Dr. Michael Yeadon Disagrees with OG doc mataleo1

Paperboy2000 - Dr Mike Yeadon is the former CSO and VP, Allergy and Respiratory Research Head with Pfizer Global R&D and co-Founder of Ziarco Pharma Ltd. BSc biochem tox, PhD respiratory pharmacol. 32y new meds research.

“I have explained how a hopelessly-performing diagnostic test has been, and continues to be used, not for diagnosis of disease but, it seems, solely to create fear.”

taken from:

The twitter feed is quite something:

https://twitter.com/MichaelYeadon3

What I find so confusing is having two different professionals with very near identical medical background and their take on one issue is 180 degrees apart. How is that possible. Or how is it possible that just ONE SINGLE one one finds is in fact the correct one? How does one determine that. So you are trying to discredit mataleo1 by bringing in ONE person that you found that has a different opinion than his. That rather trashy to do don’t you think? With everything I hear and have read online and in the OG (yes on occasion) why is it that there are always different takes? Like, COVID is overrated or COVID is underrated or the VACCINE will help or the VACCINE will kill/harm…

rushin, this isn’t about discrediting mataleo1. The headline is somewhat click bait - I doubt they are 180 degrees apart. Yeaden says the Pandemic ended last April and has gone to great length to explain everything very clearly on twitter, in video, and interviews. There would be little doubt that Yeaden would be far more credentialed than anyone on this forum.

Not understanding what OP is trying to prove here. 

Yeadon is a lockdown skeptic.  mateleo has also expressed concern that mass sweeping lockdowns are not needed as well.

And you will find conflicting opinions about the virus and lockdowns among epidemiologists too.  Let alone medical professionals from different sects.

![Baking Potato – Large – Each – FreshPoint Local](upload://osipnJIxzUxfYY3P7CN4PemvPPr.jpeg)

1 Like
Paperboy2000 - rushin, this isn't about discrediting mataleo1. The headline is somewhat click bait - I doubt they are 180 degrees apart. Yeaden says the Pandemic ended last April and has gone to great length to explain everything very clearly on twitter, in video, and interviews. There would be little doubt that Yeaden would be far more credentialed than anyone on this forum.

well you fooled me and confused me at the same time then…

What discussion did you have with Mataleo that this guy disagree's with him. Mataleo pretty much agreed with me that the rapid tests were less than stellar but again that's to be expected from those tests. It's the perception the public had that was wrong and the media helped with that a bit too.

These rapid tests I shouldn't say are junk but in the world of testing they are if your comparing. They still can be somewhat help and an asset but the problem with testing thus far is there hasn't been much of a confirmation process. Meaning you do a cheap/quicker test up front, then when you get a positive result you confirm it using the more expensive test which takes longer to get back because its 100x more accurate.  Most places that I have seen are doing one or the other not both. I could have misunderstood him but that's sort of what I got out of the discussion. 

This would probably clear up most if not all of the false positives but the other problem is people are just going to get tested because. I had to tell my dad to knock it off he was going to get tested like 2x a week. If you're not sick and have no knowledge of coming into contact with someone who had it, you shouldn't get tested. I know nobody wants to be a "spreader" but your causing more problems than you know by testing when you shouldn't be. Especially if your older like my dad. At that point the risk of getting COVID goes up exponentially as your constantly putting yourself in an environment where people who either have COVID or suspect have COVID all congregate. 

Remember, Mataleo is a doctor, not a lab tech. He's looking at results not functionality of tests. Two different worlds. 

To give some of you an idea, the rapid tests that I use for drug testing are considered "Junk" They're something like 96-98% accurate. Yeah, that's "junky" when compared to a piece of equipment that is handling GC/MS or LC/MS analytics which are 99.9% accurate. That 1-2% means a lot more than you would think. As shitty as some of these COVID tests may seem they're accuracy is probably stil in the 70-80% area. Maybe higher.

1 Like

David, as posted to rushinbear - the title is somewhat click bait. I know that mataleo believes that the political response was an over reaction.

