I accept that there is a scope for error. I'm not saying that there isn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by TWGL1
But 0.8%-4% is a little bit short of the 97% false positives that have been bandied about for the last few pages without any evidence.
Printable View
I accept that there is a scope for error. I'm not saying that there isn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by TWGL1
But 0.8%-4% is a little bit short of the 97% false positives that have been bandied about for the last few pages without any evidence.
You'd be hiding under the bed before you could say H1N1.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tito Fuente
I think the high percentage error rate is apparently when a person can test positive two or three months after the initial infection, when they are basically asymptomatic and no risk at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tito Fuente
No doubt the Covid Files will cover this in due course
Hiding :sherlock:Quote:
Originally Posted by Wales-Bales
Hi D ing :sherlock: :sherlock:
Hi D :sherlock: :sherlock: :sherlock:
I can't speak to that. It's interesting though - so if you can give a source for that then I'd definitely give it a read.Quote:
Originally Posted by TWGL1
All I'd really like to see sometime this side of Christmas is evidence of " PCR Pandemic: Ramp up PCR 'test' to 40-45 cycle yielding 97% false positives".
Why do you claim that?Quote:
Originally Posted by TWGL1
Being asymptomatic doesn't mean you are 'no risk at all'. At the height of Covid people with the virus but no symptoms were infecting others at only a marginally lower rate than those with symptoms.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...059-4/fulltext
If you mean they no longer had the virus 2-3 months after their infection and therefore have no symptoms, then yes - no risk. But 'asymptomatic' doesn't mean that.
Asymptomatic people have a very low viral load, to me that suggests little risk, I’ve specifically quoted that as my own mother is asymptomatic right now and that is what I was told a few days ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by jon1959
It's not what this study suggests.Quote:
Originally Posted by TWGL1
https://thorax.bmj.com/content/76/1/61
"Asymptomatic individuals and symptomatic patients did not show any significant differences in the mean Ct values of the E (31.15 vs 31.43; p>0.99), RdRp (32.26 vs 32.93; p=0.92) and N (33.05 vs 33.28; p>0.99) genes.
Conclusion Approximately one-fifth of the individuals without severe symptoms were asymptomatic, and their viral loads were comparable to those in symptomatic patients."
Who told you differently, out of interest?
I don’t discuss personal data regarding my family on line but I’m happy to discuss it with you face to faceQuote:
Originally Posted by Tito Fuente
I would believe you, except from the fact that you literally just told us that it was in relation to your mother being asymptomatic but now you won't tell me who told you "Asymptomatic people have a very low viral load" because it's "personal data regarding my family" when asked.Quote:
Originally Posted by TWGL1
I think the personal data regarding your family is already out of the bag, sorry.
Personal Data as in the source - you know what I meant I’m sure
I honestly didn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by TWGL1
Ahh, okay. It was a family member that told you. I don't need to know if it was your uncle or a cousin. Case closed.
You might want to send them the article that I shared with you though - just in case they are telling lots of people that they have a low viral load because they are symptomatic and the risks of transmission are much lower :thumbup:
There is no need ,but they are not concerned, perhaps because of the vax roll out and levels of natural immunityQuote:
Originally Posted by Tito Fuente
Of course not. Why would you correct a falsehood that could lead to a risk (however minor) to someone else's health.Quote:
Originally Posted by TWGL1
I’ll seek further clarification , just to be safe , thanks for your concern, appreciate itQuote:
Originally Posted by Tito Fuente
As long as it's not clarification from your family member then I think that's a great start.Quote:
Originally Posted by TWGL1
You're welcome :thumbup:
I've said it before, the best thing about being a so-called conspiracy theorist is that I spend no time fretting about developing blood clots, HIV, turbo cancers, spike proteins, toxic lipid nanoparticles, myocarditis or neurological disorders. And as I've not stepped inside a doctor's surgery for decades I reckon my innate immune system remains in tip-top shape.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tito Fuente
Youtube is more like telly tube on the whole but there's plenty of educational material to be found there.
The best thing about being someone that doesn't get drawn into believing endless conspiracies (calling them "theories" is a bit of a misnomer) is that I spend no time fretting about developing blood clots, HIV, turbo cancers, spike proteins, toxic lipid nanoparticles, myocarditis & neurological disorders - as well as not fretting about the poles shifting, weekly forecasted annihilations, a secret global cabal, coats costing thousands of pounds, nuclear war, super earthquakes, Pfizer, zombie babies, Bill Gates, Dr Fauci, the MSM and my own shadow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Organ Morgan.
"Youtube is more like telly tube on the whole but there's plenty of educational material to be found there"
Fair point. There's never any educational material to be found on the hundreds of available channels or the streaming services that can be accessed on a regular TV.
I guess you're more of a TubeyTubbie.
Enjoy the ride...Quote:
Originally Posted by Tito Fuente
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsAVx0u9Cw4
Great stuff :thumbup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Wales-Bales
If you haven't seen it yet then I highly recommend the documentary 'Who Killed The KLF?'