Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

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
substack.com ^ | October 31, 2022 | James Lyons-Weiler

Posted on 11/02/2022 1:38:27 PM PDT by ransomnote

[H/T countRECOUNT]

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.

NB: The toy math example to show how calculations of False Discovery Rate lead to bias in favor of false positives, an error has been corrected. Corrections and changes are in bold. The original article references to ‘false positive rate’ will also be updated to ‘false discovery rate’. We thank our readers for catching those errors!

We have just published a new study that shows that nonQ-RT-PCR (non-quantitative RT-PCR testing as used to diagnose COVID-19 from 2020 to the present day suffers a flaw that ultimately draws into question all of what has been reported on COVID-19 by official channels, including the results of COVID-19.

Specifically, assuming a 5% prevalence rate, the high false discovery rate (42%) of the use of nonQ-RT-PCR means

1. For every 50 true positives out of 1,000, a total of 86 people with or without SARS-CoV-2 infection or residual fragments will be reported. Of these, 36 of these will be false positives.

2. For every 50 true positives, 86 people without SARS-CoV-2 infection or residual fragments will be have to be isolated/quarantined. Of these, 36 will not be infected.

3. For every 50 true positives that are tested and found positive in-hospital, 86 people with or without SARS-CoV-2 infection or residual fragments will be told that they "have COVID-19". If the 36 false positive patients are hospitalized with other COVID-19 patients, they will likely then contract a SARS-CoV-2 infection.

4. The number of "cases" via positive PCR has been overstated by a factor of 72% (the original post read “80:1” assuming a prevalence of 5%).

5. This is true for generic case reporting up until May 2021 when CDC decided to reduce the PCR cycle threshold value (Ct) for the vaccinated to less than 27, leaving the unvaccinated rate biased by high false discovery rate of arbitrarily high Ct, biasing all reported rates in these two groups favoring cases in the unvaccinated from that point on.

6. This +72% bias is true in any clinical trial or any study that used arbitrarily high Ct values, INCLUDING THE VACCINE STUDIES.

As a direct result of this fatal flaw, combined with CDC’s gaff “PCR+ = COVID-19"?

There are no credible COVID-19 vaccine trial data.

In 2003, CDC took the credit for curtailing the SARS-CoV-1 transmission. Among the method of control they claimed were essential to this included SARS-CoV-1 strain-specific PCR primers used to produce amplicons that were sequenced. The presence of the sequence was used to infer, correctly, whether the PCR reaction had produced a population of SARS-CoV-1 DNA molecules that were sequenced using FDA-designated gold standard - Sanger Sequencing, or an arbitrary population of DNA molecules that represented off-target amplicons.

In 2020, for reasons no one has ever explained, the CDC changed the nucleic acid detection protocol to one that had never been tried before for control of respiratory viruses. Instead of using sequence-based detection, they merely used the results of a non-quantitative reverse transcriptase (RT)-PCR as evidence of the presence of the virus, and then, equally inexplicably, decided to determine that a positive nonQ-RT-PCR test result indicated disease (COVID-19).

Anyone trained in nucleic assays would know this would lead to excessive false positives. Somehow, per official narrative, zero false positive test results were expected by CDC - even with their own test, which had an arbitrarily high Ct cutoff of 40.

MORE AT LINK: https://popularrationalism.substack.com/p/peer-reviewed-study-confirms-fatal

 



TOPICS: Conspiracy; Health/Medicine; Miscellaneous; Science
KEYWORDS: clotshot; covidobsession; deathjab; dumbingdownfr; falsepositive; garbagesource; pleasegethelp; spamsomnote; substacktrash; vaccines
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 last
To: ifinnegan
In the General/Chat forum, on a thread titled 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, ifinnegan wrote:

“We” is the author of this substack piece and a colleague.

-

Sub stack does not publish peer reviewed articles.

From my prior response to you:

"If you read the article, he wrote about their work and linked to publications and a presentation. But you have to read it to know that."

You just HAVE to try to distract and detract from the article any way you can because you can't refute the content.


41 posted on 11/02/2022 6:33:49 PM PDT by ransomnote (IN GOD WE TRUST)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: pops88
In the General/Chat forum, on a thread titled 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, pops88 wrote:

Quite the verbiage- so it’s the test’s flaw that made it fatal then, not collaborating and colluding with evil by men? We need test control! And I thought the test was just a delivery system.

Scientists get stripped of access to research laboratories and censored from publishing and are therefore effectively silenced if they may statements they cannot prove in the laboratory.

There is no PCR test for evil.

But those scientists can line up all the evidence the rest of us need to make the case - our 'overlords' in the NIH and CDC absolutely knew they used and continue to use an invalid test during what they falsely claimed was a pandemic as a result of what they falsely claimed was a 'novel' virus, and denied us access to critical life-saving treatments because they lied and said it didn't work.


42 posted on 11/02/2022 6:41:25 PM PDT by ransomnote (IN GOD WE TRUST)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ransomnote

I made clear I’m not refuting content.

What journal was it published in?


43 posted on 11/02/2022 7:09:45 PM PDT by ifinnegan (Democrats kill babies and harvest their organs to sell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

The response is likewise jibberish. I read the blog entry (as it is not truly peer reviewed nor a journal) and specifically looked at the reference which is also open source pay to play. It simply is not peer reviewed standard.

It is equally unclear to me why there is a waste of time relitigating this seven days before the most consequential mid term in a very long time

There is no question PCR is the wrong first line test. It is a confirmatory test for an Elisa test if necessary. People don’t understand the word false positive. But they think they do. It is virtually impossible for a highly specific test to have a false positive. The PCR test it self has an extremely high positive predictive value while Elisa testing has high negative predictive values.

The positives at the PCR were all true. It is evident that numerous states also repeated too many cycles generally procuring a positive that was accurate although not clinical significant. So they really are not falsely positive. They are true positive of insignificant clinical value.

I recall early on there were a couple of reasonably well done studies demonstrating severe it of disease was directly correlated to viral load. That would make sense as many times viral load determines illness severity. There is question that. PCR is not screening. But what I think we learned with PCR was that asymptomatic infection was the most likely expression of the disease.


44 posted on 11/02/2022 7:20:27 PM PDT by gas_dr (Conditions of Socratic debate: Intelligence, Candor, and Good Will)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: ransomnote; Jane Long; nickcarraway; DoodleBob
Just ran across this because I was looking for something involving the carotid...

Carotid free-floating thrombus during COVID-19 vaccine era: causality or not?

From the conclusion...

...In our cases, it is difficult to analyze the relationship between BNT and AIS because of concomitant comorbidities. Nevertheless, the short time elapsed from vaccine administration and the onset of neurological symptoms raises a strong suspicion of causal relationship.

Bold is mine.

45 posted on 11/03/2022 3:29:16 PM PDT by mewzilla (We need to repeal RCV wherever it's in use and go back to dumb voting machines.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gas_dr
The positives at the PCR were all true. It is evident that numerous states also repeated too many cycles generally procuring a positive that was accurate although not clinical significant. So they really are not falsely positive. They are true positive of insignificant clinical value.

And that is probably not going to be understood by all the deep thinkers on this thread.

46 posted on 11/05/2022 6:11:09 AM PDT by Fury
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: gas_dr; Fury
“The positives at the PCR were all true. It is evident that numerous states also repeated too many cycles generally procuring a positive that was accurate although not clinical significant. So they really are not falsely positive. They are true positive of insignificant clinical value.”

This is a reasonable way to state it, but when doctors, laboratories, government, and even business entities go by the “Gold Standard” PCR test as defined by the CDC on how to do it, what you state becomes entirely irrelevant. You can have and know the truth, but if no one agrees, it is completely meaningless, save for you knowing. If the official test defines a positive as “X,” that is exactly what it is, for the whole world, for better or worse. Therefore, it is a “false positive” in the world outside of you and me, and that includes those doctors, etc. - anyone in authority who relied on it, and shouldn't have - on behalf of supposed, dangerous, “infected” people.

My wife, to show up at a company function in another state, was required to have a PCR test this year after going to it last year with a quick test which some coworkers apparently got and wound up sharing SARS-Cov-2 everywhere, infecting over a dozen other workers. So HR believed the PCR test would stop that, this time.

Consequently, we didn't bother to check or go.

As you know, the new CDC director literally stated that with the PCR test, people show as COVID positive over twelve weeks after they isolated, not quarantined, after exposure to a person or persons who might have had it, but were never confirmed to have had it.

Why CDC doesn't require testing at end of isolation: Director (PCR false positives for non-infected, “isolated” people, 12 weeks after):

https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4025151/posts

Now, it is possible I caught the CDC Director, Dr. Walensky, in a misspeak, but it hasn't been corrected, if so, to my knowledge.

I think it is obviously clear to both medical professionals and lay people what the CDC has always defined as “isolation” versus “quarantine,” and when you do either.

On the PCR test's usefulness: I grant that it is likely near 100% accurate on true positives, inherently, but why didn't the CDC merely say to keep using the PCR test, but keep the cycles to 10 or 15? That way you have the best of both worlds. You have ~100% true positives (one cycle would technically have this little marker) and ~0% “false” positives. That's a perfect test.

Instead, she had the CDC order medical entities everywhere to not rely on it as any sort of first line test, despite the rapid tests not catching Omicron as well as they could have. Heck, the CDC doesn't rely on it for a 12 week later test, either.

Strangely, I was tested last year through the Red Cross for antibodies, and had none, and, when my wife had that concerning bout with her COVID, I, too, got rapid-tested at the same two times she did (at the beginning and at the end) and never showed positive. I haven't bothered to pay for an antibody test, since, but I felt I should have had the greater consequences with a bout of COVID, due to my greater age and somewhat higher BMI. I thank God, and doctors, such as yourself, for helping my wife through what was becoming a more concerning time. Our doctor prescribed the appropriate medicines (but was strangely uptight that I had her tested by the nurse for both COVID and the flu), and she rapidly improved by the 12th day, or so. As you may recall, she had a “rebound” type of COVID interaction, after her temperature had dropped back to just 99 in the mornings, for a couple days.

To this day, I can't determine if what was happening was an immune system overreaction or secondary infection, which the three drugs would have addressed.

47 posted on 11/05/2022 11:04:54 AM PDT by ConservativeMind (Trump: Befuddling Democrats, Republicans, and the Media for the benefit of the US and all mankind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson