Here’s the problem, we are testing people for any strain of a Coronavirus. Not specifically for COVID-19. There are no reliable tests for a specific COVID-19 virus.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/manufactured-pandemic-testing-people-any-strain-coronavirus-not-specifically-covid-19/5707781
The common cold is not a specific virus, but many of them are a coronavirus. That means many counted as the SARS2 virus are actually the common cold or flu.
@metal-brain saidNo, no and no.
Here’s the problem, we are testing people for any strain of a Coronavirus. Not specifically for COVID-19. There are no reliable tests for a specific COVID-19 virus.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/manufactured-pandemic-testing-people-any-strain-coronavirus-not-specifically-covid-19/5707781
The common cold is not a specific virus, but many of them are a coronavirus. That means many counted as the SARS2 virus are actually the common cold or flu.
Where the hell are you digging up crap like this?
The corona tests are Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests.
They detect the RNA of a virus (so specifically “which” virus; i.e. they’re searching for active SARS-CoV-2 hallmarks).
Now, nobody’s saying the tests are 100% accurate. I believe the accuracy is about 85%. Sometimes the RNA just doesn’t get detected.
But they do not show non SARS-CoV-2 RNA (they could, but it’s not the trigger that’s being looked for, so all non SARS-CoV-2 results are discarded).
And the flu (influenza) is not accidentally counted in the bloody results.
Seriously man, you Americans come away with the most chronic paranoid stupidity.
EDIT:
I checked your link.
It’s a report from March by one Julian Rose, supposedly a text from some scientist who wishes to remain anonymous.
Here’s the scientific rebuttal:
https://sciencefeedback.co/claimreview/[WORD TOO LONG]/
Your link, your thread title and your conclusions are misleading and wrong.
29 Jun 20
@shavixmir saidI wouldn't have wasted my energy shav.
Where the hell are you digging up crap like this?
Your link, your thread title and your conclusions are misleading and wrong.
globalresearch
conspiracy level : Tin Foil Hat
pseudo-sci level: Strong
factual reporting: LOW
Overall, we rate GlobalResearch a Tin Foil Hat Conspiracy and
Strong Pseudoscience website based on the promotion of unproven
information such as the dangers of Vaccines and 9-11 as a false flag operation.
For example, GR promotes anti-vaccination propaganda, 9-11 as a
false flag operation, GMO’s are harmful, and Chemtrails. There are
so many more, this is just the tip of the iceberg.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/global-research/
@metal-brain saidHere’s the problem, we are testing people for any strain of a Coronavirus.
Here’s the problem, we are testing people for any strain of a Coronavirus. Not specifically for COVID-19. There are no reliable tests for a specific COVID-19 virus.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/manufactured-pandemic-testing-people-any-strain-coronavirus-not-specifically-covid-19/5707781
The common cold is not a specific virus, but many of them are a coronavirus. That means many counted as the SARS2 virus are actually the common cold or flu.
No, that's not the problem. The real problem is we have too many self appointed experts like you, who think they know something about medicine dispensing crackpot advise. This is much like the idiot in the White House who suggested ingesting Clorox or shoving a flashlight up your wazzu and zapping yourself with UV rays was the answer. Medical degrees are there for a reason skippy, and you don't have one, so please - don't put any more of your ignorance on display than you already have. 🙄
29 Jun 20
@wolfgang59 saidOh wow.
I wouldn't have wasted my energy shav.
globalresearch
conspiracy level : Tin Foil Hat
pseudo-sci level: Strong
factual reporting: LOW
Overall, we rate GlobalResearch a Tin Foil Hat Conspiracy and
Strong Pseudoscience website based on the promotion of unproven
information such as the dangers of Vaccines and 9-11 as a false flag operation.
For example, GR pro ...[text shortened]... many more, this is just the tip of the iceberg.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/global-research/
I’d never heard of GR before.
Well, the next time Metal Brain (I feel his name needs the pish taken out of it somehow) posts anything, I’ll go straight for my copy&paste “moron; retard” answer.
Save myself the grief of thinking!
Thanks!
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147484
29 Jun 20
@wolfgang59 saidyour game has gotten old...
I wouldn't have wasted my energy shav.
globalresearch
conspiracy level : Tin Foil Hat
pseudo-sci level: Strong
factual reporting: LOW
Overall, we rate GlobalResearch a Tin Foil Hat Conspiracy and
Strong Pseudoscience website based on the promotion of unproven
information such as the dangers of Vaccines and 9-11 as a false flag operation.
For example, GR pro ...[text shortened]... many more, this is just the tip of the iceberg.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/global-research/
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2013/05/28/study-finds-fact-checkers-biased-against-republicans
29 Jun 20
@shavixmir saidSo you post a website nobody has heard of and claim that is proof of something? The irony is that you reject a website you deem not credible for another website that is not credible.
