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:
On the 19th March 2020 the WHO released this guidance intended for healthcare workers (HCWs), healthcare managers and IPC teams at the facility level & at national and district/provincial level:https://t.co/C4aV2BnMPj pic.twitter.com/tCk1EyLskV
— Robin Monotti (@robinmonotti) December 21, 2020
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
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
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
3/4
https://t.co/WBAnAUO0UU
Finally, this film demonstrates that EVERY SINGLE aspect of the fraudulent "science" used to the sell SARS-2=CoVid fraud was perfected in the 1980s to sell the HIV=AIDS fraud. https://t.co/Gjqo2lGjQw
— Ken McCarthy (@KenMcCarthy) March 10, 2021
You May Also Like
The story doesn\u2019t say you were told not to... it says you did so without approval and they tried to obfuscate what you found. Is that true?
— Sarah Frier (@sarahfrier) November 15, 2018
In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.
In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.
This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.
In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.