way that 400 people out of 1000 tests were positive. Lots of companies and schools tested and they certainly did not see this high rate. Of the 1000 tested, it was likely maybe 2 to 3 would be positive. A false positive rate of 42% would mean that of the 2, 1 would likely be a false positive though given the small numbers, possibly both or neither. That is believable but saying that if you're testing 1000 people, you'd get 400 false positives is just not believable. If that happened on any campus, the campus would not be able to keep up with their quarantines and would have shuttered in 2021/2022.
This is so timely. "Bring down the house of Fraud"! I was just rudimenting over this and the Askewed death certificates, suffering untreated Patients early on and the true cost of life. Thank you and for also adding that powerful speech which introduced me to you.
Thanks, good one. Kudos to all those who had the strength to say "No, no way" when their doctors broached the idea of using a Covid test for a presentation of what could be a viral illness (like allergies, lol.). Stay strong and Happy Halloween.
According to Dr. Lee, all PCR positive test results should be verified by sequencing as the CDC advised for SARS-CoV-1 and the FDA advised for enterovirus
Nucleic Acid Amplification Assay for the Detection of Enterovirus RNA
https://bit.ly/3DnRpQn
It is *important* that studies like this one get into the arsenals of lawyers who are prosecuting against the mandates and government overreach. Dr. JLW, perhaps you’d like to reach out to pampopper@msn.com. She is affiliated with Make Americans Free Again, which has been filing lawsuits - and winning some! - against the entire Covid insanity. Other organizations, such as AFLDS, are also pursuing legal action. Your scientific studies are the fuel that can win this war!
Thank you, eternally!
I'm unvaccinated and because of that, I was required to get a PCR test prior to having a biopsy. If vaccinated people are getting covid anyway, then this is a clear discriminatory practice by a major hospital in New Jersey, and I'm sure elsewhere.
Just WOW!
Thank you so much!
And simply stated, there was NO pandemic. No grounds for lockdowns. No grounds for schools to be shut down. And there were no grounds to approve an experimental vaccine using mRNA under the EUA. The entire thing was founded and based in lies. The damage is done, so now what will happen?
Thank you for this super-clear explanation. This non-scientist is able to grasp what you are saying, and now I can go and share this information with other non-experts.
One of the things I have most loved about Substack over this past year is that it is a place where expert specialists (credentialed, usually) and non-expert generalists can come together to share ideas and expertise, to cross-pollinate and inform. It has removed some of the former segregation of gatekeepers and paywalls that previously prevented "the rest of us" from having this deeper understanding of valuable information which should be available to all of humanity.
Thank you for taking the time.
Wow! We knew all along that the entire narrative rested on the tests.
I informed the county health director in Genesee County that even if the false positive rate were only 1%, at any point in time during several months in Michigan, there would be over 10,000 residents unlawfully detained by the quarantine orders for close contacts.
All the harm that was done based on the unreliable tests and the lies about asymptomatic infection/transmission!
I'm a bit dense today. Can someone point me to the math for this conclusion: 42% false positive rate -> for every 5 true positives, 400 false positives will be reported? Doesn't this depend on the percent of true positive in the sample?
If we start with hypothetical 1000 people, and we say 100 are true positive and the test is 42% false positive. Then among the 900 true negative, we get 900*0.42 = 378 false positive. So for 5 true positive there are 18.9 false positive.
If we start with hypothetical 1000 people, and we say 10 are true positive and the test is 42% false positive, then among the 990 true negative, we get 990*0.42 = 415.8 false positive. So for 5 true positive, there are 207.9 false positive.
If we start with hypothetical 1000 people, and we say 5 are true positive and the test is 42% false positive, then among the 995 true negative, we get 995*0.42 = 417.9 false positive. So for 5 true positive, there are 417.9 false positive.
So the claim "for 5 true positive we get 400 false positive" is contingent on the percent of people tested being truly positive equaling exactly 0.5222%, right?
Is that what the real-world data really show? Shouldn't you mention the ratio is contingent on that? How are you confident the true positive ratio is exactly 0.5222%?
If, according to #4, the number of "cases" via positive PCR has been overstated by a factor of 80:1, does that mean the number of covid deaths have also been overstated by that factor? Or is it even worse because sometimes a positive test wasn't even involved in the decision to label a death as a covid death?
I can’t send this from my iPad . I text it to friends and it won’t go through.
You're a star, Dr. Jack. Proud to be your student.
The problem compounds: when the prevalence the disease is low, most positive PCR tests will be negative. With a 42% false positive rate applied to 1000 people, 5% of whom are infected, only 50 positive tests can be true positives, but an expected 400 will be false positives. Under CDC’s “infection = disease” paradigm, 400 people without SARS-CoV-2 infections have to be quarantined for every 50 true infections.
This analogy is way off. There is no way that 400 people out of 1000 tests were positive. Lots of companies and schools tested and they certainly did not see this high rate. Of the 1000 tested, it was likely maybe 2 to 3 would be positive. A false positive rate of 42% would mean that of the 2, 1 would likely be a false positive though given the small numbers, possibly both or neither. That is believable but saying that if you're testing 1000 people, you'd get 400 false positives is just not believable. If that happened on any campus, the campus would not be able to keep up with their quarantines and would have shuttered in 2021/2022.
> PCR Testing: 42% False Positive Rate for SARS-CoV-2
Sorry, incorrect.
There is no COVID PCR "test" which has ever been calibrated to anything in the Real World, i.e., viral isolates obtained from a sick patient.
ALL PCR positives "for COVID" are false!
💯%
This is so timely. "Bring down the house of Fraud"! I was just rudimenting over this and the Askewed death certificates, suffering untreated Patients early on and the true cost of life. Thank you and for also adding that powerful speech which introduced me to you.