Should Covid-19 Vaccines be Mandated?

ZeusAres42

MichaelElpers said:

@ZeusAres42

If you notice i didnt accuse Dee of using an authority fallacy, more like being an authoritarian lacking in appreciation for others rights and liberties when he agrees with a government stance.

In that case, your fallacy is known as ad-hominem circumstantial. You assume he is an authoritarian, and hence the reason for his arguments. This is what this argument looks like in another form:

1 Person x says y.

2 Person x says something that sounds like something only an authoritarian would say.

3 Therefore, person x is wrong.

Even if Dee is an authoritarian that does not negate the validity of his argument.                 

I.e he was fine with the government mandates when he wanted the vaccine and thought others should take it as well.  Called them selfish.

Firstly, there has never been any blanket government mandate in the UK about vaccines. Secondly, he thought that was the best call and the time and had good reasons to believe that. Lots of people thought other people should take the vaccine but they never said they wanted vaccines forced on them against their will.

See but when he had a bad reaction and no longer feels boosters are worth it he no longer will take them.  Boosters are still recommended by the medical community but just arent mandated by the government.

This is not technically correct. If you are going to make claims about recommendations a little more specificity would make your claims a lot more stronger. Boosters are being recommended to the vulnerable and elderly only; that is at least the case in the UK anyway. That is what NHS is doing. These vulnerable will get text messages or other alerts to remind them they need a booster as they are high-risk individuals.

I have a problem with individuals who support taking away freedom and liberties when it suits them and their idealogy.

This is called framing btw. You have framed another user's argumentive stance as being one to support the suppression of liberty. That was never the case with Dee. Nor was the case with me, nor was that the case with the medical profession. If anything I think he's completely the opposite. His actual stance would be about the health and safety of himself, his loved ones, and perhaps the nation as a whole.

Either your free to avoid the vaccine or you should be required to take every booster or medical treatment that lowers your chance to spread it. 

Sorry for my pedants but this binary thinking. In the UK there was no legislation put into place about all citizens having to take the vaccines. The government did, however, actively encourage it, and so did the NHS and the Private medical sector. At least at one point for everyone. These decisions are medical decisions based on the epidemiology and etiology of the virus and, the pandemic. Viruses change. Things change, and as things change they get observed, studied, literature peer-reviewed, and the science updated, and therefore medical decisions are based on updated scientific literature that is based on changes observed in the etiology and epidemiology of medical conditions. That's the way this generally works.

If there were no such mandates i was only arguing with information stated by Dee: "You could not go anywhere without a covid pass"

I am from the UK. Dee is from Ireland. As for a Covid pass, I think that is ridiculous if that is what is happening in Ireland. However, that is not the case where I am, never have been, and never will be.

Dee

@MichaelElpers

If you notice i didnt accuse Dee of using an authority fallacy, more like being an authoritarian lacking in appreciation for others rights and liberties when he agrees with a government stance.

Ah right so every time one agrees with a government stance you disagree with they are an authoritarian,  seriously?

You had  no right to spread   a potentially lethal virus 

I.e he was fine with the government mandates when he wanted the vaccine and thought others should take it as well.  Called them selfish

Yes thet were sellfish , what would you call it?

See but when he had a bad reaction and no longer feels boosters are worth it he no longer will take them.

I kept taking them until it was no longer necessary 


  Boosters are still recommended by the medical community but just arent mandated by the government.

Nonsense , hospitals over here don't require anyone to wear masks anymore , all vaccine centers are shut

The irony of it is amazing Elpers the anti vaxxer is now promoting such ......LOL 

I have a problem with individuals who support taking away freedom and liberties when it suits them and their idealogy.

Well you go tell  your goverment that 


Either your free to avoid the vaccine or you should be required to take every booster or medical treatment that lowers your chance to spread it. 

You sound very dictatorial 

Are you writing the guidelines now?

If there were no such mandates i was only arguing with information stated by Dee: "You could not go anywhere without a covid pass"

I still stand by that in the early days of Covid , stop with the fallacious arguments by pretending previous temporary standards were to stand for alltimd

MichaelElpers

@Dee ;

My stance on rights have never changed and not influenced by personal beliefs on the vaccine or the current threat of a disease.
Yours version of rights equates temporary standards. You find it ok to remove liberties when they meet your critieria to do so.  That literally is authoritarian.

Covid is still killing people and according to medical community boosters still help prevent one from spreading disease.  This is irrefutable.

How should the government keep mandates in place, take a popular vote in order to determine this, use authority power?  

No, they shouldnt be able to remove rights in the first place.

MichaelElpers

@ZeusAres42

No persons x claims are authoritarian and im explaining why.
What you are missing is rights require binary thinking.  They either exist or they dont.  Rights are not subject personal viewpoint or popular opinion.  It is not supply and demand.

I.e.  Covid is still killing people and boosters according to medical community are safe and increase immunity and therefore spread.

Your view on autonomy if you view it as a right cannot change based on curcumstance or current popular or authority opinion.
If you believe it can that is an authoritarian viewpoint.  Dees opinion did change based on circumstance.

ZeusAres42

@MichaelElpers

MichaelElpers said:

@ZeusAres42

No persons x claims are authoritarian and im explaining why.

Can you please quote these, why they are authoritarian, and how this makes Dee's argument invalid? Also, please also have the decency to quote other users' arguments before responding. We do it for you! It's incredibly lazy as well not to do this.

What you are missing is rights require binary thinking.  They either exist or they dont.  Rights are not subject personal viewpoint or popular opinion.  It is not supply and demand.

Can you please quote the bit where I said any different than this as I can't find it anywhere? If you are unsure about a claim then ask the person for more clarity. Here, you appear to be responding to a claim I never made, or implied although you somehow managed to infer it. Unless you are deliberately straw-manning? I was talking about medical science, and how decisions as to what to do here in the real world exist on a spectrum. You said that "either people avoid or everyone is forced to take it and every booster;" that is binary thinking (aka all or nothing thinking, aka black and white thinking, aka, erroneous thinking, and that is not how legislation works either." At least when it comes to complex medical issues (non-binary issues) such as these. This is not as simple as laws such as driving age, or alcohol age where a simple threshold can be much more easily achieved for practical purposes.

I. e.  Covid is still killing people and boosters according to medical community are safe and increase immunity and therefore spread.

Please highlight where I said differently. Can't find it anywhere.

Your view on autonomy if you view it as a right cannot change based on curcumstance or current popular or authority opinion.
If you believe it can that is an authoritarian viewpoint. 

Please highlight where I said differently. Can't find it anywhere.

Dees opinion did change based on circumstance.

