Oops, Not Again?

That's why he tested negative four days later. If he'd been unvaxxed it could've gone worse.

It's been known to happen.

You're absolutely correct, not that apples cares about what's actually true.

False positives are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more likely to happen than someone who is vaccinated catching the virus.

" If he'd been unvaxxed it could've gone worse."

Of, if he had been unvaxxed, it could've gone for him like it has for billions of people on this planet- a near non-event. I have had colds that were much worse.

Err this is where I point a problem in your meme, you said that he got COVID, but four days later he tests negative? How is that? When you have COVID and get tested, you should have the COVID Antibodies in your system so... except if they stuck a Q-Tip up his nose and tested it that way.

The tests are garbage with 95% false positives.

Ohh

This is 100% false.

Wrong again, lib. And so says the person who invented the PCR Test, and won a Nobel for it.

The PCR test was NEVER intended to be used as it is being used, nor can it be accurate the way they are using it.

https://youtu.be/Nem2GmzalaA

Err I'm not a liberal lol. I was confused, check my memes be4 opening yo mouth fool

Hmmm- my reply wasn't for you / / /

Ohh ok!

Linking off to some whacko youtube video isn't a valid source.

Try science. With data.

Speaking of data, where's yours? Don't bother saying "Look it up" because that response will be ignored

Sure. What sources are you willing to accept? Because, I have found in the Politics stream if you link off to various universities and scientific studies, they get hand-waved away as being liberal propaganda.

So, if you're willing to accept science and data from an authoritative source, I'll cheerfully provide you with data and information on the effective rates of PCR tests.

However, you should also ask to be provided the "95% false positive" data as well. (even tho it's a bogus claim).

Maybe not 95%, but 58% is still too high: https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4941

That is linking to the Innova SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test. It is a faulty test.

The manufacturer has recalled it. The FDA did not approve it, and has recommended no one use it.

https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/safety-communications/stop-using-innova-medical-group-sars-cov-2-antigen-rapid-qualitative-test-fda-safety-communication

This isn't every test kit. This is 1 specific test from 1 manufacturer.

Obviously you didn't watch it. Video of the inventor IS fact.

You lose.

Okay. Here's what I want you to do. Look up the inventor's name.

Look up when he won his Nobel Prize.

Then look up when he died.

Then come back and say "oh, you were right. That was a whacko youtube video and not an actual source."

I already knew that he died, but your logic is lacking. Is what he said true or false?

False.

This video, and others that Sam Bailey has uploaded, are misleading in their finest moment in order to lead you to a false conclusion.

Let's break this snooze fest down. She spends like forever giving you the background on the creator of the test. She's so warm and loving and puts a lot of emotion into her narration of his life. She wants you to think that she really admires this guy and, by extension, you should too. He's so cool.

Honestly, it's pretty good in what it's doing. She's setting him up as this super great guy who was super smart and is a super authority on the subject. Then she brings in some other people with questions and edited answers. All to lead up to the (edited) claim that PCR tests are bad and we shouldn't using them based on a quote from 1996 about the AIDs Virus.

As a video presenting misleading claims to deliver a wrong conclusion, it's a really good one.

Here's why she's wrong: the PCR test is a qualitative test and not a quantitative test. Meaning, it tests to see if you have X thing in your system and not how much of X thing you have in your system.

And to the inventor's point- if it's detecting X thing, then it's detecting X thing but you don't know WHAT ELSE in your system has X thing. You don't know if it's good or bad or if it's the thing that's making you sick. You just know X thing is in your system.

That's the qualitative part. It tests for X thing only. Not if you have so much of X thing and that's the reason you're sick.

The covid pcr test is made specifically to test if you have the covid RNA in your system. That RNA does not exist anywhere else. It is unique to covid. So, if your test says you have X thing in your system, that X thing is the RNA of covid 19.

She is making a misleading claim in order to lead you to a false conclusion.

Here is some science with data explaining the test and how it works: https://discoverysedge.mayo.edu/2020/03/27/the-science-behind-the-test-for-the-covid-19-virus/

If you want to dispute the Mayo clinic, good luck.

"You have unreasonable expectations of how science works."

Wrong-o, Chumley. I have 100% realistic expectations of how science works, and I also have realistic expectations on how people like you fail to understand a basic fact- the things you place your faith in today, and in which you speak of in absolutes, will turn out to not be true tomorrow. This means that what you believe today is based on faulty information and logic.

