0
   

Why Life Jackets Should Be Mandatory

 
 
Glennn
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 1 Jan, 2022 03:41 pm
@hightor,
Quote:
You've selected the facts which you think are important and presented them out of context.

No, I provided relevant quotes to prove that the CDC and tony know that the PCR-test does not distinguish between covid and the flu or other pathogens, and that even if it did (which it doesn't), it was set too high. You've claimed that I've taken them out of context. So far, we have your word on that, but just so we know you're not just making that up, give us the proper context. This is the second time I've asked.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

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.” — The Centers For Disease Control and Prevention.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Now, stop stalling and give the proper context.

Also, what did you think about the political stars in that video putting their face-diapers on for the camera, and then taking them off when they thought no one was watching them? It seemed to me that they are . . . less than sincere in their stated objective of preventing the spread of covid.
Quote:
I don't know what you're talking about. I don't know any of these people.

Not important. Everyone else does.
Quote:
I told you before – I'm not interested in your truth crusade.

I only asked you how many boosters you'll accept before becoming frustrated with the results. You seem specifically interested in portraying that question as a truth crusade. But no, I'm just curious.
Quote:
Comparing vaccines to life jackets is sort of like comparing apples to oranges – only stupider.

Did the experimental-injection confer immunity . . . EVER? Comparing it to a vaccine is not smart.
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Sun 2 Jan, 2022 07:45 am
@Glennn,
Quote:
Now, stop stalling and give the proper context.

You're the one who is stalling. You need to provide the entire text for the source of that CDC quote, with the date of its original publication. Otherwise it just looks like you're cherry-picking data from among all the excerpted quotes from antivaccination sites which show up when a search is done on this subject.
Quote:
Also, what did you think about the political stars in that video putting their face-diapers on for the camera, and then taking them off when they thought no one was watching them?

Why would I think anything about something that insignificant? No one likes wearing masks and we're all happy to take them off when we can. And what the hell does it have to do with your dumb life jacket analogy? Are you going to try to compare masks to life preservers now?
Quote:

I only asked you how many boosters you'll accept before becoming frustrated with the results.

Why would I get frustrated? I'm not the one designing the mRNA vaccines, I'm just being offered a free injection. You should be asking the vaccine manufacturers, as they have a lot more stake in the efficacy of their product.
Quote:
You seem specifically interested in portraying that question as a truth crusade.

No, it's your obsessive outrage over the PCR-test which I referred to as your "truth crusade".
Quote:
Did the experimental-injection confer immunity . . . EVER?

Vaccines don't necessarily confer immunity against variants of the disease they were originally designed for. That's why we get flu shots every year. Depending on the specific disease, even natural immunity can wane over time.

*******************************************************************

CDC is withdrawing its PCR COVID-19 test, but not because it confuses viruses

The claim: CDC withdraws use of PCR test, admits it can't distinguish between flu and COVID-19

Quote:
Dec. 30, 2021. A widely shared claim on social media has brought the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's decision to retire its PCR test for COVID-19 back into the spotlight.

"CDC Withdraws Use of PCR Test for COVID and Finally Admits the Test Can Not Differentiate Between the Flu and COVID Virus," reads the screenshot of a Gateway Pundit [ha-ha!] headline posted on Instagram on Dec. 29.

The Gateway Pundit article, posted the same day, refers to the CDC's decision in July to withdraw the PCR test in 2022 that the agency created. The screenshot was liked more than 1,000 times in less than 24 hours. Other posts also received hundreds of likes in just a few hours.

But the claim badly mangles the facts.

The CDC's PCR test will be removed from the list of tests under emergency use authorization because the demand for it has decreased with the authorization of other diagnostic tests – not because it confuses viruses. Experts say the test would not show false positives for COVID-19 if the person only had the flu.

USA TODAY reached out to the user who posted the claim and to Gateway Pundit for comment.

CDC's PCR test does not confuse COVID-19 and flu

The Gateway Pundit article claims the CDC admitted the soon-to-be-retired PCR test "can not differentiate between the flu and COVID virus."

It claimed flu cases were so low in 2020, then, because the test was counting flu cases as COVID-19. But that's nonsense. Gateway Pundit was misunderstanding the use of the term differentiate.

In an August news release, the CDC wrote the PCR test was specifically designed only to detect the viral genetic material of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 – not influenza, which causes the flu.

"It does not detect influenza or differentiate between influenza and SARS-CoV-2," the website states.

In other words, it's not that the test can't tell the two apart, it's that the test was designed only to detect COVID-19. The CDC spelled this one by noting someone with the flu would not create a false positive for COVID-19 with this test.

Experts told USA TODAY in July it's "technically impossible" for the CDC's PCR test to confuse SARS-CoV-2 and the influenza virus.

PCR tests identify and amplify converted viral RNA until the virus's genetic makeup can be detected and analyzed.

In this case, since the CDC's PCR test was made to only identify SARS-Cov-2, it cannot detect or confuse the genetic sequences of another virus such as influenza, according to Dr. Petros Giannikopoulos, medical director of the Innovative Genomics Institute’s COVID-19 testing consortium.

CDC withdrawing PCR test to focus on other goals


On July 21, the CDC announced it would withdraw the request for an emergency use authorization for the agency-developed PCR test after Dec. 31.

The test will be removed because the Food and Drug Administration, which is in charge of approving the use of medical devices and vaccines, has authorized "hundreds" of other COVID-specific tests similar to the CDC's, the agency said in an Aug. 2 clarification after the announcement sparked confusion.

"CDC began distributing the CDC 2019 Novel Coronavirus Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel to fill a gap," the release said. "The wide availability of other SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic tests means that the CDC 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel is no longer filling an unmet need."

The discontinuation, which only applies to the CDC-manufactured test and not other diagnostic tests authorized for use by the FDA, would also let the CDC "focus its resources on public health surveillance testing and other response activities," according to the release.

Fact check: Chris Wallace's CNN+ show has not yet debuted

Jasmine Reed, a CDC spokeswoman, told USA TODAY in July the agency also wanted to encourage laboratories to start using tests that can detect the influenza virus and COVID-19 in the same swab to conserve time and resources.

The CDC has its own test that can detect and differentiate COVID-19 and the influenza A and B viruses. That test is not being withdrawn.

USA TODAY reached out to the CDC for comment.

Our rating: False

Based on our research, we rate FALSE the claim that the CDC withdrew the use of its PCR test and admitted it can't distinguish between the flu and COVID-19. The CDC is withdrawing the test, but it has nothing to do with the flu. The agency-created PCR test simply isn't needed because hundreds of tests from private companies have addressed this need and been approved by the FDA. The CDC test properly showed positive results only for COVID-19; a person with the flu could not test positive for COVID-19 using the CDC test, experts say.

Our fact-check sources:

The Gateway Pundit, Dec. 29, Huge. CDC Withdraws Use of PCR Test for COVID and Finally Admits the Test Can Not Differentiate Between the Flue and COVID Virus
CDC, July 21, Lab Alert: Changes to CDC RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 Testing
CDC, Aug. 2, Lab Alert: Clarifications about the Retirement of the CDC 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCov) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel
USA TODAY, July 29, Fact check: CDC test doesn't conflate COVID-19 virus with influenza
CDC, Oct. 6, Multiplex Assay for Flu & SARS-CoV-2

Thank you for supporting our journalism. You can subscribe to our print edition, ad-free app or electronic newspaper replica here.

Our fact-check work is supported in part by a grant from Facebook.

usatoday
Glennn
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 2 Jan, 2022 10:16 am
@hightor,
Quote:
Why would I think anything about something that insignificant?

You don't care that the ones ordering you to wear a mask don't do so when you're not looking? Okay. Most everyone else would see that as hypocrisy and an indication that they're not really worried about it at all. They do, however, demand that you take it seriously. You're not obligated to let them off the hook like you did. But you did. Why are you defending their demonstration of how serious they really believe this to be?
Quote:
Why would I get frustrated? I'm not the one designing the mRNA vaccines, I'm just being offered a free injection.

You're frustrated because you don't know when you'll be notified for your next dose, though you know it's coming soon. If you're not frustrated, you should be.
Quote:
You should be asking the vaccine manufacturers, as they have a lot more stake in the efficacy of their product.

But I'm asking you what your tolerance is concerning the number of experimental injections you'll accept before realizing that it DOES NOT CONFER IMMUNITY.
Quote:
Vaccines don't necessarily confer immunity against variants of the disease they were originally designed for.

You believe the experimental-injection conferred immunity to covid? It didn't. Why do you believe it does?

And you're still ignoring that fact that the CDC and the venerable tony , among others allowed the PCR-test to be set at a threshold of 40+. I know you understand what that would do to the results because tony said so. So, in the interest of seeing you address that point, why would the medical authorities ignore the detrimental setting? I've already provided you with the quote from tony saying exactly that. So how was that taken out of context?
Quote:
Why would I get frustrated? I'm not the one designing the mRNA vaccines, I'm just being offered a free injection.

You're frustrated because you don't know when you'll be notified for your next dose, though you know it's coming soon. If you're not frustrated, you should be.
Quote:
You should be asking the vaccine manufacturers, as they have a lot more stake in the efficacy of their product.

But I'm asking you what your tolerance is concerning the number of experimental injections you'll accept before realizing that it DOES NOT CONFER IMMUNITY. I mean, you must have drawn a line somewhere.
Quote:
Vaccines don't necessarily confer immunity against variants of the disease they were originally designed for.

You believe the experimental-injection conferred immunity to covid? It didn't. Why do you believe it does?

And you're still ignoring that fact that the CDC and the venerable tony , among others allowed the PCR-test to be set at a threshold of 40+. I know you understand what that would do to the results because tony said so. So, in the interest of seeing you address that point, why would the medical authorities ignore the detrimental setting? I've already provided you with the quote from tony saying exactly that. So how was that taken out of context? Was tony speaking a different language?

I'm so glad you offered someone else's explanation of the PRC-test. Turns out that before you can claim anything, you're going to have to provide some reference to the existence of covid. Be the one in a million who can provide that for us. Here's what I discovered.

Freedom of Information (FOI) requests were addressed to ninety Health /Science institutions in a large number of countries.

The responses to these requests confirm that there is no record of isolation / purification of SARS-CoV-2 “having been performed by anyone, anywhere, ever.”

“The 90 Health /Science institutions that have responded thus far have provided and/or cited, in total, zero such records:

Our requests [under “freedom of information”] have not been limited to records of isolation performed by the respective institution, or limited to records authored by the respective institution, rather they were open to any records describing “COVID-19 virus” (aka “SARS-COV-2”) isolation/purification performed by anyone, ever, anywhere on the planet.”

https://www.globalresearch.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Screen-Shot-2021-08-04-at-15.10.35.png

Surely you are aware of when and where the purification/isolation of covid took place. Where did you find it?
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Sun 2 Jan, 2022 12:03 pm
@Glennn,
Quote:
You don't care that the ones ordering you to wear a mask don't do so when you're not looking?

Why should that bother me?
Quote:
Most everyone else would see that as hypocrisy and an indication that they're not really worried about it at all.

I see it as a pretty natural human response to discomfort, an example of the "it won't happen to me" attitude, and possibly an indication of people's trust in the vaccine. I don't look to public figures to be models of consistency or exemplars of personal morality.
Quote:
If you're not frustrated, you should be.

Why? I don't consider getting an injection to be a problem.
Quote:
But I'm asking you what your tolerance is concerning the number of experimental injections you'll accept before realizing that it DOES NOT CONFER IMMUNITY.

Neither does my yearly flu vaccination.
Quote:
You believe the experimental-injection conferred immunity to covid?

I believe it altered the course of the infection in those cases where vaccinated individuals got the disease and prevented occurrence of the severest symptoms.
Quote:
globalresearch.ca

Mr. Green
Quote:
Where did you find it?

Gee, I think maybe it was in Gateway Pundit.
Glennn
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 2 Jan, 2022 04:45 pm
@hightor,
Quote:
I see it as a pretty natural human response to discomfort, an example of the "it won't happen to me" attitude, and possibly an indication of people's trust in the vaccine.

You're deliberately missing the point. All of them forgetting to put them on until the camera was rolling, and all of them getting uncomfortable at the same time, which just happened to coincide with when they thought the camera in front of them was off. You're apologizing for them.
Quote:
Why? I don't consider getting an injection to be a problem.

I didn't say "an" injection. I'm referring to the number of injections you're willing to take. I believe that Israel approved the 4th shot.

How many flu shots did you get this year?
Quote:
I believe it altered the course of the infection in those cases where vaccinated individuals got the disease and prevented . . .

The operative word there is "believe." I already know what you believe.
Quote:
Gee, I think maybe it was in Gateway Pundit.

Condemning the source is a poor way to answer the question. Here is a list of 90 health/science institutions who couldn't come up with an isolated virus after a Freedom of Information request.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/90-health-science-institutions-globally-all-failed-cite-even-1-record-sars-cov-2-purification-anyone-anywhere-ever/5751961

The central question raised in this review is the following: is there reliable evidence provided by the WHO and national health authorities that the alleged SARS-CoV-2 virus has been isolated/purified from an “unadulterated sample taken from a diseased patient”?

While the alleged virus was initially defined as the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) in January 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) did not have in its possession details regarding the isolation/purification and identity of 2019-nCoV.

And because details concerning isolation / purification were not available, the WHO decided to “customize” The Real Time Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (rRT-PCR) Test using the alleged “similar” 2003 SARS virus (subsequently renamed SARS-1) as “a point of reference” for detecting genetic fragments of the novel 2019-nCoV.

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. (emphasis added, page 40)

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.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/does-the-virus-exist-the-sars-cov-2-has-not-been-isolated-biggest-fraud-in-medical-history/5752066

So, when I ask you to provide some kind of verification of the purification/isolation of the virus, it's because of what the CDC said. Do you contest the fact that they said it, or what? So, what's with them saying they have it one day, only to have them later say they don't have it?
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Mon 3 Jan, 2022 05:20 am
@Glennn,
Quote:
You're apologizing for them.

That's dumb – I can't "apologize" for something I didn't do. I didn't even see the incident you're so worked up over. The fact is, people would rather not wear masks and it's perfectly understandable why they'd remove them if they felt safe and were only wearing them for show. Big deal.
Quote:
I'm referring to the number of injections you're willing to take.

That's obvious. But each injection will be "an injection", get it? And an injection is not a big deal, even if it's done four times in a year.
Quote:
How many flu shots did you get this year?

I got the recommended number for that disease.
Quote:
I already know what you believe.

You're right, this is my "belief"; I don't know it to be a fact. Is it your contention that fully-vaccinated people contract as serious a version of the disease as the non-vaccinated population? I haven't heard that; can you provide evidence?
Quote:
Condemning the source is a poor way to answer the question.

Relying on biased sources is a poor way to establish your credibility. Suspect sources should be condemned. I have no obligation to answer your question anyway.
Quote:
So, when I ask you to provide some kind of verification of the purification/isolation of the virus, it's because of what the CDC said.

I already informed you, I don't intend to be cross-examined and I'm not interested in your truth crusade. This thread is about your pitiful life jacket analogy, which was an insult to anyone's intelligence and fell apart under mild scrutiny.
Glennn
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 3 Jan, 2022 10:13 am
@hightor,
Quote:
I can't "apologize" for something I didn't do.

Quite right. You're not among the bunch who got caught exercising the "do as I say, not as I do" edict. But you are one of the ones who apologize for them when they get caught.
Quote:
I didn't even see the incident you're so worked up over.

Which brings us to the next point. You're making excuses for people who've done something you aren't even aware of. When you decide to look at it, then you can justify excusing their blatant disregard for the mandates. But for now, you're talking about what you didn't see.
Quote:
were only wearing them for show.

Now you're getting it. But do watch the video. It's at the 7:11 mark. Won't take even a minute out of your life. Then you'll be able to discuss it without being at a disadvantage.
Quote:
But each injection will be "an injection"

Yeah, and "an" injection done over and over amounts to a treatment since it does not confer immunity or prevent transmission. I'm asking you whether or not you have a limit to the number of treatments you're willing to take before you will call it a failed "vaccine."
Quote:
You're right, this is my "belief"; I don't know it to be a fact. Is it your contention that fully-vaccinated people contract as serious a version of the disease as the non-vaccinated population? I haven't heard that; can you provide evidence?

You're trying to turn this around. You believe that you'll suffer less if you take the experimental-injection. I don't believe you. Provide evidence for your claim. You made the claim that it does something; I didn't. So, how exactly did you determine that it does what you say it does?
Quote:
Relying on biased sources . . .

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…”

I know you think tony didn't say that. But there is a video of tony saying that. So, since tony knew the folly of a 40+ threshold setting, how would you explain his and others' silence while labs around the world did just that?
Quote:
I have no obligation to answer your question anyway.

How about at least providing something to substantiate your belief that the virus has been isolated/purified. Where can information on that be found? I think you're ignoring the facts here. Though you're not obligated to answer any questions, I would expect that you would appreciate being shown that there was no isolation/purification of the virus to use as a reference point, and at least comment on that fact.

The central question raised in this review is the following: is there reliable evidence provided by the WHO and national health authorities that the alleged SARS-CoV-2 virus has been isolated/purified from an “unadulterated sample taken from a diseased patient”?

While the alleged virus was initially defined as the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) in January 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) did not have in its possession details regarding the isolation/purification and identity of 2019-nCoV.

And because details concerning isolation / purification were not available, the WHO decided to “customize” The Real Time Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (rRT-PCR) Test using the alleged “similar” 2003 SARS virus (subsequently renamed SARS-1) as “a point of reference” for detecting genetic fragments of the novel 2019-nCoV.

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. (emphasis added, page 40)

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.

No comment?
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Mon 3 Jan, 2022 12:20 pm
@Glennn,
Quote:
But you are one of the ones who apologize for them when they get caught.

No, any apology would have to come from the people directly involved. All I can do is suggest possible reasons for their behavior.
Quote:
But for now, you're talking about what you didn't see.

Videos taken out of context and used satirically by a conspiritualist aren't particularly convincing.
Quote:
I'm asking you whether or not you have a limit to the number of treatments you're willing to take before you will call it a failed "vaccine."

I'd really have to wait until it happens. In any case I don't think I'd call the vaccine a failure since it's already been shown to promote antibodies which decrease the level of infection – which is what it was developed to do.
Quote:
You believe that you'll suffer less if you take the experimental-injection. I don't believe you.

Evidently you haven't been paying attention to the differences in the severity of the disease between unvaccinated patients and people with breakthrough infections.
Quote:
...how would you explain his and others' silence while labs around the world did just that?

I already informed you, I don't intend to be cross-examined and I'm not interested in your truth crusade. This thread is about your pitiful life jacket analogy, which was an insult to anyone's intelligence and fell apart under mild scrutiny.

Glennn
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 3 Jan, 2022 02:38 pm
@hightor,
Quote:
No, any apology would have to come from the people directly involved. All I can do is suggest possible reasons for their behavior.

You seem sure that it was simply a coincidence that the whole bunch of them are seen taking off, putting on, and then taking off their face-diapers in concert with the operation of the camera. That could be interpreted as coming from a Covidian coincidence theorist; especially considering the fact that you've arrived at your deduction having never viewed the subject. You get that, right?
Quote:
Videos taken out of context and used satirically by a conspiritualist aren't particularly convincing.

Again with making claims about something you have yet to see. After watching it, I'm sure you'll discover that the only context in which their actions make sense is if someone had just told them all that there'd been a recall of the face-diapers they were wearing. Go ahead and have a gander. After all, condemnation before examination is at the root of all misinformation.
Quote:
Evidently you haven't been paying attention to the differences in the severity of the disease between unvaccinated patients and people with breakthrough infections.

