User Controls
Trump admits he knew coronavirus was ‘deadly’ and worse than the flu while intentionally misleading Americans
-
2020-09-19 at 2:35 PM UTC
Originally posted by MORALLY SUPERIOR BEING 2020 IV: Intravenous Soyposting I dunno if they realise that there are a lot of other countries in the world. For instance India is being hit really hard, and they don't even really have money for lockdowns, etc. Are the Indian leadership to blame?
India has a massive population with a lot heavier population density. The US has about 300 million people, India has 1.3 BILLION. And even still, they only have about 80,000 deaths and 5.3 million cases. US has 200,000 deaths and 6.75 million cases. They're doing better than the US right now.
Also lol 'don't have the money for lockdowns.'
They have a national tracing system and provincial quarantine so that people from one part of India cannot travel to another part of India without documented reasons. And they did do a lockdown, which worked because they haven't really had to deal with the virus until the last few months. Same as many other countries which are now seeing a rise of cases. They're in the second wave. US is still in the first wave.
Vietnam only has 35 cases.
So yes, US leadership is to blame. There is a lot that could've been done that was not done. The lockdown was half assed and didn't even happen in many places. -
2020-09-19 at 2:37 PM UTC
Originally posted by MexicanMasterRace India has a massive population with a lot heavier population density. The US has about 300 million people, India has 1.3 BILLION. And even still, they only have about 80,000 deaths and 5.3 million cases. US has 200,000 deaths and 6.75 million cases. They're doing better than the US right now.
Also lol 'don't have the money for lockdowns.'
They have a national tracing system and provincial quarantine so that people from one part of India cannot travel to another part of India without documented reasons. And they did do a lockdown, which worked because they haven't really had to deal with the virus until the last few months. Same as many other countries which are now seeing a rise of cases. They're in the second wave. US is still in the first wave.
Vietnam only has 35 cases.
So yes, US leadership is to blame. There is a lot that could've been done that was not done. The lockdown was half assed and didn't even happen in many places.
You keep throwing these numbers around, as if they are credible and confirmed. They aren't. -
2020-09-19 at 2:41 PM UTC
-
2020-09-19 at 2:45 PM UTC
Originally posted by MexicanMasterRace You keep talking. Stop that.
Question: Was the PCR test designed to identify viruses?
Answer: No.
Question: Can we trust a test that was never designed to identify viruses?
Answer: No.
Question: Can we trust the numbers a test that was never designed to identify viruses produces?
Answer: No.
Those are the facts.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2020-09-19 at 2:57 PM UTCIt's time for your medication grandpa
-
2020-09-19 at 2:58 PM UTC
Originally posted by MexicanMasterRace India has a massive population with a lot heavier population density. The US has about 300 million people, India has 1.3 BILLION. And even still, they only have about 80,000 deaths and 5.3 million cases. US has 200,000 deaths and 6.75 million cases. They're doing better than the US right now.
Also lol 'don't have the money for lockdowns.'
They have a national tracing system and provincial quarantine so that people from one part of India cannot travel to another part of India without documented reasons. And they did do a lockdown, which worked because they haven't really had to deal with the virus until the last few months. Same as many other countries which are now seeing a rise of cases. They're in the second wave. US is still in the first wave.
Vietnam only has 35 cases.
So yes, US leadership is to blame. There is a lot that could've been done that was not done. The lockdown was half assed and didn't even happen in many places.
Didn't read this trash. -
2020-09-19 at 3:03 PM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2020-09-19 at 3:06 PM UTC
-
2020-09-19 at 3:20 PM UTC
-
2020-09-19 at 3:25 PM UTC
-
2020-09-19 at 3:30 PM UTC
Originally posted by larrylegend8383 Are facts the same orbiting Proxima Centauri as they are here?
No, these are the facts:
Question: Was the PCR test designed to identify viruses?
Answer: No.
Question: Can we trust a test that was never designed to identify viruses?
Answer: No.
Question: Can we trust the numbers a test that was never designed to identify viruses produces?
Answer: No.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2020-09-19 at 3:31 PM UTCGuess what they're using to create these bogus numbers? That's right. A PCR test.
"Kary Mullis, who won the Nobel Prize in Science for inventing the PCR, is thoroughly convinced that HIV is not the cause of "AIDS". With regard to the viral load tests, which attempt to use PCR for counting viruses, Mullis has stated: "Quantitative PCR is an oxymoron." PCR is intended to identify substances qualitatively, but by its very nature is unsuited for estimating numbers. Although there is a common misimpression that the viral load tests actually count the number of viruses in the blood, these tests cannot detect free, infectious viruses at all; they can only detect proteins that are believed, in some cases wrongly, to be unique to HIV. The tests can detect genetic sequences of viruses, but not viruses themselves.
