FRAUD: CDC showing again they are a political/propaganda arm and not practicing science...
I didn't actually plan on posting a second post today. This information I just stumbled across is huge though. I feel compelled to speak up.
The first thing I want to state is that if you understand the scientific method you know it requires a consistent non-biased method of measurement. You don't measure one way in one circumstance and measure a different way in another and then try to show the results of those measurements having any form of equivalence.
If you are familiar with the PCR tests used to test people for COVID-19 then you are likely aware it uses a process of cycles. Each cycle amplifies a substance. The person that invented it actually won a Nobel prize for it. He died before COVID. However, he had stated that they should not use the PCR test for testing for illnesses like they are COVID. Why? If you use sufficient cycles you can find ANY substance on any person. If you test 20 cycles on one group, and then you test that same group on 21 cycles the test using 21 cycles is going to show more positive results.
If you are in a state that tests 30 cycles and there is another state that tests 35 cycles you a pretty much guaranteed the results are going to be a lot higher in the state that tests for 35. Likewise, if there seems to be a lull and things seem to be improving when testing at 35 cycles if you then bump it to 36 or 37 cycles it will suddenly look like a surge.
When talking about the results it is difficult to find the number of cycles used in each test situation but it is extremely important to the truth. If you do not report this then you can make things appear to be worse or get better at the whim of the politicians or those giving orders to the testers. This is not science. This is fraud.
Now if there was a mandate that EVERYONE use exactly the same number of cycles in all circumstances that would at least be consistent with the scientific method. That hasn't happened.
That was all lead up to what I found out...
You needed to understand the above information before the ramifications of this new info can fully be comprehended.
The CDC has announced new guidelines for testing ONLY people who have been vaccinated. That is to test them at 28 cycles which is lower than pretty much anywhere else is testing.
That is a clip from the linked PDF (28 cycles). It is actually LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 28 cycles. So they are fine with the vaccinated people being tested with 28 or less cycles but NOT MORE.
That is the header of the PDF and under objective clearly states this is for people that have received the vaccine.
Do you understand what that means?
It is guaranteed to produce artificially lower positive test results ONLY for people who have been vaccinated. If you haven't been vaccinated they will test you with the higher number of cycles. That is guaranteed to make the vaccine appear effective purely through test manipulation.
It also is a good example of why the guy that invented the PCR test said it shouldn't be used this way.
Do you still trust the CDC?
Do you still blindly fall for the argument from authority fallacy?
If you do, why?
This is not science. This is political, money grubbing, power over others, and fraud.
EDIT: This may be in response to some locations reporting as many as 60% of the new COVID cases they were seeing were people that were vaccinated. If they lower the cycles they can artificially make this go away while still testing everyone else at the previous number of cycles.
EDIT 2: I can say I was expecting the down votes... 26 added at once though. That is something to behold. I am sure people have studied what this group of people allows to trend and be rewarded. No big deal. I was fully expecting it. I can admit to being a little excited when I saw the post hit $140 in potential rewards but I was also thinking "Yep, get ready for the downvotes". :) I guess it is good my expectations are properly attuned. It at least appears not as bad as steemit was getting before I decided it was no longer worth the time or effort.
If this stabilizes the market and helps keep things running well I am okay with it. I only have issue if people do it for those reasons and then vote themselves large payouts. I appreciate the stated goal, but I do not like hypocrisy. As long as that is not the case then I am okay with it.
This is definitely a point of concern. Consistent testing methodology is necessary if you are going to compare results. However, I still have questions...
You say 28 is fewer cycles than most places use today. How do you know this?
How many more positive test results do you get if, for example, using 30 cycles instead of 28? How many more false positives? Are the differences really large or insignificant? What does the curve look like?
Intuition tells me that there is some number of cycles that gets you a desired high level of accuracy and going beyond that doesn't do much except perhaps to make recovered cases somewhat more detectable. After all, no number of cycles should tell you that you have are or have been infected with something you haven't. However, I don't confuse my intuition with actual science.
