Is it all false

Null hypothesis 

Medicine has a very long tradition of jumping to conclusions and explaining all kinds of fancy mechanism. 

Has anynody done the calculations of false positive covid tests ? It sounds great that a test is 99.9% accurate when it comes to specificity, but the results are terrible when very few have the so-called virus.  See the quote below from the  Norwegian authorities. 

With a prevalence of 0.01 per cent (as in Norway today), the positive predictive value would be around 7 per cent with today's PCR test (sensitivity 80 per cent and specificity 99.9 per cent). That is, 14 out of 15 who test positive are not infected with SARS-CoV-2.  

If we presume that the rate is as low as 20 positives in Australia, one in a million, then we would have 1000 false positives if we test  a million. If we are lucky we would find one of the   Infected ones.  We would then probably treat 1000 persons as if they had so-called Covid. 

All the positives in Melbourne may in principle be false positives. Maybe one or 2 have the virus. Now, if the accuracy is only 99%, we would have 10000 false positives for each hit.  

And this is the best possible scenario, not counting false negatives. 

Victoria actually did 1 million tests and got 0.3 % positives. If the accuracy of the tests used were 99.7 they could all be false positives. 

https://www.fhi.no/en/op/novel-coronavirus-facts-advice/testing-and-follow-up/test-criteria-for-coronavirus/

Now  99.9 % specificity may seem a bit high, and BMJ states the following 

As current studies show marked variation and are

current estimates from systematic reviews,

numbers of 70% for sensitivity and 95% for specificity for illustrative purposes.

University of Texas found the following: 

The sensitivity of the RT-PCR diagnostic test was estimated to be 0.777 (95% CI: 0.715, 0.849), while the specificity was 0.988 (95% CI: 0.933, 1.000). The confidence intervals include sampling error in addition to the error due to probabilistic knowledge of the data

  

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.24.20078949v1.full.pdf

So the false positive error could be as high as 5%

If there is no virus at all, we would get 50000 

Pr million rested.  The us has tested 40 million 

If the specificity is 92% all of the tests could be  false positives.  Approximately 8000 people die in the us pr day. Covid 19 has been going on for about 130 days. During this time  

1 040 000 Americans have died.  Since many have been coded as covid deaths if doctors have suspected covid, 92% specificity could explain the whole epidemic with false positive.  

With labs being under pressure to perform, it is probably that contaminants from previous tests lead to higher false positives. They  cannot result in false negatives.  

Have a look at the quotes below and imagine stressed lab technicians pressured to work quickly and unconsciously being rewarded for finding sars cov2 infections. 



59 of 1599 in Louisiana  gives 3.6%.  So 3.6% is  4834.  Then the  percentage  would be 

134 853 - 4843. 129980 

Review of external quality assessments revealed false positive rates of 0-16.7%, with an interquartile range of 0.8-4.0%.

false positive rate of 2.3-6.9% has to be expected.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341091306_False_positives_in_reverse_transcription_PCR_testing_for_SARS-CoV-2

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is alerting clinical laboratory staff and health care providers of an increased risk of a false positive result with BD SARS-CoV-2 Reagents for the BD Max System test. In one study, the manufacturer found approximately three percent (3%) of results were false positive results.

https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/letters-health-care-providers/false-positive-results-bd-sars-cov-2-reagents-bd-max-system-letter-clinical-laboratory-staff-and

Also bear in mind that whatever "best estimate" one develops, it's an estimate of the mean; the actual FPR in one situation or another could vary significantly from this. For example, in the subset of EQAs with >100 negative samples per EQA, the FPRs ranged from below a fraction of 1% to just over 8%, and each of these rates was based on averaging the results from all the laboratories participating in the EQA (with an average of about 100 labs per EQA). 

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.26.20080911v2.article-metrics

Currently, DNA amplification techniques have become important detection tools. However, the extreme sensitivity of such techniques can easily result in contamination. This is a major problem in using these techniques routinely in a regulatory agency such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) because false-positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) results will fail our mission. Preventing PCR carryover contamination and a capacity to rapidly determine false PCR positives are crucial. In the past, several methods have been used to prevent amplicon carryover contamination

https://www.intechopen.com/books/polymerase-chain-reaction-for-biomedical-applications/regulatory-concern-of-polymerase-chain-reaction-pcr-carryover-contamination

There can be various sources of contamination during PCR, leading to myriad observations that may require troubleshooting. A common observation is excessive or unexpected signal, typically caused by contamination of reagents with template, genomic DNA, or amplicons from previous reactions.

https://www.intechopen.com/books/polymerase-chain-reaction-for-biomedical-applications/regulatory-concern-of-polymerase-chain-reaction-pcr-carryover-contamination

There are many ways a PCR experiment can go wrong, ruining your hard work. Environmental contamination of PCR samples is one such error, but it's one you can easily change.

