‘The scientific evidence does not exist for a second lockdown’

September 22, 2020

FALSE POSITIVE: “We know that people who have recovered from the virus and are clinically well and you can no longer catch a sample from their mouth or airways still can be positive on the PCR test, and the test is not a test for virus, not a test for living virus, the test looks for a particular piece of the genetic code and if it finds a small piece of a dead virus that is still sucking your mucus and has been shed from cells, you can still be positive on a swab test for a long time.”

EVIDENCE BASED: “I challenge Professor (Neil) Ferguson, Chris Whitty, Mr Hancock or anyone from SAGE to cite the research literature that underscores their belief in a ‘second wave’. I’m an experienced literature researcher and it doesn’t exist. Did you know the last two coronaviruses – novel ones called SARS in 2003 and MERS more recently each of them one wave each and that is what most people expect from SARS-Cov 2.”

 

 

 

A SCIENTIST has challenged the Department of Health’s Covid-19 testing procedure as “fundamentally flawed” and to provide the evidence for a second lockdown that has just been announced.

Dr Mike Yeadon, formerly chief scientific advisor to big pharmaceutical giant Pfizer says the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) test are very sensitive and have the propensity to throw up a particular, false positive rate.

He was speaking to Julia Hartley-Brewer on Talk Radio on Thursday 17 September on the PCR test.

According to the site of the Imperial College Health NHS Trust, the PCR test looks for virus that is currently in a host’s body by detecting the presence of its RNA (Ribonucleic Acid) in a swab sample from the nose or throat.


When the sample detects the genetic material of RNA, a solution called ‘realant’ is added when the sample reaches the lab.

If the virus is present, the reagant starts a ‘chain reaction’ and creates billions of copies of the genetic material so there is enough that can be detected and it is used by the scientists to provide a positive result.


The test usually takes between 12 and 24 hours to return a result by the college claims new technology may be able to provide a result more quickly by using a machine in a hospital or care setting.


Dr Yeadon said: “The evidence is that the majority or a substantial part of these positives are due to what are false positive tests.

“What is really frustrating is the Government does not know what the false positive rate is or not declaring it and continuing with the assumption that it is zero and it is definitely not zero.

“Carl Hennigan did a calculation and he showed that a false positive rate of little as 0.1 per cent then more half the positive tests are false or fake.

“I think the false positive rate is probably much higher, possibly one per cent and if that true, then most or all of the positives are actually false and not infectious infected or ill.

“We know that people who have recovered from the virus and are clinically well and you can no longer catch a sample from their mouth or airways still can be positive on the PCR test, and the test is not a test for virus, not a test for living virus, the test looks for a particular piece of the genetic code and if it finds a small piece of a dead virus that is still sucking your mucus and has been shed from cells, you can still be positive on a swab test for a long time.

“You are using a test with an undeclared false positive rate which I think is dreadful because it is having a big impact on people. If you don’t know what it is, shame on you and if you do know what it is, you must disclose it.”

Dr Yeadon challenged the Government on Talk Radio to provide the scientific evidence to justify a second lockdown on Friday 11 September.

“T-cell immunity was prior a very important factor. What that meant that only 20 or 25 per cent to be infected for the pandemic to come to a grinding standstill through the herd immunity threshold, and I know it’s controversial, but I’m afraid it is fact.

“I challenge Professor (Neil) Ferguson, Chris Whitty, Mr Hancock or anyone from SAGE to cite the research literature that underscores their belief in a ‘second wave’. I’m an experienced literature researcher and it doesn’t exist.

“Did you know the last two coronaviruses – novel ones called SARS in 2003 and MERS more recently each of them one wave each and that is what most people expect from SARS-Cov 2.

“There is now underlying literature saying a second wave is coming. It is an assertion because (Professor) Ferguson having nailed his colours to the mast and observing we are only a fifth or a tenth the way to his total is insisting there will be a second wave and I think it is most unlikely and no scientist says it should happen.”

  • THIS article is based on two interviews between Ms Hartley-Brewer and Dr Yeadon on Talk Radio and has been transcribed for a wider audience and should be viewed as such.

{ 0 comments… add one now }

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: