Dr. Michael Yeadon Disagrees with OG doc mataleo1

blood fist -
baj54 - 
Paperboy2000 -
baj54 - 
Paperboy2000 - 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.

You do realize that just because your not exhibiting symptoms that you can still transfer the virus? That's the whole ordeal with this virus. People could have it and not show any symptoms but still transmit it to someone else who might be more susceptible to it. At least that was my understanding of it. 


According to a former V.P. and Chief Science Officer for Pfizer Global Research, who left in 2011 to found a biotech firm and sold it to Novartis,

asymptomatic transmission is false. There is presymptomatic transmission, but that would only last for maybe a day or two before symptoms presented.

Your literally looking for a needle in a haystack in terms of medical opinion in this virus. It's great that you found ONE. I'm sure the guy who left the company that is now manufacturing a vaccine to create his own company and then sell said company to another competing company isnt buased all. Absolutely no way he wouldnt, I dont know, try to raise the value of a company he holds stock in? No chance at all am I right? 


I dont know enough to say if he is wrong or right but if your looking for an unbiased opinion on the virus you might probably want to do a bit more research and not put all your eggs in this guys basket. 


Why do you think mataleo1 may not be a reliable source? or possibly even have some kind of agenda?

What would he stand to gain by putting in large amounts of time on here just to mislead people?



Whoa whoa whoa I was talking about the Dr. Quack that OP posted. I have nothing but hespect for the good doctor mataleo1. In fact I enjoy his honest opinions about the virus and the situations it has caused. 


 

1 Like

blood fist - 
Tahiti Bo - 
blood fist - 
Paperboy2000 - 
blood fist - 
Paperboy2000 - 
mataleo1 - 

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


Please lay out the errors in order, I am all eyes and ears.

So am I..

blood fist, I believe you are interested in truth.

How about your feedback?:

Corona Drama Exposed by Dr. Michael Yeadon:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRFi1OqQslo

Face Mask Timeline:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/bT8NaTSEBFdZ/

Thanks paperboy, but I mostly came to observe.

I don't want to mess up the flow of the thread.

if it's about the mask screw up: my guess that Fauci messed up big time by not recommending them much sooner. He should have lost his job for that imo. But I don't think it was done intentionally. Covid is a weird, tricky virus that has fooled a lot of people in a lot of countries.

"How about your feedback?"

^I'll give a little feedback as thread progresses, but very little. Mostly want to observe.

Thank you for being polite.






The mask issue is actually really not about "science"... it is about the uncertainty inherent in MOST of science.... fact is: they do not really know the answer (as is the case in most complex matters). So the issue really is: What should the policy be if the answer is not clear? - The key calculus and judgements here are really not pure I believe in science ... they are about risk management.

Most doctors I know will admit they don't have all the answers. Nobody does.

I wear a mask because it makes sense to me. But I know it does not completely protect me. I can't add anything to that, except that the number of cases keep shooting up in spite of the masks. So that says something. But I'm not sure what it says.


Agree completely.

It is really dishonest 95% of the time to run around virtue signalling and waving those I believe in Science front yard signs.

Complete bullshit to STIFLE debate and tell OTHER PEOPLE they are not entitled to a decision or point of view, only scientists are... when Science doesn't have an answer to these issues. And what we are looking for is not an "answer" anyway, it is a judgment about WHAT to do or implement in a context of uncertainty.

Sorry.. I ran a company with thousands of PhDs and scientists, just because they are great in the lab doesn't mean they are great decision makers.

mataleo1 - 

Not going to address every statement. And will try to avoid getting too technical here, but if you really want a discussion about tests, you need to understand the definitions of the following terms: sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, negative predictive value. Otherwise, this is all a little pointless. Also, I'd prefer to have replies posted on the AMA thread, as I try not to subscribe to too many threads and I might miss pertinent comments. I'm definitely not a lab expert (there are a few here). Also, neither I nor the author are authorities on COVID. But I do work closely with people who I'd put top of the food chain. Including my wife.

