Dr Mike Yeadon, Ex VP of Pfizer

[Macsky]

Just came across this tonight? Anyone know of him? Any thoughts? Maybe I’m just susceptible to a conspiracy theory, but I am highly sceptical of the national media coverage (or complete lack thereof) of covid.

Latest News – The Daily Sceptic

A Plea to MPs From Mike Yeadon: “Don’t Vote For […]

lockdownsceptics.org

 

[essex man]

I only know him from video of him giving his views on tests etc ... there's a you tube video of him that kept getting taken off Twitter/you tube.
He's not the only one being censored for not agreeing with the government

 

[Macsky]

I think there’s been a real lack of accessible investigative journalism surrounding the whole thing, all we get in the news is deaths with a positive test within 28 days, which, if the test throws a lot of false positives, means absolutely nothing.

 

[anzani]

In many ways, some of the 'conspiracy theories' about handling of Covid 19 are more plausible than the 'accepted facts'. Given the previous experiences of Prof. Fergusons' modelling, be it CJD, Sars, F&M etc , and its perceived accuracy, together with the background of his reported other interests, I think it is right to review a broader range of advice /opinions.There are many highly qualified professionals who do not support the assumptions upon which recent policy is set.
This source is worthy of consideration as it reaches well into the medical world, for the last 180 years or so.

The BMJ: Leading Medical Research, News, Education, Opinion

High impact medical journal. Champion of better research, clinical practice & healthcare policy since 1840. For GPs, hospital doctors, educators, policymakers.

www.bmj.com

 

[essex man]

The false positive rate is unknown but thought to be between 0.5 and 2% of all tests.
Total positive rate is has varied since July from 1% - 9%
So, at times there has potential been as many false positives as positives.
This makes it 50/50 that you have virus if you test positive.
Hence many pro sports were testing twice if first test positive.
Two positives increase odds massively if you consider false positives to be completely random.
However no one can say definitively what is causing false positives.

 

[Macsky]

In many ways, some of the 'conspiracy theories' about handling of Covid 19 are more plausible than the 'accepted facts'. Given the previous experiences of Prof. Fergusons' modelling, be it CJD, Sars, F&M etc , and its perceived accuracy, together with the background of his reported other interests, I think it is right to review a broader range of advice /opinions.There are many highly qualified professionals who do not support the assumptions upon which recent policy is set.
This source is worthy of consideration as it reaches well into the medical world, for the last 180 years or so.

The BMJ: Leading Medical Research, News, Education, Opinion

High impact medical journal. Champion of better research, clinical practice & healthcare policy since 1840. For GPs, hospital doctors, educators, policymakers.

www.bmj.com

Interesting:

Covid-19: politicisation, “corruption,” and suppression of science

When good science is suppressed by the medical-political complex, people die Politicians and governments are suppressing science. They do so in the public interest, they say, to accelerate availability of diagnostics and treatments. They do so to support innovation, to bring products to market...

www.bmj.com

 

[ollie989898]

The false positive rate is unknown but thought to be between 0.5 and 2% of all tests.
Total positive rate is has varied since July from 1% - 9%
So, at times there has potential been as many false positives as positives.
This makes it 50/50 that you have virus if you test positive.
Hence many pro sports were testing twice if first test positive.
Two positives increase odds massively if you consider false positives to be completely random.
However no one can say definitively what is causing false positives.

To be honest, given that the test is pretty crude and the vast numbers of people who had very minor or even no symptoms whatsoever, the overall accuracy of testing is of minor importance in the scheme of things.

It's an imperfect test and a rapidly changing situation. No government has done a 100% job and it was highly unlikely any could. We have seen that the virus is highly infectious but ultimately the number of deaths from it seems modest (as a total or a percentage of the population at large) when compared to the annual deaths from other more common ailments.

I don't really bother with the media too much at the moment. The situation is what it is.

 

[Macsky]

The Accuracy of the testing is pretty important when it’s guiding national policy!

 

[essex man]

The Accuracy of the testing is pretty important when it’s guiding national policy!

Mmm, sadly Matt Hancock appears to think that the false positive rate is the percentage of positive results that are false.
No wonder he considers it unimportant!

 

[essex man]

To be honest, given that the test is pretty crude and the vast numbers of people who had very minor or even no symptoms whatsoever, the overall accuracy of testing is of minor importance in the scheme of things.

It's an imperfect test and a rapidly changing situation. No government has done a 100% job and it was highly unlikely any could. We have seen that the virus is highly infectious but ultimately the number of deaths from it seems modest (as a total or a percentage of the population at large) when compared to the annual deaths from other more common ailments.

I don't really bother with the media too much at the moment. The situation is what it is.

Agree that the number of deaths is not particular out of normal range, particularly in terms of percentage of those over 75 who have died.
There are just a lot more old people than even twenty years ago.
The other Corona viruses in circulation prob killed the same percentage of old people when they first arrived.
Flu, when a new strain appears, kills a similar percentage.

 

[Charlie Gill]

Mmm, sadly Matt Hancock appears to think that the false positive rate is the percentage of positive results that are false.
No wonder he considers it unimportant!

Don't you get the percentage from the rate?

 

[Ncap]

To be honest, given that the test is pretty crude and the vast numbers of people who had very minor or even no symptoms whatsoever, the overall accuracy of testing is of minor importance in the scheme of things.

It's an imperfect test and a rapidly changing situation. No government has done a 100% job and it was highly unlikely any could. We have seen that the virus is highly infectious but ultimately the number of deaths from it seems modest (as a total or a percentage of the population at large) when compared to the annual deaths from other more common ailments.

I don't really bother with the media too much at the moment. The situation is what it is.

You say, rightly, no government has done a 100% job, but the UK has consistently been among the worst five performing countries for deaths per million.
Maybe a bit like captain of Titanic commenting that not too much water taken on considering there’s a whole ocean around us

 

[essex man]

Don't you get the percentage from the rate?

The percentage of false positives is the percentage of all negative tests that are false positives.
Not the percentage of positive results that are false.
If prevalence is as low as it has been at timesthen false positives can be equal in number to real positives.
Therefore a positive result means you have a 50% chance of having it.

 

[Macsky]

You say, rightly, no government has done a 100% job, but the UK has consistently been among the worst five performing countries for deaths per million.
Maybe a bit like captain of Titanic commenting that not too much water taken on considering there’s a whole ocean around us

How do we know it has, if the testing is highly inaccurate? Results we get fed on the news are deaths for any reason within 28 days of a (possibly) positive test, it could basically be complete disinformation.

 

[essex man]

Think government has a role in ensuring that people who need treatment for covid can get it.... Seems to have done pretty well at this.
Government also has a duty to not scare public from accessing healthcare in the usual way for other problems/diseases resulting in thousands of needless deaths. It has failed in this role,imo, given the massive fall in numbers accessing the NHS

 

[Raider112]

How do we know it has, if the testing is highly inaccurate? Results we get fed on the news are deaths for any reason within 28 days of a (possibly) positive test, it could basically be complete disinformation.

Or turn it round, and as we know some people are ill for quite some time before they die, maybe they haven't had a test for the last 28 days so aren't given as a covid death?

 

[arcobob]

The Accuracy of the testing is pretty important when it’s guiding national policy!

On a personal basis it has caused hardship and a hell of a lot of inconvenience. On a commercial and economic scale the effects have been astronomical. I am a conformer who is willing to follow any advice given provided it has a logical basis. I do not consider the PCR test to be a logical basis, thus the track and trace app is not on my phone.

 

[Macsky]

Or turn it round, and as we know some people are ill for quite some time before they die, maybe they haven't had a test for the last 28 days so aren't given as a covid death?

From a couple of anecdotal stories I’ve heard from people in the health service, if there’s the remotest possibility of COVID, it’s going on the death certificate.

 

[arcobob]

From a couple of anecdotal stories I’ve heard from people in the health service, if there’s the remotest possibility of COVID, it’s going on the death certificate.

It probably avoids a post mortem and a lot of poking about.

 

[arcobob]

From a couple of anecdotal stories I’ve heard from people in the health service, if there’s the remotest possibility of COVID, it’s going on the death certificate.

Even if it was based on a false positive or even positives.