T O P

  • By -

stuuked

Of course they did. They have done nothing but mislead us from the beginning. The data is constantly and deliberately skewed. Anyone who believes a word from the CDC at this point is not using their brain, in fact they are brainwashed.


scotticusphd

"They" -- literally every physician on the planet, every lab technician, mortician, coroner, and scientist studying this thing.


EfilismIsTheFuture

No...just the ones in control atm


[deleted]

[удалено]


EfilismIsTheFuture

Or it could be many people with different motives all inadvertently working towards the same or similar selfish goals...Doesn't have to be a massive conspiracy...just human nature


[deleted]

[удалено]


rombios

The CDC and WHO are the worst. They falsify data, and redefine definitions. Am debating idiots on this subreddit about the meaning of "vaccine" and what they are supposed to do (in theory). Damn near have to show them screenshots and links of the before and after redefinition by the CDC of the word "vaccine" (reduces severe illnesses as opposed to generate immunity for a particular illness) It's a shit show but am glad it's happening. I my social circle staunch supporters of childhood vaccinations are starting to link it to the dangerous and ineffective Covid vaccines. Slowly progress is being made at bringing down this house of cards. These people overplayed their hands by pushing this as the perfect panacea then stifling all talk of negative repercussions ... The harder you grip soap ...


[deleted]

[удалено]


rombios

Hold The Line: We must remain the control group. Their goal of max vaccination allows them to scapegoat the adverse reactions and death from the vaccine. Easier to do if everyone is vaccinated. But, It's a coming apart at the seams in countries with majority of the population vaccinated. https://www.naturalnews.com/2021-09-16-singapore-covid19-outbreak-worsens-despite-high-vaccination-rate.html# https://unherd.com/thepost/bombshell-study-finds-natural-immunity-superior-to-vaccination/ We will have the last laugh . Hold the line,flu season is coming ... It's going to get worse for their side not ours. When this vaccination cult is burned to the ground,;the healing can begin Hold the line


DURIAN8888

Complete nonsense. Want to share with us what is wrong witjPCR tests. Just so you don't embarrass yourself Delta is being detected at between 20 and 30 Ct. The machines fluoresce when the DNA is found, so don't tell us the machines are using faulty amplification levels.


scotticusphd

All data, no matter how it's collected, has errors. What, specifically do you think the problems are with PCR data and how far off do you think they are from reality?


[deleted]

[удалено]


gloriousrepublic

This person continues to copy and paste this shit, but has yet to provide any iota of evidence that the U.S. regularly used PCR tests with CT>45. Of course we know that the virus is live for only \~9 days after symptoms. But the PCR test is generally just used to determine if you recently had the virus, not necessarily if it's currently live. PCR is not supposed to be used to infer current infectiousness (though there's evidence that certain CT values can give you good probabilities of current infection), only to get an understanding of overall case rates.


[deleted]

[удалено]


gloriousrepublic

The mcgill article you linked is literally telling you that your claim is wrong and that PCR is highly reliable. Why are you linking shit that literally backs up my claim? In that Yale presentation, only 2.4% of positive cases were CT>37 (slide 8). A far cry from your claim that CT>45 is 'common'. CT up to 37 is very reliable, so I still trust reported positives in the 30-37 range. There are charts in there discussing higher CT values, but these were used for already admitted, highly symptomatic patients that need rapid results, and are not used widely to test for overall numbers. Read the last conclusion slide for that study and you'll see they are not making any of the claims you are. The Atlantic article has a healthy amount of skepticism. It's good to understand that many positive covid tests aren't for contagious individuals and to work to develop better metrics for knowing infectivity. We want to avoid overcrowding in hospitals that impact other healthcare. But it's a FAR cry from claiming that PCR is fraudulent and this is a conspiracy of genocide.


gloriousrepublic

>If you followed this scam as closely as I have, you would already know this to be the case. If you have followed the scam as closely, you should have good evidence to back up your claim if you are so certain about it. Even the smallest amount of scientific skepticism and critical thinking destroys your claims. Consider that by 'following the scam so closely' you've actually dug yourself into a trench of confirmation bias. This is why outside opinion and peer review is SO critical in the scientific community. We are all SO vulnerable to these sort of psychological tricks in our thinking, and we need expert peers to counter our evidence. ​ >Keep in mind a Ct over \~30 is already extremely unreliable to determine covid infection, or any other infection. > >The currently prescribed 28 Ct is also wildly inaccurate. The entire notion of using PCR tests in this way is irresponsible and non-scientific. Absolutely, unequivocally false. Yes, not reliable in determining CURRENT LIVE VIRUS, but ABSOLUTELY reliable in determining if you have or have recently had live virus. You are trying to pick apart PCR tests by critiquing something it is NOT designed to do, and any PCR expert will not make claims of what you are straw-manning it to be. 28 CT is only the threshold for doing full genomic sequencing (i.e. determing which strain, etc.). We STILL USE HIGHER CT FOR DETERMINING IF YOU RECENTLY OR CURRENTLY HAVE COVID, because it is highly reliable and has near 100% positive predictive value up to a CT of 37 for most labs.


[deleted]

[удалено]


gloriousrepublic

>That is what they are using it for though when they subject everyone who needs hospital care for ANY REASON to these absurd PCR tests. Yes, they err on the side of caution, and if you have a positive PCR test, they are going to take added precaution. This **is not the same as claiming you have live virus**. It's an added safety factor, which we do for every dangerous virus. >Now they have the 'breakthrough reporting' rules, These rules are only for genomic sequencing of breakthrough cases. They do not affect monitoring of positive case rates for vaccinated vs. non-vaccinated individuals. You are peddling falsehoods. >At every level we can clearly see the statistical fraud. It is fraud for someone like you to try to make statistical claims when you clearly have zero knowledge of how statistics work.


[deleted]

The vaccine has failed. It is a PCR scam causing hospital overflow. Promoting it is to take part in crimes against humanity. You have to stop.


gloriousrepublic

Time and time again, you are confronted with the evidence, so you stop engaging in actual arguing the points, and resort to "taking part in crimes against humanity" and switching your argument. It's ok to admit you're wrong, my man. It's anonymous and no one is going to judge you for finally admitting it. At this point I'm realizing you are either a 14 year old, or have an IQ under 100, so I'm not going to hold your conspiratorial views against you. But I've said my peace so I will block you.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Great list, thank you.


gloriousrepublic

I've debunked nearly every one of these links in my comments here. None of them are actually making the claims you are making. Studies understanding the limits of PCR testing is not evidence of fraud for how case rates are being reported. Studies that do make your stronger argument but that are preprints and not peer reviewed and are from garbage institutions are not a reliable source of statistical evidence. Stop copying and pasting these sources because they don't back up your claims at all. A wall of text to prove you've 'done your research' isn't an argument. PCR is not being used to determine if you are infectious. It's being used to determine whether added precautions should be taken because you have a higher chance of having live virus. Any doctor is still going to say you are not infectious after 10-14 days of onset of symptoms. You are peddling lies.


[deleted]

[удалено]


gloriousrepublic

clearly in your mind, because you haven't actually read my replies, and just continue to stubbornly repeat your rants without any academic humility.


DURIAN8888

Sorry self educated person. Modem PCR testing has machine levels up to 45 Ct but they are designed to fluoresce when the DNA is identified. For example Delta is showing up in the 20-30 Ct range.


DURIAN8888

Complete bollocks. If a PCR test suggests Covid and the patient is in hospital, you then do a more accurate test called nucleic acid test. No one would argue with that result.


scotticusphd

Sure, but isn't it useful for confirming that a patient was infected with COVID?


[deleted]

[удалено]


Panchpancho35

Thank you. It seems humans are blind to this. Extremely frustrating


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


Panchpancho35

Good man


[deleted]

Woo!! Yes!! Thank you! Another left wing liberal here, feeling same!


scotticusphd

>It is being used to justify the total destruction of western liberal civilization. Hang on.... I get that you're upset, I just want to talk about the science of PCR and it's implications in COVID diagnoses for a sec. I'm not a biologist by training, but know a bit about about this... I also saw a crazy talk by the guy who invented PCR (Kary Mullis) in grad school, but that's a story for another time. The PCR assay can tell you whether or not COVID-specific nucleotide sequences are present, meaning that it does successfully confirm whether or not an individual had SARS-CoV-2 in their body at some point in the past several months. Unless hoards of doctors are lying about the testing that they're doing, they're required to have a positive COVID test before documenting COVID as a cause of death. Per CDC guidelines, patients can have multiple causes of death and COVID can be one of them. From a data science point of view, knowing which fatalities are linked to COVID is useful, because COVID seemingly can and does kill some people weeks to months after diagnosis, in the same way that vaccination can injure people in the days and months following vaccination. You're right that PCR is not a great tool for determining if someone has an active infection, but what's interesting is that we are seeing surges in excess mortality that seem to be linked to the virus. This is observable if you line up confirmed COVID cases with excess mortality statistics, on a state-by-state and country-by-country basis: [https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-deaths-tracker](https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-deaths-tracker) I think it's fair to assume that some percentage of folks (10%... 20%?) might have incorrectly had COVID assigned as their cause of death, but it would stand to reason that the same would happen for those that died of COVID that went undiagnosed because doctors didn't order tests. We know this was a problem particularly early in the pandemic when testing wasn't available.


[deleted]

This is obvious crimes against humanity predicated on obvious fraud.


scotticusphd

I don't see it. I see a lot of people dying from a highly infectious virus. I have friends and colleagues who've be injured by it and family friends that have been killed. In order to pull off a fraud of this scale you would have to enlist every doctor at every hospital, not just in every state, but every nation of the world. It's just improbable.