Simply put:
-First there is nothing inherently wrong with scientists disagreeing, especially with data and science evolving quickly
-He's a lockdown sceptic. As I am.
-As the author himself acknowledges, "It is when the amount of disease, its so-called prevalence, is low that any amount of a false positive rate can be a major problem. ». That much is true. The diagnostic utility of any test depends on the population you use it on. For example, if I do a pregnancy test blindly on a population at large (old and young, female and males), the rate of false positives will be very different compared to a targeted population that has typical symptoms (women in their 20-40s who no longer have their periods). If you use a highly specific PCR test (with high number of cycles) as a wide screening measure, you're going to get a lot more false positives than in patients with flu-like symptoms who were recently in contact with a COVID patient. Other example, if I use the PCR test in patients who got COVID 3 weeks ago, nearly ALL of them will test positive, even if technically, they are neither contagious nor sick. You therefore get 100% false positives in that scenario. If I perform the test in patients who were negative a week ago and who develop fever and temperature after a COVID contact, the false positive rate will be close to 0%. Nevertheless, the rate of false positive is certainly nowhere near 90%, as he claims.
-A « positive » from a rapid antigen test has value (it means you're really positive). The same way that a « negative » value from a PCR test (with cycles above 35) means you're really negative. However, you'll have more false negatives from a rapid test as you'll have more false positives from the usual PCR test
-"Its important to understand that, according to the infectious disease specialists I've spoken to, the word 'case' has to mean more than merely the presence of some foreign organism. It must present signs (things medics notice) and symptoms (things you notice). And in most so-called cases, those testing positive had no signs or symptoms of illness at all." If you've followed any of my threads, my definition of a second wave relies on « hospitalizations and deaths numbers » rather than « number of cases. » And that's exactly what we're seeing. There is no doubt that the current situation discredits any claims that the pandemic is over.
-«The antigen test, I believe, is faster, cheaper, much more accurate » This is entirely wrong. calculation of accuracy is the following : (TP + TN)/(TP + TN + FP + FN). The amount of false negatives from rapid tests is way larger than the number of false negatives from PCRs.

Basically, I believe the author misinterprets the difference between diagnostic testing, screening testing, and surveillance testing. But I don't disagree with everything he says.


Exactly to my point above.

And not surprising that even medical experts don't understand the difference.

Tahiti Bo - 
mataleo1 - 

Not going to address every statement. And will try to avoid getting too technical here, but if you really want a discussion about tests, you need to understand the definitions of the following terms: sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, negative predictive value. Otherwise, this is all a little pointless. Also, I'd prefer to have replies posted on the AMA thread, as I try not to subscribe to too many threads and I might miss pertinent comments. I'm definitely not a lab expert (there are a few here). Also, neither I nor the author are authorities on COVID. But I do work closely with people who I'd put top of the food chain. Including my wife.

Simply put:
-First there is nothing inherently wrong with scientists disagreeing, especially with data and science evolving quickly
-He's a lockdown sceptic. As I am.
-As the author himself acknowledges, "It is when the amount of disease, its so-called prevalence, is low that any amount of a false positive rate can be a major problem. ». That much is true. The diagnostic utility of any test depends on the population you use it on. For example, if I do a pregnancy test blindly on a population at large (old and young, female and males), the rate of false positives will be very different compared to a targeted population that has typical symptoms (women in their 20-40s who no longer have their periods). If you use a highly specific PCR test (with high number of cycles) as a wide screening measure, you're going to get a lot more false positives than in patients with flu-like symptoms who were recently in contact with a COVID patient. Other example, if I use the PCR test in patients who got COVID 3 weeks ago, nearly ALL of them will test positive, even if technically, they are neither contagious nor sick. You therefore get 100% false positives in that scenario. If I perform the test in patients who were negative a week ago and who develop fever and temperature after a COVID contact, the false positive rate will be close to 0%. Nevertheless, the rate of false positive is certainly nowhere near 90%, as he claims.
-A « positive » from a rapid antigen test has value (it means you're really positive). The same way that a « negative » value from a PCR test (with cycles above 35) means you're really negative. However, you'll have more false negatives from a rapid test as you'll have more false positives from the usual PCR test
-"Its important to understand that, according to the infectious disease specialists I've spoken to, the word 'case' has to mean more than merely the presence of some foreign organism. It must present signs (things medics notice) and symptoms (things you notice). And in most so-called cases, those testing positive had no signs or symptoms of illness at all." If you've followed any of my threads, my definition of a second wave relies on « hospitalizations and deaths numbers » rather than « number of cases. » And that's exactly what we're seeing. There is no doubt that the current situation discredits any claims that the pandemic is over.
-«The antigen test, I believe, is faster, cheaper, much more accurate » This is entirely wrong. calculation of accuracy is the following : (TP + TN)/(TP + TN + FP + FN). The amount of false negatives from rapid tests is way larger than the number of false negatives from PCRs.