From what I have seen his opinion has changed based on currently updated evidence which btw is empirical and observable.

Again, please have the common courtesy to quote my argument when replying. When you misrepresent my argument one cannot help but think you are doing this deliberately when you conveniently don't quote what you are responding to. I do believe you have accused another member on this site (he has been banned now) of doing the exact same thing as you are doing now. 

MichaelElpers

@ZeusAres42

Quoting is not easy on a phone.

I think the issue is you believe i am referring to hyprocisy or issues regarding the medical science.

My argument of hypocrisy is based on government infringing mandates and authoritarianism.  Dee switches stance on rights and how government can infringe on them based upon his personal opinion and the severity of the pandemic.

My arguments arent always attributed to direct statements you made.
Im following logical premises.

Your comments involved me addressing why i claimed Dee was authoritarian.  I responded with my reasoning.
Sometimes i use you just to mean someone, not you personally. Thats just my bad for adding confusion.

Dee

@MichaelElpers


My stance on rights have never changed and not influenced by personal beliefs


Interesting your stance on rights are not influenced by your beliefs? Seriously?  How's that work?

on the vaccine or the current threat of a disease.

What's the current " threat" ?


Yours version of rights equates temporary standards.

No , Covid laws were never to be permanent why do you find that so difficult to handle ?


You find it ok to remove liberties when they meet your critieria to do so.  That literally is authoritarian.

I removed nothing,  I followed guidelines based on best advice  that the majority of citizens worlwide followed ,. The only authoritarian  is you demanding the selfish needs of anti vaxxers are met 

Covid is still killing people and according to medical community boosters still help prevent one from spreading disease.  This is irrefutable.

Boosters are no longer required that's irrefutable 

How should the government keep mandates in place, take a popular vote in order to determine this, use authority power?  

They kept them in place pretty well  did you not know this? 

No, they shouldnt be able to remove rights in the first place.

You don't have the right not to mask up and refuse a vaccine during a pandemic without consequences , f-ck your supposed " rights" to damage others 

Dee

@MichaelElpers


Dees opinion did change based on circumstances

My stance was and is consistent with best advice from experts in the field who adapted to changed circumstances , this seems utterly baffling to you , whys that? 

You're quiet the authoritarian demanding that citizens follow the dictates of anti vaxxers , whys that?

Dee

@ZeusAres42


Well said good piece.

As for a Covid pass, I think that is ridiculous if that is what is happening in Ireland.


A covid pass was only required for access to restaurants , theatres, travel etc ,etc when we started to mix again , it was purely short term 

MichaelElpers

@ZeusAres42

Look at Dees last response:

"You don't have the right not to mask up and refuse a vaccine during a pandemic without consequences , f-ck your supposed " rights" to damage others"

Dee sees no right to autonomy.  Whether or not the pandemic is killing 100,000 or 10 people shouldnt impact a right.  Requiring a vaccine covid pass to enter public is an infringement.

You see once the argument is made  that you must be vaccinated to help others and to have public access autonomy is no longer a right.
Additionally whose making the judgement.
-Unhealthy individuals have lower immunity
- Some people dont wash their hands
- Boosters still increase immunity whether they are required or not.


What if I think all these should require some sort of pass?
Dee accepts some ruling authority and im upset that he cant understand the hypocrisy/authoritarian thinking of requiring a covid pass then but not now.  Our way or your not allowed in public.

MichaelElpers

@Dee

Following dictates of anti vaxers would mean not allowing anyone to get a vaccine or... having a non covid pass.  Only allowed if you dont have a vaccine.

I wanted no mandates aka freedom.  Its pretty appalling that you think not having mandates is like a dictatorship, but thats pretty common with authoritarians because if their regulations arent in place they dont view that as freedom.

Dee

@MichaelElpers


Look at Dees last response:

"You don't have the right not to mask up and refuse a vaccine during a pandemic without consequences , f-ck your supposed " rights" to damage others"


Yes , that's the way I see it.

Dee sees no right to autonomy. 

Oh but I do but that has to be limited for the good of all during a pandemic , I'm not thinking of me I'm thinking of others 

Funny also you wail about autonomy but want women jailed for abortion , stop being such a hypocrite 


Whether or not the pandemic is killing 100,000 or 10 people shouldnt impact a right

I disagree 

.  Requiring a vaccine covid pass to enter public is an infringement.

Is it? Well sue the goverment over here then 

You see once the argument is made  that you must be vaccinated to help others and to have public access autonomy is no longer a right.

What are you on about?


Additionally whose making the judgement.
-Unhealthy individuals have lower immunity
- Some people dont wash their hands
- Boosters still increase immunity whether they are required or not.

Nonsense , boosters are no longer required for the majority 


What if I think all these should require some sort of pass?

Become president and make it law 



Dee accepts some ruling authority and im upset that he cant understand the hypocrisy/authoritarian thinking of requiring a covid pass then but not now

But the only one cannot understand is you , covid is no longer the threat it was 


.  Our way or your not allowed in public.

It worked it stopped overcrowding in hospitals caused by people like you 

Dee

@MichaelElpers



Following dictates of anti vaxers would mean not allowing anyone to get a vaccine or... having a non covid pass.  Only allowed if you dont have a vaccine.

I wanted no mandates aka freedom.  Its pretty appalling that you think not having mandates is like a dictatorship, but thats pretty common with authoritarians because if their regulations arent in place they dont view that as freedom.

Why do you think you should  have a " right" to damage others by your irresponsible behaviour ?

MichaelElpers

@Dee

First off I dont think thats a right.  Secondly irresponsibility is a subjective concept.  

Not washing hands, not showering, dirty clothes, unhealthy weight, no booster, not wearing a hazmat suit are all actions that increase the chance from spreading disease.  In fact your existence and each breath you take does that.
I guess those things could be mandated in your opinion?

I want you to drive an inflatable vehicle because that would protect me.

You have a right to protect yourself against direct attack not a right to force others to take protective actions.

Phite

Argument Topic: Sure, science.

@ZeusAres42

You defer to science and scientists?   Good, then you know that when Dr. Fauci said that a PCR-test cycle-threshold of anything over 35 will spit out meaningless results, you can believe him.  So, when the FDA recommended testing at a cycle-threshold of 40, I'm curious as to whom you decided was being scientific.  Can't be both.

Ya know, I've already posted numerous quotes from other scientists who are experts in the field of microbiology, infectious diseases, etc. who have clearly pointed out in no uncertain terms the limitations of the test; and those limitations they mention go beyond the cycle-threshold issue.  But I don't have to tell anyone here that.  It's all been posted.

