Impact of the recently identified 'false negative' PCR Tests from the Wolverhampton laboratory

DrewJ said

Richard Winn said

In terms of the laboratory failures, I find it very hard to understand how it could have gone undetected for so long if proper QC procedures were in place and followed. It simply shouldn't have been possible to remain undetected, even if it took a while to isolate a cause. Some of this could be the National shortage of registered Biomedical Scientists and the huge recruitment issues that have gradually worsened over the past 10-15 years. There must also be a significant management and governance failure.

Quite amazing that any lab carrying out such critical work can be doing so with no accreditation in place. The level of record keeping for UKAS is quite significant so if the lab have no accreditation in place it would suggest that their process and procedures were not up to those standards which are the expected level for a testing laboratory. It sounds from the reports that the lab were only operating from the start of September but I'm not sure if that is correct.

It would suggest they were owned by a Tory donor….

Rich Davis said

...

All these firms are on the "approved list" too and seem to be set up by former government ministers within a few months of all that testing going live. I guess there's always money to be made from peoples suffering and fear.

This firm was declared by a government spokesman to have been accredited, but on inspection turned out not to have been.

Edited by MidgePhoto

The Lab is run by Immensa Health Clinic, CEO is Andrea Riposati. The company existed for less than 3 months, had no employees and £100 in assets when it was awarded a £120m contract by the Tories in Oct 2020

https://mobile.twitter.com/damiensbs/status/1448926670648496130

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/pcr-covid-tests-results-wrong-private-lab-contract-without-normal-tendering-process-1251056

"consequences of the 43,00 false negatives were estimated to have resulted in 'upwards of' 200,000 addditional infections over what would have been expected to have happened had these lab errors not taken place (and this number continues to grow). It goes on to suggest some 500 to 1,000 deaths could have resulted from the errors made in the Laboratory."

The best case for the owners and instigators there is that one or more families who had a death come after them through the civil legal system, seeking damages for negligence leading to death.

I suppose they'll turn out not to be insured, and any assets to be in jurisdictions we don't have access to, the EU, perhaps for one.

The other case, of direct action not through the legal systems, has the problem that once started it is hard to stop. 

MidgePhoto said

"consequences of the 43,00 false negatives were estimated to have resulted in 'upwards of' 200,000 addditional infections over what would have been expected to have happened had these lab errors not taken place (and this number continues to grow). It goes on to suggest some 500 to 1,000 deaths could have resulted from the errors made in the Laboratory."

The best case for the owners and instigators there is that one or more families who had a death come after them through the civil legal system, seeking damages for negligence leading to death.

I suppose they'll turn out not to be insured, and any assets to be in jurisdictions we don't have access to, the EU, perhaps for one.

The other case, of direct action not through the legal systems, has the problem that once started it is hard to stop. 

I imagine legally linking one particular death directly to an incorrect test result would be virtually impossible.

It's obvious BS.

14,000 preventable deaths since "freedom day"? 14,000 deaths is the approximate TOTAL of "COVID" deaths since July.

4months * 30 days * 120 deaths per day average = 14,400

Given that most COVID deaths are of people who have underlying conditions this is just more propaganda.

3RDi said

But hey, let's keep the fear porn alive and not mention all the millions of false positives that have enabled this entire charade?

And keep doing so.

Yeah and make sure, you guys keep on peddling the lies on these forums.

Pfff...

Σ OI Σ said

3RDi said

But hey, let's keep the fear porn alive and not mention all the millions of false positives that have enabled this entire charade?

And keep doing so.

Yeah and make sure, you guys keep on peddling the lies on these forums.

Pfff...

+1

You two would be a fine comedy act if it were not the case that your incredible ignorance and arrogance is likely to be killing people.

You are both beneath contempt.

GhostOfArielAdam said

Richard Winn said

One little bit of caution over attribution if deaths due to relaxing of restrictions. It is very difficult to assess overall mortality during a pandemic and it could just be deaths that may have occurred over a longer period if restrictions remained it can only be assessed properly retrospectively ?when it is also too late).

This will have brought these infections forwards to a time when people hadn't had their boosters, so it's fair to say that more people will die than if this failure hadn't occurred.

Hopefully these images will link... these are for where I live.

Unexplained drop-off in cases just after schools go back where you would expect rises  (first day September 7th specimen dates matches with 8th Sept being start of issues as UKHSA said)

Huge jump starts samples dated Oct 11, lab issues spotted October 12th

It stands out a bloody mile, and that's without all the anecdotal evidence.

I personally had a test which was later invalid (99% sure I didn't have Covid tho as I did loads of LFTs as well).

From 15 cases on Oct 10th to 218 5 days later....

I should add, we've only had 3 deaths in the delta wave in our area. The vaccinations really work (unless that data is crap as well).

 

Edited by GhostOfArielAdam

I think the deaths estimate was based on the policy differences than attributed to the error (although I could be wrong on that), which is where my cautionary comment came from. There is no doubt that the errors have caused deaths as well as increased infection rates.

