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
1 in 2,000 INCLUDING FALSE POSITIVES classifies Covid19 as a rare disease in winter 20-21
https://t.co/29FNwq0Qw2
Stefano Scoglio, Nobel prize candidate 2018, has calculated a real false positive rate of 95% from official Italian Health Service numbers. This is in line with #BayersTheorem. Calculation in links in thread:
https://t.co/rthjPRJWeB
If we apply the 95% false positive (Scoglio) back to England positive test % incl. false positive: 0.05% (ONS), we get a real % of positives in England of 0.0025% of the population, or 1 in 40,000 people. This would confirm Covid19 as a rare disease as per #BayersTheorem.
Try this calculator for up to 100 tests. https://t.co/5TKEYpjd80
Severe Covid19 is a rare disease in England, if tests are 100% accurate, acc. to hospitalization numbers, it's 0.02% or 1 in 5,000 people.
https://t.co/kFnQVoCspb
#BayesTheorem applied to LF tests: https://t.co/3OrdS7ZFUJ
A simple example of #BayesTheorem with a prevalence of 0.1% (much higher than Covid19) an error range of 1% (RT-PCR Charité range est. 0.8-4%) and only 1,000 people tested: 91% false positives.
#BayesTheorem in simple terms: when medical mass testing includes asymptomatics & the disease affects a minority of the population, a very small margin of error in the testing process will mathematically result in the false positives being many times more than the real positives.
"Covid19"[😞] mass testing graph from The Economist. Y axis being % of test results either true or false. As share of population with active infection (X axis) is well under 1%, most positive tests are false, & most negative results are true. This is called #BAYESTHEOREM.
Latest England estimates:
https://t.co/8hsZ1hNjD7
How to increase the prevalence of a rare disease from 0.01% to 1%? Test the asymptomatics. What prevalence do we estimate Covid19 at including asymptomatic tested? Less than 1%. What could the true prevalence be if we exclude asymptomatic testing? 0.01%. It's called #BayesTheorem
Proof that Matt Hancock is aware of #BayesTheorem, he mentions Bayesian mathematics: https://t.co/hpZYDzD5Pe
As Matt Hancock is clearly aware of #BayesTheorem, if he wanted to avoid the false positives being many more than the true positives, he would not say ONS is applying rigorous Bayesian mathematics, he would instead not implement testing of any asymptomatics not linked to a case.
Matt Hancock is pre-empting the #BayesTheorem false positive trap by mentioning Bayesian mathematics himself in reply. A Freudian slip, a lapsus which reveals what he is really thinking: how do I increase false positives to make Covid19 prevalence appear worse than it really is?
So how does he do it? He implements mass testing of asymptomatics in Universities, then schools. He uses the hierarchical power structures in these institutions to convince healthy students they need to be tested. The schools get closed on false positives, false fear is created.
#BAYESTHEOREM @ Cambridge University. 0.4% of 262 students came back as positive after the first "test". All came back as negative after the second. Government only tests once. ONS would say there is 0.4% prevalence instead it's 0%.
#BAYESTHEOREM @ Cambridge University. 0.5% of 1,937 students came back as positive after the first "test". All came back as negative after the second. Government only tests once. ONS would say there is 0.5% prevalence instead it's 0%.
Sorry this should say 0.4% of 263 students https://t.co/eSNnhyOI4n
See what happens in #BayesTheorem? Number of asymptomatic testing increases & the estimated prevalence of the disease increases!! This can be addressed by requiring confirmatory tests of those who test positive when numbers are small, otherwise DON'T test asymptomatics.
Cambridge Pooled Testing Report #BayesTheorem
https://t.co/BYIzoTl64c
To have the same number of false negatives as false positives you need a disease that is present in 30% of the population. Covid19 affects less than 1%. This means the false positives VASTLY outnumber both the real positives & the false negatives. It's called #BayesTheorem.
Matt Hancock claim: "the ONS report..address directly the question how the ONS adjusts for potential false positives, due to the high but not perfect specificity of the PCR test. I am very happy for one of my academics to take him through the rigorous Bayesian mathematics"
"I am very happy for one of my academics to take him through the rigorous Bayesian mathematics, which I am sure will help to elucidate the debate on this matter still further." @MattHancock to @DesmondSwayne
https://t.co/pZcFlMBKEZ
I am waiting for one of @MattHancock's academics to take us through this as I have seen no evidence of @ONS adjusting for false positives according to #BayesTheorem https://t.co/ykB67TJORe
Professor Emeritus in Public Health, University of Arizona:
https://t.co/aidVGWOVqH
WHO wakes up to #BayesTheorem https://t.co/nDKklwMhQe