The amount of cycles used seem to vary a great deal from what I've seen. Some places report the number of cycles they used. Some do not. They do seem to be higher than 30 and I've seen as high as 45.
As to the difference. I pretty much go off of what the guy who invented the PCR test stated.
Whether it is insignificant or not would also depend on the sample size.
Regardless it is relevant to the scientific method to be consistent. Opinion on insignificance is not part of the scientific method. It is something that corrupts it.
I did a quick search...
Here is one article.
They recommend up to 40 there... Though there is no STANDARD which is a big part of the problem.
CT is the number of cycles.
This PDF might be useful...
It is a rabbit hole. If you search on your own you'll likely find some useful info I don't know about.
Here is an interesting article:
Coronavirus: The Truth about PCR Test Kit from the Inventor and Other Experts – Video
It can show the presence of just about any virus with enough cycles. It doesn't mean you are infected. That is part of the problem. It can amplify just environmentally present miniscule items and thus provide a "this is present" result.
As the CT cycles are increased this becomes more and more likely.
The idea of using this to test for the presence of something is useful. If it is consistent. When it is not consistent and the results are being compared as some form of equivalence that is a fallacy.
Yes, comparing them as absolutely equivalent is misleading but again how misleading depends on the actual difference it makes in results. Ideally tests should be done as consistently as possible but we don't have the luxury of the perfect test. Everybody rubs that swab up their nose or down their throat a little differently. I'm just saying that it doesn't mean that comparisons are meaningless. You just have to take into account what a different cycle count means to your results and I think that would be fairly well understood by now. Accurate conclusions can still be inferred by applying the appropriate mathematical transformation. Doesn't mean results will be presented in an accurate way with all of that taken into consideration of course but assuming it is then it is still science.
Show me something that takes that into consideration and codifies it then we can have a talk...
I haven't been able to find it.
I've only been able to find PDFs without such specific guidelines...
Still the document I linked to the original document shows a specific methodology that using this technique would absolutely result in lower cases and that methodology is ONLY being applied to the vaccinated people.
28 is also a lower CT than all other cases I have found so far. The most common appear to be either 35 or 40. I've seen as high as 45 before but that was a few months ago and I no longer remember where it was to search and find it.
Well, that's exactly my point. I stipulate that a 35-45 cycle count will result in more positive test results than 28. But if it is 1% higher it is irrelevant because that would be within the margin of error. If it is 50% then that's another story. Without knowing how MUCH higher, it's not very meaningful and may or may not affect the test results enough to matter. Also, what that PDF says may or may not be what labs actually do. The fact of the matter is that this cycle count value has shifted around some as more has been learned. For instance, it was reported at one point that a value above 34 leads to too many false positives, specifically it detects the (dead) virus in those who have already recovered and are no longer contagious (but not just trace environmental amounts). Obviously, the goal should be to detect, as much as possible, only live active virus but 100% accuracy will not be achieved ever. It seems to be that if the value is lowered to 28 it would be lowered to 28 for every test, not just for those who have received the vaccine. When my son was tested they did not ask about vaccination so I'm not sure how they would know that anyway.
You did read that it was essentially rules for how the labs were to submit to the CDC. So if they use CT at all then it won't be accepted by the CDC if a person was vaccinated unless the CT is 28 or less. So sure labs could do higher. Yet it won't be within the guidelines so CDC is not likely to use any of that data.
They did say you could submit samples using other testing methods besides PCR. Though as far as I know there is actually very little of that type of testing occurring.
Even 1% is significant if it is only being applied to vaccinated people. Then those results being compared to the unvaccinated as some kind of equivalency and to show effectiveness.
I suspect you didn't read the documents I provided. They go more over the difference in results but it largely depends upon the sample size.(though perhaps not in enough detail in those I supplied. The one from the inventor of the PCR test though is enough) Since the sample size in this case will likely be very large this could be a huge deal.
You do realize that less than 1% of people die from COVID that get it. Yet they still have us locked down, and in a state of fear. Yet 1% is insignificant?
Yet... there is no getting around the fact it is not scientific.