What do you think the CDC meant when they said that the test can't rule out other viruses, bacteria, or other pathogens? Care to paraphrase?  No need to, right?

And not to pile on you, but how was the PCR-test calibrated for the "novel" coronavirus when they used a virus from 2003 as a reference point??

Phite

Argument Topic: The loser's end.

Concerning the removal of my posts, consider that when you find yourself censoring the facts, it means that you prefer the lie to reality.  That can't sit well with you.  I'm sure you'd much rather show yourself capable of disproving the documented facts I've shown you by way of actual rebuttal. But the nature of documented, proven facts is such that they make any rebuttal ridiculous.  And that's why you've opted to exercise your right to assume bad form, running from the challenge in a way you hoped no one would notice.  But again, that is just you preferring the lie to reality.

This is why your site is a failure.  It's not honest.  Perhaps a reflection of the administration?

Ya know, you don't need permission to understand the difference between 35 and 40.  Just do it.  When Fauci said meaningless results, do you hear "meaningful results?"  If so, what's up with that?  And if the CDC says the test does not rule out a bunch of other stuff, do you hear "rules out a bunch of other stuff?"  If so, what's up with that?

So, go ahead and delete this post, too, but at least think about how much more honest it would be to voice your opposition in a debate with the person you disagree with (me) instead of playing sniper from behind your computer screen.  Think about how much of a draw that would be to prospective members as opposed to making documented facts that you can't refute disappear.  Readers recognize censorship when they see it.

EDIT: I apologize for neglecting to provide links that prove what I've said regarding both Dr. Fauci's statement and the FDA's documented record of recommending a cycle-threshold of 40 in contravention of what was known.

CDC 2019 nCoV Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel - Instructions for Use (fda.gov)

TWiV 641: COVID-19 with Dr. Anthony Fauci - YouTube

I'd like to know why ignoring real science has become the new norm.  But I guess part of pushing the new science is to pretend that the real science is trumped by the new science.

Dee

@MichaelElpers

Irresponsibility in the case of Covid had dire consequences on others that seemed to be the general consensus , the subjective opinions of anti vaxxers is hardly a compelling argument.

Your false analogies fail yet.again and are fallacious.

Apples and pears to be precise .

Yet the same fallacy again another dreadful false comparison on your part 

Well seat belts are compulsory so goverment does have a right to force you to take protective action.

Also stop being such a hypocrite you want women to be forced into giving birth against their wishes or do you deny this?


 Let's use your argument against you to demonstrate clearly your appaling Double standards .....

You  accept some ruling authority I cant understand the hypocrisy/authoritarian thinking of requiring women to give birth against their will ,that's hypocrisy at its worst, you  didn't give it much though did you?

Sargonski

Dreamer said:

@ZeusAres42

We need race conscious behavior not colorblind. The inaccurate pulse oximeters for Black people would be reason alone enough for this conclusion. American Indians are vulnerable to viruses. That' means anyone who doesn't get their flu shot without a medical reason is racist against American Indians.

 

because if nothing elseMineSubCraftStarved said:

@Dee

you and your type have zero right to go around insisting you have a right to mix with the aged and vulnerable without a vaccine that's the price you have to accept for your selfishness 

If an elderly person consents to such a thing then it's their right. Similarly, it's the right of the retirement home to allow unvaccinated people in. Government should have no say in this business as such business is fundamentally consensual.

Do you accept this if not why not? Do you feel you have a" right" to infect others.?

You aren't infecting others, it's like someone placing a gun into your hand and forcing you to pull the trigger. You have no control over the extent of the infection of Covid to other individuals or who will be infected.
Furthermore, if we really see the spreading of viruses as a civil violation you imply. Why don't we take that same logic and mandate hazmat suits and gas masks to lower the risk of disease infections? After all? What right does anyone have to infect another person?

Well again we didn't force it in my country but if you didn't have the vaccine you could literally go nowhere without the covid pass so I would be fine with that letting the anti-crowd take their well-deserved medicine, what is your problem with this stance?

What Ireland does isn't the most relevant to the discussion. A vaccine pass is effectively the same as a vaccine mandate in the context of this discussion as both infringe upon the rights of the unvaccinated.

Dreamer said:

@MichaelElpers

Vaccines give the immune system a head start. Meaning people with vaccine are infectious for less time.

Dreamer said:

@MichaelElpers

Vaccines give the immune system a head start. Meaning people with vaccine are infectious for less time.

My brain hurts reading some of these comments

1) The vax does not prevent Transmission ---   FULL STOP    ..   by this we folks educated in the material do not mean 100% prevention    ..  what is meant is that the transmission rate is so low .. that the virus will cease to spread and be stopped in a population.  

2) While there is no real world evidence that shows the vax reduces transmission by a significant amount  --  there is zero evidence period that this reduction is gets us below the above bar (1)  ..  and in "FACT"   the contrary has been "PROVEN" True  --   See Massachussets study .. 

On the basis of 1 & 2 --   This experimental MRNA drug does not fit the strict definition of a Vax ..   not having the property Preventing transmission --   the only question from a statistical perspective is whether or not you get Covid sooner rather than later.

From a "Visiting the old folks home" perspective --   if you are sick, don't visit .. regardless of whether or not you are vaxed..  same holds true for the Staff..      there is no statistical distinction between vaxed and unvaxed in terms of "risk of harm" to these the  "Weak/Immune compromized - Unhealthy" 

That was the first souce of pain  --   YES -- you have been lied to .. is the second. 

The Third source of pain is even if there was some presumed small benefit to the collective from the Vax  ..   in this case a fraction of the collective (Old -Morbidly Obese - 3 or more co-mobidities - immune compromized )    this necessarily translates into justification for Law. 

When the Transmission argument for Law failed (which may well be a valid argument if the risk of harm was real - and the cure existed)  on the basis of   "DOES NOT PREVENT TRANSMISSION"   --  The Gov't switched to other Utilitarian Arguments --  "Harm Reduction"   ---   less folks in the hospital -- less strain on the HC system  was the argument. 

Without getting into whether or not this was true --  this does not translate into lelgitimate justification for Law .   Utilitarian Justification for law is an anathema to the founding principle - Constitutional Republic. ..  because it does an end run around the safeguards put in place to protect essential liberty.      This justification for law looks only at what will   reduce harm to the collective..    has no consideration for individual liberty. 

In this case .. it turns out that we have law on the basis of fallacious Utilitarianism ..  where the  Harm reduction" argument itself is a lie and/or  false - and/or  not substantiated. 

In this case .. one can argue that the vax potentially decreases hospitalization  but only on the basis of the Unhealthy.  The Healthy are not included in the numbers because  "NONE"  (meaning statistically NONE) showed up at the hospital. 

