keepthefaith Posted September 2, 2020 Posted September 2, 2020 2 hours ago, Magox said: This is making the rounds. Queen Nancy Oh for shitz sake Nancy, take a shower and dry your hair before you leave the house in the morning like most people.
fansince88 Posted September 2, 2020 Posted September 2, 2020 5 hours ago, spartacus said: The following discusses the flaws in the PCR test As I noted, the PCR test range started from 35- 45 replication cycles. On June 12, the CDC PCR instructions raised the recommended cycle count to 45- which basically multiplies the genetic material 35 trillion times From the Times article: Tests with thresholds so high may detect not just live virus but also genetic fragments, leftovers from infection that pose no particular risk — akin to finding a hair in a room long after a person has left, Dr. Mina said. Any test with a cycle threshold above 35 is too sensitive, agreed Juliet Morrison, a virologist at the University of California, Riverside. “I’m shocked that people would think that 40 could represent a positive,” she said. “ https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html https://www.zerohedge.com/political/watch-live-trump-speaks-during-discussion-community-safety-kenosha by Jon Rappoport September 1, 2020 Townhall.com, August 29: “According to The New York Times, potentially 90 percent of those who have tested positive for COVID-19 have such insignificant amounts of the virus present in their bodies that such individuals do not need to isolate nor are they candidates for contact tracing. Leading public health experts are now concerned that overtesting is responsible for misdiagnosing a huge number of people with harmless amounts of the virus in their systems.” “’Most of these people are not likely to be contagious…’ warns The Times.” Yes, that’s what the NY Times is confessing (8/29): “Some of the nation’s leading public health experts are raising a new concern in the endless debate over coronavirus testing in the United States: The standard tests are diagnosing huge numbers of people who may be carrying relatively insignificant amounts of the virus. Most of these people are not likely to be contagious…” “In three sets of testing data…compiled by officials in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus, a review by The Times found.” Let me break this down for you, because it’s a lot worse than the Times admits. The rabbit hole goes much deeper—and I’ve been reporting on the deeper facts for months. The issue appears to be the ballooning sensitivity of the PCR test. It’s so sensitive that it picks up inconsequential tiny, tiny amounts of virus that couldn’t harm a flea—and it calls these amounts “positive.” Therefore, millions of people are labeled “positive/infected” who carry so little virus that no harm would come to them or anyone they come in contact with. That would be bad enough. But the truth is, the PCR test is not able to produce ANY reliable number that reflects how much virus a person is carrying. A lot, a little, it doesn’t matter. The test has never been validated, in a large-scale study, for the ability to quantify the amount of virus a person is carrying. I’ve proposed how that study should be done IN THE REAL WORLD, NOT IN THE LAB. You take 1000 people and remove tissue samples from them. A lab puts these samples through its PCR and announces which virus it found in each case and how much virus it found in each case. It says: “All right, in patients 23, 46, 76, 89, 265 we found a high amount of virus.” That should mean these particular patients are visibly sick. They will have obvious clinical symptoms. Why? Because actual illness requires millions of millions of a virus replicating in the body. So now we unblind these particular patients with high amounts of virus, according to the PCR. Are they, in fact, sick? Or are they running marathons and swimming five miles a day? Let’s see. For real. THIS VALIDATION OF THE PCR HAS NEVER BEEN DONE. Therefore, the claim that the PCR can determine how much virus is in a human is completely and utterly unproven. Period. Therefore, ALL the PCR tests being done on people all over the world reflect NOTHING about illness, infection, contagion, or transmission. The scam is wall to wall. But there’s more. The PCR isn’t even testing for a particular virus in the first place. It’s using a piece of RNA assumed to be part of a virus. The assumption is unproven. And finally, as I’ve been writing and demonstrating for months, there is no evidence that researchers used proper procedure to discover “a new coronavirus that is causing a pandemic.” Therefore, the PCR test, as worthless as it already is, aims to show the presence of a germ that has never been shown to exist. But let’s lock down the planet, destroy economies and untold numbers of lives in the process. SOURCES: townhall.com/tipsheet/bronsonstocking/2020/08/29/it-looks-like-a-lot-of-those-positive-covid-tests-should-have-been-negative-n2575305 nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html This is the most interesting thing I have read in a week. thans for sharing! 2 hours ago, Magox said: Nice drop With what @spartacus just posted.....I really dont care anymore. Im over this!! 1 1
shoshin Posted September 2, 2020 Posted September 2, 2020 1 hour ago, Penfield45 said: conservatives call this a hoax but still think 9/11 was real? amazing I’m sure plenty here think both are hoaxes/deep state conspiracies. 1
Big Blitz Posted September 2, 2020 Posted September 2, 2020 Goal posts. They've officially reached their final destination. Also, no its freaking not how we're going to have to live. We are an embarrassment. Anyone that looks at this and thinks this is ok....you are one of Lenin's useful idiots. Which makes sense considering that the reaction to the distance for life rules has been Commies that have never understood math support.....freedom loving people that understand statistics do not. 2
Reality Check Posted September 2, 2020 Posted September 2, 2020 6 hours ago, shoshin said: I’m sure plenty here think both are hoaxes/deep state conspiracies.
fansince88 Posted September 2, 2020 Posted September 2, 2020 4 hours ago, Big Blitz said: Goal posts. They've officially reached their final destination. Also, no its freaking not how we're going to have to live. We are an embarrassment. Anyone that looks at this and thinks this is ok....you are one of Lenin's useful idiots. Which makes sense considering that the reaction to the distance for life rules has been Commies that have never understood math support.....freedom loving people that understand statistics do not. Is RI stuck with her for 2 more years as we are with Cuomo?
shoshin Posted September 2, 2020 Posted September 2, 2020 13 hours ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said: ...it is just too bad that at the end of the day, unbiased, non-political laced data, devoid of multiple reports of screwed up testing numbers cannot be ascertained so the scientific community can reach some accurate assessments going forward.....as a layperson, I'd think that information would be invaluable as far as long term effects, seasonal and/or other recurrence, vaccine(s) effectiveness et al.....BUT...."NEVER let a good crisis go to waste"...we are societally SICK............. The point to be made from that NYT story is that perhaps the test is too sensitive —to be the only test— but we shouldn’t stop using the PCR. We need more tests, especially the rapid ones. Give me an 95% accurate rapid test In quantity and we can go to football games. Don’t need to PCR everyone. 1
Kemp Posted September 2, 2020 Posted September 2, 2020 13 hours ago, Chef Jim said: You are absolutely correct. I can’t refute anything you’ve said. And the reason is not what you think. The reason I can’t refute anything you’ve said is because it’s so unremarkable I’ve not remembered any of it. Bragging about a lack of mental prowess fits you perfectly.
Gary M Posted September 2, 2020 Posted September 2, 2020 14 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said: <br /> Clowns 1
spartacus Posted September 2, 2020 Posted September 2, 2020 16 hours ago, shoshin said: I’ve seen those articles and find them compelling, but they don’t talk about the CDC raising the standards in mid June like you said. It’s not a big deal. I just hadn’t heard about that and it seems like it didn’t happen. good news found CDC lab instructions for PCR test dated 7/13 which replaced the 6/12 instructions I had seen earlier seems like it happened after all https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download note that on pg 26 (f), the CDC is instructing that the thermal cycles be run 45 times this doubles the sample 45 times, resulting in 35 TRILLION copies why mandate 45 cycles, if the intended threshold to determine a positive test is supposed to be 40 cycles (pg 35) ? An obvious rationale is that labs are to use the extra cycles generate positive test results where none should exist In either case, the doctor in the NY TImes article is adamant taht the threshold is too high "Tests with thresholds so high may detect not just live virus but also genetic fragments, leftovers from infection that pose no particular risk — akin to finding a hair in a room long after a person has left, Dr. Mina said. Any test with a cycle threshold above 35 is too sensitive, agreed Juliet Morrison, a virologist at the University of California, Riverside. “I’m shocked that people would think that 40 could represent a positive,” she said." Shutting down the economy based on a rigged test is criminal Read these source articles townhall.com/tipsheet/bronsonstocking/2020/08/29/it-looks-like-a-lot-of-those-positive-covid-tests-should-have-been-negative-n2575305 nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html 1 1
spartacus Posted September 2, 2020 Posted September 2, 2020 2 hours ago, shoshin said: The point to be made from that NYT story is that perhaps the test is too sensitive —to be the only test— but we shouldn’t stop using the PCR. We need more tests, especially the rapid ones. Give me an 95% accurate rapid test In quantity and we can go to football games. Don’t need to PCR everyone. The bigger point of the story is that the PCR test is not even searching for Covid virus cells in one's body It is searching for computer manipulated RNA particles created that may exist in all coronavirus particles in your body, not just the covid one. The coronavirus, including the common cold, is the most prevalent virus in the human body. Congratulations- you are positive for the common cold 1 2
Reality Check Posted September 2, 2020 Posted September 2, 2020 (edited) On 7/16/2020 at 8:08 AM, Reality Check said: Like I have been saying... This is a massive fraud to bring in digitally controlled tyranny via fear... Fear of the common cold rebranded as Covid 19... We are being held hostage by fear and blind followers of orthodoxy... They extorted trillions of dollars out of our country... At the time no one cared... Because they were scared... Millions of people are going to have to examine the quality of their problem solving skills when the dust settles... I can see why the global financial system views us as livestock... We act like it... Just add fear and a welfare check... Simple... On 7/16/2020 at 8:33 AM, Reality Check said: What were the ages of these people... Pre existing conditions... What are the numbers of all other causes of death by comparison... Compare that to years past... Edited September 2, 2020 by Reality Check 2
