In Just The Past Few Weeks, The CDC Suddenly Stated

What does that even mean? Like...................................................What? Now both sides agree on the above. Facui and CDC have said so, and we have said so...Stop burying your head in the sand.

No, I don't run to the hospital for anything besides surgery. Natural medicine is the cure-all.

No, I am not going to waste my time reciting months of news. If you payed attention enough, you would have listened to Fauci and the CDC backpedal the narrative and slyly explain how we have been right. Even if I did give you the information, you would not believe it.

No, you don't and you didn't. I don't know why I would have to supply the evidence when the outcome we see today is from the faults of the CDC and Fauci.

I have multiple sources explaining this, but if I gave them too you, not only would you not read them, but if you did, it would either pass right through you, or you don't have the capacity to understand the stupor you have muddled yourself in.

Challenge accepted. Let's see it.

https://headlinehealth.com/fauci-fda-who-all-now-admit-false-positive-pcr-tests/

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/cdc-director-walensky-criticism-updated-guidance-coronavirus-deaths

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32753516/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZcTqW1Ngj4

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fauci-said-masks-were-not-really-effective-at-blocking-virus-emails-reveal/ar-AAKDKsP

file:///media/removable/NO%20NAME/Politics,%20Science,%20etc/Uncompromised%20Science%20on%20Masks%20(last%20updated%20October%2030,%202020).pdf

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2020/12/25/dr-fauci-admits-to-misleading-the-public-on-health-information-n2582119

Alright here we go....
https://headlinehealth.com/fauci-fda-who-all-now-admit-false-positive-pcr-tests/

Preliminary assessment: No author for article. I might not be seeing it. As of this writing that's a red flag. Ah found it. Tyler Durden... Really? They're using Brad Pitt's name from Fight Club. We went from red flag to green, then back to red again. I searched headlinehealth.com Tyler Durden writer. Got this:
"In a 29 April 2016 Bloomberg article "unmasking" Zero Hedge, the authors writing as "Tyler Durden" were revealed as Ivandjiiski(1), then age 37, Tim Backshall(2), age 45 (a credit derivatives strategist), and Colin Lokey(3), age 32 (a Seeking Alpha staff writer)."
1, 2 and 3. So these guys are just blog writers on a website labeling itself as headline health... without having any medical experience...? At all? It's hard for me to take people with no medical expertise seriously, especially when they try to give off the appearance of actually having it.

In the article that they write, they talk about cycle threshholds and how they "are the level at which widely used polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test can detect a sample of the COVID-19 virus."
Refer to this: https://www.wvdl.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/WVDL.Info_.PCR_Ct_Values1.pdf

Back to your citation "The higher the number of cycles, the lower the amount of viral load in the sample; the lower the cycles, the more prevalent the virus was in the original sample." They've already got it wrong, it appears. With PCR tests, you're testing for DNA specifically (If I'm understanding this correctly) you want to get higher pings of the targeted DNA... Either way, no test is 100% accurate. There are not-so-thorough tests for screening, and then there's more thorough tests. I'm unsure as of yet which one this is...

"Numerous epidemiological experts have argued that cycle thresholds are an important metric by which patients, the public, and policymakers can make more informed decisions about how infectious and/or sick an individual with a positive COVID-19 test might be." [CITATION NEEDED] (Regardless if he's right or not, I need to see this argument he's talking about... And who's making it.

"However, as JustTheNews reports, health departments across the country are failing to collect that data." [CITATION NEEDED] If we could cut the chase and skip JTN, and go right to where JTN found that information, that'd be good.

"Here are a few headlines from those experts and scientific studies:"

Headline health (cont.)
"Here are a few headlines from those experts and scientific studies:"
Cherry picked information, without citation. It *does* say "Citation below" but as I go to click the button "CITATION" there is no URL.

So... After looking up how the test is done, it is done via nasal swab. I did some digging around to see what test is more accurate whether it's by blood, or by mucus. I took a course on medical assisting which teaches you all about Anatomy and Physiology, virology, pathology, etc. I was under the impression that blood tests were the definitive answer. Apparently not, and that's agreed upon by the FDA, UK and many other first world countries. The only guy who disagrees so far is this one, and I think Portugal as he claims that it isn't reliable.

There was an article "https://www.surrey.ac.uk/news/false-positive-covid-19-tests-may-be-result-contamination-laboratories" Is an excellent article as it points to who, what, when, where and why. There's a trail I can follow and trust it. This person lays out the risks associated with PCR testing and talks about cross-contamination and gives suggestions going forward to avoid further cross-contamination.

With that being said, clinics and hospitals will typically run a second test just to make sure because tests can be false positives. One test is never enough, nor is it acceptable.

I'll do another one tomorrow. These critical analyses require *a lot* of time to do and homework. I don't mind doing it if your mind is open to legit discussion, just as mine is.

You have my word that I will remain impartial. That doesn't mean I'll stick to my guns or change to your side. I imagine that what I am going to see is that there is *some* truth in what you're saying, but there's something funny about it.