So - there is no benefit for the   X-Percent of Healthy people to be taking the vax ..  perhaps a case to be made for the Unhealthy. 
No benefit to the Collective .. and   100% no benefit to the healthy individual .. in that the risk of harm from the VAX far exceeds any risk of facing Covid Unvaxed  ..  this being triply so for those who have already have Covid and thus have natural immunity. 

Sargonski

 Dee said:

@MichaelElpers


Well they obviously shouldnt and there seems to be a misconception on what rights are here.

Well obviously they were. Regards rights you mean your conception of rights is the correct one right? No doubt your conception of morality is the right one also?

For example, what about the elderly and vulnerable?
They have the same right as everyone else. To get a vaccine or not

Yes, and if they wished to exercise this right in my country they were denied access most everywhere when restrictions were eased as they had no valid covid pass

.  They can also choose to decide whether to go out in public.

Well no they couldn't over here certainly no one could 

  It would be unlawful for me to go into their house without permission, but everyone has the same right to public spaces. 

No they hadn't over here

Making someone take preventative measures for someone else is not a right, it placing someone on a pedistool.

On what reasonable would you refuse to take a vaccine?



Well considering that is how disease spreads, a guarantee almost everyone on the planet is now a criminal.

I had the vaccine I got covid and I was fine most people likewise , yet I know several who got covid before the vaccine was out and most suffered terribly , why do you view vaccines so negatively?


Does everyone need a hazmat suit?  Do you have to monitor how everyone washes their hands?  Additionally everyone with the vaccine still spreads the virus

The difference being  we all mostly have the vaccine and believe it or not it works , do you deny this?

 This is such a ridiculous anecdotal nonsense ..    "I met someone at Band Camp who had red hair and got bit by a bug - So bugs don't like Red haird people" 

I didn't have the vax .. got covid .. was fine .. as were a bunch of other people at the New Years Party ..   the virus transmitted by a double vaxed super spreader  .. who also got Covid ..    and had by far the worst trouble .. as did a whole bunch of other vaxed that I know..       but this is all anecdotal nonsense  .. 

the Fact of the matter is that only the Unhealthy were getting  "Really Sick"   - Hospitalization/Death   ..  so unless you were in that category ..  it matters not whether or not you are vaxed

ZeusAres42

anarchist100 said:

Phite said:

@Dreamer

Very well, then.  My point that lockdowns were ridiculous will stand.

Yes, even a point which stands on nothing can remain standing against no opposition.

@anarchist100 I think the satire is lost on some people.

Phite

Argument Topic: So true.

@ZeusAres42

What is lost on most people is that no opposition exists to proven, documented facts.  Usually the absence of opposition in a debate is a tipoff to the fact that none exists.  There is nothing that can be done for people who refuse to acknowledge that the test doesn't rule out a bunch of other stuff, too, and that it was set at a ridiculous cycle-threshold anyway.  That information comes from the CDC and Dr. Fauci.  

Yup, you can lead a horse to water, but . . .

Dee

@Sargonski ;

Stop.talking nonsense there nothing " anecdotal" about my arguments as they are based on facts

The hilarious thing is your whole childish retort is based on anecdotal nonsense 

BTW do a basic fact check on your absurd claim " only the unhealthy got sick "

Phite

Argument Topic: Only the unhealthy got sick.

Yeah, like the flu, healthy people got sick, too . . . 

ZeusAres42

@Phite

What is your argument exactly here? I want to be absolutely clear and void of any assumptions before I respond. I would appreciate it if you just could sum up your argument briefly, please. Then we can go from there.

Phite

Argument Topic: Sure . . .

Let's start with the discrepancy between Dr. Fauci's condemnation of a cycle-threshold of 40, and the FDA's recommendation that labs use a cycle-threshold of 40.  The number of cases was predicated on the results of the PCR-test; the PCR-test does not distinguish between Covid and influenza or other pathogens; the PCR-test does not tell you whether a virus is dead or alive; the PCR-test does not tell you that someone is sick or how sick they are.

I've already asked you who you believe was being scientific since they both can't be right, but you failed to answer.  And I've already shown you numerous quotes from numerous medical officials including the CDC reflecting what Fauci said.

Now you can answer.

ZeusAres42

Phite said:

Let's start with the discrepancy between Dr. Fauci's condemnation of a cycle-threshold of 40, and the FDA's recommendation that labs use a cycle-threshold of 40.  The number of cases was predicated on the results of the PCR-test; the PCR-test does not distinguish between Covid and influenza or other pathogens; the PCR-test does not tell you whether a virus is dead or alive; the PCR-test does not tell you that someone is sick or how sick they are.

I've already asked you who you believe was being scientific since they both can't be right, but you failed to answer.  And I've already shown you numerous quotes from numerous medical officials including the CDC reflecting what Fauci said.

Now you can answer.

Ah, so your argument is about covid testing and not about vaccines I see? I am not American and haven't really followed much of what the American medical science institutions have been saying since about the pandemic and it wasn't much then either on my part.

I missed your quotes before. Would you mind citing them again, please? And perhaps elaborate on the issue between CDC and Dr. Fauci. This thing about cycle threshold is unfamiliar to me.

Phite

@ZeusAres42 @ZeusAres42

We'll get to the "vaccine" in due time.

I should ask you to go study the issue before responding because if you give a man a fish, he eats for . . . 

“Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms. The performance of this test has not been established for monitoring treatment of 2019-nCoV infection. This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.” — The Centers For Disease Control and Prevention.

https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download

“PCR-based testing produces enough false positive results to make positive results highly unreliable over a broad range of real-world scenarios.” — Andrew N. Cohen, Ph.D.1*, Bruce Kessel, M.D.2, Michael G. Milgroom, Ph.D.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.26.20080911v3.full.pdf

“…all or a substantial part of these positives could be due to what’s called false positives tests.” — Michael Yeadon: former Vice President and Chief Science Officer for Pfizer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch7wze46md0&t=90s

“…false positive results will occur regularly, despite high specificity, causing unnecessary community isolation and contact tracing, and nosocomial infection if inpatients with false positive tests are cohorted with infectious patients.” — The European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases

https://www.clinicalmicrobiologyandinfection.com/article/S1198-743X(20)30614-5/fulltext

“…you can find almost anything in anybody…it doesn’t tell you that you’re sick and it doesn’t tell you the thing you ended up with really was going to hurt you…” — Dr. Kary Mullis, PhD (Nobel Peace Prize Winner inventor of the PCR test)

https://maskoffmn.org/#kary

“I’m skeptical that a PCR test is ever true. It’s a great scientific research tool. It’s a horrible tool for clinical medicine.” — Dr. David Rasnick, biochemist and protease developer