Magox Posted September 2, 2020 Posted September 2, 2020 42 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said: This is practically becoming empirical. 4
B-Man Posted September 2, 2020 Posted September 2, 2020 More on the above: SCIENCE IS REAL: The Failed Experiment of Covid Lockdowns: New data suggest that social distancing and reopening haven’t determined the spread. TrendMacro, my analytics firm, tallied the cumulative number of reported cases of Covid-19 in each state and the District of Columbia as a percentage of population, based on data from state and local health departments aggregated by the Covid Tracking Project. We then compared that with the timing and intensity of the lockdown in each jurisdiction. That is measured not by the mandates put in place by government officials, but rather by observing what people in each jurisdiction actually did, along with their baseline behavior before the lockdowns. This is captured in highly detailed anonymized cellphone tracking data provided by Google and others and tabulated by the University of Maryland’s Transportation Institute into a “Social Distancing Index.” Measuring from the start of the year to each state’s point of maximum lockdown—which range from April 5 to April 18—it turns out that lockdowns correlated with a greater spread of the virus. States with longer, stricter lockdowns also had larger Covid outbreaks. The five places with the harshest lockdowns—the District of Columbia, New York, Michigan, New Jersey and Massachusetts—had the heaviest caseloads. It could be that strict lockdowns were imposed as a response to already severe outbreaks. But the surprising negative correlation, while statistically weak, persists even when excluding states with the heaviest caseloads. And it makes no difference if the analysis includes other potential explanatory factors such as population density, age, ethnicity, prevalence of nursing homes, general health or temperature. The only factor that seems to make a demonstrable difference is the intensity of mass-transit use. We ran the experiment a second time to observe the effects on caseloads of the reopening that began in mid-April. We used the same methodology, but started from each state’s peak of lockdown and extended to July 31. Confirming the first experiment, there was a tendency (though fairly weak) for states that opened up the most to have the lightest caseloads. The states that had the big summer flare-ups in the so-called “Sunbelt second wave”—Arizona, California, Florida and Texas—are by no means the most opened up, politicized headlines notwithstanding. The lesson is not that lockdowns made the spread of Covid-19 worse—although the raw evidence might suggest that—but that lockdowns probably didn’t help, and opening up didn’t hurt. This defies common sense. In theory, the spread of an infectious disease ought to be controllable by quarantine. Evidently not in practice, though we are aware of no researcher who understands why not. We’re not the only researchers to have discovered this statistical relationship. When people say “follow the science,” ask them what science they’re talking about. 2
Magox Posted September 2, 2020 Posted September 2, 2020 Damn! I didn't want to like him but...... Seems alright to me 6
Big Blitz Posted September 2, 2020 Posted September 2, 2020 2 hours ago, spartacus said: good news found CDC lab instructions for PCR test dated 7/13 which replaced the 6/12 instructions I had seen earlier seems like it happened after all https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download note that on pg 26 (f), the CDC is instructing that the thermal cycles be run 45 times this doubles the sample 45 times, resulting in 35 TRILLION copies why mandate 45 cycles, if the intended threshold to determine a positive test is supposed to be 40 cycles (pg 35) ? An obvious rationale is that labs are to use the extra cycles generate positive test results where none should exist In either case, the doctor in the NY TImes article is adamant taht the threshold is too high "Tests with thresholds so high may detect not just live virus but also genetic fragments, leftovers from infection that pose no particular risk — akin to finding a hair in a room long after a person has left, Dr. Mina said. Any test with a cycle threshold above 35 is too sensitive, agreed Juliet Morrison, a virologist at the University of California, Riverside. “I’m shocked that people would think that 40 could represent a positive,” she said." Shutting down the economy based on a rigged test is criminal Read these source articles townhall.com/tipsheet/bronsonstocking/2020/08/29/it-looks-like-a-lot-of-those-positive-covid-tests-should-have-been-negative-n2575305 nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html Should be the biggest story on the planet. This is the biggest sham in history. All these "cases"......like we've said ALL ALONG about CONTEXT aren't even "cases."
IDBillzFan Posted September 2, 2020 Posted September 2, 2020 16 minutes ago, Magox said: Damn! I didn't want to like him but...... Seems alright to me All I kept reading... 2
ziltoid Posted September 2, 2020 Posted September 2, 2020 40 minutes ago, Magox said: This is practically becoming empirical. This has really been a sh*tty week for lefties, and it's only Weds. 3
Tiberius Posted September 2, 2020 Posted September 2, 2020 Fauci Debunks Trump's Death Toll Retweet in Latest Contradiction Throughout the pandemic, Fauci has been careful not to openly criticize Trump while attempting to correct false claims.
Recommended Posts