Basically, I believe the author misinterprets the difference between diagnostic testing, screening testing, and surveillance testing. But I don't disagree with everything he says.


Exactly to my point above.

And not surprising that even medical experts don't understand the difference.

Ha! We agree then :)

I appreciate the response mataleo. First, I will separate out the antigen test, because that was my own comment, not the doc's. I do understand the false negatives for the antigen test, which will come when pre-symptomatic. The suggested solution I have seen is to repeat the antigen test in the next day or two to capture the positive when the symptoms arrive, and avoid the false negatives of the PCR. Any dispute with this?

As to what the doc said - there was very little disagreement from you - there are really only 2 points:

1. He follows your logic exactly on the 90% false positive, and arrives at that number from the testing being extended to the general population and essentially mirroring a random test rather than limited to a group showing symptoms where the false positive rate would be much lower.

2. The current situation discrediting claims the pandemic is over - his assertion here is that the current situation is the final stage of the virus making its way through the population rather than being a renewed second wave. The verdict here should reveal itself soon with whether arrows point up or down into the spring.

Your final conclusion about misinterpreting the testing is coming from mixing my comments on antigen with his comments on PCR - I can see how you wouldn't have caught that the antigen comment was mine.

So I think this was a good exchange which added to my knowledge, and can add to others' knowledge depending on how they receive it. The differences between you two are not large at all. Or correct me if I am wrong on that.

And from baj - the Dr. Quack comment is preposterous and I am certain that mataleo would agree with that.

mataleo1 - 
Tahiti Bo - 
mataleo1 - 

Not going to address every statement. And will try to avoid getting too technical here, but if you really want a discussion about tests, you need to understand the definitions of the following terms: sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, negative predictive value. Otherwise, this is all a little pointless. Also, I'd prefer to have replies posted on the AMA thread, as I try not to subscribe to too many threads and I might miss pertinent comments. I'm definitely not a lab expert (there are a few here). Also, neither I nor the author are authorities on COVID. But I do work closely with people who I'd put top of the food chain. Including my wife.

Simply put:
-First there is nothing inherently wrong with scientists disagreeing, especially with data and science evolving quickly
-He's a lockdown sceptic. As I am.
-As the author himself acknowledges, "It is when the amount of disease, its so-called prevalence, is low that any amount of a false positive rate can be a major problem. ». That much is true. The diagnostic utility of any test depends on the population you use it on. For example, if I do a pregnancy test blindly on a population at large (old and young, female and males), the rate of false positives will be very different compared to a targeted population that has typical symptoms (women in their 20-40s who no longer have their periods). If you use a highly specific PCR test (with high number of cycles) as a wide screening measure, you're going to get a lot more false positives than in patients with flu-like symptoms who were recently in contact with a COVID patient. Other example, if I use the PCR test in patients who got COVID 3 weeks ago, nearly ALL of them will test positive, even if technically, they are neither contagious nor sick. You therefore get 100% false positives in that scenario. If I perform the test in patients who were negative a week ago and who develop fever and temperature after a COVID contact, the false positive rate will be close to 0%. Nevertheless, the rate of false positive is certainly nowhere near 90%, as he claims.
-A « positive » from a rapid antigen test has value (it means you're really positive). The same way that a « negative » value from a PCR test (with cycles above 35) means you're really negative. However, you'll have more false negatives from a rapid test as you'll have more false positives from the usual PCR test
-"Its important to understand that, according to the infectious disease specialists I've spoken to, the word 'case' has to mean more than merely the presence of some foreign organism. It must present signs (things medics notice) and symptoms (things you notice). And in most so-called cases, those testing positive had no signs or symptoms of illness at all." If you've followed any of my threads, my definition of a second wave relies on « hospitalizations and deaths numbers » rather than « number of cases. » And that's exactly what we're seeing. There is no doubt that the current situation discredits any claims that the pandemic is over.
-«The antigen test, I believe, is faster, cheaper, much more accurate » This is entirely wrong. calculation of accuracy is the following : (TP + TN)/(TP + TN + FP + FN). The amount of false negatives from rapid tests is way larger than the number of false negatives from PCRs.