“…up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus.” — The New York Times

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html

“…detection of viral RNA by qRT-PCR does not necessarily equate to infectiousness, and viral culture from PCR positive upper respiratory tract samples has been rarely positive beyond nine days of illness.” — Muge Cevik, clinical lecturer1 2, Krutika Kuppalli, assistant professor3, Jason Kindrachuk, assistant professor of virology4, Malik Peiris, professor of virology5Francis Drobniewsk – Professor of Global Health and TB, Imperial

“A positive RT-qPCR result may not necessarily mean the person is still infectious or that he or she still has any meaningful disease.” — Michael R Tom, Michael J Mina

https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/71/16/2252/5841456

“PCR does not distinguish between infectious virus and non-infectious nucleic acid” — Barry Atkinson: National Collection of Pathogenic Viruses (NCPV) Eskild Petersen: infectious disease specialist

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30868-0/fulltext

“Detection of viral RNA does not necessarily mean that a person is infectious and able to transmit the virus to another person” — The World Health Organization

“Caution needs to be applied to the results as it often does not detect infectious virus. PCR results may lead to restrictions for large groups of people who do not present an infection risk.” — The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine

https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/infectious-positive-pcr-test-result-covid-19

Why COVID-19 Testing Is a Tragic Waste:
“The challenge is the false positive rate is very high, so only seven percent of tests will be successful in identifying those that actually have the the virus. So the truth is, we can’t just rely on that…” — Dominic Raab – First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs

https://www.globalresearch.ca/why-covid-19-testing-tragic-waste/5729700

“positive results […] do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite.” — FDA

https://www.fda.gov/media/136151/download

“A positive RT-qPCR result may not necessarily mean the person is still infectious or that he or she still has any meaningful disease.” — Michael R Tom, Michael J Mina

https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/71/16/2252/5841456

“…no single gold standard assay exists. The current rate of operational false-positive swab tests in the UK is unknown; preliminary estimates show it could be somewhere between 0·8% and 4·0%.” — Dr. Elena Surkova; Vladyslav Nikolayevskyy – Public Health Englamd; Francis Drobniewsk – Professor of Global Health and TB, Imperial College

Phite

ZeusAres42 said:

This thing about cycle threshold is unfamiliar to me.

I know.  Tha''s why I'm here.  

ZeusAres42

@Phite

Phite said:

@ZeusAres42 @ZeusAres42

We'll get to the "vaccine" in due time.

I should ask you to go study the issue before responding, but this is fine.

“Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms. The performance of this test has not been established for monitoring treatment of 2019-nCoV infection. This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.” — The Centers For Disease Control and Prevention.

https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download

“PCR-based testing produces enough false positive results to make positive results highly unreliable over a broad range of real-world scenarios.” — Andrew N. Cohen, Ph.D.1*, Bruce Kessel, M.D.2, Michael G. Milgroom, Ph.D.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.26.20080911v3.full.pdf

“…all or a substantial part of these positives could be due to what’s called false positives tests.” — Michael Yeadon: former Vice President and Chief Science Officer for Pfizer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch7wze46md0&t=90s

“…false positive results will occur regularly, despite high specificity, causing unnecessary community isolation and contact tracing, and nosocomial infection if inpatients with false positive tests are cohorted with infectious patients.” — The European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases

https://www.clinicalmicrobiologyandinfection.com/article/S1198-743X(20)30614-5/fulltext

“…you can find almost anything in anybody…it doesn’t tell you that you’re sick and it doesn’t tell you the thing you ended up with really was going to hurt you…” — Dr. Kary Mullis, PhD (Nobel Peace Prize Winner inventor of the PCR test)

https://maskoffmn.org/#kary

“I’m skeptical that a PCR test is ever true. It’s a great scientific research tool. It’s a horrible tool for clinical medicine.” — Dr. David Rasnick, biochemist and protease developer

“…up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus.” — The New York Times

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html

“…detection of viral RNA by qRT-PCR does not necessarily equate to infectiousness, and viral culture from PCR positive upper respiratory tract samples has been rarely positive beyond nine days of illness.” — Muge Cevik, clinical lecturer1 2, Krutika Kuppalli, assistant professor3, Jason Kindrachuk, assistant professor of virology4, Malik Peiris, professor of virology5Francis Drobniewsk – Professor of Global Health and TB, Imperial

“A positive RT-qPCR result may not necessarily mean the person is still infectious or that he or she still has any meaningful disease.” — Michael R Tom, Michael J Mina

https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/71/16/2252/5841456

“PCR does not distinguish between infectious virus and non-infectious nucleic acid” — Barry Atkinson: National Collection of Pathogenic Viruses (NCPV) Eskild Petersen: infectious disease specialist

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30868-0/fulltext

“Detection of viral RNA does not necessarily mean that a person is infectious and able to transmit the virus to another person” — The World Health Organization

“Caution needs to be applied to the results as it often does not detect infectious virus. PCR results may lead to restrictions for large groups of people who do not present an infection risk.” — The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine

https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/infectious-positive-pcr-test-result-covid-19

Why COVID-19 Testing Is a Tragic Waste:
“The challenge is the false positive rate is very high, so only seven percent of tests will be successful in identifying those that actually have the the virus. So the truth is, we can’t just rely on that…” — Dominic Raab – First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs

https://www.globalresearch.ca/why-covid-19-testing-tragic-waste/5729700

“positive results […] do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite.” — FDA

https://www.fda.gov/media/136151/download

“A positive RT-qPCR result may not necessarily mean the person is still infectious or that he or she still has any meaningful disease.” — Michael R Tom, Michael J Mina

https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/71/16/2252/5841456

“…no single gold standard assay exists. The current rate of operational false-positive swab tests in the UK is unknown; preliminary estimates show it could be somewhere between 0·8% and 4·0%.” — Dr. Elena Surkova; Vladyslav Nikolayevskyy – Public Health Englamd; Francis Drobniewsk – Professor of Global Health and TB, Imperial College

“…detection of viral RNA by qRT-PCR does not necessarily equate to infectiousness, and viral culture from PCR positive upper respiratory tract samples has been rarely positive beyond nine days of illness.” — Muge Cevik, clinical lecturer1 2, Krutika Kuppalli, assistant professor3, Jason Kindrachuk, assistant professor of virology4, Malik Peiris, professor of virology5Francis Drobniewsk – Professor of Global Health and TB, Imperial College

Thanks for all of this. I will spend some time looking at this before I respond. But I have asked you what your argument is. I am still a bit unclear. So I will ask another way. Regarding all the quotes you have shown me what have you concluded from this? I like to know what a person's position is explicitly before responding. Is your conclusion that the scientists are lying? And deliberately misleading the public? The Scientists are amateurs, and all the evidence is flawed? covid was some elaborate world hoax? This was all just about government control? Or what?