You don't measure your control group with one setting on a device, while measuring the other groups on different settings.
These days that is not uncommon but it definitely is not scientific. It is useful for politics and agendas, but that's about it.
"You did read that it was essentially rules for how the labs were to submit to the CDC. So if they use CT at all then it won't be accepted by the CDC if a person was vaccinated unless the CT is 28 or less. So sure labs could do higher. Yet it won't be within the guidelines so CDC is not likely to use any of that data.
They did say you could submit samples using other testing methods besides PCR. Though as far as I know there is actually very little of that type of testing occurring."
The testing locations in my area ask you what kind of test you want. The choices are PCR or the rapid antigen test. In fact, the rapid antigen test seems to be the default however PCR is required for certain things (e.g. return to school earlier if you have a known exposure).
What are you basing your statement that "1% is significant"? The false positive rate is 2.3% (mean). Not sure what the false negative rate is. 1% can be significant for some things and not for others. Death is pretty significant. But a vaccine that made a 1% difference would be laughed at. The biggest worry early on was that a relatively modest increase in the average number of hospitalizations would overwhelm hospitals because they typically operate pretty close to capacity. As it has become better understood how to best treat those with COVID-19 this has become somewhat less of a concern.
Even if the results varied by 50%, as long as that was understood and factored into the results then there is not a problem. Any published scientific results should and almost certainly will include that information. And I go back to my previous point that i don't think they are currently distinguishing between tests for those who have been vaccinated and those who have not. At least they weren't asking that question when I was at a testing location a week ago. If they aren't asking then the methodology is the same whether you are vaccinated or not. Of course, that doesn't mean they won't change what they are doing.
As far as "scientific", of course it can still be scientific. It depends on other factors mentioned above. I agree that it is better to measure the same way but as long as the affect that measuring differently has is well understood than you can still compare the numbers as long as you are taking that into consideration. For political purposes, it isn't so much how the data is collected as how it is presented. Who was it that said "there are lies, damned lies and statistics"? A statistic can be made to say anything via careful wording and be true.
Nah. Show me evidence of that. That is heavily dependent on WHERE you are measuring. With there being no clear definition of the CTs to to use you immediately should understand that rate would vary from location to location depending upon what CT they use.
It is irrefutable that using different measurements and treating them as any kind of equivalence is not scientific and will produce corrupted data.
I mean you can try to refute it (you seem to be) but if you are being logical and at all trying to keep it scientific it really can't be done.
If you can show me they are using the same CT for all of the RT-PCR testing across all the regions then we can have a discussion about what % rates are. I mean I can also give you widely different % of mortality statistics depending upon where I take that sample from.
Should I cherry pick the one that fits what I want the narrative to be?
I definitely try not to and would accept being called out on it.
The truth is there is no standard. Even the document I based this post upon accepts 28 OR LESS. That or less is important because that can be anything from 1 CT to 28 CT. That is a huge variance and if you followed the links I provided on the RT-PCR and how it works it immediately becomes clear how useless that information actually would be to any scientific comparison.
It is very useful to politics, propaganda, or defending a desired narrative.
As to false positives. The fact you even bothered sharing that 2.8% in the face of knowing there is no standard CT is a bit concerning.
Some articles about the false positive rate below though I haven't found the one that had that particular mean value. Yes, it depends on where you are, and even more on how prevalent COVID-19 is where you are. A bigger problem (or at least a more significant percentage of wrong results) is false negatives. I did not grab the links but one article suggested near 100% false negative early after an infection and 20% false negative 5 days after infection. Another article suggested current COVID-19 tests result in false negatives 33% of the time on average. I suspect the false negative rate is much lower once you've reached the point of being symptomatic which typically takes 5-6 days but up to 14 days. Various studies (no doubt with various CT values) on false positives seem to suggest a false positive rate of 1 to a few percent. I don't get the impression that the CT values used thus far (up to 40) commonly give false positives so much as they are more likely to detect early infection and recent recovery. True false positives seemed to be most commonly caused by contamination at various points in the testing process (contamination of reagents, contamination during collection, etc.)