What PCR does is to select a genetic sequence and then amplify it enormously. It can accomplish the equivalent of finding a needle in a haystack; it can amplify that needle into a haystack. Like an electronically amplified antenna, PCR greatly amplifies the signal, but it also greatly amplifies the noise. Since the amplification is exponential, the slightest error in measurement, the slightest contamination, can result in errors of many orders of magnitude.
To make an analogy: using the viral load tests to gauge viral activity would be like finding a few fingernail clippings; amplifying the fingernail clippings into a small mountain of fingernail clippings mixed in with other junk; and then having an "expert" come along and interpret the pile as representing a platoon of soldiers, fully armed and ready for battle.
In short, the viral load tests are a scam. When molecular biologists Peter Duesberg and Harvey Bialy analyzed the 1995 Ho and Wei papers (Nature 373) that launched the whole viral load bandwagon, they found that estimates of free virus had been overestimated by several orders of magnitude. In the Wei study, 100,000 so-called "plasma viral RNA" units really amounted to less than 2 infectious viruses per milliliter of plasma. And in the Ho study, 10,000 "plasma virions" corresponded to less than one infectious virus. Duesberg and Bialy concluded, "there is no evidence for infectious virus in Wei et al.'s and Ho et al.'s patients." (Duesberg 1996a)
When Australian mathematician Mark Craddock analyzed the same reports by Ho and Wei, he found gross errors in mathematics and logic..." -
2020-09-19 at 3:32 PM UTC
Originally posted by -SpectraL Guess what they're using to create these bogus numbers? That's right. A PCR test.
"Kary Mullis, who won the Nobel Prize in Science for inventing the PCR, is thoroughly convinced that HIV is not the cause of "AIDS". With regard to the viral load tests, which attempt to use PCR for counting viruses, Mullis has stated: "Quantitative PCR is an oxymoron." PCR is intended to identify substances qualitatively, but by its very nature is unsuited for estimating numbers. Although there is a common misimpression that the viral load tests actually count the number of viruses in the blood, these tests cannot detect free, infectious viruses at all; they can only detect proteins that are believed, in some cases wrongly, to be unique to HIV. The tests can detect genetic sequences of viruses, but not viruses themselves.
What PCR does is to select a genetic sequence and then amplify it enormously. It can accomplish the equivalent of finding a needle in a haystack; it can amplify that needle into a haystack. Like an electronically amplified antenna, PCR greatly amplifies the signal, but it also greatly amplifies the noise. Since the amplification is exponential, the slightest error in measurement, the slightest contamination, can result in errors of many orders of magnitude.
To make an analogy: using the viral load tests to gauge viral activity would be like finding a few fingernail clippings; amplifying the fingernail clippings into a small mountain of fingernail clippings mixed in with other junk; and then having an "expert" come along and interpret the pile as representing a platoon of soldiers, fully armed and ready for battle.
In short, the viral load tests are a scam. When molecular biologists Peter Duesberg and Harvey Bialy analyzed the 1995 Ho and Wei papers (Nature 373) that launched the whole viral load bandwagon, they found that estimates of free virus had been overestimated by several orders of magnitude. In the Wei study, 100,000 so-called "plasma viral RNA" units really amounted to less than 2 infectious viruses per milliliter of plasma. And in the Ho study, 10,000 "plasma virions" corresponded to less than one infectious virus. Duesberg and Bialy concluded, "there is no evidence for infectious virus in Wei et al.'s and Ho et al.'s patients." (Duesberg 1996a)
When Australian mathematician Mark Craddock analyzed the same reports by Ho and Wei, he found gross errors in mathematics and logic…"
Go ahead. Post the source for that. -
2020-09-19 at 3:32 PM UTCQuestion: Did Bill Gates devour my foreskin?
Answer: MAGA -
2020-09-19 at 3:33 PM UTCalso lol @ citing medical research a quarter of a century old.
-
2020-09-19 at 3:58 PM UTC
-
2020-09-19 at 4:07 PM UTCOne major limitation of PCR is that prior information about the target sequence is necessary in order to generate the primers that will allow its selective amplification.[36] This means that, typically, PCR users must know the precise sequence(s) upstream of the target region on each of the two single-stranded templates in order to ensure that the DNA polymerase properly binds to the primer-template hybrids and subsequently generates the entire target region during DNA synthesis.
Like all enzymes, DNA polymerases are also prone to error, which in turn causes mutations in the PCR fragments that are generated.[37]
Another limitation of PCR is that even the smallest amount of contaminating DNA can be amplified, resulting in misleading or ambiguous results. -
2020-09-20 at 12:36 AM UTCNo source no claim. My source is the leading authority. What's yours?
-
2020-09-20 at 1:02 AM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2020-09-20 at 4:50 AM UTC