Avoid DNA contamination with these tips

Obtaining a clean, successful PCR requires samples free of exogenous DNA. But contaminating DNA can be lurking around every corner—from previously amplified products hanging out in the lab to your own DNA. The good news is that you can largely avoid common types of contamination by following these simple guidelines:  

https://www.takarabio.com/about/bioview-blog/tips-and-troubleshooting/avoid-dna-contamination-in-pcr

Sensitive molecular methods, such as the PCR, can detect low-level contamination, and careful technique is required to reduce the impact of contaminants. Yet, some assays that are designed to detect high copy-number target sequences appear to be impossible to perform without contamination, and frequently, personnel or laboratory environment are held responsible as the source. This complicates diagnostic and research analysis when using molecular methods.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2777341/

PCR analyses of ancient and degraded DNA suffer from their extreme sensitivity to contamination by modern DNA originating, in particular, from carryover contamination with previously amplified or cloned material. Any strategy for limiting carryover contamination would also have to be compatible with the particular requirements of ancient DNA analyses. These include the need (i) to amplify short PCR products due to template fragmentation; (ii) to clone PCR products in order to track possible base misincorporation resulting from damaged templates; and (iii) to avoid incomplete decontamination causing artifactual sequence transformation

Sars cov 2 is just a trace virus that we can detect

Co2 is just a trace gas that we can detect

Sars cov 2 does not have any major effect on disease in the world. People die from old age combined with all kinds of pathogens and environmental challenges. 

We might as well test for any virus and finder spread. A virus that does not take the life of the host spreads better than, and will thrive better but not create a lot of antibodies since II is not a challenge for the body

Cytoskeen storm is very much like an allergy.  Body overreacts to an intruder.  

How sure can we be that we are testing the right sequence? Can we be sure it hasn’t been around for a long time?

◦ Can we be sure that many of the deaths were not iatrogenic, created by the medical treatment? It is estimated that 700 000 die each year from medical errors in the US  In principle it could be possible that all covid victims are results of medical errors. Why are the industrialized countries hit so much worse than the third world? The intubation catastrophe is an example of this. Sending covid patients to nursing homes was a bad medical decision. It would be strange if Como took this decision without asking for medical advice. 

When we see the massive resistance against hxq, and the fraud used to stop trials, we may wonder how many other medical mistakes are behind the death numbers. 

If lives are precious enough for trillions if dollars spent to save a few thousand lives, how about other lives that could be saved. Traffic accidents and smoking come to mind. 

Smoking could be prohibited with heavy fines and forced containment.  

Who: Tobacco kills more than 8 million people each year. More than 7 million of those deaths are the result of direct tobacco use. 

The expected lifetime of a 20 year-old man who will never begin to smoke is 56.7 years, 48.7 of which are expected to be in self-rated good health. The corresponding figures for a man who smokes heavily are 49.5 years, 36.5 of which are in self-rated good health. A 20 year-old woman who will never begin to smoke can expect to live a further 60.9 years, with 46.4 years in self-rated good health; if she is a life-long heavy smoker, her expected lifetime is reduced to 53.8 years, 33.8 of which are in self-rated good health. Health expectancy lbased on long-standing illness is reduced for smokers when compared with never smokers.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12212476/

Male smokers lose 7.2 years of life and looses 20 years of good quality of life. 

Women lose 7.1 years but 27.1 years of quality life. 

1.4 billion smoke, which means  9.8 billion years are lost to smoking. And at least 

Life years lost to corona

80% have no symptoms. How can we then call it a diagnosable disease? When doctors suspect covid 19 they are wrong in about 80%  of cases.  This essentially means that we  are not  dealing with a disease that exists as anything apart fro an rna sequence that can be detected.  How should the tests be validated?  They should be able to predict  certain symptoms, but in 80% of the cases they miss.  The symptoms are so varied that they could come from a variety of medical conditions that most of the sick patients already have  or which could be side effects of the complex combinations of drugs that elderly patients take.  Ground glass opacity can come from a variety of lung diseases, and is in no way a sign of covid 19.  