Phite

My argument is that I'm not obligated to turn my health over to known liars.

I'll ask you again.  Who do you believe was being scientific?  Was it Fauci when he stated that a cycle-threshold of anything over 35 will spit out meaningless results?  Or was it the FDA when they went ahead and used a cycle-threshold of 40 anyway?

It's kind of a no-brainer, especially in light of all the quotes I've shown you.

So, how do you reconcile such a blatant discrepancy between medical professionals?

ZeusAres42

Phite said:

My argument is that I'm not obligated to turn my health over to known liars.

Who are the liars, why/how are they liars, and how are you so sure they are liars? How are they known liars? What exactly from the current literature is leading you to draw these conclusions about liars (whoever these "liars" are?

I'll ask you again.  Who do you believe was being scientific?  Was it Fauci when he stated that a cycle-threshold of anything over 35 will spit out meaningless results?  Or was it the FDA when they went ahead and used a cycle-threshold of 40 anyway?

I can't comment unless you show me exactly what Dr. Fauci said that was in conflict with the CDD/FDA (You said previously it was CDC). With citations too. I could also search for this but then I am not the one making the argument that one or none of them is being scientific (whatever your argument is).

Right now it's like you are just giving me premises without any conclusions and I have to somehow guess what you are concluding. Why not just simply tell me what you have concluded so far based on the current literature you have read?

@Phite?

Sargonski

ZeusAres42 said:

@Phite

Phite said:

@ZeusAres42 @ZeusAres42

We'll get to the "vaccine" in due time.

I should ask you to go study the issue before responding, but this is fine.

“Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms. The performance of this test has not been established for monitoring treatment of 2019-nCoV infection. This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.” — The Centers For Disease Control and Prevention.

https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download

“PCR-based testing produces enough false positive results to make positive results highly unreliable over a broad range of real-world scenarios.” — Andrew N. Cohen, Ph.D.1*, Bruce Kessel, M.D.2, Michael G. Milgroom, Ph.D.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.26.20080911v3.full.pdf

“…all or a substantial part of these positives could be due to what’s called false positives tests.” — Michael Yeadon: former Vice President and Chief Science Officer for Pfizer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch7wze46md0&t=90s

“…false positive results will occur regularly, despite high specificity, causing unnecessary community isolation and contact tracing, and nosocomial infection if inpatients with false positive tests are cohorted with infectious patients.” — The European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases

https://www.clinicalmicrobiologyandinfection.com/article/S1198-743X(20)30614-5/fulltext

“…you can find almost anything in anybody…it doesn’t tell you that you’re sick and it doesn’t tell you the thing you ended up with really was going to hurt you…” — Dr. Kary Mullis, PhD (Nobel Peace Prize Winner inventor of the PCR test)

https://maskoffmn.org/#kary

“I’m skeptical that a PCR test is ever true. It’s a great scientific research tool. It’s a horrible tool for clinical medicine.” — Dr. David Rasnick, biochemist and protease developer

“…up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus.” — The New York Times

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html

“…detection of viral RNA by qRT-PCR does not necessarily equate to infectiousness, and viral culture from PCR positive upper respiratory tract samples has been rarely positive beyond nine days of illness.” — Muge Cevik, clinical lecturer1 2, Krutika Kuppalli, assistant professor3, Jason Kindrachuk, assistant professor of virology4, Malik Peiris, professor of virology5Francis Drobniewsk – Professor of Global Health and TB, Imperial

“A positive RT-qPCR result may not necessarily mean the person is still infectious or that he or she still has any meaningful disease.” — Michael R Tom, Michael J Mina

https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/71/16/2252/5841456

“PCR does not distinguish between infectious virus and non-infectious nucleic acid” — Barry Atkinson: National Collection of Pathogenic Viruses (NCPV) Eskild Petersen: infectious disease specialist

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30868-0/fulltext

“Detection of viral RNA does not necessarily mean that a person is infectious and able to transmit the virus to another person” — The World Health Organization

“Caution needs to be applied to the results as it often does not detect infectious virus. PCR results may lead to restrictions for large groups of people who do not present an infection risk.” — The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine

https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/infectious-positive-pcr-test-result-covid-19

Why COVID-19 Testing Is a Tragic Waste:
“The challenge is the false positive rate is very high, so only seven percent of tests will be successful in identifying those that actually have the the virus. So the truth is, we can’t just rely on that…” — Dominic Raab – First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs

https://www.globalresearch.ca/why-covid-19-testing-tragic-waste/5729700

“positive results […] do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite.” — FDA

https://www.fda.gov/media/136151/download

“A positive RT-qPCR result may not necessarily mean the person is still infectious or that he or she still has any meaningful disease.” — Michael R Tom, Michael J Mina

https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/71/16/2252/5841456

“…no single gold standard assay exists. The current rate of operational false-positive swab tests in the UK is unknown; preliminary estimates show it could be somewhere between 0·8% and 4·0%.” — Dr. Elena Surkova; Vladyslav Nikolayevskyy – Public Health Englamd; Francis Drobniewsk – Professor of Global Health and TB, Imperial College

“…detection of viral RNA by qRT-PCR does not necessarily equate to infectiousness, and viral culture from PCR positive upper respiratory tract samples has been rarely positive beyond nine days of illness.” — Muge Cevik, clinical lecturer1 2, Krutika Kuppalli, assistant professor3, Jason Kindrachuk, assistant professor of virology4, Malik Peiris, professor of virology5Francis Drobniewsk – Professor of Global Health and TB, Imperial College

Thanks for all of this. I will spend some time looking at this before I respond. But I have asked you what your argument is. I am still a bit unclear. So I will ask another way. Regarding all the quotes you have shown me what have you concluded from this? I like to know what a person's position is explicitly before responding. Is your conclusion that the scientists are lying? And deliberately misleading the public? The Scientists are amateurs, and all the evidence is flawed? covid was some elaborate world hoax? This was all just about government control? Or what?

of course the Biden Fauci Clownshow was lying and deliberately leading the public ..  in many ways   .. we didn't have the Vax Trial Results from PHizer - Moderna ..  but they did..     Results showing an SAR of 1 in 800.    SAR= Severe Adverse Reaction ..    but we were told the Risk of harm was insignificant ..  ridiculously small --   when it turned out that the risk of Covid to Healthy people was "ridiculously small" 

What are the odds of your healthy Son  16-30   showing up in the hospital from Covid ?  --  Omicron --- ? 
What are the odds of him showing up in the hospital from the Vax  (SAR) ? 