More from Robin Monotti FRSA MA BSc

The problem with meta-analysis like this is that it obfuscates the most important issue of treatment, which is timing.


This meta-analysis of controlled trials only looks at hospitalized patients. How long were the patients ill for before being hospitalized? One week? Two? Three? Too late for zinc ionophores (HCQ) (+ZINC? No zinc no point..) to work. Severe illness becomes bacterial in nature.

Was azythromycin administered when the bacterial infections were also too advanced? I have seen Azythromycin work with my very own eyes but that's not to say that if administered too late it may not save the patient. How many patients were given AZT & ventilated? It's all timing.

All the meta-analysis is telling us is if you leave it too late you may have missed the early window for antiviral zinc treatment (Zn+HCQ) & that if you are given AZT when you are ventilated or very severe it may too late for it to save you & corticosteroids may be last resort.

And of course antibiotics need also probiotics, or they may harm the bacterial flora which is part of the immune response. Difficult to tell from a meta-analysis how this problem was managed.
I have now re-examined this document:


It clearly does indicate both the risks of bacterial infection & to prescribe broad spectrum antibiotics as part of treatment:
"Collect blood cultures for bacteria that cause pneumonia and sepsis, ideally before antimicrobial therapy. DO NOT
delay antimicrobial therapy"

"6. Management of severe COVID-19: treatment of co-infections
Give empiric antimicrobials [broad spectrum antibiotics] to treat all likely pathogens causing SARI and sepsis as soon as possible, within 1 hour
of initial assessment for patients with sepsis."

"Empiric antibiotic treatment should be based on the clinical diagnosis (community-acquired
pneumonia, health care-associated pneumonia [if infection was acquired in health care setting] or sepsis), local epidemiology &
susceptibility data, and national treatment guidelines"

"When there is ongoing local circulation of seasonal influenza, empiric therapy with a neuraminidase inhibitor [anti-viral influenza drugs] should
be considered for the treatment for patients with influenza or at risk for severe disease."

More from Category c19

1/12

RT-PCR corona (test) scam

Symptomatic people are tested for one and only one respiratory virus. This means that other acute respiratory infections are reclassified as


2/12

It is tested exquisitely with a hypersensitive non-specific RT-PCR test / Ct >35 (>30 is nonsense, >35 is madness), without considering Ct and clinical context. This means that more acute respiratory infections are reclassified as


3/12

The Drosten RT-PCR test is fabricated in a way that each country and laboratory perform it differently at too high Ct and that the high rate of false positives increases massively due to cross-reaction with other (corona) viruses in the "flu


4/12

Even asymptomatic, previously called healthy, people are tested (en masse) in this way, although there is no epidemiologically relevant asymptomatic transmission. This means that even healthy people are declared as COVID


5/12

Deaths within 28 days after a positive RT-PCR test from whatever cause are designated as deaths WITH COVID. This means that other causes of death are reclassified as
It's all here folks...How the CoVid Con was 37 years in the marking

3/4
https://t.co/WBAnAUO0UU
1/: Avicenna was a Persian scientist, who lived 1000 years ago. He put two lambs in separate cages, which had the same health conditions. But only one lamb could see a wolf that was put in a third cage. The observations were astounding. (h/t @farmer_student) ⬇️a thread⬇️


2/: Both lambs were provided with the same feed. Also, the weight was exactly the same when the experiment started. Several months later, the lamb with sight on the wolf became cranky, restless, weak, and showed a significant weight loss and signs of poor development.

3/: The lamb that was under chronic stress as it was placed in a situation of constant apparent danger died eventually. 🐑🪦 In fact, the wolf did not pose a danger at all, but this was beyond the lamb's perception.

4/: This experiment showed that increased levels of the stress hormone cortisol have a bad impact on the metabolism of mammals. And 1000 years after this experiment, we are facing a similar situation again but with the difference that we are aware of the impact of stress.

5/: Currently, we are overwhelmed with medial and governmental propaganda with respect to a common cold virus (that might hypothetically be more lethal though) that doesn't do harm to the majority of the people. Extreme global measures are taken.
1/: The Nuremberg Code is a set of research ethics principles for human experimentation created as a result of the Nuremberg trials at the end of the Second World War. In light of the current events, they are more actual than ever before. ⬇️an important thread⬇️


2/: These so-called ‘Doctors’ Trial’ focused on physicians who conducted #inhumane and #unethical human experiments in German concentration camps, in addition to those who were involved in over 3,500,000 sterilizations of German citizens. (the picture shows doctors/criminals)


3/: Ten points of the code were given in the section of the verdict entitled "Permissible Medical Experiments". They can be found in detail on the following website:

4/: Point #1 means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, or deceit.


5/: Using an insufficiently-tested vaccine on humans is unethical. However, as long as people voluntarily consent to receive the vaccine, being informed about all risks, everything is OK. Doing this with force, however, is against the Nuremberg Code.
All you need to know about COVID19
FACTS NOT FEAR

Covid 19 is a disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. SARS-CoV-2 is one of 7 coronaviruses known to man. 1/n

The pandemic is real. Excess deaths were observed in many countries. Not all countries were affected in the same way due to pre-existing immunity, the health status of the population and demographics (the proportion of elderly in the population) 2/n
https://t.co/65elPq3gp5


COVID 19 presents a high risk for the very few and negligible risk for the many.

The infection fatality rate in different age groups:
<19 y, IFR= 0.003%
20-49 y: IFR= 0.02%
50-69 y: 0.5%
>70y, IFR=

Not everybody is susceptible to the virus. If reinfected, pre-existing immunity from related viruses gives protection from developing the disease or from developing serious symptoms.
4/n

“The evidence that a subset of people has a cross-reactive T cell repertoire through exposure to related coronaviruses is

You May Also Like

I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x


The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x

Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x

The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x

It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
Trending news of The Rock's daughter Simone Johnson's announcing her new Stage Name is breaking our Versus tool because "Wrestling Name" isn't in our database!

Here's the most useful #Factualist comparison pages #Thread 🧵


What is the difference between “pseudonym” and “stage name?”

Pseudonym means “a fictitious name (more literally, a false name), as those used by writers and movie stars,” while stage name is “the pseudonym of an entertainer.”

https://t.co/hT5XPkTepy #english #wiki #wikidiff

People also found this comparison helpful:

Alias #versus Stage Name: What’s the difference?

Alias means “another name; an assumed name,” while stage name means “the pseudonym of an entertainer.”

https://t.co/Kf7uVKekMd #Etymology #words

Another common #question:

What is the difference between “alias” and “pseudonym?”

As nouns alias means “another name; an assumed name,” while pseudonym means “a fictitious name (more literally, a false name), as those used by writers and movie

Here is a very basic #comparison: "Name versus Stage Name"

As #nouns, the difference is that name means “any nounal word or phrase which indicates a particular person, place, class, or thing,” but stage name means “the pseudonym of an