Every result of the Covid-19 PCR test is false
Fri 12:16 pm +01:00, 25 Sep 2020Writing to Professor Greenhalgh
Dear Trisha,
Re: COVID-19 policy response (an open letter)
I am a retired Chartered Electrical Engineer, and I’ve come to realise that what I was doing for most of my life was keeping people alive, and preventing harm. I have one regret, that as a young graduate I did not speak up and tell a bunch of World Experts that they were wrong. It wasn’t my responsibility to do so, but we Engineers do our best to avoid past mistakes, hence this letter.
Thank you for creating an Open Letter, and for giving me the opportunity to respond. I could go through the letter following Engineering practice in line by line comments, but I think that is unnecessary. In the interests of “interdisciplinary debate” I forward the following facts. I hope that once the facts are agreed, the debate can begin.
- The ONS estimates that 0.11 percent of a representative sample of the population in England has Covid-19. It follows that tests for Covid-19 carried out on 250,000 English persons should return 275 positive results. [1]
- On 21/9/2020 Some 247099 tests for SARS-CoV-2 and for Covid-19 were carried out in the UK, resulting in 4368 “cases”. Allow me some latitude here when I contend that this establishes that 4093 of these “cases” must be false positives.
- It appears that more than 9 out of 10 of these test results are wrong. Rounding up, I’d be prepared to debate “Every result from a Covid-19 PCR test is False” See also relevant NHS SOP and Gniazdowski [2]
Until that matter is resolved almost everything the government has said about Covid-19 cannot be trusted.
I have some difficulty in establishing your “facts” on Herd Immunity. As a Lay Person, my understanding is that the entire theory of vaccination is based on the principles of Immunity and Herd Immunity. You say “we don’t know” but in essence, that proves nothing. Where Papers are presented stating that Herd Immunity to Covid-19 is in process do you dispute the facts? See [3] and [4]
I note your promotion of “mandatory face coverings” and that the conclusions of your paper [5] are based on the precautionary principle. This seems to be a jump in logic. If the public are not convinced by your argument, is it then ethical to seek legal recourse for compliance? May I also point out that your paper avoids the issue of whether mask wearing causes harm? And that recent research suggests that aerosols, rather than droplets are the main contributors to spread, making masks largely ineffective. [6]
Other notable absences generally are omissions of matters that may enhance immunity, and as these are not included in your Open Letter, I leave these, like harms from wearing face masks, for your future research.
I trust I have set out the facts in a manner that allows proper and open debate. I again thank you for publishing an Open Letter and for encouraging enquiry.
Yours Faithfully
[1] https://www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=%2fpeoplepopulationandcommunity%2fhealthandsocialcare%2fconditionsanddiseases%2fdatasets%2fcoronaviruscovid19infectionsurveydata%2f2020/covid19infectionsurveydatasets20200918.xlsx[2] Gniazdowski V, Morris P, Wohl S et al. Repeat COVID-19 molecular testing: correlation with recovery of infectious virus, molecular assay cycle thresholds, and analytical sensitivity. medRxiv 2020.08.05.20168963; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.05.20168963
[3] https://www.rt.com/news/501149-sweden-herd-immunity-coronavirus/
[4] https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3563
[5] https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1435
[6] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/aerosols-may-play-a-larger-role-in-covid-19-transmission-than-previously-thought
