The Covid-19 pandemic is officially over?

That thought has indeed crossed my mind as of recently.

For the most part, "both" of them only post in their own respective threads. Though I believe I've seen Godman post to two or so threads started by other members over the 14 years I've posted to a2k.

You make a compelling argument. Two sides of the same character - Smeagol and gollum.

Apparently, you've found some science literature confirming that the experimental-injection prevents infection and transmission. Could you please post the source from which you pulled that claim?

So you can determine the context? Atta boy!

You should find someone else to talk about context. You're the one who was asked over and over and over again to provide proper context to some statements from fauci and the CDC. And you're the one who failed to provide that "proper" context each and every time.

Remember?

Fauci said that a cycle-threshold of anything over 35 would give meaningless results. You claimed I took that out of context, and so I showed you the video in which fauci stated that fact in a way that even you couldn't deny. But you did anyway. And your rationale for not believing your eyes and ears was that I had taken it out of context.

So, this time, maybe you'll offer the proper context to such things as "This test cannot rule out infections from other viral or bacterial pathogens."



Since you're the Context Kid, go ahead and rewrite that in a way that shows proper context. You're on, buddy!

Can you do that?

Oh, and since you're answering for the other guy:

Apparently, you've found some science literature confirming that the experimental-injection prevents infection and transmission. Could you please post the source from which you pulled that claim?

No, you were the one who was asked to provide context over and over again. If I hadn't asked repeatedly you wouldn't have had to provide the video.


Um, how is asking you a question "answering for the other guy"? Are you thinking of "Jeopardy"?


Apparently you didn't read the scientific literature which explains that while no vaccine is 100% effective, high rates of vaccination deter the specific disease for which it was formulated. Of course it is in the nature of viral infections to mutate and new vaccines need to be developed in response. This is why newly-formulated influenza vaccines are introduced annually.

When fauci says that a cycle-threshold of anything over 35 is not going to tell you what you need to know, do you really think he meant that anything over 35 is going to tell you just what you need to know . . . like the higher the cycle-threshold the better? If you believe that a cycle-threshold of 40 is going to tell you anything you need to know, then you're going to have to explain how, in the proper context, saying that anything over 35 is meaningless actually indicates that that anything over 35 is just right.

So, go ahead and share that proper context you believe will make something clear go away.

I say he meant what he said. What on earth did you hear him say?

I was unaware that the experimental-injection contains a weakened strain of the covid virus; ya know, like real vaccines.

You seem genuinely ignorant of the fact that the manufacturer of the experimental-injection did not test it for transmission, and then neglected to mention that to the public when he knew it. I'm sure I've mentioned that several times to you, but your response was identical to your other responses; like your response to learning that the FDA recommended that labs use a cycle-threshold of 40 when fauci made clear that that would be pointless--you pretended I hadn't asked you about that. And you did the same thing when you were confronted with the test package insert that tells you that the test cannot rule out infection caused by . . . other things. Did you know that when you took the test? And did you know that since they didn't really have a copy of the virus (even though they said they did), they used something from 2003 that WASN'T the novel coronavirus? I confronted you about that, too. But you pretended you hadn't been asked.

So, why did the CDC say that an isolate was not available when they needed a reference point for detection of covid? The patient was in Washington State! I believe I told you that, too. But it seems that that must have not coincided with your world view.

Any explanation?

So, why did you get tested with a test that cannot rule out other pathogens, and one that didn't use the novel coronavirus as a reference for testing in the first place?

And to that point:

On January 20, 2020, CDC said that they 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.

However, an 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.

https://boulderbugle.com/rfk-jr-frv5ck3k

Why would I want to talk to you?

It's a waste of time you're delusional.