Coronavirus

Which is worse? Your drivel, or the fact no one takes it seriously, even you?

Here's the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_Vy6fgaBPE&t=260s

So far, the best answer to the question of proper context is that tony meant exactly what he said. Someone--I forget who--believed that when tony said a cycle-threshold of anything over 35 will give meaningless results, it had to have been taken out of context. But now that I've provided the video, he's gone.

Perhaps you would care to put his statement into the proper context. Or, do you agree that a cycle-threshold of anything over 35 will give meaningless results? Or, would you rather just settle this with your thumbs like everyone else? I'm guessing the latter.

The drivel, it's there.

Him not being taken seriously does not affect me in the slightest.

The worst things are the constant demands for attention.

Wow you have a video.

I won't be watching it or clicking on any links because you are so dull, boring and needy.

Talk to someone who gives a monkey's because you are not worth a second of my time.

The worst thing for you is when I prove my point and you pretend that what you just posted is a rebuttal. Makes you look as mindless as the rest.

Why are you defending proven liars? Here's a novel idea: Why don't you prove you're here for something other than to announce your unwillingness to discuss and condemn your lying heroes when they're found out because in the absence of an actual rebuttal, it looks like you're mad about what I've posted, and would like to express your dismay.

Dismay acknowledged!

It's so America centred as well, I don't live in America, I have never seen an American coronavirus briefing.

Yet he expects me to spend x amount of time getting my head around the American response.

**** that.

I am asking questions in this thread.

You keep showing up only to refuse to answer them again and again.

This is going to be very hard for you to accept, but I'm afraid that makes you the attention seeker here.

I'll give you further proof of that. When I make you mad again, and you find yourself unable to stop yourself from posting, take note of the absence of content in that coming post of yours. Everyone else already does; it's time you did, too.

Yes, and we all know why.

Again? You don't know yourself very well, do you? When are you actually going to act on that revelation of yours and stop wasting your time?

Ya know, when you come into a thread and refuse to discuss the topic, and instead choose to insult your way to satisfaction, it looks like you're an angry attention seeker.

The statements in the video are not new findings at all.
The PCR method in connection with coronavirus is said by all experts [left out Glenn] to be the "gold standard for diagnostics". However, a positive PCR test does not necessarily mean that someone is infectious as even laypersons know. Tests that also indicate the so-called CT value, an indicator of the amount of virus, have a certain significance.

The lack of a clear definition for 'pandemic' has already been criticised after the outbreak of the H1N1 virus in 2009. A scientific article on this point of criticism was published in the "Bulletin of the World Health Organization" (The elusive definition of pandemic influenza

So, is a cycle-threshold of anything over 35 going to give meaningless results, or are you of the opinion that I took tony's quote out of context?

Or let me guess. You have no intention of answering.

And there's also the CDC's lie about having the virus when they didn't. What's your excuse for ignoring lies?

I've said so previously several times: I took some (university) courses in virology, but I'm no expert at all - opposite to you.

So: no, I have no intention to answer due to the above-mentioned fact. You guessed correctly this time.

Note to readers:

Most of my posts on the previous page have been removed from view by people who have no argument but lots of anger and a thumb to prove it.

How Unfortunately, I still can see/read all of them.

So can I.

You're not being asked to be an expert. You're being asked why you don't believe them when they talk. Tony said a cycle threshold of anything over 35 will give meaningless results. Are you one of the ones who believe that that's complicated medical-speak for "will give meaningful result"?

The CDC admitted that they didn't have the virus after claiming they did. What kind of degree do you think you need to understand what's being said there?

I've tried to as friendly as possible responding to your dribbel, Glenn.

But when you posted that most of your posts on the previous page have been removed from view ... what the heck, have a nice day.

I admire you for going through the effort, but I can't say I'm remotely surprised at what you say.

It's as I suspected, half truths, selective editing and and psychological need to be the centre of bloody attention.

What's the problem, comrade? I count fully twenty posts on the previous page.

You, Walter, and myself have set our preferences to show posts regardless of thumb ratings. Ignore still works.

You've not responded to anything I've posted. You've refused to tell me what it is about what tony said in the video that changes the meaning of the quote I provided. He said that a cycle-threshold of anything over 35 will give meaningless results. So go ahead and show whatever it is in the video that changed that to actually mean that a cycle threshold of anything over 35 will give meaningful results.

So far, there's been one poster who's made the claim that the ellipses in the quote I provided is proof that what tony is really saying is that a cycle-threshold of anything over 35 will give meaningful results. He was whining about the lack of context until I gave it to him. Haven't heard from him since; not in any meaningful way anyway.

Sure. It wasn't when you were asked to explain why you trust the CDC after they've lied to you about being in possession of the virus that's caused you to discontinue further discussion. Couldn't be that. It was what I said about the visibility of posts on another page. Sure it was. And that just happened to have happened after being asked to explain your trust in known liars.
Sure.