The Next Pandemic: SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19

[Kemp]

14 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

And your point other than Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump?  
 

You’re like a band that plays the same set every single night.  Even if their music is good it becomes boring and very predictable. 

 

You can criticize me. You can't refute what I've posted in this thread. 

And the band played on.

[keepthefaith]

1 hour ago, nkreed said:

I don't have an answer to your question. But I do have an observation on your insinuation (wether intentional or not). The insinuation I take from this is that the US should ban the right to assemble (since it does no good). We have enough constitutional trampling already, we don't need more.

 

Not insinuating that at all.  What I'm suggesting is that the collective time and energy invested in protests might be better spent directly engaging those in a position to make a difference.  Assemble in a prepared and organized fashion with the target audience.  A more businesslike approach might be more effective. 

[shoshin]

Domestic calls and violence: The calls are not increasing. 

 

https://penntoday.upenn.edu/news/data-driven-approach-understanding-domestic-violence-during-pandemic?fbclid=IwAR3Fxs9AqV4CS7XolsutfSodx20JqejXe9Qthsn-50zKo7HJi3kAbiAEKAk

 

“Service providers anticipate that hotline calls will increase when people start going back to work and school, that is, when it’s safe to call again.” 

[Buffalo_Gal]

 

 

 

[Tommy Callahan]

6%.

The CDC Comorbidities table is damning to the fear mongering media and politicians that pushed to shut down the economy while forcing people inside/wear mask.    the more one digs into the ICD - 10 codes on Table 3, the more one realizes the amount of effery that's been pushed as fact.  

 

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm

[Big Blitz]

Oh?

 

 

[B-Man]

 

[Buffalo Bills Fan]

@Magox

 

I think a week or so ago a person reinfection. Here is video makes much sense with t cell and b cell memory. 

 

 

[shoshin]

2 hours ago, Big Blitz said:

Oh?

 

 

 

Great article. Sweden did what we all should have done. Get ready, then get on with it. 

 

Though Sweden has a totally different culture than us and our death toll would no doubt have been higher if we just stayed open the entire time, which I am willing to accept because I'm heartless...guess that's because I'm an MSM lemming according to you lot. 

[Reality Check]

6 minutes ago, shoshin said:

 

Great article. Sweden did what we all should have done. Get ready, then get on with it. 

 

Though Sweden has a totally different culture than us and our death toll would no doubt have been higher if we just stayed open the entire time, which I am willing to accept because I'm heartless...guess that's because I'm an MSM lemming according to you lot. 

 

[spartacus]

On 8/31/2020 at 11:52 AM, shoshin said:

 

Do you have a link to that claim about the CDC changing its spec in June? I'd like to read about that. 

The following discusses the flaws in the PCR test

As I noted, the PCR test range started from 35- 45 replication cycles.  

On June 12, the CDC PCR instructions raised the recommended cycle count to 45- which basically multiplies the genetic material 35 trillion times

From the Times article:

Tests with thresholds so high may detect not just live virus but also genetic fragments, leftovers from infection that pose no particular risk — akin to finding a hair in a room long after a person has left, Dr. Mina said.

Any test with a cycle threshold above 35 is too sensitive, agreed Juliet Morrison, a virologist at the University of California, Riverside. “I’m shocked that people would think that 40 could represent a positive,” she said. “

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html

 

 

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/watch-live-trump-speaks-during-discussion-community-safety-kenosha

by Jon Rappoport                    September 1, 2020

Townhall.com, August 29: “According to The New York Times, potentially 90 percent of those who have tested positive for COVID-19 have such insignificant amounts of the virus present in their bodies that such individuals do not need to isolate nor are they candidates for contact tracing. Leading public health experts are now concerned that overtesting is responsible for misdiagnosing a huge number of people with harmless amounts of the virus in their systems.”

“’Most of these people are not likely to be contagious…’ warns The Times.”

Yes, that’s what the NY Times is confessing (8/29): “Some of the nation’s leading public health experts are raising a new concern in the endless debate over coronavirus testing in the United States: The standard tests are diagnosing huge numbers of people who may be carrying relatively insignificant amounts of the virus. Most of these people are not likely to be contagious…”

“In three sets of testing data…compiled by officials in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus, a review by The Times found.”

Let me break this down for you, because it’s a lot worse than the Times admits. The rabbit hole goes much deeper—and I’ve been reporting on the deeper facts for months.

The issue appears to be the ballooning sensitivity of the PCR test. It’s so sensitive that it picks up inconsequential tiny, tiny amounts of virus that couldn’t harm a flea—and it calls these amounts “positive.”

