In U.K. in spring there was an v strong relationship between covid19 deaths & excess deaths. Correlation isn’t causation but it’s strong evidence - in spring - that the one is responsible for the other. In formal terms it’s consistent with that hypothesis. We’d expect it, too.

In recent weeks this has completely broken down. It’s no longer possible to stand up the claim that covid19 deaths & excess deaths are causatively linked. In formal terms the data are not consistent with the hypothesis that covid19 deaths are the cause of any excess deaths.

I forgot to say, the most likely explanation for this inconsistency is that our measurements are wrong.
The PCR test for Covid19, like all such tests, is capable of ‘producing a misdiagnosis’.
Technically we call it false positives. When a testing system is overstretched and...

...especially when many of the staff have never done this kind of work professionally & all they’ve ever done is a dozen or two “labs” as an undergraduate, it’s inevitable that errors in the handling, dispensing & processing steps involved in sample (swab) preparation will soar.

In turn what that does is make it increasingly likely that a particular swab, a person, will be given a positive result, when in fact there never was any viral genetic material on the swab or in that person.
Now I’ll tell you that all admissions are tested & every long stay....

...patient gets tested repeatedly. Note, there’s a roughly 1.7% chance of not coming out for the broad population admitted to hospital. But it’s worse. Those who become longer stay patients are obviously increasingly likely to die. You’re pretty ill if you’re in for weeks.

Even worse. Those same long stay patients get tested REPEATEDLY. If they get a positive test & then die within 28 days, they are defined as a Covid19 death.
The critical thing to know is that even if the virus stops circulating, the misdiagnoses, the ‘false positives’ continue.

Franz Kafka would have rejected our Covid19 testing system on grounds that it’s too surreal & nightmarish to be believable.
A responsible organisation, well aware that people’s lives, even the very nations health, turns on the accuracy, reliability & trust the people have in...

...the testing system. Despite this absolutely central role PCR testing plays in U.K. national life, the basics of quality control appear not to be in place. As a highly experienced research scientist, if I’d said to my manager “I haven’t bothered to do the usual QC steps, as...

...a bit busy, so I’m going ahead to use this test in our research & we’re going to assume the test is working perfectly”, I’d have been out of the lab before first tea break. What specifically am I calling for?
“Mr Hancock, please immediately make public the false positive...

...rate for each of the last eight weeks, together with the technical audit reports that underwrite them, even if in draft form”. That’s all.
Those of you who’ve followed me (thank you...I’d not do this if there weren’t lots of people reading it) will recall I turned up like a..

...bad penny in Hancock’s life in summer. He’d appear weekly on Julia Hartley-Brewer’s talkRADIO show. Julia had interviewed me the previous week & I made exactly the same demand (FPR, %) as I’m calling for now. Back in summer, when virus prevalence was at its lowest at 0.05%...

...I estimated that a false positive rate of just under 1% was sufficient to mean that essentially ALL the so-called positive tests, the “cases”, were MISDIAGNOSES. They didn’t have the virus.
JHB asked Hancock & he confessed it was “just under 1%”. In Q&A, I thought he was....

....brazenly lying, as he said something like “false positives are very low & this means that the probability that a positive test result in wrong is under 1%”. Kinder souls gently suggested that he didn’t understand because he’s not very bright. Are you OK having at the top...

....of our national testing system a senior minister who fails to understand use of simple statistics, when his entire area of responsibilities include our NHS & the community mass testing system? And when that testing system is the trigger for any decision to place areas of....

...the country & indeed the ENTIRE COUNTRY in lockdown, don’t you absolutely demand that the PCR test behaviour is well understood? I hope so.
I’m asking him yet again to disclose the % misdiagnosis rate for each of the last few weeks, together with the supporting quality...

....control reports (even if only in draft).
Important to know that the misdiagnosis rate is very easily close to 100%. A FPR in the mid single digits % is all it takes for everything we each hold dear to be wrongly crushed: almost all “cases” would be incident. A few weeks...

...back, Dr Julian Harris resigned from his senior scientific / supervisory post in one of the large PCR sample preparation labs. Look him up. He was interviewed for BBC TV’s late evening news. He cited chaos & even safety concerns, saying the majority of the staff under him...

...were so inexperienced that some had to be taught how to use precision pipettes. That’s what resolved me yet again to press Hancock & Govt to publish the misdiagnosis rate. It won’t be the around 1% of summer. Most of the OPERATIONAL false positive rate errors arise in the...

....sample preparation stages. The slightest contamination during a liquid transfer step is enough to introduce some partially degraded virus genetic material into many nearby separate samples. This technique is similar to the one that’s used for legal, evidential, forensic....

....purposes. As an aside, any barrister acting for the accused, would only need to show the judge the interview with Dr Harris & I think it likely the judge would agree with the barristers claim that this is unreliable evidence & that it wouldn’t be admissible in a trial.

So there is the evidence there’s a problem. The answer on the misdiagnosis rate is that it’s very likely to be a LOT higher than before. If I am right & I think I am, then the positives are ALL false positives.

I CANNOT OVERSTATE THE IMPORTANCE of us not being told this seemingly irrelevant piece of information, the FPR.
I think the pandemic is essentially over & has been since June, just like it us in Sweden. Both countries suffered the same loss of life to Covid19 in spring: 0.06%...

...and, like Sweden, the daily deaths drifted down from their mid-April peak until in June, when they became essentially zero.
The ONLY difference between us is this error prone monster of a badly characterised PCR test. I am telling you that, as a very experienced lab....

....scientist, the misdiagnosis rate will certainly be considerable. If you were told this & it is roughly where I believe it it be, then the “Covid19 “cases”, hospital admissions & even deaths are all NOT COVID19 AT ALL.
Is this even possible??
The shocking answer is YES.

In New Hampshire in the US, a few years ago, the had what appeared to be a huge outbreak of whooping cough. While the kids coughing didn’t seem to be too bad, the tests they were using, PCR tests specific for pertussis showed they did have. Desperate to understand it, they...

....began testing all the admissions & repeatedly so. Eventually some old school doctor smelled a rat & demanded they do the old fashioned confirmatory test: culture the samples from swabs of those suspected of having whooping cough.
They found not a singer real case. No one...

...had the infection. Put another way, they had 100% false positives.
It’s now a classic of epidemiology. It’s even got a name:
PCR FALSE POSITIVE PSEUDO-EPIDEMIC.
Please for the sake of your children’s & grandchildren’s future together with your own health, society and...

...liberty, you’ve got to find a way to PAUSE COMMUNITY MASS TESTING BY PCR RIGHT NOW.
We’ve been told it’s not reducing transmission as less than 10% do self isolation for the 14 day period. Pausing this dangerously broken test for a short while using normal, good quality...

Paper on the PCR false positive pseudo epidemic in New Hampshire:
They did track down the source of contamination: getting samples & chemicals mixed up on the bench, poor laboratory practise & inadequate supervision.

Are you seeing what I’m seeing yet?? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22250029/