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
https://t.co/29FNwq0Qw2
"The national statistician has downgraded its estimate of coronavirus in England on October 17 to just 4.89 people per 10,000." or ~ 0.05%. That means that only 1 in 2000 people may be carrying SARS related viral RNA fragments which could be 2 months old. https://t.co/XqpNaY6BzQ
— Robin Monotti FRSA MA BSc (@robinmonotti) December 8, 2020
https://t.co/rthjPRJWeB
ITALY: CONFIRMED BY ITALIAN HEALTH SERVICE: False positives to Covid19 test as diagnosis are 95%. Legal cases started against testing under charges of fraud to procure public funding, false alarm, ideological false, and manslaughter. pic.twitter.com/C9b7BbzdKa
— Robin Monotti FRSA MA BSc (@robinmonotti) November 25, 2020
#BAYESTHEOREM MEDICAL MASS TESTING CALCULATOR:
— Robin Monotti FRSA MA BSc (@robinmonotti) December 9, 2020
Try it yourself to understand how many false positives you get by changing minor variables: \U0001f447https://t.co/7wVMvrpgAW pic.twitter.com/PHbweWK1TK
https://t.co/kFnQVoCspb
LATERAL FLOW: False positive rate of "0.4% with a sensitivity of 58% and specificity of 99.6%, would mean that 100\u2009000 people being tested would find 630 positives\u2014of which only 230 would actually have covid-19, while 400 would be false positives.
— Robin Monotti FRSA MA BSc (@robinmonotti) November 17, 2020
https://t.co/8hsZ1hNjD7
Official estimates from mass testing in England (including asymptomatic) puts Covid19 "infections" at 0.9% https://t.co/2ljzi9YfKN
— Robin Monotti FRSA MA BSc (@robinmonotti) December 11, 2020
@lucyfrazermp 20/11:
— Edmund Fordham (@EdmundFordham) November 28, 2020
2. Apparently @MattHancock tells HoC 17/09 how ONS \u201cadjusts for False Positives\u201d. Looked it up.@DesmondSwayne asks;@MattHancock doesn\u2019t answer.
Obfuscates with \u201crigorous Bayesian mathematics\u201d
\u201cOne of his academics" will \u201ctake him through it\u201d
(thread) pic.twitter.com/42YO9vaioy
#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%. pic.twitter.com/zeAQAAOeRN
— Robin Monotti FRSA MA BSc (@robinmonotti) December 13, 2020
https://t.co/pZcFlMBKEZ
"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 @DesmondSwaynehttps://t.co/pZcFlMBKEZ
— Robin Monotti FRSA MA BSc (@robinmonotti) December 15, 2020
https://t.co/aidVGWOVqH
Numerical details aside, the use of Bayes's theorem and the principle described are valid. Taught in epidemiology courses.
— \u05e4\u05e8\u05d5\u05e4' \u05d0\u05d9\u05d9\u05dc \u05e9\u05d7\u05e8 (@prof_shahar) December 16, 2020
Extreme example. If disease prevalence is zero, predictive value of positive test is zero. Every positive is false positive.
A similar graph in the thread pic.twitter.com/ddvBe36OmU
\u26a0\ufe0fWHO WARNING ON BAYES THEOREM & TESTING \u26a0\ufe0f
— Robin Monotti FRSA MA BSc (@robinmonotti) December 16, 2020
"Healthcare providers are encouraged to take into consideration testing results along with clinical signs and symptoms, confirmed status of any contacts"https://t.co/GkRJzdn70b pic.twitter.com/jXPQDqqnVE
More from Robin Monotti FRSA MA BSc
Here is the Italian-EU scientific study indicating SARSCoV2 replicates in bacteria, not only human cells, and that is why antibiotics work and these vaccines will not:
"The preliminary results suggest that SARS-CoV-2 replicates in bacterial
2 of the 4 authors of the study work at the European Commission. Another works at an Italian medical research facility called Craniomed: https://t.co/EETSM3nb3T
You can find all of CRANIOMED's Carlo Brogna's published scientific research articles here, take a look:
#BMJResearch update: Corticosteroids probably reduce mortality and mechanical ventilation in patients with covid-19 compared with standard care, whereas azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, interferon-beta, and tocilizumab may not reduce either https://t.co/oQ3lTWUqaz
— The BMJ (@bmj_latest) December 18, 2020
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.
More from Category c19
A paper from 2016 shows that prion and prion-like proteins can also spread and propagate from cell to cell through macropinocytosis. It is also
2) noted that the Spike Protein of SARS-CoV-2 can enter cells through macropinocytosis, without the presence of the entire virion. Given the recent Tweet to me by @endocdoc, where he recently saw a patient develop Creutzfeld-Jakob after COVID-19, the extant paper showing CJD
3) CJD after COVID-19 infection and the recent death of the head of Astra-Zeneca research from CJD should be concerning to all. Especially if he gave himself the AZ therapy during Stage 1 or Stage 2 trials. This would give a possible timeframe for onset.
Again, all Spike Protein
4) mRNA and DNA should be paused until long term animal studies can be
5)
https://t.co/PWOgyPoG5d
Are you ready to explore? 1/n
The Health Belief Model (HBM) consists of 5 components: perceived threat (lethality + Susceptibility),
perceived benefits,
perceived barriers and
cues to action.
Familiarise yourself with the definition of each concept in this table. 2/n
https://t.co/1tOz1cJFvc
Study this diagram to understand how the components are interrelated. 3/n
https://t.co/iUoaqNkgyP
Now let’s apply this to the COVID 19 pandemic.
Review this diagram to see how the HBM applies to the behaviour of mask-wearing.
“perceived susceptibility appeared to be the most significant factor determining compliance” 4/n
https://t.co/xF6uwUx12N
Part I: The HBM
Increase the perceived threat of a disease
1) increase perceived severity: Confusing the general public with CFR & IFR- 2 indicators that are an order of magnitude apart.
People understood wrongly that the fatality rate of C19 is
"Globally, about 3.4% of reported #COVID19 cases have died. By comparison, seasonal flu generally kills far fewer than 1% of those infected"-@DrTedros #coronavirus
— World Health Organization (WHO) (@WHO) March 3, 2020
2/: The interview is significant because @c_drosten made totally sane statements back then that follow the principle of common sense. Considering his involvement in the "genesis of the current pandemic", his assertions appear in an entirely different
The genesis of a pandemic.
— Pace \U0001f642 (@theotherphilipp) February 25, 2021
The #Corona crisis began with a panopticon of absurd events, improbable coincidences and outright lies.
Time for a review of the impossibilities.
A thread \U0001f9f5 pic.twitter.com/PLbETVv2p8
3/: In 2014, for instance, washing the hands was sufficient against being infected by coronaviruses. Several years he demands measures that destroy national economies and social life worldwide.
4/: Young @c_drosten also severely criticized the fact that Saudi Arabia used the PCR method to detect potential infections. From his point of view, that specific method could lead to many irrelevant cases. Nowadays, his view shifted his opinion towards 'collective punishment'.
5/: Whereas he demands "testing, testing, testing" nowadays and spreads panic and fear via (social) media, he heavily condemned that behaviour of Saudi media in 2014. On top of that, he expressed his concern that medial panic could increase the number of lab tests significantly.