Therefore, millions of people are labeled “positive/infected” who carry so little virus that no harm would come to them or anyone they come in contact with.

That would be bad enough. But the truth is, the PCR test is not able to produce ANY reliable number that reflects how much virus a person is carrying. A lot, a little, it doesn’t matter.

The test has never been validated, in a large-scale study, for the ability to quantify the amount of virus a person is carrying. I’ve proposed how that study should be done IN THE REAL WORLD, NOT IN THE LAB.

You take 1000 people and remove tissue samples from them. A lab puts these samples through its PCR and announces which virus it found in each case and how much virus it found in each case.

It says: “All right, in patients 23, 46, 76, 89, 265 we found a high amount of virus.”

That should mean these particular patients are visibly sick. They will have obvious clinical symptoms. Why? Because actual illness requires millions of millions of a virus replicating in the body.

So now we unblind these particular patients with high amounts of virus, according to the PCR. Are they, in fact, sick? Or are they running marathons and swimming five miles a day? Let’s see. For real.

THIS VALIDATION OF THE PCR HAS NEVER BEEN DONE.

Therefore, the claim that the PCR can determine how much virus is in a human is completely and utterly unproven. Period.

Therefore, ALL the PCR tests being done on people all over the world reflect NOTHING about illness, infection, contagion, or transmission.

The scam is wall to wall.

But there’s more.

The PCR isn’t even testing for a particular virus in the first place. It’s using a piece of RNA assumed to be part of a virus. The assumption is unproven.

And finally, as I’ve been writing and demonstrating for months, there is no evidence that researchers used proper procedure to discover “a new coronavirus that is causing a pandemic.”

Therefore, the PCR test, as worthless as it already is, aims to show the presence of a germ that has never been shown to exist.

But let’s lock down the planet, destroy economies and untold numbers of lives in the process.

SOURCES:

townhall.com/tipsheet/bronsonstocking/2020/08/29/it-looks-like-a-lot-of-those-positive-covid-tests-should-have-been-negative-n2575305

nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html

[shoshin]

3 minutes ago, spartacus said:

The following discusses the flaws in the PCR test

 

As I noted, the PCR test range started from 35- 45 replication cycles.  

 

On June 12, the CDC PCR instructions raised the recommended cycle count to 45- which basically multiplies the genetic material 35 trillion times

 

From the Times article:

 

Tests with thresholds so high may detect not just live virus but also genetic fragments, leftovers from infection that pose no particular risk — akin to finding a hair in a room long after a person has left, Dr. Mina said.

 

Any test with a cycle threshold above 35 is too sensitive, agreed Juliet Morrison, a virologist at the University of California, Riverside. “I’m shocked that people would think that 40 could represent a positive,” she said. “

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/watch-live-trump-speaks-during-discussion-community-safety-kenosha

 

by Jon Rappoport                    September 1, 2020

 

Townhall.com, August 29: “According to The New York Times, potentially 90 percent of those who have tested positive for COVID-19 have such insignificant amounts of the virus present in their bodies that such individuals do not need to isolate nor are they candidates for contact tracing. Leading public health experts are now concerned that overtesting is responsible for misdiagnosing a huge number of people with harmless amounts of the virus in their systems.”

 

“’Most of these people are not likely to be contagious…’ warns The Times.”

 

Yes, that’s what the NY Times is confessing (8/29): “Some of the nation’s leading public health experts are raising a new concern in the endless debate over coronavirus testing in the United States: The standard tests are diagnosing huge numbers of people who may be carrying relatively insignificant amounts of the virus. Most of these people are not likely to be contagious…”

 

“In three sets of testing data…compiled by officials in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus, a review by The Times found.”

 

Let me break this down for you, because it’s a lot worse than the Times admits. The rabbit hole goes much deeper—and I’ve been reporting on the deeper facts for months.

 

The issue appears to be the ballooning sensitivity of the PCR test. It’s so sensitive that it picks up inconsequential tiny, tiny amounts of virus that couldn’t harm a flea—and it calls these amounts “positive.”

 

Therefore, millions of people are labeled “positive/infected” who carry so little virus that no harm would come to them or anyone they come in contact with.

 

That would be bad enough. But the truth is, the PCR test is not able to produce ANY reliable number that reflects how much virus a person is carrying. A lot, a little, it doesn’t matter.

 

The test has never been validated, in a large-scale study, for the ability to quantify the amount of virus a person is carrying. I’ve proposed how that study should be done IN THE REAL WORLD, NOT IN THE LAB.

 

You take 1000 people and remove tissue samples from them. A lab puts these samples through its PCR and announces which virus it found in each case and how much virus it found in each case.

 

It says: “All right, in patients 23, 46, 76, 89, 265 we found a high amount of virus.”

 

That should mean these particular patients are visibly sick. They will have obvious clinical symptoms. Why? Because actual illness requires millions of millions of a virus replicating in the body.

 

So now we unblind these particular patients with high amounts of virus, according to the PCR. Are they, in fact, sick? Or are they running marathons and swimming five miles a day? Let’s see. For real.

 

THIS VALIDATION OF THE PCR HAS NEVER BEEN DONE.

 

Therefore, the claim that the PCR can determine how much virus is in a human is completely and utterly unproven. Period.

 

Therefore, ALL the PCR tests being done on people all over the world reflect NOTHING about illness, infection, contagion, or transmission.

 

The scam is wall to wall.

 

But there’s more.

 

The PCR isn’t even testing for a particular virus in the first place. It’s using a piece of RNA assumed to be part of a virus. The assumption is unproven.

 

And finally, as I’ve been writing and demonstrating for months, there is no evidence that researchers used proper procedure to discover “a new coronavirus that is causing a pandemic.”

 

Therefore, the PCR test, as worthless as it already is, aims to show the presence of a germ that has never been shown to exist.

 

But let’s lock down the planet, destroy economies and untold numbers of lives in the process.

 

SOURCES:

 

townhall.com/tipsheet/bronsonstocking/2020/08/29/it-looks-like-a-lot-of-those-positive-covid-tests-should-have-been-negative-n2575305

 

nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html

 

I’ve seen those articles and find them compelling, but they don’t talk about the CDC raising the standards in mid June like you said. It’s not a big deal. I just hadn’t heard about that and it seems like it didn’t happen. 

Edited September 1, 2020 by shoshin

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

24 minutes ago, shoshin said:

I’ve seen those articles and find them compelling, but they don’t talk about the CDC raising the standards in mid June like you said. It’s not a big deal. I just hadn’t heard about that and it seems like it didn’t happen. 

 

 

...it is just too bad that at the end of the day, unbiased, non-political laced data, devoid of multiple reports of screwed up testing numbers cannot be ascertained so the scientific community can reach some accurate assessments going forward.....as a layperson, I'd think that information would be invaluable as far as long term effects, seasonal and/or other recurrence, vaccine(s) effectiveness et al.....BUT...."NEVER let a good crisis go to waste"...we are societally SICK.............

[Chef Jim]

8 hours ago, Kemp said:

 

You can criticize me. You can't refute what I've posted in this thread. 

And the band played on.

You are absolutely correct.  I can’t refute anything you’ve said. And the reason is not what you think.  The reason I can’t refute anything you’ve said is because it’s so unremarkable I’ve not remembered any of it. 

[Buffalo_Gal]

 

 

 

[B-Man]

16 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

 

 

 

 

 

Oh come on............?

 

 

[Magox]

Nice drop

 

 

[Magox]

This is making the rounds.

 

Queen Nancy

 

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

 

[Penfield45]

8 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

conservatives call this a hoax but still think 9/11 was real? amazing 

[keepthefaith]

2 hours ago, Magox said:

This is making the rounds.

 

Queen Nancy

 

 

 

Oh for shitz sake Nancy, take a shower and dry your hair before you leave the house in the morning like most people.

[fansince88]

5 hours ago, spartacus said:

The following discusses the flaws in the PCR test

 

As I noted, the PCR test range started from 35- 45 replication cycles.  

 

On June 12, the CDC PCR instructions raised the recommended cycle count to 45- which basically multiplies the genetic material 35 trillion times

 

From the Times article:

 

Tests with thresholds so high may detect not just live virus but also genetic fragments, leftovers from infection that pose no particular risk — akin to finding a hair in a room long after a person has left, Dr. Mina said.

 

Any test with a cycle threshold above 35 is too sensitive, agreed Juliet Morrison, a virologist at the University of California, Riverside. “I’m shocked that people would think that 40 could represent a positive,” she said. “

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/watch-live-trump-speaks-during-discussion-community-safety-kenosha

 

by Jon Rappoport                    September 1, 2020

 

Townhall.com, August 29: “According to The New York Times, potentially 90 percent of those who have tested positive for COVID-19 have such insignificant amounts of the virus present in their bodies that such individuals do not need to isolate nor are they candidates for contact tracing. Leading public health experts are now concerned that overtesting is responsible for misdiagnosing a huge number of people with harmless amounts of the virus in their systems.”

 

“’Most of these people are not likely to be contagious…’ warns The Times.”

 

Yes, that’s what the NY Times is confessing (8/29): “Some of the nation’s leading public health experts are raising a new concern in the endless debate over coronavirus testing in the United States: The standard tests are diagnosing huge numbers of people who may be carrying relatively insignificant amounts of the virus. Most of these people are not likely to be contagious…”

 

“In three sets of testing data…compiled by officials in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus, a review by The Times found.”

 

Let me break this down for you, because it’s a lot worse than the Times admits. The rabbit hole goes much deeper—and I’ve been reporting on the deeper facts for months.

 

The issue appears to be the ballooning sensitivity of the PCR test. It’s so sensitive that it picks up inconsequential tiny, tiny amounts of virus that couldn’t harm a flea—and it calls these amounts “positive.”

 

Therefore, millions of people are labeled “positive/infected” who carry so little virus that no harm would come to them or anyone they come in contact with.

 

That would be bad enough. But the truth is, the PCR test is not able to produce ANY reliable number that reflects how much virus a person is carrying. A lot, a little, it doesn’t matter.

 

The test has never been validated, in a large-scale study, for the ability to quantify the amount of virus a person is carrying. I’ve proposed how that study should be done IN THE REAL WORLD, NOT IN THE LAB.

 

You take 1000 people and remove tissue samples from them. A lab puts these samples through its PCR and announces which virus it found in each case and how much virus it found in each case.

 

It says: “All right, in patients 23, 46, 76, 89, 265 we found a high amount of virus.”

 

That should mean these particular patients are visibly sick. They will have obvious clinical symptoms. Why? Because actual illness requires millions of millions of a virus replicating in the body.

 

So now we unblind these particular patients with high amounts of virus, according to the PCR. Are they, in fact, sick? Or are they running marathons and swimming five miles a day? Let’s see. For real.

 

THIS VALIDATION OF THE PCR HAS NEVER BEEN DONE.

 

Therefore, the claim that the PCR can determine how much virus is in a human is completely and utterly unproven. Period.

 

Therefore, ALL the PCR tests being done on people all over the world reflect NOTHING about illness, infection, contagion, or transmission.

 

The scam is wall to wall.

 

But there’s more.

 

The PCR isn’t even testing for a particular virus in the first place. It’s using a piece of RNA assumed to be part of a virus. The assumption is unproven.

 

And finally, as I’ve been writing and demonstrating for months, there is no evidence that researchers used proper procedure to discover “a new coronavirus that is causing a pandemic.”

 

Therefore, the PCR test, as worthless as it already is, aims to show the presence of a germ that has never been shown to exist.

 

But let’s lock down the planet, destroy economies and untold numbers of lives in the process.

 

SOURCES:

 

townhall.com/tipsheet/bronsonstocking/2020/08/29/it-looks-like-a-lot-of-those-positive-covid-tests-should-have-been-negative-n2575305

 

nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html

 

This is the most interesting thing I have read in a week. thans for sharing!

2 hours ago, Magox said:

Nice drop

 

 

With what @spartacus just posted.....I really dont care anymore. Im over this!!

[shoshin]

1 hour ago, Penfield45 said:

 

conservatives call this a hoax but still think 9/11 was real? amazing 

I’m sure plenty here think both are hoaxes/deep state conspiracies. 

[Big Blitz]

Goal posts.  They've officially reached their final destination.  

 

 

 

 

Also, no its freaking not how we're going to have to live.

 

We are an embarrassment.  Anyone that looks at this and thinks this is ok....you are one of Lenin's useful idiots.  Which makes sense considering that the reaction to the distance for life rules has been Commies that have never understood math support.....freedom loving people that understand statistics do not.  

[Reality Check]

6 hours ago, shoshin said:

I’m sure plenty here think both are hoaxes/deep state conspiracies. 

 

[fansince88]

4 hours ago, Big Blitz said:

Goal posts.  They've officially reached their final destination.  

 

 

 

 

Also, no its freaking not how we're going to have to live.

 

We are an embarrassment.  Anyone that looks at this and thinks this is ok....you are one of Lenin's useful idiots.  Which makes sense considering that the reaction to the distance for life rules has been Commies that have never understood math support.....freedom loving people that understand statistics do not.  

Is RI stuck with her for 2 more years as we are with Cuomo?

[shoshin]

13 hours ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

 

...it is just too bad that at the end of the day, unbiased, non-political laced data, devoid of multiple reports of screwed up testing numbers cannot be ascertained so the scientific community can reach some accurate assessments going forward.....as a layperson, I'd think that information would be invaluable as far as long term effects, seasonal and/or other recurrence, vaccine(s) effectiveness et al.....BUT...."NEVER let a good crisis go to waste"...we are societally SICK.............

The point to be made from that NYT story is that perhaps the test is too sensitive —to be the only test— but we shouldn’t stop using the PCR.  
 

We need more tests, especially the rapid ones. Give me an 95% accurate rapid test In quantity and we can go to football games. Don’t need to PCR everyone. 
 

[Kemp]

13 hours ago, Chef Jim said:

You are absolutely correct.  I can’t refute anything you’ve said. And the reason is not what you think.  The reason I can’t refute anything you’ve said is because it’s so unremarkable I’ve not remembered any of it. 

 

Bragging about a lack of mental prowess fits you perfectly. 

[Gary M]

14 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

 

Clowns

 

[spartacus]

16 hours ago, shoshin said:

I’ve seen those articles and find them compelling, but they don’t talk about the CDC raising the standards in mid June like you said. It’s not a big deal. I just hadn’t heard about that and it seems like it didn’t happen. 

 

good news

found CDC lab instructions for PCR test dated 7/13 which replaced the 6/12 instructions I had seen earlier

seems like it happened after all

 

https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download

 

note that on pg 26 (f), the CDC is instructing that the thermal cycles be run 45 times

this doubles the sample 45 times, resulting in 35 TRILLION copies

 

why mandate 45 cycles, if the intended threshold to determine a positive test is supposed to be 40 cycles (pg 35)  ?

 

An obvious rationale is that labs are to use the extra cycles generate positive test results where none should exist

 

 

 

In either case, the doctor in the NY TImes article is adamant taht the threshold is too high

 

"Tests with thresholds so high may detect not just live virus but also genetic fragments, leftovers from infection that pose no particular risk — akin to finding a hair in a room long after a person has left, Dr. Mina said.

 

Any test with a cycle threshold above 35 is too sensitive, agreed Juliet Morrison, a virologist at the University of California, Riverside. “I’m shocked that people would think that 40 could represent a positive,” she said."

 

 

Shutting down the economy based on a rigged test is criminal

 

Read these source articles

 

townhall.com/tipsheet/bronsonstocking/2020/08/29/it-looks-like-a-lot-of-those-positive-covid-tests-should-have-been-negative-n2575305

nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html

 

 

 

 

[spartacus]

2 hours ago, shoshin said:

The point to be made from that NYT story is that perhaps the test is too sensitive —to be the only test— but we shouldn’t stop using the PCR.  
 

We need more tests, especially the rapid ones. Give me an 95% accurate rapid test In quantity and we can go to football games. Don’t need to PCR everyone. 
 

The bigger point of the story is that the PCR test is not even searching for Covid virus cells in one's body

It is searching for computer manipulated RNA particles created that may exist in all coronavirus particles in your body, not just the covid one. 

 

The coronavirus, including the common cold, is the most prevalent virus in the human body.

 

Congratulations- you are positive for the common cold

 

[Reality Check]

On 7/16/2020 at 8:08 AM, Reality Check said:

 

 

Like I have been saying...

 

This is a massive fraud to bring in digitally controlled tyranny via fear...

 

Fear of the common cold rebranded as Covid 19...

 

We are being held hostage by fear and blind followers of orthodoxy...

 

They extorted trillions of dollars out of our country...

 

At the time no one cared...

 

Because they were scared...

 

Millions of people are going to have to examine the quality of their problem solving skills when the dust settles...

 

I can see why the global financial system views us as livestock...

 

We act like it...

 

Just add fear and a welfare check...

 

Simple...

 

 

 

On 7/16/2020 at 8:33 AM, Reality Check said:

 

 

What were the ages of these people...

 

Pre existing conditions...

 

What are the numbers of all other causes of death by comparison...

 

Compare that to years past...

 

 

 

Edited September 2, 2020 by Reality Check

[Buffalo_Gal]

 

[Magox]

42 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

 

 

 

This is practically becoming empirical. 

 

 

 

[B-Man]

More on the above:

 

 

SCIENCE IS REAL: The Failed Experiment of Covid Lockdowns: New data suggest that social distancing and reopening haven’t determined the spread.