How big was the Lie ? 

Answers to the above questions  -- males 16-30 SAR at 3 times the rate   ..   1-266  
Odds of healthy male 16-30 showing up unvaxed in hispital from Omicron    1 in 3 million. 

Moral of the Story---   Risk of harm from the vax was obscenly higher than from Omicron ..     The swine flue vax SAR was 1 in 100,000 and they removed it .. risk of harm too high. 

 And that is just to start ..  Fauci's Gain of Function denial ...  the whole toxic relationship between himself and Pharma .. writing our healthcare policies . 

Phite

Argument Topic: Show you . . . again?

@ZeusAres42

Are you playing hide and seek with what I've already posted? Here is Fauci saying exactly what I said he said:

TWiV 641: COVID-19 with Dr. Anthony Fauci - YouTube

And here's something from the FDA recommending a cycle-threshold of 40:

 CDC 2019 nCoV Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel - Instructions for Use (fda.gov)

Now you know what the discrepancy is.  Now you can explain how to reconcile those two opposing assessments of a cycle-threshold of 40.  Like I said, they both can't be right.

So . . .

ZeusAres42

@Sargonski

I am currently speaking with @Phite. I can speak with you about this later. Right now, I would like to continue with him.

Phite

Sargonski said:

the whole toxic relationship between himself and Pharma .. writing our healthcare policies . 

Indeed.  Pfizer has a rap sheet.  Hard to feel the love.

Phite

@ZeusAres42
Star Trek is on in ten minutes, so, go ahead and study the issue some, and we'll continue later if you're interested.

Sorry man, priorities . . .

ZeusAres42

@Phite

All I want you to do is quote the exact quote/highlight that Facui said and the exact quote that the cdc/fda said that was in direct conflict with what Fauci said. and then what you have concluded from this? I am asking the questions. I want you to tell me your argument. Is it that you have no argument in the first place It's on you to show me. Since you are seemingly so sure of yourself then I don't see how this is an issue.

Are you deliberately playing hide and seek with your arguments? So as to avoid the burden of proof being on you?

ZeusAres42

Phite said:

@ZeusAres42
Star Trek is on in ten minutes, so, go ahead and study the issue some, and we'll continue later if you're interested.

Sorry man, priorities . . .

My interest is in you and the arguments about whatever issues you have with regarding what you have concluded via the current literature you have read thus far. Speak later then.

Phite

@ZeusAres42

You're doing it again.  I've told you that my argument is that I'm not obligated to turn my health over to known liars. Now stop asking me what my argument is. 

I've shown you Fauci stating that a cycle-threshold of anything over 35 will give meaningless results.  I've also shown you that the FDA recommended a cycle-threshold of 40.   Are you going to continue pretending that you don't understand just how diametrically opposed those two views are, and what that means about the test results?

So, between the FDA and Dr. Fauci, who do you think was way off?  My feeling is that you know that if you give an honest answer as to whom you think had things -backwards concerning the PCR-test cycle-threshold setting--Fauci, or the FDA--you'll have to damage the credibility of one of them, and you don't want to do that even though their contradictions are right there in front of your face.  Their discrepancy was as inexplicable as your unwillingness to recognize it for what it is.

So, should I be obligated to take something when the prevailing authorities were at odds with each other regarding what cycle-threshold setting would be ridiculous?  I don't think so.  One of them was being deceptive to the Max because they both can't be right.  Right?

ZeusAres42

Phite said:

@ZeusAres42

You're doing it again.  I've told you that my argument is that I'm not obligated to turn my health over to known liars. Now stop asking me what my argument is. 

Whatever you think I may or may not be doing has nothing to do with responding to the contents of my previous posts, and also you demonstrate that you do at least have a strong argumentive case (this is unseen thus far).

All you have done so far is give me a bunch of links  (someone credible;  others not so much, at least in the scientific community, and a youtube video about Dr. Fauci's opinions on PCR testing during 2020.  You have failed to explicitly tell me who these liars are and how/why you have concluded they are already liars. You have not shown me the direct quote from FDA/CDC that discredited/was in direct conflict with Dr.Fauci's medical opinion.

I've shown you Fauci stating that a cycle-threshold of anything over 35 will give meaningless results.  I've also shown you that the FDA recommended a cycle-threshold of 40.   Are you going to continue pretending that you don't understand just how diametrically opposed those two views are, and what that means about the test results?

So, between the FDA and Dr. Fauci, who do you think was way off?  My feeling is that you know that if you give an honest answer as to whom you think had things -backwards concerning the PCR-test cycle-threshold setting--Fauci, or the FDA--you'll have to damage the credibility of one of them, and you don't want to do that even though their contradictions are right there in front of your face.  Their discrepancy was as inexplicable as your unwillingness to recognize it for what it is.

So, should I be obligated to take something when the prevailing authorities were at odds with each other regarding what cycle-threshold setting would be ridiculous?  I don't think so.  One of them was being deceptive to the Max because they both can't be right.  Right?

 I did watch a bit of the video that you linked, and nowhere does he say that "anything over 35 will provide meaningless results. Why not watch what he said again, and in addition to that actually do a little more digging? And I mean more digging as it is abundantly clear now that you have limited knowledge regarding the actual scientific literature of this and the science vocabulary involved. How do I know this? Well, for one, you are confusing scientific variances/ranges with what the general public might perceive as inconsistencies. To be fair, this isn't always the publics' fault.  The mistakes are not in the science but in the way, scientific findings are presented to the public; sometimes those in academia or the pharmaceutical industry fail to take into account that they are speaking to the general public.

So, should I be obligated to take something when the prevailing authorities were at odds with each other regarding what cycle-threshold setting would be ridiculous?  I don't think so.  One of them was being deceptive to the Max because they both can't be right.  Right?

The thing is you have not shown me anything where credible prevailing authorities are at odds. So, far, your whole argument can be boiled down to believing the whole medical community is nothing more than fraudulent actors within the science community, and your whole epistemology rests on nothing more than something you have read/heard from Fauci that you think is contradictory to what other reputable science resources have said that you have heard/read bits of here and there, and thus have concluded that because of this the medical science about vaccination must also be fraudulent.