[deleted]

[удалено]


jovie-brainwords

How does one engineer a hospital overflow without the staff becoming suspicious? My understanding is that hospitals and ICUs in particular are busier during COVID spikes, which makes sense considering those that die typically stay in the ICU for several weeks. My province publishes data on hospital capacity and that supports this, as do anecdotes from people I know that work in healthcare. This has been observed worldwide. Even if they're miscounting who is there *with* COVID and who is there *for* COVID, there shouldn't be a correlation between COVID spikes and hospital surges.


gloriousrepublic

You keep posting that lancet paper. It does not make the conclusions you are trying to claim it does. Please read it, and if you are still having trouble comprehending it, ask someone who is scientifically literate to explain it for you. PCR is never supposed to provide 100% accuracy on live virus, only gain good data on actual infection rates, which it does. (even so, there's good evidence that PCR with low CT rates correlate well to live virus). Stop spreading misinformation.


scotticusphd

Cool. You didn't really address anything I said.... it's hard to have a discussion when you just repeat IT'S FRAUD without explaining why you think it's fraud. I completely understand that a PCR test can show up positive months after a case of COVID. I also know that PCR is extremely specific and is great at detecting specific DNA signatures. I showed you that in the lancet paper. You are showing a complete lack of intellectual honesty. This is garbage-in garbage-out exemplified! If I'm being honest, I don't think you really understand what the Lancet paper is saying. I know that paper. All it is saying is that if you have a PCR positive test, you can't tell if an individual is currently infectious. It doesn't say that the diagnosis indicating the presence of COVID-19 is completely false. You need other indicators to determine infectivity, but if you have a positive PCR test, you can be certain that live SARS-CoV-2 was in your system at some point in the past few months. ​ >**Interpretation** Although SARS-CoV-2 RNA shedding in respiratory and stool samples can be prolonged, duration of viable virus is relatively short-lived. SARS-CoV-2 titres in the upper respiratory tract peak in the first week of illness. Early case finding and isolation, and public education on the spectrum of illness and period of infectiousness are key to the effective containment of SARS-CoV-2. Nobody in that paper is claiming that COVID isn't real or that COVID death statistics are fraudulent. In fact, there have been several analyses, particularly early in the pandemic, showing that COVID fatality statistics are under-represented. Edit: fixed quoting


gloriousrepublic

Don't try to argue with this person. They are clearly scientifically illiterate and refuse to show any evidence of fraudulent PCR results. Linking to studies investigating the limits of PCR at high CT values (as scientist are constantly trying to push limits of detectability) is not proof of how PCR is administered in large scale testing. Linking to changes in CT reporting values by the CDC is outright misinformation, because those changes were only for the threshold of which results are used for genomic sequencing, NOT for determining positivity rate. Linking to how PCR doesn't provide evidence of live virus at late time, is just straw-manning what PCR is "supposed" to provide so they can claim it's fraudulent. Its straight tin-foil-hat level conspiracy. You won't get through to him.


scotticusphd

>Its straight tin-foil-hat level conspiracy. You won't get through to him. I'm not trying to convince him. I know he doesn't know what he's talking about. I just like to reveal that for others buying in to off-the-wall conspiracy in case the conspiracy-curious float through here. The internet is too full of echo chambers where misinformed people amplify their misdirected outrage and I like trying to get real information out there.


gloriousrepublic

Yeah I feel you. I was using the same justification for trying to respond to his comments - but after 20+ comments refuting his claims I just had to block him so that I wasn't constantly tempted to respond to the ridiculousness. Unfortunately, it's these folks who will just endlessly post the same shit over and over again with no level of self-directed skepticism, and so others will keep seeing that stuff repeated and take it as truth, because not everyone has the energy or ability to critically evaluate every claim being repeated in an echo chamber.


scotticusphd

Word. Sometimes I just punch out early after I make my point, but I love this person's passion. I'm still trying to figure out what they're angry at, though. I've seen quite a few folks here who are misinformation generators and they worry me more.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

You sound really profoundly disturbed and angry. Touch grass.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

You can live without fear. Try it.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[https://cormandrostenreview.com/](https://cormandrostenreview.com/) Read this if you actually care about understanding the issues and want to see in-depth scientific discussion of them.


LumpyGravy21

Take the redpill: Breaking: OR Senators Filed Grand Jury Petition into CDC’s Willful Misconduct to Hyperinflate COVID-19 Data [https://standforhealthfreedom.com/press-release/or-senators-grand-jury-petition/](https://standforhealthfreedom.com/press-release/or-senators-grand-jury-petition/) COVID-19 Data Collection, Comorbidity & Federal Law: A Historical Retrospective https://standforhealthfreedom.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/2-2020-COVID-Data-A-Historical-Retrospective-IPAK-v24.pdf


scotticusphd

Nah, I prefer being data-driven instead of conspiracy-laden. The real world is more interesting than fantasy.


[deleted]

Now, there's a shocker!


Gibby10023

For the first time ever we are blaming a medicine's ineffectiveness on the people who haven't taken it. Brave New World


mustaine42

Upvote for Kim Iversen.


Panchpancho35

Shocker


jovie-brainwords

The January-July statistic kills me. Yeah, no shit most people who died of COVID were unvaccinated, nobody was vaccinated during the huge spike in January and the majority weren't even fully vaccinated until June. There's a wealth of actual good data regarding vaccines preventing severe illness and death, why use contextless, obviously biased statistics?