The quality of the (PCR) tests seems to have gone over your head - not comparable with the 96-98% accurate tests you cite. He is saying that out of 100 reported positives, only maybe 1-5 are an active infection and 89-94 are just plain false.

The antigen test, I believe, is faster, cheaper, much more accurate.

The twitter and videos posted are for truth seekers that want top quality info and clear explanations.

Check out the facemask timeline and comment!:

"He is saying that out of 100 reported positives, only maybe 1-5 are an active infection and 89-94 are just plain false."

Your taking a number that for the sake of argument well assume is true 1-5% active infection detection rate. 

But you instantly disregard every other result as "just plain false" when in reality there is a subsection of inaccurate results ranging from inactive infection to completely false result. You have lumped it all in as one.

Thats wrong man

CobraKaiRep - 

"He is saying that out of 100 reported positives, only maybe 1-5 are an active infection and 89-94 are just plain false."

Your taking a number that for the sake of argument well assume is true 1-5% active infection detection rate. 

But you instantly disregard every other result as "just plain false" when in reality there is a subsection of inaccurate results ranging from inactive infection to completely false result. You have lumped it all in as one.

Thats wrong man

No sir;

89-94% false positive

6-11% true positive, of which, the majority is old and inactive, leaving

1-5% true and active.

Paperboy2000 - 
CobraKaiRep - 

"He is saying that out of 100 reported positives, only maybe 1-5 are an active infection and 89-94 are just plain false."

Your taking a number that for the sake of argument well assume is true 1-5% active infection detection rate. 

But you instantly disregard every other result as "just plain false" when in reality there is a subsection of inaccurate results ranging from inactive infection to completely false result. You have lumped it all in as one.

Thats wrong man

No sir;

89-94% false positive

6-11% true positive, of which, the majority is old and inactive, leaving

1-5% true and active.

So you’re saying 94% of the PCR tests are inaccurate?

only 5% are accurate?

Q Anon - 
Paperboy2000 - 
CobraKaiRep - 

"He is saying that out of 100 reported positives, only maybe 1-5 are an active infection and 89-94 are just plain false."

Your taking a number that for the sake of argument well assume is true 1-5% active infection detection rate. 

But you instantly disregard every other result as "just plain false" when in reality there is a subsection of inaccurate results ranging from inactive infection to completely false result. You have lumped it all in as one.

Thats wrong man

No sir;

89-94% false positive

6-11% true positive, of which, the majority is old and inactive, leaving

1-5% true and active.

So you’re saying 94% of the PCR tests are inaccurate?

only 5% are accurate?

Yeadon covered this in the video on page 1.

There is a 1% false positive rate for PCR test, and a 0.1% prevalence rate of rona in the population.

So - 100 tests will yield 1 true positive and 10 false positives, i.e. true positive rate is roughly 10% vs. roughly 90% false positive.

Of the true positives - more than half are picking up fragments from resolved infections weeks or months prior.

So bottom line - of 100 positive PCR results, only about 5 or less are genuine active infections.

Now here’s the next step.

Supposedly, US deaths are approaching 400k. So get hit by a train but had a positive PCR test last month - that’s counted as a rona death.

BUT - 90% or so of those positive PCR tests are FALSE.

True USA rona deaths are most likely less than 40k.

Today I discovered that my sister’s family has been in quarantine on the down-low - her daughter had a positive PCR test about 5 days ago. No symptoms whatsoever - literally NONE for anyone in the household.

Editing will mess up the post. Correction:

1000 tests will yield 1 true positive and 10 false positives

BrocksSwockRanTrane_onShane -

![Baking Potato – Large – Each – FreshPoint Local](upload://osipnJIxzUxfYY3P7CN4PemvPPr.jpeg)

I found that disproportionately funny.

You must be a goddamn retard, what do you think leads people to go get a test in the first place?

1 Like
takedownandsub -

You must be a goddamn retard, what do you think leads people to go get a test in the first place?

lol, voted up!. I think we should have to give a basic "general knowledge" test before you can get a SN on this site....

Gentlemen, you prove my point:

“They have nothing. Ad hominem and obfuscation only.”

Check out the right-in-your-face lies direct from the horses’ mouths!:

I don't know where to start... :)