8 Jul 2022 4:35 pm
Oh, I never said the holocaust didnt' happen. I said the zyklon-B story is ****. Why don't you hop on over to that thread and tell me where I got it wrong. Don't do it here.B.See » 08 Jul 2022, 9:46 am » wrote: ↑ I started to respond to you by suggesting that maybe he didn't lie but gave the best info he could based upon what he then knew. The virus is evolving, the vaccine protections wane, and it's an ever changing landscape. Bottom line, vaccines have saved millions of lives. It isn't perfect, but IMO, better than the nothing we had BEFORE.
Like I said, I STARTED to respond to you but then I noticed you attempted to obscure the information I posted by negatively scoring my previous post, rendering the information damn near illegible. (as you can see, I returned the favor).
Then I started to wonder why you have no designation as to your politics, then looked into your other five posts in which I found what smacked of Holocaust denialism, no less.
Now, let's start from the beginning of this fiasco and get ourselves engaged properly.
The PCR test that was used to detect coronavirus was set at a 40-cycle threshold of amplification/replication as per the FDA's recommendation. However, even infectious disease "expert" Tony himself is on record stating that an amplification/replication cycle above 35 is going to spit out almost all false positives; others say anything above 30 cycles is meaningless. There was even a New York Times article stating that the PCR test has spit out 90% false positives. It takes almost zero critical thinking skills to draw the obvious conclusion. Ninety percent false positives means no pandemic.
So, why did the FDA recommend a cycle-threshold of 40? That's a rhetorical question; they obviously wanted to create the illusion of a pandemic. Also, why didn't Tony bother to speak up concerning what can only be described as a deliberate and gross misapplication of a test? We'll never know because, thanks to a complicit media, Mr. Fauci is not required to publicly answer even one challenge to his dire predictions which are based on 90% false positive returns from a PCR test that was knowingly set too high.
Unfortunately, unless some talking head comes on tv and tells people it's okay to apply their own critical thinking skills to those factual numbers, they won't do it. They think they need permission to make the obvious inference and then respond to the falsehood they've been fed. And the real kicker is that the only ones they'll accept permission from are the same ones who neglected to inform them of the reason for all the false positives in the first place.
So, given what we now know about the PCR-test, and how it was set too high despite all of the "experts" involved, how should we respond to a 90% false positive rate?
So, tell me where I got it wrong.