I already have my guesses, but I will reserve judgement until I am finished going through all of this.

Just for my knowledge (as aa bibliography would have been more helpful) Why did you provide this link? What is its purpose for your calim regarding Fauci and the CDC?

I will read all of these articles, I will be examining the media bias and factual accuracy of the website, looking up each author, and cross-referencing these articles with articles from neutral and left wing sources to parse out what is objective and what is subjective, also parsing out facts from misleading or otherwise false information such as (but not limited to: contextomy, begging the question, etc.)

After that, I will examine the methods that the CDC is using (as well as Fauci) and comparing it with the scientific method. That being, as new information comes in, you update your data to be current and accurate. Sticking to obsolete data is the antithesis of "science."

You might criticize me for doing all of this work, but this is what intellectual honesty and responsible journal reading actually is: you examine both sides, you listen to their claims. In this instance, the claims revolve around a person. Since this person is doing a series of actions, you need to look up potential reasons why he is doing that. So, I will be looking at why he might be doing these things as well.

Before I do this, I need to know if I am wasting my time by accepting your challenge and seeing it through - to such a point that you'll give me the equal level of respect of reading what I have to write and discover. I am telling you all of this now so there's no surprises, no gotchas, nothing like that. I am genuine in accepting your challenge. Even if you're trolling me to waste my time, I'll still gain from it by bookmarking all of these sites so that I can repeat what I found in the future if I encounter such claims in the future, regardless of who the claims skew their favor.

Agreed?

I am not going to criticize you for doing that.

You can give me sources, however, I have fairly little time, with work, school, and chiropractic visits. But, I can incrementally read your sources.

Agreed.

This'll take me a day or two as well. I'll get back to you.

Okay.

Didnt forget about you, just lost where the reply was.

Okay.

There are thousands of sources, actually. Including the CDC website, for one. The PCR tests have been eliminated as a testing medium because the FDA/CDC finally admitted they created false positives. All the things the "conspiracy theorists" suggested over a year ago has proven to be true.

A few links to get you started:

VACCINES INEFFECTIVE
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/cdc-director-covid-vaccines-cant-prevent-transmission-anymore/ar-AASDndg

COMORBIDITIES:
https://www.kusi.com/cdc-director-75-of-covid-deaths-occurred-in-people-with-at-least-four-comorbidities/

thanks

A little reading was all you were capable of.

Source 1:
“Our vaccines are working exceptionally well. They continue to work well for Delta with regard to sever illness and death. They prevent it," Walensky said.

Zero data provided by the CDC to prove the vaccines are working exceptionally well.

You intentionally omitted the statement from the CDC saying "the CDC has acknowledged that the vaccines are not capable of stopping the spread of the virus".

The vaccines are working exceptionally well, and are not capable of stopping the spread of the virus.
Word salad for sheep.

Source 2: All they're doing is confirming that those with commodities (LMAO) are suffering more than those without. That doesn't mean comorbidities were what they died from.

The liberal narrative is astounding: People with comorbidities didn't die from comorbidities, they died from Covid.

There's a difference between dying from Covid and dying with Covid, Only people with the ability to think know the difference.

The little reading you were capable offered nothing to contradict the OP's Meme. Try again.

Zero data was provided by the article. Yet the article that was being used to support the argument that vaccines we’re ineffective includes the doctor saying the exact opposite.

"You intentionally omitted the statement from the CDC saying "the CDC has acknowledged that the vaccines are not capable of stopping the spread of the virus""

I think it’s far more egregious that the person who linked the article with the simple subtitle as “vaccines ineffective” overlooked the statement, “Our vaccines are working exceptionally well. They continue to work well for Delta with regard to sever illness and death. They prevent it," Walensky said.

“The vaccines are working exceptionally well, and are not capable of stopping the spread of the virus.
Word salad for sheep.”

Considering that is not a direct quote but, as you falsely accused me of, “You intentionally omitted the statement” that word salad is all yours.

“There's a difference between dying from Covid and dying with Covid”

There isn’t, actually. I honestly wish that were true but in science we cannot make such definitive conclusions without significant evidence. And when the data is compiled, we can prove that sometime between 2019 and 2020, the fatality rate for those comorbidites rose.

The culprit?

Covid.

Walensky also said 75% who died had FOUR comorbidities.

And they died of covid.

With covid... Big difference...

There isn’t much of a difference between dying with and dying from covid, actually. I honestly wish there was a difference but in science we cannot make such definitive distinctions without significant evidence. And when the data is compiled, we can prove that sometime between 2019 and 2020, the fatality rate for those comorbidites rose.

The culprit?

Covid.

Sure... that's why more and more countries adjusted their numbers from died from to died with...

May I see your source on that?

As I’ve found nothing substantial to back that claim.

Industry standard, Medical Examiners’ and Coroners’ Handbook
on Death Registration and Fetal Death Reporting Revision 2003

Please explain your analysis for what that has to do with your claim in 2020 and onwards.

SARS-CoV-2 is not SARS-CoV. They are similar, yes but different strains.