PS. When writing an argumentive piece it's not on your readers to confirm the substantiveness of your argument. That is on you.              @phite

Phite

@ZeusAres42

Here's what Fauci said: 

“…If you get [perform the PCR test at] a cycle threshold of 35 or more…the chances of it being replication-confident [aka accurate] are miniscule…you almost never can culture virus [detect a true positive result] from a 37 threshold cycle…even 36…”

You're being nonresponsive to what he said there, and what it means about a cycle-threshold of 40.  Readers are left to wonder why you neglect to draw an inference from the discrepancy you're now aware of.  

You mean you translate Fauci's comments as meaning the test is meaningful at a cycle-threshold of 35 or higher?  I don't believe that and neither do you.  So if he thinks that 35 cycles is too high, I wonder what his assessment of a cycle-threshold of 40 would be.  I don't really wonder about what he would think about a cycle-threshold of 40.

You're pretending that when the FDA recommended a cycle-threshold of 40, it didn't conflict with what Fauci said.  So go ahead and explain how their assessments of the PCR-test cycle-threshold are actually in line with each other.  I realize that this is like asking you to explain ow two plus two is actually five, but you are the one who seems inference-challenged.

Anyway, let's take my links and sources one at a time.

“Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms. The performance of this test has not been established for monitoring treatment of 2019-nCoV infection. This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.” — The Centers For Disease Control and Prevention

https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download

Do you have a problem with the source?  Tell me if you think I forged it or something like that.  If you can't condemn the source (and you can't), can you condemn what they've said?

ZeusAres42

@Phite

I don't really want to go around in circles. Please respond to the contents of my prior post. Thanks. If not, then we are done here. Thanks.

Phite

@ZeusAres42

You're pretending to not see the discrepancy between Fauci and the FDA.  You refuse to tell me who you believe is correct since we know that they both can't be right.  You're just having a problem accepting what it points to.  When two medical authorities whose expertise we have come to expect and trust disagree on something so fundamental as what constitutes an appropriate cycle-threshold, most people understand that only one can be right.  Why are you having a problem understanding what everyone else understands?

Now let's address your complaints about the links I provided.

“Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms. The performance of this test has not been established for monitoring treatment of 2019-nCoV infection. This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.” — The Centers For Disease Control and Prevention.

https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download

In the interest of clarity, please paraphrase what the CDC said there.  That way, we can establish whether or not you and I agree that ". . . cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens” means . . . just that. I'm guessing that by now you realize that you can't actually change the meaning of documented public records just to suit your position.  It's a hard pill to swallow, but you really have no choice.

And this from the covid test package insert:

10. This device is a qualitative test and does not provide information on the viral load present in the specimen.
11. The performance of this device has not been evaluated for monitoring treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
12. The performance of this device has not been evaluated for the screening of blood or blood products for the presence of SARS-CoV-2.
13. This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.
14. Cross-reactivity with respiratory tract organisms other than those listed in the Analytical Specificity Study may lead to erroneous results.

CareStart COVID-19 MDx RT-PCR - Instructions for Use (fda.gov)

Do you have a problem with these sources?  Tell me if you think I forged them or something like that.  If you can't condemn the source (and you can't), can you condemn what they've said?

Phite

ZeusAres42 said:

. . . you have limited knowledge regarding the actual scientific literature of this and the science vocabulary involved.

Almost missed that gem. 

It seems you must be aware of some little known anomaly inherent within the English language whereby when someone like Fauci says that ". . .a cycle threshold of 35 or more…the chances of it being replication-confident [aka accurate] are miniscule…you almost never can culture virus [detect a true positive result] from a 37 threshold cycle…even 36…," what he really meant was that, with a cycle-threshold of anything over 35, the chances of it being replication-confident are . . . extremely good.

So, where did you get the notion that, in medical speak, the term "almost never" translates to "certainly enough times to count on it"?

Phite

To sum up, the experimental injection should not be made mandatory when the test is seriously flawed, which explains why it had to be given emergency use authorization.  What it does not explain is why the highest medical authorities in the land said nothing when an unapproved test that does not distinguish between Covid and Influenza or other pathogens was used to determine something as serious as the spread of a "deadly" virus. Neither does it explain why all of them--all at once--were unaware of the many approved alternative tests that were available.

From the CDC:

Audience: Individuals Performing COVID-19 Testing

Level: Laboratory Alert

After December 31, 2021, CDC will withdraw the request to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel, the assay first introduced in February 2020 for detection of SARS-CoV-2 only. CDC is providing this advance notice for clinical laboratories to have adequate time to select and implement one of the many FDA-authorized alternatives.

I'm puzzled by people who insist that I take something they took even though what they took doesn't protect them from they took it for.

Also, authorities had to change the definition of "vaccine" in January of 2021 to accommodate the limitations of the experimental injection; they omitted the word "immunity."

Dreamer

Argument Topic: I am worried about you.

@Phite

"That's why anti-vaccine ideology makes a perfect recruiting ground for fascists."

https://www.salon.com/2022/01/24/insurrection-by-other-means-the-far-right-is-using-anti-vaxx-sentiment-to-radicalize/

The link between the far right and anti-vaxx is getting stronger. Keep making anti-vaxx posts like these and fascists will attempt to recruit you. Be careful.

Proud Boys has been showing up anti-vaxx rallies. They are a hate group and considered a terrorist group in Canada.

There is a user on this website that has made pro-Proud Boys statements. Take care I am concerned about you.

Phite

@Dreamer

Please don't derail this thread with your warnings about misinformation.  First prove that it's misinformation.  

What is being asked is why a test that was never authorized for this purpose in the first place was used to detect covid when there were many authorized alternatives.  I just provided proof of this.  Do you have an answer to that question?

Also, how did they calibrate the test for covid when they were not in possession of the virus? Let me explain.

The official CDC document, (dated July 21, 2021) entitled “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel reads as follows:

Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV were available for CDC use at the time the test was developed [January 2020] and this study conducted, assays designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA (N gene; GenBank accession: MN908947.2) of known titer (RNA copies/µL) spiked into a diluent consisting of a suspension of human A549 cells and viral transport medium (VTM) to mimic clinical specimen. (emphasis added, page 40)

Compare the above statement to the CDC January 28th, 2020 advisory confirming the isolation of SARS-CoV-2:

On January 20, 2020, CDC received a clinical specimen collected from the first reported U.S. patient infected with SARS-CoV-2. CDC immediately placed the specimen into cell culture to grow a sufficient amount of virus for study.

But they didn't.

So, why did the CDC claim that they were in possession of the virus, only to later admit that they didn't really have it, but only after being forced to respond to a Freedom of Information Act request?  And why am I somehow obliged to follow any further instructions from an Agency that has not been honest from the get-go?

Anyone?