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.26.20080911v1.full.pdf
"Review of external quality assessments revealed false positive rates of 0-16.7%, with an interquartile
range of 0.8-4.0%. Such rates would have large impacts on test data when prevalence is low. Inclusion of
such rates significantly alters four published analyses of population prevalence and asymptomatic ratio. "
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.06.21255029v2
"Using current data providing by the Public Health England (PHE) as of the most recent complete data, a false positive rate of 1.16% (95% CI 1.09 - 1.23%) was found for the PHE PCR test for the period 1 January through 29 March 2021."
https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-tests-are-pretty-accurate-but-far-from-perfect-136671
The below article explains why different CT values are useful in different scenarios and what a positive result likely means at different CT values. It seems that it actually makes sense to test an asymptomatic person who has had the vaccine at a lower CT value just as it would make sense to test a symptomatic person at much higher values. But yes, you have to be very careful how you compare the results for the purposes of counting infections.
https://medicine.yale.edu/labmed/sections/virology/COVID-19%20Ct%20values_YNHH%20Aug.%202020%20_395430_36854_v1.pdf
My point is measuring with different CT values is fine as long as the effects of different CT values are understood and taken into account when publishing results. I would think that would be obvious. On the other hand, if you are using results from different CT values and just taking the raw numbers without considering the effect of the different cycle counts, then yes, of course it would be misleading. I'm just saying it isn't automatically misleading. It depends on if and how they account for the difference when reporting the results. Scientific studies (which tend to be published as something a bit longer than a paragraph and include a lot of data you don't necessarily get unless you read the study itself) will probably take these things into account. They usually do. What the media reports and politicians say in their one sentence summaries of such reports may be a completely different story. Often "science" is blamed for being political when it isn't the science so much as how the results are selectively interpreted.
You seem to be suggesting that they shouldn't use different CT values in different circumstances but the above article explains why it is useful to do so. The fact of the matter is that it can make sense to test people at different CT levels based on their circumstances and the purpose of doing so isn't to nefariously make invalid comparisons though of course someone could do that.
Bigger, smaller, I don't know. I do know it is a problem. They really needed to find a good CT value and stick with it. As you pointed out it is not the only test and the other tests are likely more reliable but they are not as fast I think. There are good reasons the inventor of the RT-PCR test said it shouldn't be used the way they are using it.
I think you agree with me on all of that though.
Some very rare cases of 21 days.
That doesn't match the claims of the guy that invented those tests. :)
Though I will state that someone discovering a hammer doesn't mean they are the best person at using a hammer that will ever walk the planet. There is a potential that he was wrong about his own discovery.
There is not enough transparency to know. Hell it is difficult in some cases to even find out what CT you were tested on. Again, it depends where you are.
That is indeed probably the biggest problem. Also I don't consider Dr. Fauci anything other than a politician at this point. He hasn't actually practiced medicine for decades. He has pretty much been an administrator, and the guy to deal with the politics thus a politician.
So when he speaks I think he often causes a lot of the problems. The recent interview with Rand Paul was pretty bad IMO. He lied outright a number of times. The paper trail is there.
People see someone like him. They know enough to detect the lies. Then that colors their impression of the entire process.
We all have bias.
Useful sure. Depending upon your GOAL.
I mainly stress it isn't scientific. That doesn't mean it is without use.
It is just simply not something I'd bash someone over the head with calling it "science".
Science follows a very specific methodology. It is simply a tool, a process. If you vary the measuring technique and then compare those as if equivalent that corrupts the process.
That doesn't mean there may not be reasons you would do it. Yet it shouldn't then get to hide behind the label "Science" when trying to shut people down who ask questions.
Actually if we are using science we wouldn't be shutting people down for asking questions.
Damn politics and power have corrupted too many institutions and people and by extension their actions often lead people to think "science" is dead.
It isn't. Things that are not scientific are often labeled as though they are in order to silence any opposition. Science is as it always was. There are just a lot of these things claiming to be science that are not.
Does everything need to be science? No.
If we can keep our bias out of things we should and that is what the scientific method is there for. Yet it is only useful if we can accurately measure and observe things.
It isn't particularly useful if we don't yet understand or see...
Excellent response by the way. I'd give you a higher value vote if I could.
Oh, and thank you for the replies. I am not trying to attack you. I truly appreciate civil dialog and discussion.
I'm the same way. It's nice to discuss/debate things without the conversation devolving into personal attacks which is what seems to happen most of the time.
I agree. If I feel like I am attacking you at any point I do apologize for that. I do try not to. I am human though and I do make mistakes.
I appreciate you taking the time to reply. I kind of think you are trying too hard to defend that which appears to be indefensible at the moment. I can understand the motivations of why you might want to.
It is scary. It also sucks to think the so-called "scientific" authorities may not be being particularly scientific. It is scary to think "science" as an institution may have been co-opted an hijacked by politics, and power brokers. The Scientific Method is a tool that doesn't change. However, people are not immune from human nature.
I don't like the fact I am talking about this. I also freely admit I do not trust any particularly large organizations at this point.
They all seem to be corrupted in varying degrees by money, and special interests as far as I can tell.
Will this flavor my articles? Certainly. It is my own bias.
Though I would love to see enough evidence to make me feel more trusting and less concerned. Instead I tend to keep finding more evidence to reinforce my current concerns.
I found another article that explains it pretty well:
Explained: What is the ‘Ct value’ in a Covid-19 test?
"What is the significance of the ICMR threshold of 35?
Globally, the accepted cut-off for Ct value for Covid-19 ranges between 35 and 40, depending on instructions from the respective manufacturers of testing equipment. The ICMR has arrived at the Ct value of 35 based on laboratory experiences and inputs taken from several virology labs."
3 people in my family got a positive result, but not 1 of them, even after me asking, would inform me of the cycles used in the practise here in Alberta, Canada. Its infuriating that so little care is put into research, but so much trust is put into beaurocratic politicians who get paid to work from home.
Not to mention that vaccine companies are not responsible for death caused in the human trial and error going on, what a systemic joke.
Yep. I am often called an anti-vaxxer.
That is not the case.
I am an anti-liability denier... If you told me I should eat some manufactured food product and told me the manufacturer had no liability for damage due to a problem with the product I'd probably not eat the food.
If you have to label me a heretic, or call me selfish then that too is not a good reason. Both are appealing to emotion either shame, or guilt.
OH no, I don't want to be considered selfish...
Oh no, I don't want to be called an anti-vaxxer... they cancel people like that. I don't want to be cancelled.
I know some vaccines work. I also weigh the risk. If I was traveling somewhere with a known disease with a working vaccine and the disease is more likely to threaten my life and future than the potential adverse side effects to the vaccine then I'd likely take the vaccine.
However, if the manufacturer had no liability... I'd be less likely to. It'd seriously depend upon how dangerous I thought not taking the vaccine would be.
In the meantime, if they had discovered a common over the counter drug combination if taken early enough completely could solve the problem I'd not be interested in the vaccine at all.
Take the Roto virus...
It killed like 1% of new born infants but only in countries with poor access to hospitals. If you can get to a hospital it is 100% treatable. The vaccine on the other hand ends up that 13% of infants get a bowl blockage that kills them.
If the vaccine is more likely to kill you than the illness no thanks. Again without any liability to the manufacturer.
I’m in Ontario Canada. Everyone in my family has taken the vaccine. Either Pfizer or Moderna, I had mine last week. (pfizer) So far no issues. I seem to have more energy. I’m not sure if that is a known side effect. Anyway. I will let you know if I develop any problems with this vaccine.
I have coworkers that took the Pfizer. My mother took that one as well.
It is not yet FDA approved and they have no information on long term effects. There are reports of people getting ill near people that have taken those vaccines that are not vaccinated. It is suspected to be related to the spike proteins that the mRNA gene therapy starts making your body produce.
At the moment people that went through menopause fairly recently have had periods. Women have had multiple periods in a time they normally have one. Blood clots, etc.
