THE MEANING OF OZ - All you need to know!

@Glennn,

Incomprehensible word salads. You mob are tiring.

@Wilso,

From the CDC:

SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, was isolated in the laboratory and is available for research by the scientific and medical community.

One important way that CDC has supported global efforts to study and learn about SARS-CoV-2 in the laboratory was by growing the virus in cell culture and ensuring that it was widely available. Researchers in the scientific and medical community can use virus obtained from this work in their studies.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/grows-virus-cell-culture.html

Do you acknowledge that the CDC said that?

See, this is where you'll pretend you don't understand the question, but everyone knows you do. So why don't you just acknowledge what the CDC said there? Then we can look at their responses to the FOIA requests they've received from lots of people.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Quote:

On January 20, 2020, CDC received a clinical specimen collected from the first reported U.S. patient infected with SARS-CoV-2. CDC immediately placed the specimen into cell culture to grow a sufficient amount of virus for study.
On February 2, 2020, CDC generated enough SARS-CoV-2 grown in cell culture to distribute to medical and scientific researchers.
On February 4, 2020, CDC shipped SARS-CoV-2 to the BEI Resources Repository.
An article discussing the isolation and characterization of this virus specimen is available in Emerging Infectious Diseases.

1 Reply

@Builder,

What's worse than that is that no one here seems to care that they've been lied to.

So, if they didn't use the "novel" corona virus as a reference for the PCR-test, then the PCR-test did not test for covid-19.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Quote:

What's worse than that is that no one here seems to care that they've been lied to.

It's a tough pill to swallow. A very jagged little pill.

Nothing about the plandemic is legitimate science.

That's why the PTB and the controlled mass media has been so down on anybody presenting evidence to the contrary. That's also not how science works.

Actual science welcomes doubts and indecision. It applauds vocal discord and discourse alike. It certainly does not condemn thoughtful discussion.

2 Replies

@Builder,

Quote:

Actual science welcomes doubts and indecision.

No. It welcomes well-conceived counter-hypotheses which hold up under scrutiny.

Quote:

It certainly does not condemn thoughtful discussion.

"Thoughtful discussion" isn't scientific research. People who pretend to engage in "thoughtful discussions" about the flat earth, the moon landing hoax, and all sorts of other pathetic conspiracy theories – there are plenty of examples on this site – court the condemnation of others who are better informed and more objective.

1 Reply

@hightor,

You're in constant denial of facts, and when shown evidence, drift away without a word.

Quote:

Trudeau Panics as Fully Vaccinated account for 9 in every 10 COVID-19 Deaths in Canada over the past month; 4 in every 5 of which were Triple Jabbed..

https://twitter.com/flipova/status/1539486953208393728

1 Reply

@Builder,

Quote:

You're in constant denial of facts...

I don't consider everything you post to be factual.

Quote:

...and when shown evidence...

You mean isolated statements taken out of context and specifically chosen to reflect someone's biased opinion?

Quote:

...drift away without a word.

It's known as having a life offline – do you really want me to post "Goodbye, Builder" every time I leave my desk?

Quote:

Number of COVID-19 deaths in Canada, Dec. 2020 to June 2022, by vaccination status

Jun 27, 2022
As of June 5, 2022, there have been around 10,333 confirmed deaths due to COVID-19 among unvaccinated Canadians since the start of the national vaccination campaign in December 2020. In contrast, just 3,507 (18%) COVID-19 deaths were reported among those who were fully vaccinated during the same time period. This statistic illustrates the number of confirmed COVID-19 deaths in Canada from December 14, 2020 to June 5, 2022, by vaccination status.

statista

2 Replies

@hightor,

Quote:

I don't consider everything you post to be factual.

See! We do have something in common. Your general run of BS leaves me cold.

Quote:

You mean isolated statements taken out of context and specifically chosen to reflect someone's biased opinion?

Not at all. I mean evidence that you're not even willing to consider, because it proves your last load of BS to be on very shaky ground. Your cognitive dissonance must be stinging what's left of your brain.

Quote:

It's known as having a life offline

I "spend" about 30 minutes of my day here. You're pretending to be a moderator.

0 Replies

@Builder,

I'm tired of being constantly lied to by the intentionally uninformed!!!!

So ... when do you two stop all your lies?????

1 Reply

@bobsal u1553115,

Quote:

I'm tired

Poor Petal. Perhaps a nanna nap might help??

0 Replies

@hightor,

Quote:

You mean isolated statements taken out of context and specifically chosen to reflect someone's biased opinion?

Nope! We mean statements that reflected exactly what the speaker meant. You've had multiple opportunities to explain the proper context to the statements you're referring to. However, that's when you disappear, only to show up later pretending you were never asked.

By now, everyone knows you have no intention of making yourself clear, but I'll ask you one more time to explain the proper context of this statement:
____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Tony: “…If you get [perform the PCR test at] a cycle threshold of 35 or more…the chances of it being replication-confident [aka accurate] are miniscule…you almost never can culture virus [detect a true positive result] from a 37 threshold cycle…even 36…”
___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Labs used a cycle-threshold of 40. Tony didn't speak up to tell them the mistake they were making. Your explanation for his obvious lie of omission is that it wasn't a lie of omission because I took his statement out of context. However, without providing the proper context, you're simply expressing your wish that it was true. That's how you're handling the deficiencies in your argument; you deny the obvious even when it's written down for you.