Basically, I believe the author misinterprets the difference between diagnostic testing, screening testing, and surveillance testing. But I don't disagree with everything he says.


Exactly to my point above.

And not surprising that even medical experts don't understand the difference.

Ha! We agree then :)


Oh yes.

My company makes, or is developing, all 3 types for covid... even folks internally here get messed up along the way.

"Your literally looking for a needle in a haystack in terms of medical opinion in this virus. It's great that you found ONE"

This is just false.

I love how the deniers deny any medical authority that goes against their belief but if they give any guidance supporting their belief, they cite the hell of it!

The huge practical problem that we (the general pop) face, is the widespread false info and misrepresentation. This quote was taken from an MSN article:

"So, if you want to get the most reliable test results, then be sure to have a PCR deep nasal test done. You can be 99 percent confident that the results are accurate."

I'm sure we can all agree that that quote is a case of lying with statistics. A 1% false positive rate absolutely does not lead to the conclusion that "You can be 99 percent confident that the results are accurate".

Paperboy2000 - I appreciate the response mataleo. First, I will separate out the antigen test, because that was my own comment, not the doc's. I do understand the false negatives for the antigen test, which will come when pre-symptomatic. The suggested solution I have seen is to repeat the antigen test in the next day or two to capture the positive when the symptoms arrive, and avoid the false negatives of the PCR. Any dispute with this?

As to what the doc said - there was very little disagreement from you - there are really only 2 points:

1. He follows your logic exactly on the 90% false positive, and arrives at that number from the testing being extended to the general population and essentially mirroring a random test rather than limited to a group showing symptoms where the false positive rate would be much lower.

2. The current situation discrediting claims the pandemic is over - his assertion here is that the current situation is the final stage of the virus making its way through the population rather than being a renewed second wave. The verdict here should reveal itself soon with whether arrows point up or down into the spring.

Your final conclusion about misinterpreting the testing is coming from mixing my comments on antigen with his comments on PCR - I can see how you wouldn't have caught that the antigen comment was mine.

So I think this was a good exchange which added to my knowledge, and can add to others' knowledge depending on how they receive it. The differences between you two are not large at all. Or correct me if I am wrong on that.

I know the antigen comment was yours :)

Again, I do agree with some of his points.

Regarding your comment, it depends what you want. To rule out COVID (for example, to decide if you can admit a patient on a non-COVID floor), the PCR test is best. Because if you are negative from a PCR, then you 100% are negative. That's why I would never use an antigen test in that scenario: you might admit a false negative on a non COVID floor, which is a catastrophe.

As to his second point, he's wrong in my opinion. There definitely is a second wave, again based on hospitalized cases. Remember that his article was written in September. At that time, cases were increasing although there was no impact on hospital admissions. But if you use any of the important metrics (hospitalizations, deaths, ventilation) then there is a very clear 2-wave pattern in most areas. We had literally had no cases from June to September.

Paperboy2000 - The huge practical problem that we (the general pop) face, is the widespread false info and misrepresentation. This quote was taken from an MSN article:

"So, if you want to get the most reliable test results, then be sure to have a PCR deep nasal test done. You can be 99 percent confident that the results are accurate."

I'm sure we can all agree that that quote is a case of lying with statistics. A 1% false positive rate absolutely does not lead to the conclusion that "You can be 99 percent confident that the results are accurate".

This can definitely be true. Or not.

If authorities keep on testing patients AFTER an initial COVID diagnosis, this is useless.

Patient selection. I cannot state this enough.

I always deal with this in the ER.

Case in point, example I had yesterday: a patient comes in short of breath with obvious signs and symptoms of a pulmonary emboli. The ER physician asks for a poor test (VQ scan). This was the discussion:

Me: "Why did you ask for that test?"
ER: "Because it looks like he has a pulmonary emboli!!!"
Me: "What will you do if the test is positive?"
ER: "Treat as a pulmonary emboli"
Me: "What will you do if the test is negative?"
ER: "Treat as a pulmonary emboli, as it is probably a false negative"
Me: "So regardless of the test, you will treat as a pulmonary emboli?"
ER: "Correct"
Me: "So why did you do the test if it doesn't change your management?"
ER: "......"

baj54 -
blood fist -
baj54 - 
Paperboy2000 -
baj54 - 
Paperboy2000 - 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.

You do realize that just because your not exhibiting symptoms that you can still transfer the virus? That's the whole ordeal with this virus. People could have it and not show any symptoms but still transmit it to someone else who might be more susceptible to it. At least that was my understanding of it. 


According to a former V.P. and Chief Science Officer for Pfizer Global Research, who left in 2011 to found a biotech firm and sold it to Novartis,

asymptomatic transmission is false. There is presymptomatic transmission, but that would only last for maybe a day or two before symptoms presented.

Your literally looking for a needle in a haystack in terms of medical opinion in this virus. It's great that you found ONE. I'm sure the guy who left the company that is now manufacturing a vaccine to create his own company and then sell said company to another competing company isnt buased all. Absolutely no way he wouldnt, I dont know, try to raise the value of a company he holds stock in? No chance at all am I right? 


I dont know enough to say if he is wrong or right but if your looking for an unbiased opinion on the virus you might probably want to do a bit more research and not put all your eggs in this guys basket. 


Why do you think mataleo1 may not be a reliable source? or possibly even have some kind of agenda?

What would he stand to gain by putting in large amounts of time on here just to mislead people?



Whoa whoa whoa I was talking about the Dr. Quack that OP posted. I have nothing but hespect for the good doctor mataleo1. In fact I enjoy his honest opinions about the virus and the situations it has caused. 


 

Okay. Sorry about the mix up.


 

mataleo1 - 
Paperboy2000 - The huge practical problem that we (the general pop) face, is the widespread false info and misrepresentation. This quote was taken from an MSN article:

"So, if you want to get the most reliable test results, then be sure to have a PCR deep nasal test done. You can be 99 percent confident that the results are accurate."

I'm sure we can all agree that that quote is a case of lying with statistics. A 1% false positive rate absolutely does not lead to the conclusion that "You can be 99 percent confident that the results are accurate".

This can definitely be true. Or not.

If authorities keep on testing patients AFTER an initial COVID diagnosis, this is useless.

Patient selection. I cannot state this enough.

I always deal with this in the ER.

Case in point, example I had yesterday: a patient comes in short of breath with obvious signs and symptoms of a pulmonary emboli. The ER physician asks for a poor test (VQ scan). This was the discussion:

Me: "Why did you ask for that test?"
ER: "Because it looks like he has a pulmonary emboli!!!"
Me: "What will you do if the test is positive?"
ER: "Treat as a pulmonary emboli"
Me: "What will you do if the test is negative?"
ER: "Treat as a pulmonary emboli, as it is probably a false negative"
Me: "So regardless of the test, you will treat as a pulmonary emboli?"
ER: "Correct"
Me: "So why did you do the test if it doesn't change your management?"
ER: "......"


Regarding the exact quote presented, I'm sure you would agree that an asymptomatic test is much more likely to produce a false positive than a true positive. Like my niece :)

Therefore, "You can be 99 percent confident that the results are accurate" is lying with statistics, and this is a widespread problem.

1 Like

mataleo, I am sure you want to wrap this up, but did you want to comment on WHO's consistent guidance on face masks, which has been negative to neutral. Most recently:

WHO guidance Dec 1st 2020 - LIMITED AND INCONSISTENT SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MASKING

1 Like

Bumping this thread for sanity.

1 Like
1 Like