That said, I don't think lack of boosters will have an impact. I think it is too early to start getting major drop-offs in immunity levels to have an effect. The boosters are a means of future prevention (some countries believe six months is too early).

YorVikIng said

-sp●●n- said

I saw a report on LFT tests, the false positive rate on that is 0.5%!! seems strange they have to PCR after a LFT positive result.

It might be because LFTs are typically done by untrained people left to their own devices, whereas PCRs are done by trained professionals, or at least with a trained professional shouting through a closed car-window.  That said, I fundamentally agree with you.

That is true in part, although it is more likely to get false negatives, than positives due to poor technique, although you can't rule out the misreading of the control line as a positive result by some. Partly it is for confirmation, even in labs it is common practice to confirm positive results of many tests (not just COVID), it is part of overall Governance and for accreditation. We confirm any positives from the point of care analysers, as they are less sensitive, but we have also had some issues in the early days from sourcing swabs that caused false positives, which was found to be more likely with the point of care analysers we were using for rapid results. The difference is, we spotted it within 24 hours and it was immediately reported to the MRHA. Another factor, is that by performing a PCR test, the results are going to be reported, while a LFD result may not.

DrewJ said

Richard Winn said

In terms of the laboratory failures, I find it very hard to understand how it could have gone undetected for so long if proper QC procedures were in place and followed. It simply shouldn't have been possible to remain undetected, even if it took a while to isolate a cause. Some of this could be the National shortage of registered Biomedical Scientists and the huge recruitment issues that have gradually worsened over the past 10-15 years. There must also be a significant management and governance failure.

Quite amazing that any lab carrying out such critical work can be doing so with no accreditation in place. The level of record keeping for UKAS is quite significant so if the lab have no accreditation in place it would suggest that their process and procedures were not up to those standards which are the expected level for a testing laboratory. It sounds from the reports that the lab were only operating from the start of September but I'm not sure if that is correct.

I haven't seen when the lab started operating, but UKAS are usually way behind. For example we were only inspected for our COVID service a couple of weeks ago, despite initially starting in April 2020. UKAS uses a lot of peer assessors and because of the general Biomedical Scientist shortage, many of the peer assessors are retired BMSs and only have so many inspections per year.

3RDi said

But hey, let's keep the fear porn alive and not mention all the millions of false positives that have enabled this entire charade?

And keep doing so.

Yeah and make sure, you guys keep on peddling the lies on these forums.

Pfff...

You really don't understand how laboratory testing works do you?

Jerome Razoir You, my contemptible friend, are either not able to think for yourself or you are most likely, part of the equation. Either way, contempt doesn't even come close to how I feel about people who are deliberately part of a disgusting, genocidal agenda.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself, but I doubt very much you would be capable of any such level of introspection.

mph said

MidgePhoto said

"The other case, of direct action not through the legal systems, has the problem that once started it is hard to stop. 

I imagine legally linking one particular death directly to an incorrect test result would be virtually impossible.

Proving,  on the balance of probabilities, that a death was not contributed to by (in the context of a case, "your") negligent act, where that negligence is neither in doubt nor defensible would be quite a challenge.

And the problem is, I think, with that party.

IANAL but we usually hear about ginger beer and snails around this point.

3RDi said

Jerome Razoir You, my contemptible friend, are either not able to think for yourself or you are most likely, part of the equation. Either way, contempt doesn't even come close to how I feel about people who are deliberately part of a disgusting, genocidal agenda.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself, but I doubt very much you would be capable of any such level of introspection.

Just before I retired from my last NHS job, my line manager commented to me, "God J, when I think of the number of lives you have saved in this place."
Can you even approach anything like that?
Remember, that was HER assessment. Not mine.

Explain how this global conspiracy has been managed?
Who is at the bottom of it?
Why is the conspiracy in place?
Who will benefit from it?

What should I be ashamed off?

I am able to think. I was taught to think by an extremely fine teacher and was encouraged for the whole of my childhood by a free-thinking father as well as that fine teacher.
I CAN think for myself and do not have a childish need to cleave to a nasty, petty little cult theory.

For the record, being held in contempt by the likes of you is a great compliment to the VAST majority of us.

The rules of this forum require citations, he made a blatant false statement, how long until he is banned for spreading false information?

-sp●●n- said

The rules of this forum require citations, he made a blatant false statement, how long until he is banned for spreading false information?

Not soon enough!

-sp●●n- So true to form. Which part is false? That there have been false positives that constantly drive this narrative? Or that these actions and those complicit are contemptable?

Or that you cry 'misinformation' every time someone challenges the prescribed narrative?

How many jabs will it take to go back to normal? To stop you wearing masks?

When does it end? And when do you draw a line in the sand?

You want to jab little kids and you think that's ok?

Which information have you found that supports this move? Chris Whitty deliberately ignored the medical advice he was given on this subject.

Which part of that is misinformation?

You sir, are part of that particular vehicle.