Non-Vaccination brag thread

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
23,772
Do we even have a reporting system for SA ?
Ja we do. I can't however find any detail regarding any analysis of the data.
SAHPRA and the NICD claim to have a system in place.
Not clear at all if it is the same system and who is doing any analysis
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
23,772
Are you referring to the fake, made-up story?

Where was your meter?


Did your fact checkers let you down?
Yes all the "experts" on the forum who claim they know fake data and reports when they see them fell for that BS big time.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
23,772
it shows that in January this year the guideline was changed to recommend fewer cycles be used

because the more you amplify the less reliable it is

there's that lack of reading ability biting you yet again
Yes the PCR guidelines issued by the WHO morphed a few times. And not once did the WHO make a big song and dance about those changes.
Most of those changes had to do with the reduction of false positive and negative results.
Some had to do with whether the test was being used to create mass panic at the beginning or if the test was being used as part of a diagnostic process.
Nor did MSM pickup on them.
No, the litmus test should be to compare various country PCR guidelines with the WHO guidelines to really see the impact.
Start with our country ......
 
Last edited:

tetrasect

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
3,067
Yes the PCR guidelines issued by the WHO morphed a few times. And not once did the WHO make a big song and dance about those changes. Nor did MSM pickup on them.
No the litmus test should be to compare various country PCR guidelines compared with the WHO guidelines to really see the impact.
Start with our country ......

What difference does it make? There were more infected people that were not tested than there were false positives.
 

tetrasect

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
3,067
You don't know that as it was and is impossible to quantify without blanket testing.

Sure we know that. For many reasons. The most significant being the fact that they limited testing to only those over 60 for months on end.

Sure we cannot quantify it to any degree of accuracy but the idea that case numbers are inflated because of a few false positives does not hold up to scrutiny.
 
Last edited:

Cosmik Debris

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 25, 2021
Messages
14,769
it shows that in January this year the guideline was changed to recommend fewer cycles be used

because the more you amplify the less reliable it is

there's that lack of reading ability biting you yet again

As science progresses, it does change, Nothing unusual in that. I read very well. It was a guideline to using the test. Something I would be allowed to perform with my medical qualifications.
 

Cosmik Debris

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 25, 2021
Messages
14,769
well, my posts are getting reported for personal attacks, even though you, cosmic & tetra have been dishing those attacks out to me ... such irony

but I digress: seeing as someone got touched on their studio I'm not participating in this shytshow for a while

Telling you you're unqualified to read medical research when you're not qualified to read medical research is not a personal attack. It's a fact.
 

Cosmik Debris

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 25, 2021
Messages
14,769
There is at least one twit on the forum who consistently and repeatedly uses a veiled personal attack to try and invalidate everything that person's posts. And it is long overdue that he is taken to task over his attitude.

Why not name me instead of hide behind a veiled threat like a coward? And since when is telling you that you are not qualified to:

Read medical research
Interpret medical research
Comment on medical research
Prescribe dosages of a registered medicine

A personal attack when you have no right and aren't qualified to do those?
 
Top