It is all really new but the common thread seems to be that it is occurring to non-vaccinated people who are around people that took these vaccines.
It is still really new, but do know that you basically volunteered for an experiment. The Pfizer and Moderna are not vaccines in the traditional sense. They are actually gene therapy.
I do hope it works out well for you and everyone (vaccinated, and non-vaccinated).
I do know that in some places 60% of the new COVID patients in hospitals have been vaccinated but that also includes the Johnson & Johnson and Astrazeneca.
I am not afraid of COVID and people really shouldn't be. The mortality rate is now actually quite low even in the at risk population. We have gotten better at treating it than we were when it was first on the scene.
I also think if these things work that those vaccinated shouldn't be still being asked to socially distance, wear masks, etc unless of course it is in fact an experiment and they don't know what it is going to do.
This is of course my opinion.
I know vaccines CAN work. Yet that doesn't mean I should blindly trust pharmaceutical companies that have been given liability protection.
Do they have that protection in Canada as well?
Yes. I know I am part of an experiment. I am very exited about gene therapy. I hope we can solve all illness with similar “vaccines” and maybe eliminate all disease. Especially Cancer since I have lost so much of my family to Cancer.
Gene therapy could be great. Yet I stand by my main hang up. Tell me any other industry that has liability protection for their products. If you can find one you can then show me a study on how that impacts their considerations about safety.
If you are okay with injecting things without knowing the long term (in this case even the short term) consequences that is totally your choice.
I think you should be able to put anything you want into your body as long as it is voluntary and the consequences for that choice fall on you.
I apply this to myself as well. I am paranoid enough about what I choose to put into my body that the liability protection is a no sell. I also want some long term data.
I also see red flags when some data cannot be gotten and seems to be intentionally kept under wraps.
Basically what I am saying is "My Body My Choice" applies to all of us.
And if people try to call me selfish for not taking a vaccine I say "I sure am, and people have an abortion are selfish too" :)
EDIT: TO be clear my one stint in the hospital ended up being nearly 23 days and I almost died twice. I was supposed to be there only 2 days. I am certain I could have sued for malpractice. I didn't. I am not litigious.
Yet I had the choice. With vaccines I don't have that choice. I couldn't sue for damages if I wanted to. They took the choice and right away.
I have no idea what I am putting into my body every day.... all the chemical and toxins on our food, our meat. Hell the Canadian government allows over 97 toxic chemicals to be used on the “legal” cannabis they grow.... including myclobutanil that is a known killer.
Oh I am certain you know many of the things you put into your body. You like most of us likely eat some things you know you shouldn't. Yet it is a CHOICE. :)
As long as it a choice and not a mandate I am fine with it. You should be able to do voluntarily whatever you want with your own body as far as I am concerned. The laws do not agree with me on that point... sadly I can't fix that myself.
Do you know how many chemicals are used on your lettuce, tomato’s, bread, beef, chicken, .... everything ...
I know some of them but it varies. However, if I could prove I was damaged by any of those things sold to me I could sue them for damages.
I can't do that for vaccine manufacturers. As far as I know they are the only industry that has such protections.
There have been cases where they have reverted to older vaccines (MMR) that were not as safe because they were less expensive to make and they had no liability. I have a big problem with that.
I do know quite a few ingredients that go into some vaccines. Some of them I would never knowingly put into my body.
For me if they give me the warning of possible side effects and I choose to take that risk that is my choice.
IF on the other hand I am forced to take it, and I cannot sue people when I am damaged by it that is a problem.
You would never eat again if you knew what was in the fungicides, pesticides, algaecides on all your food. Do you know what this stuff does to your DNA ?
I am very familiar with that. I am especially familiar with round up, and round up resistant seeds.
I am aware of all these people with intolerances to things like Gluten that didn't seem to be that big of a problem several decades ago. Yet these same people have occasionally reported traveling to a remote place in Europe and eating bread and things with gluten without having problems.
