|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
66.74.53.153
In Reply to: RE: You think public advisories, then, should be irrespective of actual infections? nt posted by tinear on September 24, 2021 at 07:19:23
We're all infected with trillions of viruses. The PCR test is totally bogus. They're asymptomatic but be very afraid.
Follow Ups:
preferably in epidemiology or virology, and then begin a laborious study of Covid and similar organisms before you make pronouncements that contradict, misinterpret, misstate, and draw wrong conclusions.
Barring that, a good strategy that holds for many other science-related things in life is to go with the overwhelming consensus of professionals in the field. You would have come out ahead in car safety, tobacco, ozone holes, global warming, and Covid.
Now you can look down from your seat of infinite knowledge and belittle those who don't have such degrees!
What? Oh - You don't actually have one of those degrees? Sorry - my bad! ;-)
Yes,likely he doesn't. He is, IMO actually a science denier. This place is full of people looking for perfection and being disappointed. That I can tell you!
Denied facts are still facts.
"overwhelming consensus"
Ha!
At some time, a couple thousand years ago, the overwhelming consensus was that the Earth was the center of the universe.
Now, the "overwhelming consensus" is that "we" can do something about global warming.
LOL!
****
We are inclusive and diverse. But dissent will not be tolerated.
rather before modern scientific method? Religion long was the enemy of knowledge through science--- and other fields.
Often, one hears people use mistakes scientists have made as an excuse to damn the entire field, forgetting that it's scientists that corrected those errors.
Science, indeed, has to evolve: it's not an ideology, after all. It's based on the best information, not the most attractive to hear, the loudest shouted, the most violently asserted. Cold, hard facts and experiments, published, reviewed, and reproduced by other scientists.
Again, if one scoffs at science, without proof of its error(s), it exposes something about the illogical protester, not the science.
"...go with the overwhelming consensus of professionals in the field."
I never place a lot of cred in consensus. I listen to the individual "professionals in the field" that I have trust in.
I design and build PCR's including those for COVID. Your asssertion is bullshit!
The inventor of the PCR disagrees.
More of your troll bullshit. It keeps orbiting the Internet.He said it can't tell if someone is infectious NOT that it can't detect viruses
Edits: 09/24/21
First of all I didn't quote him.
I said he disagrees. He also said the pcr was not being used properly. He also said Fauci is full of shit.
The test is an amazing invention but when the protocol requires 30+ cycles it really isn't telling you anything very useful.
Instead of saying the test is bogus I should have said the testing is bogus. My bad.
Thirty cycles invalidates PCR, eminent molecular biologist that you are? Please provide a reference
You fail to understand the basic function of PCR. It is NOT a quantitative test as invented, it is a qualitative test.
Please supply a reference for his assertion that Fauci is full of shit.
For your information Mullis published fewer than thirty peer reviewed publications compared to Fauci's over 200. At the end of his life he was considered by most to be a kook. After winning the Nobel, he retired and surfed and smoked dope. He hadn't done real science for years.
I think all you need to do is check his own words at various times. He's actually admitted that he's full of shit, and he does an excellent job of incriminating himself.
Unfortunately for you however, this means sitting through some more Jimmy Dore videos! LOL!
A little over a year ago, Fauci admitted that he LIED about masks:
View YouTube Video
Five months ago, Fauci LIED about herd immunity (fast forward to about 12 minutes and 30 seconds into the clip):
View YouTube Video
Three months ago, the results from a FOIA request revealed that Fauci LIED about his involvement in Gain of Function research and also about the time at which he knew there was asymptomatic transmission of the virus, and finally about claiming he had been "blocked" from going on Rachel Maddow's show:
View YouTube Video
So. . . there you have it. If you watch these three videos, I think you may come to the conclusion that Fauci IS indeed full of shit. OTOH, the tribalism behind him is strong! ;-)
but your opinions have completely gone 'round the (far-right) bend. Sad.
Mark in NC
"The thought that life could be better is woven indelibly into our hearts and our brains" -Paul Simon
And if you refuse to acknowledge the mistakes (or even the possible crimes) of a person just because he's a member of your own tribe, so much the worse for you, Mark.
We're not dealing with opinions here - we're dealing the actual on-camera lies that Fauci told, and then later even ADMITTED that he told. How clear do you want it to be?
have to do without.Remember that Trump claimed that there were only 15 cases and that everything was in control back then.
Things were changing by the day. One calls the shots as best one can given the data available.
Edits: 09/24/21
What Fauci SHOULD have done was to tell the truth. For all we know, people may not have used existing masks which they already could have had*, because Fauci, as our nation's highest "authority" on this matter, explicitly told us all NOT to wear masks. Fauci did NOT tell the truth, and it's likely that many died because he encouraged them NOT to wear masks. He COULD have said something like "We need the N95 masks for our medical personnel, but you can make your own cloth masks to use when you're out in public". He should NOT have lied by saying that masks do not do any good. I'm certain he's responsible for people dying, and I think charges ought to be filed against him. Just my opinion though.I don't have any love for Trump, but we're talking about Fauci. Why are you even bringing up Trump?
What Fauci said at that time was FAR from the "best one can [say] given the data available". I know we've had our run-ins over on the classical forum from time to time, but I think that, at bottom, they're good natured (at least I hope so). But, in all seriousness, that rationalizing, excuse-laden last sentence in your post is VERY disappointing.
*For instance, we had a couple of N95 masks already at our house at that time.
Edits: 09/25/21
Almost everybody can be made out to be a liar.
So, tell us, what context are we missing here?
+1 I too would like to know.
Denied facts are still facts.
Were all 3 examples taken out of context?
Edits: 09/24/21
yes, all three of you, very poor communication skills
2.5 stars ... would not read again
we three kings of Orient are incommunicado
I like to say things twice, say things twice
it can get annoying though, annoying though
the human body was designed by a civil engineer
who else would run a toxic waste pipeline through a recreational area
I see you have something to talk about
well, I have something to shout about
in fact something to sing about
but I'll just keep quiet and let you carry on
He did lie to congress, under oath. Something I learned early in life is that liars lie. My brother was a diagnosed sociopath. They have no conscience.
"It is NOT a quantitative test as invented, it is a qualitative test."
Right and the more you cycle the lower the quality.
You have no idea, you're just parroting shit you read on the web!
You got me there. The internet is my only source.
"Please supply a reference for his assertion that Fauci is full of shit."
I was paraphrasing. So chances are that can't be referenced.
Are not facts!
Right, the fact part is that he did say something like that.
MedTech
FDA warns Abbott Alinity PCR COVID test results may only be 'presumptive' due to risk of false positives
by Andrea Park | Sep 21, 2021 3:30pm
Denied facts are still facts.
Pregnancy tests, Cologard tests, Flu Tests, etc, etc, etc, all have a degree of false positives. It's part of the reality of testing. In fact,there is an inverse relationship between sensitivity and specificity (false positives). The more sensitive a test is the higher the likelihood of false positives. The trick is in balancing the two.
Edits: 09/24/21
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: