Bad science

That does appear to be the "bad science" agenda being handed down by the globalists. We recently watched Boris Johnson in the UK completely fold to the globalists and bad science. Now they've managed to seat a globalist over America, by hook or by crook. Things will get worse before they get better, but I believe that both the UK and American people will protest loudly enough to put down this nonsense...and hopefully most of the other European countries will follow.

Meanwhile, the heartbreaking crimes against humanity continue.

 

Wrong line of approach.
A person without any symptoms will only found out if they get tested. Mass testing, or through tracing.
Thats how we found out about them.
Some people can catch the virus and for some odd reason, react like vaccinated.
But it does not mean, that they can not spread.
The virus can stay in the nose and mouth up to 5 days.
We know that. In those days you have the highest viral load. We know that, too

This is the thing with vaccination. I will get my 2 shots, but I understand, that I can be still be a carrier of the virus, it does not harm me anymore.
But if I take my kisser sock of, and sneeze, cough, having the virus, I might give it to somebody else
That is what what no symptom people do.
They are super spreaders.

This is a nother thing we need to think about.

If you are asym, you have no idea, how could you ?
If you have been vaccinated, you know.

Will everybody who takes it serious right now give everybody a grace period, after being vaccinated, be responsible, wear a mask, till mid summer ?

 

~ Sadly I have watched the same of UK and Australia as well. The only ones who seem to be standing up to China's Communist Party is India, Japan, Taiwan and Trump. Without the USA military and economic backing China will have a much more easy task at becoming the new Adolf Hitler .

 

....and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Now if the dumb 1st world western countries would just get in line with real science. lol

 

~ According to your analysis we then are all "Super Spreaders".
Congratulations !!

 

jup.

 

It’s not nonsense. It’s vague, but not nonsense. PCR tests look for RNA, which is definitely a molecule, and what makes a virus “tick”.

And yes, PCR looks for “one molecule”. It may not always return a positive result if only one RNA molecule is present in a sample, but it’s possible depending on competence of testers and integrity of reagents and equipment. RT-PCR adds a step of conversion of RNA to DNA (PCR can only amplify DNA) so there is more chance for errors in reagent purity etc. to affect outcomes if very little RNA is present in the sample.

So the wording of the statement in question is vague and hard for those who don’t have in-depth knowledge of RT-PCR to understand, but it’s certainly not a nonsensical statement.

 

From YOUR cite:

 

Yes. It clearly states that symptomatic and presymptomatic transmission occurs more than "truly asymptomatic transmission". The article is also not just one paragraph. In other paragraphs, the article questions if asymptomatic people are infectious at all and laments that we do not know because nobody is adequately splitting that demographic out for study.

Presymptomatic and paucisymtomatic do not mean the same thing as asymptomatic. Reading is a friend. Reading comprehension is an even better friend.

 

One issue has to do with what technology and procedurs are used to analyze test samples taken in outpatient procedures. If full bore PCR capability were used I would suggest it is less likely that there would be the false positives and negatives that are known.

Also, as we work toward mass delivery of home tests I would suggest that those NEVER see PCR technology at all. Yet that direction allows for advancement in terms of how our population can protect each other.

I'd suggest that the issue of public outpatient testing isn't that of detecting single RNA molecules when being concerned with transmission. COVID experts talk about there needing to be a viral load way higher than that to make transmission possible or to lead to symptomatic disease. If you catch a stray virus, that is not going to cause COVID.

So, overall it seems like the outer limits of PCR capability is incredible and I'm glad we have it. But, I think we have to be careful when considering how that capability should affect public policy.

Comments?

 

So, now you want to claim that your own cited article is self contradictory?

Sorry. I read the whole article - not just your favorite snip.

 

Point taken.

 

~ Yes indeed. We all do better if we " will read more ".

 

your insipid stubbornness is most amazing. You just can't concede a point, but instead "support" your supposition and conjecture with "my bet".

The Top 10 Reasons Students Cannot Cite or Rely On Wikipedia (findingdulcinea.com)

 

Yes, I agree much error is human error. I can’t prove it, but I think a lot of false negatives are sampling errors.

It looks like we are still going to hang our hats on antigen tests. Unfortunately they have not delivered consistency either. (Yet?)

True. Viral load (shedding) drives transmission. But as stated above, I don’t think sampling is consistent. An infected individual that is shedding prolifically won’t return a positive test if the sample isn’t collected properly or the test prepared properly.

I maintain that RT-PCR testing was oversold. It has severe limitations in catching infections and even more severe limitations predicting contagious individuals vs. convalescent individuals. Of course for months RT-PCR testing was hailed as the holy grail of Covid control when in reality it’s not well suited for what was expected of it. Like you I’m glad we had/have it. But I wish we had been more honest with the average Joe about it’s limitations. PCR technology is one of the greatest inventions of all time. It’s just not very good at what we need today for contact tracing data and determining who’s contagious.

 

1. You are either feigning ingnorance or are truly in need in a refresher course in reading comprehension. I suspect a little of both.

2 - 4. All you're doing here stalling....hoping that the readers won't see your inability to disprove the excerpt of my previous response by just rambling on with some related moot points.

5. The first two words here are debatable, given that one would have to ignore all previous exchanges and accept your revisionism. This ploy of your fools no one with a GED and above reading comprehension and the ability to merely click the little arrows for a recap.

6. The chronology of the posts shows that it was YOU who threw the first condescending note. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

7. Again, you fool no one but the man in mirror with this claim....as the chronology of the posts shows all your failed attempts and denial of facts with insipid stubbornness. You're pretty much done, Will. The OP stands valid.

 

The PCR tests ARE the COVID tests, your boy Fauci discusses that at length in the video I previously posted and you ignored. Antigen tests are being done in individual doctor's office or labs or hospitals...and just because you have anti-bodies does NOT mean you are presently sick. It means your body dealt with the virus. This means you are done with it...not a carrier.

The PCR test can detect almost anything microbial, no matter how tiny, but it cannot determine how much of the microbe is there. Therein lies the crux of the controversy inherent in diagnosing COVID-19 cases using PCR testing.
Questioning Unreliable PCR Testing Is Hardly Trivial | River Cities' Reader (rcreader.com)

You're hell bent on discrediting Mullis and praising Fauci...that requires a LOT of supposition and conjecture on your part with a heavy dose of denial. We've done this dance and you've repeatedly stumbled, Will. Trolling with the SOS won't remove the posts that show your failures.

 

The PCR test can detect almost anything microbial, no matter how tiny, but it cannot determine how much of the microbe is there. Therein lies the crux of the controversy inherent in diagnosing COVID-19 cases using PCR testing.


Questioning Unreliable PCR Testing Is Hardly Trivial | River Cities' Reader (rcreader.com)

 

What makes you think Fauci wasn't/isn't part of that problem? His documented flip flops, past and present.

 

Major flaw in your analysis:

Some people can catch the virus and for some odd reason, react like vaccinated.
But it does not mean, that they can not spread.

people who are immune are not reacting like vaccinated...they are immune. Subsequently, people with anti-bodies aren't automatically contagious...that means they've had the virus, didn't get critical and went on about their business. And traditionally, vaccination eliminates the ability to be contagious. But Covid seems to be a magic virus that defies medical precedent, according to the powers that be.

Apropos to this: Questioning Unreliable PCR Testing Is Hardly Trivial | River Cities' Reader (rcreader.com)

 

~ Indeed it is. The first "politically sensitive" virus in history .

 

Oh
Oh, please!! Remember that I didn't ask anyone to look to wiki for more than being a starting point - as a way of identifying what the issue is.

So, what the hell do you want me to "concede"???

 

Mullis went full on NUTTY against Fauci. And, Mullis was just plain pants on fire wrong on the HIV/AIDS issue - the root of his attacks.

So, yes. I'm not going to accept ANYTHING from Mullis as counter anything Dr. Fauci has done.

You are right about that!

Nothing else you said in that post counters anything I've said so far.

 

I've constantly pointed out that PCR tests can result in results that are considered false positives in terms of whether an individual is carrying a viral load that could be communicable or could result in the individual becoming symptomatic. And, yes there are various types of tests to address different issues and to make tradeoffs involving processing requirements, time, use, etc. For eample, having a test that is cheap, instant and can be executed by the public (like a piss test for pregnancy) would be a great addition if it is reasonably accurate.

Your news reporter notes these issues.

Really, if you have an issue with something I've said, please actually identify it. I can't read behind your concerns about "magic" and "tradition". And, the rest doesn't seem to me to counter anything I've said.

I think you are overestimating what is known about immunity.

Please drop your Mullis angle on COVID. Just praise him for his really great PCR contribution. Everything he's said against Fauci was pants on fire crazy and is just plain embarrassing for Mullis and anyone who parrots that nonsense.

 

Yes - every one of those points match what I've learned!