That's actually a pretty good example of us playing with genetics without knowing about long term consequences. Yet Monsanto(now owned by Bayer) in the case of Round Up and such is aware and HAS BEEN successfully sued over damages. It doesn't have liability protection.
Also... I have to eat. I don't have to take a vaccine.
But... yes let us know how you do. Also if you know any people around you that are not vaccinated keep your eyes open for side effects to them. It is all a big experiment and unknown at the moment.
My mother does not live close to me so I can't test that. The coworkers I referred to live in other states and we're a 100% remote company anyway and have been since long before this (going on 8+ years for me).
So I can't really put that to the test.
Yes... my wife and I both have taken the Pfizer vaccine but our kids have not. So we will see if there are any side effects ... I can put that to the test. I have taken every flu vaccine every year since around 2,000... I have not had a flu or cold since then. I do have seasonal allergies from pollen ... it would be great if there was a gene therapy for that.
Excellent. I am really curious about the side effects as I can't test those with my parents and friends.
Ironically I am the opposite of you. The two worst flu cases I've ever had were within a day of taking the flu shot.
I have allergies which are off an on myself. I cough every morning like a smoker though I have never smoked and then I am good for the rest of the day. Just hacking up stuff from allergies.
As to vaccines: I trained to be an EMT and got to the portion where I didn't remember which vaccines were current. I took ALL of them at the same time then.
I did get a fever and felt a little off for a couple of days but I didn't get hammered nearly as hard as having the flu.
That was quite some time ago. I don't know if liability protection existed then or not. I was unaware of it if it did. They also hadn't yet started pushing vaccines for everything and the kitchen sink. I think when I took them I got about 6 at once.
EDIT: Oh and I don't get the flu either. :) If I do it's symptoms are so mild I don't know I got the flu.
Wasn't it Elon Musk who months ago was talking about receiving 2 negative tests, and 1 positive test result when he was tested on the same day?
lol my family friend is in Mexico and has tested positive 3 times, he isn't allowed to come home.
"Please remain calm and wait for your government's assistance."
Then "Please stand by"
"We are in this together"
Because everyone has the virus?
LOL I work from home and live near a small town, this has been such a joke to me since the start.
I work from home as well. I don't live in a small town, but I've worked from home for over 8 years. It has only been an inconvenience if I go to the store, or the rare cases I need to go to the data center.
@phusionphil
What is even more annoying is that the government of many countries are playing politics with the covid19....
Yeah I hate it when others tell me how to live my life and the government is one of the #1 offenders in that dimension of my life.
And the annoying thing is that the government always feel they are right all the time....@phusionphil
Thats why we need to decentralize consensus models.
Yet... if I wanted an abortion the same people would quickly state "My Body My Choice" and support me.
Even more so in the insane world today since I am a man...
That would imply I was identifying as a woman and thought I could have an abortion. They love that stuff. :)
I identify as a White Mexican Nationalist from Flint, Michigan.
I have said before that I should identify as a Lesbian Albino Black Woman. I'd be set with all of those additional labels. Yet my life wouldn't change much. HAHA.
Maybe I want to be a victim, are you just going to let me suffer? LOL
Your body, your choice. Your mind, your choice. Yet if you just blindly go along with an agenda are you actually making your own choices? That I is ultimately for you to decide.
And yes I know you were joking... :)
So consider that me answering your joking question seriously while being very aware you are being funny. :)
It's just sad that is the current situation we find ourselves in this insane society....@phusionphil
When 5 of the 7 members of my household tested positive for SARS-CoV2 in December, I asked the lab for the cycle thresholds. Despite multiple efforts, I was unable to obtain that information.
This is information that should've been publicly reported with every single test.
Yes. It is pretty important. I personally suspect that anytime they needed to show improvement they could lower the CT threshold. If they needed a surge to support the narrative they could increase the CT threshold. Then again by not sharing the information this is difficult to prove. It is just a suspicion.
I had it before the CDC and government were on it here in the U.S. My mother and father in-law who live with me (he just turned 90) both got it (January, 2020) and were tested for Influenza and Pneumonia and they both came back negative. This is before they began testing for COVID.
It went through my house. I got it. The symptoms matched and the after effects. Including the seeming to go away and then coming back several times. It hit me hard enough I lost about 20 pounds in a week. I remember thinking that if I didn't have the discipline to force myself to eat and take fluids it could have killed me as it was probably the most unenjoyable experience eating I think I've ever had.
Then it was over...
Then the CDC and other places finally started talking about it and things finally started showing up on their website weeks after we'd dealt with it.
I was on top of the news.
I also could see the intentional fear being pushed.
At first it was really deadly because they didn't know how to respond to it. Not to mention some sick states (e.g. Michigan and New York) intentionally sending people that are recently diagnosed with it by hospitals to stay in nursing homes among the most vulnerable populations.
I was so mad when I saw that. I wouldn't have even known if not for the fact one of the people they sent was a young guy that videoed himself beating up an old man in the nursing home TWICE. The young guy had been diagnosed with COVID and that is where they sent him. That is when I found out about it.
I was very angry. I knew the reason. Make the deaths worse than they had to be. It had multiple advantages. 1) they could blame it on Trump, and they did. 2) they could ramp up the fear due to the extra deaths.
They had such bad Trump Derangement Syndrome they didn't even use the Hospital Ship that the Trump Administration made available while simultaneously talking about how their hospitals were full and Trump wasn't helping them.
Then there is Hydroxychloroquine. That stuff works. Far better than the vaccines. It is super inexpensive and it has been around so long they know the dosages, side effects, and how to deal with it. It has been approved for off label for a very long time.
Yet it is super inexpensive. Instead they pushed Remdesivir which is expensive and not as effective. Anthony Fauci himself was invested in the company making Remdesivir.
Follow the money...
Follow the fear...
Conspiracy theory? Yes that is what it is. It is a theory that people have conspired to take advantage of the situation.
Does that mean it is not true? No. It also doesn't mean it is 100% true either. That is difficult to prove.
I do think it is at least probable though. I am fine with whatever pseudo-religious label someone wants to stick me with... Denier, Heretic, Blasphemer, Conspiracy Theorist, Infidel, Nut Job, Racist, Anti-Vaxxer, etc.
At this point I consider those things about all equally meaningful... which is not at all.
Edited:
Great post, @dwinblood! People need to focus intently on the CDC's fraudulent behavior! I can't help but wonder if @ocdb and @smooth have the horsepower upstairs to realize the magnitude of this post! Perhaps, when one of theirs gets culled or sterilized because of variable PCR cycles that CDC is deceiving people with, they'll comprehend? At this point, they're fixing to rank right up there with the aiders and abettors of this genocide.
WAKE THE FUCK UP!
READ THIS
WATCH THIS!
the document
This post is priceless and could save so many lives, but because of some people, many won't get a chance to see it, and there's a special place in hell reserved for "some people." Enjoy your vaccines, Sirs!
The issue seems to stem from ranchorelaxo upvoting people for huge amounts. The problem is that he is upvoting people for huge amounts on posts that most would agree shouldn't get that much.
Which some others are then coming in later and downvoting.
I don't know if you are aware, you can set your maximum post rewards for each post you make.
Click on advanced settings.
You can also set WHO gets the rewards. You could make a post and give rewards all away to one account, or multiple accounts.
It's unfortunate, but there's some we can do about the downvotes for now. smooth and ocdb don't seem to be downvoting away the entire value of the post, looks like they are downvoting away the ranchorelaxo portion i think. It still sucks, it's a bad user experience for anyone who gets downvoted. We will have a place to go to soon though. This is @truthforce writing by the way.
Yeah I don't see a nefarious pattern yet. I have one bot downvoter that downvotes all of my posts but it is pretty insignificant.
First to answer your questions. No I do not trust the CDC. The big push for testing was done because I think they knew exactly what would happen. They set the cycles high and they would get a bunch of positive tests. Then they can keep the fear factor high and impose their tyranny. I'm so deeply saddened at what has happened with this virus and how much mis/dis information is being spread and how easily the masses have accepted it as truth.