Ground-glass opacification/opacity (GGO) is a descriptive term referring to an area of increased attenuation in the lung on computed tomography (CT) with preserved bronchial and vascular markings. It is a non-specific sign with a wide etiology including infection, chronic interstitial disease and acute alveolar disease.

https://radiopaedia.org/articles/ground-glass-opacification-3#nav_differential-diagnosis

Blood clotting  which seems to be another feature of cv19 can come from the following sources : Prolonged sitting. This is often the case with travel when you are forced to sit for long periods (air, train, and car).

• Prolonged bed rest. This is often the case with surgery or illness.

• Pregnancy.

• Smoking.

• Obesity.

• Birth control pills/hormone replacement therapy/breast cancer medicines.

• Certain cancer types (pancreatic, lung, multiple myeloma, or blood-related cancers).

• Trauma (serious injury).

• Some types of major surgery.

• Age (especially over the age of 60).

• A family history of blood clots.

• Autoimmune disorders.

• Diseases related to chronic inflammation.

• Certain infections (HIV/AIDS, hepatitis C, or Lyme disease).

Just the two first reasons would describe most elderly sitting or lying down too much

Common painkillers NDAIDS like ibuprofen and many other are also associated with increased blood clotting.  

Some doctors claim that cv19 gives low blood oxygen. Here are typical causes of low blood oxygen: 

•

• COPD, including chronic bronchitis and emphysema

• acute respiratory distress syndrome

• asthma

• collapsed lung

• anemia

• congenital heart defects

• heart disease

• pulmonary embolism

Some patients die from cytokine storm. 

“Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) is a form of systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) that can be triggered by a variety of factors such as infections and certain drugs.[3] It refers to cytokine storm syndromes (CSS)[4] and occurs when large numbers of white blood cells are activated and release inflammatory cytokines, which in turn activate yet more white blood cells. CRS is also an adverse effect of some monoclonal antibody medications, as well as adoptive T-cell therapies.[5][6] When occurring as a result of a medication, it is also known as an infusion reaction.[1]” 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cytokine_release_syndrome

So for every covid symptom there are several other very probable causes, and the typical covid patient is very old and has several comorbidities and use several drugs that usually increase risk of pneumonia. 

So we could say that we can be 80% certain that covid is not dangerous at all.  The 20 % who get some problems may be getting them from hundreds of sources.  And when doctors think someone has cv19 we. May be 80% certain they don’t have it. 

And very few get antibodies. This could be a sign that the body doesn’t really bother with it.    

 

In my field, psychiatry, so-called disorders come and go and are usually decided by committees. Suddenly a new disorder appears, e.g. ADHD.  And even if this has just been decided in a committee it is being treated like a real disease with mortality rates, comorbidities, differential diagnosis and drugs that are supposed to work to reduce it etc.  However, two doctors may disagree if a patient has it or not. There may be 60% agreement, and that is considered good, and often better than medical tests.  The problem is that we cannot validate a diagnosis against anything.  A detection of sars cov2 cannot be validated against anything either since all the symptoms can come from other diseases. 

The main clinical symptoms of COVID-19 are fever, fatigue, and a dry cough. Laboratory examination in the early stage of the disease shows a normal or decreased white blood cell count, and a decreased lymphocyte count. While CT examination serves as the screening and diagnostic basis for COVID-19, its accuracy is limited. The nucleic acid testing is the gold standard for the diagnosis of COVID-19, but has a low sensitivity is low. There is clearly a divide between the two means of examination. This paper reviews the published literature, guidelines and consensus, and summarizes the clinical and imaging characteristics of COVID-19, in order to provide a reliable basis for early diagnosis and treatment.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352621120300346

Clinical criteria

Any person with at least one of the following symptoms [1]:

• cough

• fever

• shortness of breath

• sudden onset of anosmia, ageusia or dysgeusia

Diagnostic imaging criteria

Radiological evidence showing lesions compatible with COVID-19

Laboratory criteria

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid in a clinical specimen [2]

Epidemiological criteria

At least one of the following two epidemiological links:

• close contact [3] with a confirmed COVID-19 case in the 14 days prior to onset of symptoms

