Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Mass Psychosis

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Faber
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    Is this a new one? I thought B.B. quit doing comics a year ago.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    Mike do you even know how PCR works? You seem to be making the claim that if they amplify any sample enough they can find any molecule and get a false positive. That isn't true. PCR Covid tests isolate and amplifies specific gene sequences that are unique to the COVID-19 virus. They are not just some random "molecule" that everyone has in their body. If the test finds those sequences then you have the COVID virus in your body. Or at least genetic remnants of it if you are over it by the time the test is taken. And as I think Starlight says above, if you have high amounts of the virus, it will show up in the PCR test after fewer cycles. If you don't have much in your body, then it won't show up until much higher cycles. Which is where you are misreading the 97% false positive thing from. Most infected people will come back with a positive after much fewer cycles. But if someone is getting over the sickness and is not longer infected, they might still show positive after 35-45 cycles. Which would mean that they are most likely not infected any longer (or could just be starting to become infected and have a low viral load). And scientist know this. Obviously. and take that into account.

    But you don't get a positive result at any cycle count if you don't have the virus in your body. I have had a negative test result. If what you are claiming is true, then there would be NO negative results because they would just keep cycling till they found something. That doesn't happen.
    The issue is that even if someone doesn't have enough of the China flu virus in their body to make them sick or even contagious, the PCR test can still be rigged to detect it -- Fauci the Fraud and the CDC were recommending a very high number of cycles; I believe it was 40 -- so it was possible to get a "positive" that was meaningless. This is what is being referred to when people say the PCR test was generating "false positives". The CDC did eventually reduce the recommended number cycles to 28 or fewer (coincidentally right around the time the vaccines were being rolled out; perhaps an attempt to deliberately reduce the number of people who tested "positive" in order to promote the effectiveness of the vaccines?) before eventually abandoning PCR in favor a test they claim is more accurate -- and curiously one they say that, unlike previous tests, can distinguish between the China flu and other common flus, suggesting that previous tests could not!

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    vax.jpg

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Mike do you even know how PCR works? You seem to be making the claim that if they amplify any sample enough they can find any molecule and get a false positive. That isn't true. PCR Covid tests isolate and amplifies specific gene sequences that are unique to the COVID-19 virus. They are not just some random "molecule" that everyone has in their body. If the test finds those sequences then you have the COVID virus in your body. Or at least genetic remnants of it if you are over it by the time the test is taken. And as I think Starlight says above, if you have high amounts of the virus, it will show up in the PCR test after fewer cycles. If you don't have much in your body, then it won't show up until much higher cycles. Which is where you are misreading the 97% false positive thing from. Most infected people will come back with a positive after much fewer cycles. But if someone is getting over the sickness and is not longer infected, they might still show positive after 35-45 cycles. Which would mean that they are most likely not infected any longer (or could just be starting to become infected and have a low viral load). And scientist know this. Obviously. and take that into account.

    But you don't get a positive result at any cycle count if you don't have the virus in your body. I have had a negative test result. If what you are claiming is true, then there would be NO negative results because they would just keep cycling till they found something. That doesn't happen.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post

    I love your scientific response to the corman drosten review. Your skill at finding the experts against this review .... oh wait. You did not provide any arguments. You just like the kool aid.
    That is completely incorrect. I gave a detailed response, and even got some of it wrong (misread how they got the 97% figure in the study) which someone else pointed out to me, which I admitted it and corrected myself and still proved YOU wrong. And you still repeat the very same nonsense. Arguing with you doesn't make a damn bit of difference to you. You won't admit when you are wrong and simply dismiss anything that shows you are wrong and repeat the same wrong information.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
16 responses
160 views
0 likes
Last Post One Bad Pig  
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
53 responses
400 views
0 likes
Last Post Mountain Man  
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
25 responses
114 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
33 responses
198 views
0 likes
Last Post Roy
by Roy
 
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
84 responses
379 views
0 likes
Last Post JimL
by JimL
 
Working...
X