No, no and no.
Where the hell are you digging up crap like this?
The corona tests are Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests.
They detect the RNA of a virus (so specifically “which” virus; i.e. they’re searching for active SARS-CoV-2 hallmarks).
Now, nobody’s saying the tests are 100% accurate. I believe the accuracy is about 85%. Sometimes the RNA just doesn’t get ...[text shortened]... al-article-and-video/
Your link, your thread title and your conclusions are misleading and wrong.
Even if you are right you admit tests only have an 85% accuracy. That is enough margin of error to doubt official numbers.
What makes you think you are credible at all. You never replied to my rebuttal on my "Lying Fauci" thread. You were wrong there, why should anybody think it is any different here? You are always shooting your mouth off before knowing the facts. Why should I think you have learned anything since?
30 Jun 20
From the link below:
"Many studies and articles by recognized experts in their field, including some from prestigious universities, have shown the unreliability of RT-PCR, which can give false positive or false negative results or are disrupted by a lot of elements at all stages of its technique"
https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-test-set-another-brick-in-the-covid-19-disinformation-game-plan/5717040
30 Jun 20
@mott-the-hoople saidThere's a reason for that, nimrod.
your game has gotten old...
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2013/05/28/study-finds-fact-checkers-biased-against-republicans
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147484
30 Jun 20
@metal-brain saidhe is an expert at masturbation 😳
So you post a website nobody has heard of and claim that is proof of something? The irony is that you reject a website you deem not credible for another website that is not credible.
Even if you are right you admit tests only have an 85% accuracy. That is enough margin of error to doubt official numbers.
What makes you think you are credible at all. You never replie ...[text shortened]... hooting your mouth off before knowing the facts. Why should I think you have learned anything since?
30 Jun 20
@Mott-The-Hoople
And I am QUITE sure you get your orders from Russia, to sow discord in the US to the best of your limited ability.
30 Jun 20
@metal-brain saidI posted a website.
So you post a website nobody has heard of and claim that is proof of something? The irony is that you reject a website you deem not credible for another website that is not credible.
Even if you are right you admit tests only have an 85% accuracy. That is enough margin of error to doubt official numbers.
What makes you think you are credible at all. You never replie ...[text shortened]... hooting your mouth off before knowing the facts. Why should I think you have learned anything since?
You can find the answers on any website devoted to the matters of testing and virusses.
The 15% of tests that are wrong, do not show a wrong disease, they fail to recognise the hallmarks of the disease they’re looking for. There are many reasons this can happen.
Look into it.
If I failed to address any of your previous posts, it’s because either I didn’t see your post, I didn’t think it was responding to or I just didn’t have time.
30 Jun 20
@shavixmir saidI looked into it. The website you posted did not provide any proof of it's claims. Here is an example.
I posted a website.
You can find the answers on any website devoted to the matters of testing and virusses.
The 15% of tests that are wrong, do not show a wrong disease, they fail to recognise the hallmarks of the disease they’re looking for. There are many reasons this can happen.
Look into it.
If I failed to address any of your previous posts, it’s because either I didn’t see your post, I didn’t think it was responding to or I just didn’t have time.
https://di.uq.edu.au/community-and-alumni/sparq-ed/sparq-ed-services/polymerase-chain-reaction-pcr
That link proves nothing. You provided a website that is critical of another website (that I posted) for not providing a source of information to back up the claim. Your website does exactly the same thing, except they provide links that do NOT prove what they claim.
That is even worse than not providing a source of information. At least the website I posted doesn't post a source of information that isn't a source of proof of their claim at all. Yours does exactly that. That is overt deception!
Instead of posting an obscure website that nobody has heard of and doesn't prove anything but tries to trick you into believing they did by posting bogus sources of info, try actually proving something with actual proof.
30 Jun 20
@metal-brain said🙄
I looked into it. The website you posted did not provide any proof of it's claims. Here is an example.
https://di.uq.edu.au/community-and-alumni/sparq-ed/sparq-ed-services/polymerase-chain-reaction-pcr
That link proves nothing. You provided a website that is critical of another website (that I posted) for not providing a source of information to back up the claim. Y ...[text shortened]... lieving they did by posting bogus sources of info, try actually proving something with actual proof.
Go back into your flat planet bubble and leave humanity alone; find another name dor the forum, one that doesn’t refer to thinking. That’s all I’ve got to add.
Or as I responded earlier in this thread:
Well, the next time Metal Brain (I feel his name needs the pish taken out of it somehow) posts anything, I’ll go straight for my copy&paste “moron; retard” answer.
Save myself the grief of thinking!