Coronavirus

Nice try. Reread it. "mostly" in a Fox news sort of way. They're correct about whether it's raining or not, but they could kill you with the Fox Covid official stance.

I'm at a loss to understand how COVID started as a virus, and mutated into an IQ test.

Well, when they stated that children are safe, and can't spread it, that was the first test.
Anyone who raised children would know that was a BS story.

Looks like you failed, Wilso.

So even the Pentagon was in on the scam? Figures.

Read the comments under the video.

That sounds like Jasper.

Yeah, self-selected anecdotes from conspiracy nuts is a great way to prove a point!

I recall hearing someone say that no test is perfect when they were confronted with this:
_________________________________________________________

From the covid-test package insert:

10. This device is a qualitative test and does not provide information on the viral load present in the specimen.
11. The performance of this device has not been evaluated for monitoring treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
12. The performance of this device has not been evaluated for the screening of blood or blood products for the presence of SARS-CoV-2.
13. This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.
14. Cross-reactivity with respiratory tract organisms other than those listed in the Analytical Specificity Study may lead to erroneous results.
________________________________________________________

Perhaps they'd care to explain how a test that can't tell them what they need to know is going to tell them what they need to know. A test that doesn't tell them what they need to know can't be passed off as legitimate simply because they make the claim that "no test is 100% accurate."

So, what we need to know is what part of "cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens" makes them believe that it can rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens?? Maybe they'll explain how "cannot rule out" actually means "can rule out."

Should be interesting . . .

EU Summit on developments in medical circles, on the long-term effects of the experimental injections.

Note that the UK failed to send a representative.

Note that the UK doesn't have representatives in the European Parliament since January 31, 2020.
They left the EU - did anyone tell you?

And everything you've been posting since that time, shows that you think they should have never left the EU.

You don't need to tell anyone about that.

True.

But I had replied to your above-quoted post, nothing else.

751 MEPs were elected in May 2019 but that number was reduced to 705 following a post-Brexit reshuffle in February 2020.

I and many others have tried to correct your opinion.

Since it's Pentecost Sunday. I do it again_
Novel PCR Test to Differentiate Between Infections with SARS-CoV-2, Influenza A and B (International Journal of Infectious Diseases
Volume 116, Supplement, March 2022, Pages S43-S44)

Glennn likes to present claims out of context and simply dismisses the results of studies which conflict with his ideologically-motivated and mistaken conclusions.

That's nothing. I know someone who likes to make the claim that something is presented out of context, and yet he can't for the life of him suggest a context other than the obvious one. And he bases his conclusions on his failure to present anything to negate what I've shown him. That's his non answer and he's sticking to it even though there's nothing to stick to.

His reaction to my last post is yet another example of his complaining about context but remaining perfectly closed-mouthed when pressed to offer the proper context.

I don't recall him ever employing the "context strategy" when it comes to what the FDA said about the test not being able to rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens. Wouldn't be fair to not offer him the opportunity to apply his context argument to the statement below.
___________________________________________________________________

13. This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.
________________________________________________________________

Let's hope he comes through this time and has something like the proper context to offer. But if history has taught us anything about him, it's that he's going to say something about something that's noting about that statement from the FDA.

So if he's still out there, I'm asking him what the proper context to the above statement is. If he really believes I've taken it out of context, he's being asked to tell me what HE thinks it means.

You really need to do research, or at least try to remember what you've been shown. For instance, how did they calibrate the PCR-test to detect the "novel" coronavirus when they actually used a virus from their banks from 2003? Ever ask yourself why they didn't use the real thing? Well of course you haven't. You just found out that they used a virus from 2003.

Also:

The official CDC document, (dated July 21, 2021) entitled “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel reads as follows:

Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV were available for CDC use at the time the test was developed [January 2020] and this study conducted, assays designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA (N gene; GenBank accession: MN908947.2) of known titer (RNA copies/µL) spiked into a diluent consisting of a suspension of human A549 cells and viral transport medium (VTM) to mimic clinical specimen.

Compare the above statement to the CDC January 28th, 2020 advisory confirming the isolation of SARS-CoV-2:

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.

Get it?

I've already posted this elsewhere. But everyone forgets . . .

You've been on here ad nauseam about this topic and still aren't getting the results you're looking for. I'm curious as to why you keep flogging the dead horse. Do you enjoy other topics of conversation? Do you garden? Cook? Read? Hike?

Maybe it's time to throw in the towel on this one.

No. I've told you I didn't have a PhD in Clinical pathology nor did nor I even study medicine.
Thus, I rely e.g. on the paper I quoted and can't do an own research.

This is why I try to avoid him.