Were any of these people who were regarded as unvaccinated on their first dose, second dose, or booster of the experimental injection? Cuz ya know, until two weeks after their booster, they're considered unvaccinated. Did you know that?
Quote:
I already informed you, I don't intend to be cross-examined and I'm not interested in your truth crusade. This thread is about your pitiful life jacket analogy, which was an insult to anyone's intelligence and fell apart under mild scrutiny.

You did not inform me or anyone else as to why the FDA, CDC, and tony allowed the PCR-test cycle threshold to be set too high when they knew better. Tony has said in no uncertain terms that a cycle-threshold of anything over 35 would give nothing but meaninless results. What have you heard that exonerates him?

How many people have to receive the experimtal injection--all 3 . . . 4?--before you'll feel safe?

Also, I believe you were going to address what they used as a reference point for the virus. Did you get that no one is able locate the virus?
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Mon 3 Jan, 2022 03:26 pm
@Glennn,
Quote:
Again with making claims about something you have yet to see.

I viewed it before making my comment. It looks like it was choreographed. That's why I said it was taken out of context. Sears didn't provide a link to the source. He's just a comedian.
Quote:
Also, I believe you were going to address what they used as a reference point for the virus.

Looks like you believed incorrectly.
Glennn
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 3 Jan, 2022 06:04 pm
@hightor,
Quote:
I viewed it before making my comment.

Really? In post #7,189,412, in response to me asking what you think about them all taking their face-diapers off in unison, you said that you see it as a pretty natural human response to discomfort, an example of the "it won't happen to me" attitude. In post #7,189,606 you said that you didn't even see the incident I am referring to. So . . .
Quote:
Looks like you believed incorrectly.

Not really. I knew very damn well that you weren't going to find anyone who's isolated/purified the virus. Nobody can. That's why they used the 2003 SARS virus as a point of reference for detecting genetic fragments.

Early on, the CDC claimed they had possession of the virus. How do you reconcile that with their subsequent claim that they don't have it?
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Tue 4 Jan, 2022 03:16 pm
@Glennn,
Today's headline!

The CDC now recommends Pfizer boosters after 5 months, down from 6

When it gets down to every few weeks maybe they'll set us up with intravenous drip technology!

Quote:
Really?

Yup.

Quote:
In post #7,189,412, in response to me asking what you think about them all taking their face-diapers off in unison, you said that you see it as a pretty natural human response to discomfort, an example of the "it won't happen to me" attitude. In post #7,189,606 you said that you didn't even see the incident I am referring to.

1. post #7,189,412 Sun 2 Jan, 2022 02:03 pm
2. post #7,189,606 Mon 3 Jan, 2022 07:20 am
3. Post: # 7,189,712 Mon 3 Jan, 2022 02:20 pm

I had plenty of time to look at the video in the 7 hours between my second and third reply. It looked exactly like it would if all the participants were vaccinated and weren't concerned with catching or spreading the disease but felt that they should be masked for the publicity photo so as to set an example. It's show biz. Big deal.
Glennn
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 4 Jan, 2022 04:40 pm
@hightor,
Quote:
It's show biz.

Yeah! Very good! Shocked

I'm still waiting to hear how I took tony's or anyone else's quote out of context.

Tony said that a cycle-threshold of anything over 35 would give meaning results. So, if I took that out of context, that means that you know the proper context that will show that the PCR-test wasn't a fraud.

What's the proper context?
Quote:
I had plenty of time to look at the video in the 7 hours between my second and third reply.

The point is that you said you didn't look at it, and that was after you commented.

But don't get distracted. What is the proper context to tony's statement?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

NICE BOOBS AND A BIG ASS - Discussion by Setanta
why are usa people stinky and clumsy - Question by Setanta
IF . . . - Question by Setanta
OH, FOR CHRIST'S SAKE - Discussion by Setanta
I LOVE PORK ! ! ! - Discussion by Setanta
OUTRAGE? NO THANKS . . . - Discussion by Setanta
Evil water softener guy - Discussion by Setanta
DAMN THOSE AUSTRIANS ! ! ! - Discussion by Setanta
This thread IS about race. - Discussion by Setanta
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/04/2024 at 10:38:54