Now, how about that proper context?

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Quote:

We mean statements that reflected exactly what the speaker meant.

What's this "we" – you carrying a frog in your pocket or something?

Quote:

By now, everyone knows you have no intention of making yourself clear...

Oh, now "everyone" knows – pick a few random people on the street and see if they claim to "know" what you're asserting. Good luck.

Quote:

Your explanation for his obvious lie of omission is that it wasn't a lie of omission because I took his statement out of context.

I never even attempted to explain what anyone said about a PCR test – because you merely supplied selected quotes out of context. And you still are!

Quote:

...you're simply expressing your wish that it was true.

You're in no position to determine what I "wish". I don't give a damn about this idée fixe of yours (which you've harping on since April of '21!) and I'm under no obligation to explain anything to you. Numerous responses on your original thread reveal the paucity of your arguments and your reliance on heavily edited conspiracy sites and right-wing media.

3 Replies

@hightor,

Quote:

you merely supplied selected quotes out of context. And you still are!

Indeed, you are a one-trick pony. I did not select a quote out of context.

Here is the quote:

Tony: “…If you get [perform the PCR test at] a cycle threshold of 35 or more…the chances of it being replication-confident [aka accurate] are miniscule…you almost never can culture virus [detect a true positive result] from a 37 threshold cycle…even 36…”

Now, if you believe that I took that quote out of context, you must believe that what he's really saying is that a cycle-threshold of anything over 35 will give meaningful results?

Is that the case you're trying to make here?

There are also some quotes I provided from the CDC and FDA, among others, who also had some critical content on the reliability of the PCR-test itself; never mind its inappropriate setting. Which ones do you believe I took out of context?

0 Replies

@hightor,

"What's this "we" – you carrying a frog in your pocket or something?"

Like this:

1 Reply

@bobsal u1553115,

You can feel free to pick up where hightor left off. But you might want to think about using the "context" angle like he did. As you can see, it was a failure from the start as he cannot conjure up the proper context to save his life.

So, how do you interpret tony's statement? Are you one of those who believe that, in the proper context, tony really meant that a cycle-threshold of anything over 35 will give you meaningful results. I assume you're of the same mind as your friend here.

Help him out. What's the proper context?

0 Replies

@hightor,

Quote:

Numerous responses on your original thread reveal the paucity of your arguments and your reliance on heavily edited conspiracy sites and right-wing media.

Nope. You failed to provide "proper" context in that thread, too. Remember how people suddenly became convinced that they were too uneducated to actually know the difference between "meaningful results" and "meaningless results"? They thought meaningless might just be medical speak for meaningful. That's how they handled the implication of tony's statement; they pretended it was too complicated to understand. Otherwise, they would have had to explain why they trust him after he dumbly "forgot" to mention the meaninglessness of the PCR-test at a cycle threshold of 40.

Why would you continue to listen to him?

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Quote:

You failed to provide "proper" context in that thread, too.

Um...that was your thread. It's not my job to help you to organize your biased presentation. I think I have 3 or 4 posts there and all of them are just responses to posts by other people. You said this in the header:

Quote:

So, why did the FDA recommend a cycle-threshold of 40? That's a rhetorical question; they obviously wanted to create the illusion of a pandemic.

I'm glad to know that there was no pandemic, even though Covid-19 is the third leading cause of death in my state.

Quote:

Remember how people suddenly became convinced that they were too uneducated to actually know the difference between "meaningful results" and "meaningless results"?

No.

Quote:

Why would you continue to listen to him?

The more pertinent question is why do you continue to press this stupid point on a thread about Australia?

2 Replies

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

Glenn wrote:
So, why did the FDA recommend a cycle-threshold of 40? That's a rhetorical question; they obviously wanted to create the illusion of a pandemic.

I'm glad to know that there was no pandemic, even though Covid-19 is the third leading cause of death in my state.

Since Australia belongs to the world as well, I respond here
The World Health Organization (WHO) - responsible for declaring a pandemic - on March 11, 2020, declared the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak a pandemic (from Greek πᾶν, pan, "all" and δῆμος, demos, "local people" the 'crowd', is an epidemic of an infectious disease that has spread across a large region, for instance multiple continents or worldwide).

0 Replies

@hightor,

Quote:

The more pertinent question is why do you continue to press this stupid point on a thread about Australia?

Uh huh. Truth is, I've already posted my point about the unexplained failure of tony to tell labs that a cycle-threshold of anything over 35 on the PCR-test will give nothing but meaningless results. And yes, I did it in the appropriate thread.

It didn't matter, though. No one, including you, had an explanation for tony's lie of omission. When confronted with that, one poster resolved that sticky issue in her brain by claiming that one needs a medical degree in order to understand what "set too high" means. Others knew better than to say something like that and just stayed away. You must be of the same mind as those who believe that "set too high" is very, very hard to understand and easily taken out of context.

And for the record, I didn't bring up the issue of the experimental injection in this thread. But since everyone wanted to discuss it, I did point out the silliness of their newly acquired ignorance of the difference between 35 and 40.

0 Replies

THE MEANING OF OZ - All you need to know!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know