The world lock itself down based on these ever changing facts, and billions of lives were negatively impacted as a result.

Always holding out for the next "discovery" that will finally be the proof you were hoping for is nothing more than an infinitely regressive argument. When you stop speaking as if you know anything, then you will understand how science works- science being conducted by sinful human beings with an agenda, that is.

The problem with your whole point, is that the PCR test can be used to "find" anything, when enough cycles are run. This why, when the WHO changed their direction on how many cycles to run, having it reduced, the number of alleged cases dropped by nearly 40%. It is also why the CDC recommended that labs stop using it because of the flaws inherent in the process. Only a moron believes that there was a nearly 98% drop in the number of flu cases.

And as far as using the flawed "argument from authority" method of debate, I have zero problem disputing with the Mayo Clinic- zero. If you are unable to think for yourself, and instead need to have "experts" do the thinking for you, then one wonders why you say anything at all.

You have unreasonable expectations of how science works.

You expect that the first test will be the very very best test and no other things are needed.

But that's not how things really work. Science is iterative. It constantly seeks to refine and improve its methods and findings.

They should be developing better and more refined tests. That's part of the deal. That's how it works. Just like they should be working on better methods and better tests better than the new ones they're using right now.

Like I said, whacko youtube video and not an actual source.

You lose.

The use of ad hominem, "Like I said, whacko youtube video and not an actual source.", is an indication that not only did you lose, you know it.

I get it. It's hard to admit when you were wrong. But you were wrong. You thought you had an ace-in-the-hole gotcha fact. When all you had was a joker misinformation youtube video.

You want to believe that it's all a lie. That secret powers are moving to control you.

That's why you bought into it so hard. You WANT it to be a hoax, and you're the one who discovered the secrets "they" don't want you to know. You're not aware. You're not "doing the research." You watch youtube videos that are lying to you.

"That's why you bought into it so hard. You WANT it to be a hoax, and you're the one who discovered the secrets "they" don't want you to know. You're not aware. You're not "doing the research." You watch youtube videos that are lying to you."

You are an idiot to assume that such a video is the beginning and end of my research. You SOOOOO want to win your online debates, don't you? Sad little man/woman/it/they/boopself/beepself . . .

Your "research" is a New Zealand woman who narrated someone else's life as an appeal to authority, then finished with edited out-of-context quotes to lead you to a false conclusion. Then failed to follow up with any data- conclusive or otherwise.

Not surprisingly, Bailey's current video deals with your ignorant approach to what science is . . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdxTuuMv4zQ

Timing is everything.

Snake Oil Saleswoman suddenly appears.
She uses I'm Just Asking Questions!
It's super effective on gullible conservatives.

And btw, not only are my doctors smarter than "your" doctors (as if you do your own primary research vs regurgitating MSM lies), my doctors are much prettier than yours. Dr. Sam Bailey is anything but a "whacko", and if you didn't have the attention span of a gnat, watching her well researched and well reasoned videos might be the start of your own personal renaissance out of your life of utter stupidity.

I get that the odds of that happening are just as good as Jen Psaki telling the truth, but one can hope for the better.

It's a well-constructed video. She presents a lot of facts and details about the inventor's life. Then she brings in some edited quotes. And lands on his 1996 stuff about how a qualitative test works...

But then fails to explain how the pcr tests for covid work. She gives no data. She gives no research. She gives nothing other than misleading quotes and clips.

All in an effort to lead you to a false conclusion.

The PCR test works by copying the RNA and DNA it finds during each cycle. Unfortunately if you run enough cycles the DNA and RNA break apart and join together to produce 95% false positives. The CDC admitted that the PCR was giving false positives when the flu was found. Research outside of your leftist utopia is needed to get to the truth.

Data and science, Lokiare. Otherwise, it's just more rightwing MAGA nonsense.

Nobody, including democrats, Republicans, Trumpublican Terrorists or Independents, listen to him because he put all the kids on the front line.

Is you talking about kids, like in the young people who have a 0.0000000000009% chance of having any problem, no matter how minor, with Covid? Those kids?

You should consider "following the science" . . . Bidenette.

Oh no! I am SOOOOO sorry. You were talking about BIDEN putting kids on the front lines of pedophilia. Forgive me, please, for my misunderstanding.