Share this page!

Prof Norman Fenton Profile picture
Twitter logo
26 May, 4 tweets, 2 min read
1. It's 16 days since we submitted a 250-word response to .@TheLancet pointing out the potentially serious limitation in the article they published (5 May) on Pfizer vaccine effectiveness. Response is still 'with editor'.
2. This is the response we wrote:
3. One caveat I should add is that I no longer believe ANY conclusions that are based on results of PCR testing are credible (and yes - this applies to conclusions in our own work where we relied on PCR test results).
4. And all the charts like these that everybody uses for the UK from coronavirus.data.gov.uk and for the world from worldometers.info/coronavirus/ are all essentially meaningless

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Prof Norman Fenton

Prof Norman Fenton Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @profnfenton

Prof Norman Fenton Profile picture
17 May
1. There was massive media coverage over the recent study (published in The Lancet) claiming the Pfizer vaccine was "95% effective". But there are issues with the study and its analysis which mean the claim is exaggerated. See:
probabilityandlaw.blogspot.com/2021/05/import…
2. The analysis fails to adjust the vaccine effectiveness calculation for different testing protocols for vaccinated and unvaccinated people. For example, asymptomatic unvaccinated people continued to be routinely tested while asymptomatic unvaccinated people were not.
3. The majority of the unvaccinated who PCR tested positive (and hence were classified as a 'case') were asymptomatic.
Read 4 tweets
Prof Norman Fenton Profile picture
26 Apr
1. More on the rarity of asymptomatics with #Covid-19. In the latest rounds of Covid testing of Premier league footballers and staff, there were 0 positives among 2,787 tested:
2. There have consistently been very low numbers of positives among footballers and staff, even though:
a) these are among the only people who have not had to obey social distancing rules;
b) they travel all over the country and Europe; and
c) they cover the whole of the UK.
3. Can anybody shed light on whether confirmatory testing of positive results is done for the footballers? I understand their samples are tested by The Doctors Laboratory, a private clinic (which has incidentally been accused of health and safety breaches tinyurl.com/44p468e7)
Read 5 tweets
Prof Norman Fenton Profile picture
24 Apr
View of today’s anti-lockdown march from Waterloo Bridge. This is 45 minutes after the front and I reckon at least an hour still to come.
Of course it was a lot more than anti-lockdown. The unifying theme was opposition to the Government using Covid to justify ever increasing infringements of civil liberties.
Here are more videos and photos from today
Read 7 tweets
Prof Norman Fenton Profile picture
16 Apr
1. Note the crucial difference in wording between eye-catching graphic which says "1 in 480 ...with COVID-19" and the simple text which says "1 in 480 ...tested positive for COVID-19". The graphic is the one which is the lie.
2. The most important lesson from our work analysing the Cambridge data is that, with a false positive rate of around 0.35% for asymptomatics, most asymptomatics who test positive do NOT have COVID-19.
3. In the period we looked at there were 43 positives from the pooled PCR testing, of which 36 were found to be false positives after a confirmatory tests.
Read 6 tweets
Prof Norman Fenton Profile picture
16 Apr
1. Remember the May 2020 headline story "Black people are 4 times more likely to die from Covid-19"? Our article on why these death risk statistics were misleading has been published today in the Royal Statistical Society's Significance Magazine
significancemagazine.com/701
2. The full back story describing the role of the Office for National Statistics is here: probabilityandlaw.blogspot.com/2021/04/revisi…
3. What is clear is that the original figures, which were so widely seized on by the media, were exaggerated - as we originally said. And even the current figures are also likely to be exaggerated by failure to account for demographic changes since the 2011 census.
Read 4 tweets
Prof Norman Fenton Profile picture
12 Apr
1. This is a thread about the barriers to academic publication for work that challenges the ‘official narrative’ on Covid-19 such as our work challenging the 'official' data about asymptomatics.
2. Our paper about the “1 in 3 people with Covid-19 have no symptoms” claim has already had 4093 reads since posted on researchgate on Friday, and 337,255 impressions to the tweet about it. The video summary has been watched by 7,530 people in 2 days. doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.…
3. But, this was the response we got less than 24 hours after we submitted it to the BMJ:
Read 11 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @profnfenton has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @profnfenton!

Read all threads by @profnfenton

:(