Kevin Boyle – No One To Vote For July 2, 2020
I tried to post a video talk on YouTube and Brighteon yesterday. Both refused to process the file. I’m guessing that the auto-subtitle facility can scan content in seconds, subject it to a pre-programmed censorship algorithm and make the decision automatically without the need for individual human intervention. 24 hours after uploading the same file to BitChute the video is still “processing”.
The main point covered in the video was an analysis (using official published data relating to accuracy of the tests) of the usefulness of the PCR test that is used to identify people with COVID-19.
Given that no one has ever demonstrated the existence within a human body of the “virus” that this test claims to detect, or any connection between the detected RNA and the [imaginary] virus, it is hard to fathom how any meaningful “accuracy” can be claimed. The alleged “accuracy” can only be as fictitious as the virus itself.
Nonetheless … official is official and I will work with officialdom’s published numbers; those that I’ve been able to find anyway. The search was tricky, indicating that real scientists had plenty of problems coming up with any kind of meaningful numbers at all.
The SENSITIVITY of the PCR-test is the number of people with COVID the test claims to accurately identify. The claimed sensitivity varies from about 70% to 90%, depending on the source. 70% sensitivity means that 7 out of 10 people who have COVID will be identified as ‘positive’ by the test.
The SPECIFICITY of the test is the percentage of people who DON’T have COVID who are accurately identified. The claimed specificity varies from about 95% to 99% accuracy. The very significant point to recognise here is that between one and five percent of testees who don’t have the virus will test positive for COVID.
Taking a period in the UK (May 11-24th ) when the official estimated percentage of people with COVID was 0.24%, let us see how these figures play out if (this number doesn’t affect % outcomes) 100,000 people were tested at that time.
0.24% of 100,000 people is 240 so at this time 240 people (of the 100,000) actually had COVID-19
Taking the highest quoted accuracies (SENSITIVITY 90%, SPECIFICITY 99%)
We see that 0.9 x 240 = 216 would test positive, 24 would be missed (negative result).
Of the 99,760 who do not have COVID, 1% will test positive. That is about 997 people.
So that total number of positive tests is 216 + 997 = 1213 people identified as having COVID
1213/240 = 5.05 …
THE NUMBER OF POSITIVE TEST RESULTS IS 5 TIMES THE NUMBER THAT “HAVE” THE VIRUS.
So, if you take the test and are identified as COVID positive there is, USING THEIR OWN BEST ESTIMATE, only a one-in-five chance that you are really ‘infected’ (AS YOU WILL HAVE JUST BEEN INFORMED).
Worth knowing, don’t you think? Just as well there are all those “asymptomatic” COVID carriers out there to make sense of this pantomime. It is hard not to laugh. Are you starting to get an idea of the absolute bullsh*t we are dealing with here?
Taking the lowest quoted accuracies (SENSITIVITY 70%, SPECIFICITY 95%)
There are still 240 people with COVID.
0.7 x 240 = 168 would test positive, 72 missed (negative result)
5% of negatives test positive, i.e. 0,05 x 99760 = 4988 positives
So, the total number of positive tests is 168 + 4988 = 5156 people identified as having COVID. 5156/240 = 21.5 !!!
THE NUMBER OF POSITIVE TEST RESULTS IS MORE THAN 20 TIMES THE NUMBER THAT “HAVE” THE VIRUS.
Therefore, if “accuracy” is the minimum quoted, for a person who is told they have tested positive for COVID there is less than one chance in twenty that you are infected with the virus you have JUST BEEN INFORMED is in your body.
Whatever COVID actually is (there is zero proof for causation by virus) it is, given the above, fair to say that there is poor correlation between PCR test results and this world-altering pandemic/illness.
If ABSOLUTE NONSENSE can model an illness better than SCIENCE perhaps the public will begin to realise that this SO-CALLED-SCIENCE is ABSOLUTE NONSENSE.
Finally I recommend interviews with Ellis Medavoy linked here. He was one of the ‘propaganda masters’ who ran the AIDS scam and what he says is breathtaking. A must-read.
Medavoy was a wicked so-and-so whose contempt for humanity allowed him to make a good living manufacturing lies that have killed untold thousands. He decided to “spill the beans” after a total stranger saved the life of a loved one after a car accident. He saw a goodness in humanity that he had brainwashed himself into believing did not exist. This interview is a man trying to make amends … maybe trying to save his own soul.
Anyway, having read Medavoy, it is easy to see how the Leicester spike/surge and local lockdown, as the next stage of this “live exercise”, could be manufactured. All you need is one person at the top in the lab carrying out the tests. Testing is carried out honestly but samples are coded. No one knows the source except for the boss with the data. He can easily say, regarding the latest batch, “Oh look, nearly all the positives are in Leicester”.
That’s all it would take.