All Things Coronavirus (Part 2)

[LIBrty4all 3,749]

10 hours ago, LIBrty4all said:

Ok, now that the numbers have been updated, I'll call out this headline as #fakenews.  The day that claim FL had 901 deaths (Aug 26th), there were actually EIGHT deaths.

 

https://ycharts.com/indicators/florida_coronavirus_deaths_per_day  

 

And as can be seen from this page, the highest single-day death toll in the past two months is 219 on August 9th.

 

More fear-mongering by the MSM.

@Lemonslice laughs at my post, obviously mocking it, yet contributes nothing to the conversation.  Why is that?

Edited August 29, 2021 by LIBrty4all

[LIBrty4all 3,749]

Quote

Why are the most vaccinated countries having the highest death rate?

The University of Oxford maintains a public database which allows you to run your own queries.  One clear statistic is that countries that are highly vaccinated have the worst death rates.  The death rate is far more revealing than the case rate, which is not a reliable number, particularly since the PCR test has been discredited and even had it’s FDA EUA revoked.

Paradoxically, a densely populated country like India, which has very low vaccination rates, has the lowest death rate.  What could possibly be the cause?

 

https://mymedicalfreedom.org/the-more-vaccinated-countries-have-a-higher-death-rate/

 

[wagner17 24]

20 hours ago, LIBrty4all said:

Ok, now that the numbers have been updated, I'll call out this headline as #fakenews.  The day that claim FL had 901 deaths (Aug 26th), there were actually EIGHT deaths.

 

https://ycharts.com/indicators/florida_coronavirus_deaths_per_day  

 

And as can be seen from this page, the highest single-day death toll in the past two months is 219 on August 9th.

 

More fear-mongering by the MSM.

MSM are businesses so of course they will present info in a way that helps make them  money.  Anyways, Ycharts says the source is CDC.  CDC Covid tracker footnotes says:

 

"Please note that this information is confirmed and up-to-date as of August 26, 2021. Jurisdictional reporting methods are subject to change and will be updated on a weekly basis.

CDC’s overall COVID-19 case and death numbers are validated through a confirmation process with each jurisdiction. COVID-19 case and death numbers reported on other websites may differ from what is posted on the CDC COVID Data Tracker due to the timing of reporting and COVID Data Tracker updates, which may differ by up to 24 hours. CDC COVID-19 counts from previous dates may be continually revised as more records are received and processed. Not all jurisdictions report counts daily; some counts are reported in batches and may increase COVID-19 case and death counts at different intervals and appear as spikes. The process used for finding and confirming COVID-19 cases and deaths displayed by other sites may differ."

 

My county commissioner in PA explained the difference between the numbers that the state reported and the county.  The county was deduping addresses and checking addresses were actually in the county.  State wasn't.  Not familiar with Coronavirus data collection procedures in Florida.  But you may want to check local sources first.

Edited August 29, 2021 by wagner17

[laylalex 7,284]

That website makes me so sad. Of course the vaccines don't offer 100% protection from death or serious illness, but it's pretty close. Each of those deaths was, statistically speaking, probably avoidable. The two people I lost last year didn't have the luxury of turning down a vaccine. 

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

Posts mislead on Israel vaccine data

By The Associated PressJuly 22, 2021

 

https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-644288348135

[LIBrty4all 3,749]

7 hours ago, laylalex said:

That website makes me so sad. Of course the vaccines don't offer 100% protection from death or serious illness, but it's pretty close. Each of those deaths was, statistically speaking, probably avoidable. The two people I lost last year didn't have the luxury of turning down a vaccine. 

The Pfizer-BioNTech drug offers 95% protection.  But only for 7 days, as per the study.  After that, I am sure it drops off, but that information isn't in the pamphlet.

 

That means that after jab #2, 5% of test subjects got infected with covid within 7 days.

Edited August 29, 2021 by LIBrty4all

[LIBrty4all 3,749]

 

Quote

• The inventor of the PCR technique, Dr. Kary Mullis said it cannot be used for clinical diagnosis of active infections, making it useless to detect COVID-19.
• Above 34 cycles of amplification, it returns an unacceptable level of false positives.
  • Even Dr. Anthony Fauci, whom is known to obscure facts to meet his political narrative, does occasionally speak the truth about PCR testing:
    • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_Vy6fgaBPE&t=260s

https://mymedicalfreedom.org/topics/pcr-testing/

[laylalex 7,284]

I mean, this is an arresting headline:

Kary Mullis, inventor of the PCR test explains why covid testing using PCR is flawed

But Kary Mullis died before COVID19 was a thing. And he was talking about HIV which is not COVID? And Mullis very wrongly believed that HIV did not cause AIDS. I know who Mullis is. He did win the Nobel Prize for inventing the PCR technique, but why would we trust someone who was dead before COVID even had sprung into being to have a reliable opinion on PCR testing detecting COVID?

 

Also:

Quote

 

Social media users have been sharing a quote attributed to the inventor of the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) test, currently being used to detect COVID-19, which says “PCR tests cannot detect free infectious viruses at all”. This quote appears not to be a direct quote from the inventor, Kary Mullis, has lost some context and does not mean COVID-19 testing is fraudulent, as suggested by some social media posts.

...

However, the quote is actually from an article written by John Lauritsen in December 1996 about HIV and AIDS, not COVID-19 (here).

The context around the quote shows Lauritsen is not saying PCR tests do not work. Instead, he is clarifying that PCR identifies substances qualitatively not quantitatively, detecting the genetic sequences of viruses, but not the viruses themselves: “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.”

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-pcr/fact-check-inventor-of-method-used-to-test-for-covid-19-didnt-say-it-cant-be-used-in-virus-detection-idUSKBN24420X

 

[LIBrty4all 3,749]

34 minutes ago, laylalex said:

I mean, this is an arresting headline:

Kary Mullis, inventor of the PCR test explains why covid testing using PCR is flawed

But Kary Mullis died before COVID19 was a thing. And he was talking about HIV which is not COVID? And Mullis very wrongly believed that HIV did not cause AIDS. I know who Mullis is. He did win the Nobel Prize for inventing the PCR technique, but why would we trust someone who was dead before COVID even had sprung into being to have a reliable opinion on PCR testing detecting COVID?

 

Also:

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-pcr/fact-check-inventor-of-method-used-to-test-for-covid-19-didnt-say-it-cant-be-used-in-virus-detection-idUSKBN24420X

 

 

As detailed in the headlined post you quoted (not me), Yes, he died before covid.  Doesn't take away from the facts of what he said.  Even Fauci admitted that the PCR test will ALWAYS find covid in a person if the Ct is over 35, which was the norm for all of 2020.  Then, when people began to be vaccinated earlier this year, and there were a large number of them turning up positive for covid, the CDC lowered the Ct to a max of 28.

Which means that the majority of tests last year that raised the covid case counts so high were false positives.

 

Obviously you didn't watch his video.  The key takeaway is "It [PCR test] allows you to take a very minuscule amount of anything and make it measurable... it's a sort of misinterpretation".  And he didn't say the HIV virus doesn't exist, he said it was rare in Americans (1 mil out of 300 mil) who have it.

 

Why do you suppose the CDC has determined that the PCR test will no longer be used?  It is inaccurate.  As are all those hyper-inflated numbers you read about in the MSM.  Hopefully a new, more accurate test can be found.  Or just tone down the Ct of the PCR to around 25 so it is more accurate.  

 

 

 

"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)"

Edited August 30, 2021 by LIBrty4all

[LIBrty4all 3,749]

An Industrial Hygienist on masks.  An ACTUAL EXPERT of 19 years.

 

https://rumble.com/embed/vitixx/?pub=4 

Edited August 30, 2021 by LIBrty4all

[LIBrty4all 3,749]

I think someone right here in CEHST has mentioned that most of the exhaled breath escapes around a mask.  And now for the rest of the story....

 

Quote

The study showed that most common masks, primarily due to problems with fit, filter about 10 per cent of exhaled aerosol droplets. The remaining aerosols are redirected, mostly out the top of the mask where it fits over the nose, and escape into the ambient air unfiltered.

 

https://uwaterloo.ca/news/media/study-supports-widespread-use-better-masks-curb-covid-19

[laylalex 7,284]

Um, what about the CDC not using the PCR test anymore? Didn't we already dismiss that nonsense pages and pages ago? 

 

I know that video. I watched it a long time ago. HIV and COVID are not the same thing. He is dead and there is no way of knowing he'd actually endorse an interpretation being posthumously shoved in his mouth.

 

What happened to the post where you just posted "dog ###"? I got an email notification. Was that in response to what I wrote? Why did you write that?

[LIBrty4all 3,749]

33 minutes ago, laylalex said:

Um, what about the CDC not using the PCR test anymore? Didn't we already dismiss that nonsense pages and pages ago? 

 

I know that video. I watched it a long time ago. HIV and COVID are not the same thing. He is dead and there is no way of knowing he'd actually endorse an interpretation being posthumously shoved in his mouth.

 

What happened to the post where you just posted "dog ###"? I got an email notification. Was that in response to what I wrote? Why did you write that?

Perhaps YOU dismissed it.  The rest of the world has not.

 

Glad you understand that HIV and covid are different.   But what he said about his own test has not changed, still remains true 28 years later.

Not required to answer.

Edited August 30, 2021 by LIBrty4all

[TBoneTX 45,088]

This is a Moderation reminder that other members' opinions, whether or not we agree with them, are to be respected.  If they violate the Terms of Service, report them.  This includes badgering of other members.

[Dashinka 24,436]

On 8/28/2021 at 12:46 PM, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

What's the risk of indoor dining if you're fully vaccinated? Here's what one expert says

https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/28/health/vaccine-safe-activities-dr-wen-wellness/index.html

So we wear a mask when we enter the door to a restaurant, wear it while walking the distance to a table, then once we are all seated, we can take them off as it is now a Covid19 safe zone.  Of course if you get up to use the restroom, get that mask back on as Covid is swirling all over the building except for where one is sitting.  The whole masking thing at resturants made no sense at all to me, and studies I have read show little to no "super-spreading" events from restaurants or bars even with all those maskless people sitting at their tables.