• having been a resident or a staff member, in the 14 days prior to onset of symptoms, in a residential institution for vulnerable people where ongoing COVID-19 transmission has been confirmed

Case classification

1. Possible case:

2. Any person meeting the clinical criteria

3. Probable case:

4. Any person meeting the clinical criteria with an epidemiological link

5. OR

6. Any person meeting the diagnostic criteria  

7. Confirmed case:

8. Any person meeting the laboratory criteria

https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/covid-19/surveillance/case-definition

The CT-findings of COVID-19 show overlap with other diseases like:

• H1N1 influenza

• Other viral pneumonia ; adenovirus, CMV

• Organizing pneumonia

• Acute interstitial pneumonitis

https://radiologyassistant.nl/chest/covid-19/corads-classification

Egen someone tests positive for covid 19 but has no symptoms this is actually a false positive test result. The fact that we call it an asymtomatic shows how strong the belief in the PCR test is. One could probably test for all kinds of other viruses also and be asymtomatic. 

Researchers still don’t know what the real-world false positive rate is, but clinical sensitivity of RT-PCR tests ranges from 66% to 80%. That means nearly one in three infected people who are tested will receive false negative results.

If a person presents with classic symptoms of COVID-19 and is in an area with an outbreak, doctors will often diagnose a person with the disease is spite of a negative test.

https://www.google.no/amp/s/s theconversation.com/amp/coronavirus-tests-are-pretty-accurate-but-far-from-perfect-136671

, at a prevalence of 0.03%, even a test with 99.9% specificity would mean only 30% of people who test positive actually have the condition. This means more than two-thirds of positive results would actually be false positives if we were testing asymptomatic people with no increased risk.

https://www.google.no/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/the-positives-and-negatives-of-mass-testing-for-coronavirus-137792

Deaths due to COVID-19

Mortality monitoring should be conducted according to the WHO definition(link is external):

A COVID-19 death is defined for surveillance purposes as a death resulting from a clinically compatible illness in a probable or confirmed COVID-19 case, unless there is a clear alternative cause of death that cannot be related to COVID disease (e.g., trauma). There should be no period of complete recovery between the illness and death.

A death due to COVID-19 may not be attributed to another disease (e.g. cancer) and should be counted independently of pre-existing conditions that are suspected of triggering a severe course of COVID-19.

 Number of deaths due to COVID-19 should be reported to TESSy on weekly base (case-based or aggregated data).

https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/covid-19/surveillance/surveillance-definitions

A- RECORDING COVID-19 ON THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE OF CAUSE OF DEATH

COVID-19 should be recorded on the medical certificate of cause of death for ALL decedents where the disease caused, or is assumed to have caused, or contributed to death.

https://www.google.no/search?q=A-+RECORDING+COVID-19+ON+THE+MEDICAL+CERTIFICATE+OF+CAUSE+OF+DEATH+COVID-19+should+be+recorded+on+the+medical+certificate+of+cause+of+death+for+ALL+decedents+where+the+disease+caused,+or+is+assumed+to+have+caused,+or+contributed+to+death.&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-no&client=safari

It is important to emphasize that Coronavirus Disease 2019 or COVID-19 should be reported on the death certificate for all decedents where the disease caused or is assumed to have caused or contributed to death.

https://health.hawaii.gov/vitalrecords/guidance-for-certifying-covid-19-deaths/

• 1. Recording covid-19 on the death certificate

•

• The new coronavirus strain (COVID-19) should be recorded on the medical cause of death certificate for ALL decedents where the disease caused, or is assumed to have caused, or contributed to death.

https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/1205.0.55.001

World  56.9 million

Alcohol 3 mill

Hunger 9 mill

Dirty water. 3,5 mill

Medical error 250 000 USA  5 mill world

Smoking 7 mill

Traffic 1.3 mill About three quarters (73%) of all road traffic deaths occur among young males under the age of 25 years who are almost 3 times as likely to be killed in a road traffic crash as young females.

Drowning 320 000

Suicide 817 000

Homicide 630000

80% are non symptomatic.  They have the virus but no symptoms. That means that 80% ofvthose with symptoms do not have it either  that leaves only 4% with real covid

Specificity 99%

Only 1% have it

False positive

Covid toes. Covid can cause all kinds of things.  Doctors want to feel that they know the reason behind symptoms. 

What if someone got he idea that red hair could cause something