@amethystarlight @StoneColdPillar Where is the adjustment for the false positive rate of the PCR tests? 1. https://t.co/D32HYa42Np 2, https://t.co/oVkUyHVsp1 3. https://t.co/BYoHftWv9D

@TakethatCt @hauxton @percytheparrot @Crazycdn2 @ClareCraigPath https://t.co/BkbLuz9Ec2

@TakethatCt @normanpie 2'nd publication. Gene sequencing proved many PCR+ werent even real SARS2 cases. https://t.co/BkbLuzrf3A 3'rd publication, and similar findings. They even say PCR tests for SARS2 arnt reliable. https://t.co/qUPFlDewnD

@Crazycdn2 @hauxton @percytheparrot @TakethatCt @ClareCraigPath And this publication in particular is very interesting. When they have used gene sequencing in order to confirm PCR+ tests.... just read it for yourself. https://t.co/BkbLuz9Ec2 https://t.co

@MichelleABalog @azsky0927 @12News Those one shows 44% false positives https://t.co/ozxMcNozKC

@HPN17752061 @blckbxnews Ik vermoed dat het om dit artikel gaat, maar zeker weten doe ik het niet. https://t.co/5WTlhJYnIX In de samenvatting spreekt men van 2 op de 9 vals positieven. Verder in het artikel staat een voorbeeld van 44%. Hoe dan ook, een s

Partial N Gene Sequencing for SARS-CoV-2 Verification and Pathway Tracing. https://t.co/t2LHVWoFnI