 

TrendMacro, my analytics firm, tallied the cumulative number of reported cases of Covid-19 in each state and the District of Columbia as a percentage of population, based on data from state and local health departments aggregated by the Covid Tracking Project. We then compared that with the timing and intensity of the lockdown in each jurisdiction. That is measured not by the mandates put in place by government officials, but rather by observing what people in each jurisdiction actually did, along with their baseline behavior before the lockdowns. This is captured in highly detailed anonymized cellphone tracking data provided by Google and others and tabulated by the University of Maryland’s Transportation Institute into a “Social Distancing Index.”

 

Measuring from the start of the year to each state’s point of maximum lockdown—which range from April 5 to April 18—it turns out that lockdowns correlated with a greater spread of the virus. States with longer, stricter lockdowns also had larger Covid outbreaks. The five places with the harshest lockdowns—the District of Columbia, New York, Michigan, New Jersey and Massachusetts—had the heaviest caseloads.

 

It could be that strict lockdowns were imposed as a response to already severe outbreaks. But the surprising negative correlation, while statistically weak, persists even when excluding states with the heaviest caseloads. And it makes no difference if the analysis includes other potential explanatory factors such as population density, age, ethnicity, prevalence of nursing homes, general health or temperature. The only factor that seems to make a demonstrable difference is the intensity of mass-transit use.

 

We ran the experiment a second time to observe the effects on caseloads of the reopening that began in mid-April. We used the same methodology, but started from each state’s peak of lockdown and extended to July 31. Confirming the first experiment, there was a tendency (though fairly weak) for states that opened up the most to have the lightest caseloads. The states that had the big summer flare-ups in the so-called “Sunbelt second wave”—Arizona, California, Florida and Texas—are by no means the most opened up, politicized headlines notwithstanding.

 

The lesson is not that lockdowns made the spread of Covid-19 worse—although the raw evidence might suggest that—but that lockdowns probably didn’t help, and opening up didn’t hurt. This defies common sense. In theory, the spread of an infectious disease ought to be controllable by quarantine. Evidently not in practice, though we are aware of no researcher who understands why not.

 

We’re not the only researchers to have discovered this statistical relationship.

 

 

 

When people say “follow the science,” ask them what science they’re talking about.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Magox]

Damn!

 

I didn't want to like him but......

 

Seems alright to me

 

 

[Big Blitz]

2 hours ago, spartacus said:

 

 

good news

 

found CDC lab instructions for PCR test dated 7/13 which replaced the 6/12 instructions I had seen earlier

 

seems like it happened after all

 

 

https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download

 

 

 

note that on pg 26 (f), the CDC is instructing that the thermal cycles be run 45 times

 

this doubles the sample 45 times, resulting in 35 TRILLION copies

 

 

 

why mandate 45 cycles, if the intended threshold to determine a positive test is supposed to be 40 cycles (pg 35)  ?

 

 

 

An obvious rationale is that labs are to use the extra cycles generate positive test results where none should exist

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In either case, the doctor in the NY TImes article is adamant taht the threshold is too high

 

 

 

"Tests with thresholds so high may detect not just live virus but also genetic fragments, leftovers from infection that pose no particular risk — akin to finding a hair in a room long after a person has left, Dr. Mina said.

 

 

 

Any test with a cycle threshold above 35 is too sensitive, agreed Juliet Morrison, a virologist at the University of California, Riverside. “I’m shocked that people would think that 40 could represent a positive,” she said."

 

 

 

 

 

Shutting down the economy based on a rigged test is criminal

 

 

 

Read these source articles

 

 

 

townhall.com/tipsheet/bronsonstocking/2020/08/29/it-looks-like-a-lot-of-those-positive-covid-tests-should-have-been-negative-n2575305

 

nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Should be the biggest story on the planet.  

 

 

This is the biggest sham in history.  

 

All these "cases"......like we've said ALL ALONG about CONTEXT aren't even "cases."  

 

[IDBillzFan]

16 minutes ago, Magox said:

Damn!

 

I didn't want to like him but......

 

Seems alright to me

 

 

 

All I kept reading...

 

[ziltoid]

40 minutes ago, Magox said:

 

 

This is practically becoming empirical. 

 

 

 

 

This has really been a sh*tty week for lefties, and it's only Weds.

[Tiberius]

Fauci Debunks Trump's Death Toll Retweet in Latest Contradiction 

Throughout the pandemic, Fauci has been careful not to openly criticize Trump while attempting to correct false claims.