Coronavirus

What a truly asinine statement.

What a thinly veiled attempt to take a fun exaggeration and use it to deflect from the point that even if the "good people" at Pfizer lie and cheat--which they do--people here still see them as some kind of benevolent, friendly company.

So, do you agree that people have a right to be critical of a company that lies and cheats and gets caught and lies and cheats again, etc.; especially when it comes to medical stuff?

What's your take on their criminal activity and how that would weigh on someone's decision to trust them with your health?

If you have something against a corporation and believe it has acted irresponsibly or criminally why not restrict your criticism to the proven misdeeds of that company instead of conjuring up a silly fantasy solely in order to insult people on this message board – where has anyone here labeled this corporation "as some kind of benevolent, friendly company"?

I'm sorry. You're right. It's true I should have kept my criticisms directed at the drug company that's guilty of corruption and other stuff instead of the people who trust them anyway. Everyone is free to act on information any way they want.

Thank you, izzy.

I was at the pharmacy earlier looking for a cough suppressant (completely sold out) and the pharmacist said what's going around seems to be lasting between 4 and 6 weeks. Now that I know that, I can deal with it better. Now I'm forced to take my Buckley's that expired last year. Tastes like pine trees They don't sell it in the States due to an ingredient that's not allowed so you wouldn't have the pleasure of knowing the vile taste

Notice how, again, the focus is on the messenger, while ignoring the message?

That's what this place has devolved into, unfortunately.

I've not heard of it, the main cough mixture over here is Benelyn, although I quite like Buttercup Syrup which is one of the remedies from way back.

It helps me sleep.

Again? When did they ever stop doing that? When have they ever done anything else when confronted with information that threatens their childlike faith in confirmed liars?

When you show them that the PCR-test doesn't distinguish between covid and the flu or other pathogens, and that it was apparently also set too high to get meaningful results anyway, they do go after the messenger instead of accepting a proven fact. They subscribe to the "nothing new in, nothing old out" method of denial.

And yeah, if you want a successful site, you can't lock threads just because someone exposes one of the town crier's copy and paste articles concerning VAERS data mining for safety signals as absolute bullshit and deliberate misinformation.

You mean, any algae. bacteria, fungi, prions, viroids, viruses, and other parasites are shown on the PCR-tests used to detect SARS-CoV-2? (The Pathogen-Host Interactions database [PHI-base] provides information on 8070 genes from 276 pathogens and 224 hosts and their impact on 17060 interactions as well on efficacy information on ~20 drugs and the target sequences in the pathogen.)

The PCR-tests used here are able to detect SARS-CoV-2, influenza A and influenza B with high sensitivity and clearly discriminate between these viruses.

How about this time you actually read it and stop embarrassing yourself:
____________________________________________________________________________

“Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms. The performance of this test has not been established for monitoring treatment of 2019-nCoV infection. This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.” — [b]The Centers For Disease Control and Prevention.[/b]
____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

“PCR does not distinguish between infectious virus and non-infectious nucleic acid” — Barry Atkinson: National Collection of Pathogenic Viruses (NCPV) Eskild Petersen: infectious disease specialist
_____________________________________________________________________________

What part are you pretending to not understand?

I don't have a PhD in laboratory medicine. So I'm certainly less educated.

But I sincerely doubt that you've intensive knowledge about


However, I can read.
International Journal of Infectious Diseases: Novel PCR Test to Differentiate Between Infections with SARS-CoV-2, Influenza A and B

"Notice how, again, the focus is on the messenger, while ignoring the message?"



Notice how, again, the focus is on the audience – assumptions are made about its "childlike faith" based solely on its choice not to discuss topics which have been argued to death by a few vaccine skeptics with no medical training quoting statements out of context and simply parroting points found in screeds on the right-wing media.

How would you describe someone's faith in known liars?

Do you still believe that CDC mine VAERS data for safety signals even though they've admitted to not having done that when forced to come clean?

“…you can find almost anything in anybody…it doesn’t tell you that you’re sick and it doesn’t tell you the thing you ended up with really was going to hurt you…” — Dr. Kary Mullis, PhD (Nobel Peace Prize Winner inventor of the PCR test)

How did they alter the test to make it not worthless?

In what context?

They're all talking about the PCR-test.

Once again, I'll ask you to provide the proper context to what I've presented. You've failed to do that every single time you were asked. My guess is that you know all too well that when tony said that a cycle-threshold of anything over 35 will give you meaningless results, he wasn't kidding, but that you've opted to join the ranks of those who believe that "set too high" really means "set just right."

Can you explain your counterintuitive interpretation of plain English? In other words, PROVIDE THE PROPER CONTEXT! You must have something in mind, or you wouldn't have brought up context . . .

Oh, and what did they use as a reference for covid when calibrating the PCR-test? The answer might just surprise you.

Glenn is so wound up in himself he can't conceive that others don't share his obsessions.

He couldn't believe I didn't know he meant when he went on about Tony. I thought he meany Tony Blair, but he's some American health official.

He couldn't understand that I, a UK citizen, would pay scant attention to Ameircan domestic public health announcements, let alone not pore over them compulsively.

It's got nothing to do with the coronavirus and everything with him controlling the narrative, which is why he's being so nasty to those paying him no attention.

And good reason, look at the back and forth Hightor's going through, few people want that.

We come here to exchange ideas not be harrangued and coerced by some unhinged monomaniac.

Since its debut, PCR has been applied to tasks ranging from helping decode the human genome to saving coral reefs.

COVID-19 tests being conducted use PCR to amplify bits of the genetic code of the SARS-CoV-2 virus from swabbed samples, allowing the tests to detect its presence.


The HIV PCR test does not look for antibodies, but for HIV itself.
Your quote is taken from comments Mullis made during a talk about HIV testing using PCR in 1997.
The HIV PCR test are highly specific, too, but Mullis had other ideas than that a virus was the origin of AIDS.

Dude! If you can't defend liars, then don't. Don't blame me when you run yourself into a corner. I'm just the messenger, and you're someone who doesn't like the message.

Do you know what tony meant when he said that a cycle-threshold of anything over 35 will spit out meaningless results? He meant what said. Do you know why the FDA recommended a cycle-threshold of 40? Do you know why tony didn't speak up to correct them when they did?

You think these questions are designed to harass you? They're legitimate questions. That you have no answer to them is your problem, not mine.

SO, how did they alter the test to make it accurate. The answer is not at the site you linked to. Did they turn it up to something like 40. Hope not, because tony has already explained the folly of that kind of foolishness.

You're the one making the presentation. You're the one supplying snippets removed from their original context. You're the one with the idée fixe.