[Tom Bishop]

Your inference needs more than your suspicions to be taken seriously. The CDC report says nothing about PCR tests not being able to tell the difference between COVID. The CDC spokesperson said newer tests,that they are recommending, needs only a single sample to test for both.

Incorrect.

"CDC encourages laboratories to consider adoption of a multiplexed method that can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses"

It says differentiation right in the quote. This suggests that the current tests are not capable of differentiation.

If you are comparing Reuters, a reputable press service to a random kids pronouncements, then you’re a fucking moron. Are you a moron, Tom?

Yes, a reputable unbiased press service would definitely be spamming out twitter promotions for AOC merchandise: https://defconnews.com/2021/07/20/reuters-promotes-aocs-merch-store-like-its-real-news/

[AATW]

Actually, most of it is cited from other sources.

You spelled “dishonestly cherry picked” wrong

[Tom Bishop]

Aside from being a clear leftist shill organization, the CEO of Reuters is also a director of Pfizer. We definitely need to trust him for our Covid and vaccine facts! No conflict there.

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-conspiracy-covid/fact-check-there-is-still-no-evidence-of-a-covid-19-conspiracy-idUSL2N2O41ME



https://www.reuters.com/article/fact-check-no-evidence-that-pfizers-covi/fact-check-no-evidence-that-pfizers-covid-19-vaccine-causes-alzheimers-disease-idUSL1N2MZ382



https://www.weforum.org/agenda/authors/jim-smith



Part of the World Economic Forum too. The same people who state on their website that they want to use Covid as an opportunity to push their 'great reset' of capitalism. Still no defense on that topic from any of you, despite my repeated requests to defend those beliefs.

You spelled “dishonestly cherry picked” wrong

Really, what was cherry picked? Take it to another thread if you don't actually have an argument on the thread's topic and want to talk about something that is off topic.

[stack]

Wow, an article from someone who "recently graduated with her master’s in health journalism" and takes from someone with a PhD who was not actually directly involved. That must be true!

Yes, the article was written by a journalist as that's what a lot of journalists do, write articles. Often referred to as "reporting". Within her reporting, several individuals, specifically Dr. Susan Whittier, PhD, a professor of pathology and cell biology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, Dr. Christopher Polage, an associate professor of pathology at Duke University,  Kelly Wroblewski, director of infectious disease programs at the Association of Public Health Laboratories, & FDA spokesperson Jim McKinney are all quoted as explaining exactly what I wrote: The claims that the original CDC PCR test protocol couldn't differentiate between Covid and Influenza are false. As the original CDC PCR test protocol ONLY tested for covid. I'm pretty sure individually and collectively these folks are little bit more dialed into this topic than your Mike Huckabee is.

On the FDA's own website for the emergency authorization for the PCR Diagnostic Panel they say that they used other viruses to calibrate the machine, rather than Covid.

https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download

At the time of the CDC creating the original PCR test protocols I don't think Covid had been isolated yet. I think one of the earliest or the earliest isolation was from the first reported case in South Korea in late February, 2020. Revision 01 of your FDA doc (The one you cited is Revision 7) was "Status APPROVED Effective 2/4/2020. A few weeks before the first reported/shared isolation.

"From the same document (V7), page 4: "The CDC 2019-nCoV Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel is a molecular in vitro diagnostic test that aids in the detection and diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and is based on widely used nucleic acid amplification technology."

Nucleic acid isothermal amplification technologies: a review
"Nucleic acid amplification technologies are used in the field of molecular biology and recombinant DNA technologies. These techniques are used as leading methods in detecting and analyzing a small quantity of nucleic acids. The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is the most widely used method for DNA amplification for detection and identification of infectious diseases, genetic disorders and other research purposes."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18260008/

From page 10, "This test has been authorized only for the detection of nucleic acid from SARS CoV-2, not for any other viruses or pathogens"

So your memes and Mike Huckabee's claims are bunk.

From page 43, "In summary, the assessment of homology between available sequences of SARS CoV-2 as of June 6, 2021 and the CDC panel assay primers and probes shows that the risk of significant loss in reactivity and false negative results is very low due to the absence of significant numbers of mismatches. The design of the primers and probes, with melting temperatures of >60°C and an annealing temperature of 55°C, can tolerate up to two mismatches depending on location without significant loss in assay sensitivity."

So they were able to confirm that their early protocol was in line with actual sequenced Covid samples.

[Rama Set]

Your inference needs more than your suspicions to be taken seriously. The CDC report says nothing about PCR tests not being able to tell the difference between COVID. The CDC spokesperson said newer tests,that they are recommending, needs only a single sample to test for both.

Incorrect.

"CDC encourages laboratories to consider adoption of a multiplexed method that can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses"

It says differentiation right in the quote. This suggests that the current tests are not capable of differentiation.

That’s not how English works. You keep spinning that narrative though.

If you are comparing Reuters, a reputable press service to a random kids pronouncements, then you’re a fucking moron. Are you a moron, Tom?

Yes, a reputable unbiased press service would definitely be spamming out twitter promotions for AOC merchandise: https://defconnews.com/2021/07/20/reuters-promotes-aocs-merch-store-like-its-real-news/

A complete non sequitur. You would want to show that their liberal bias is present in this fact check.

[Tom Bishop]

From page 10, "This test has been authorized only for the detection of nucleic acid from SARS CoV-2, not for any other viruses or pathogens"

So your memes and Mike Huckabee's claims are bunk.

From page 43, "In summary, the assessment of homology between available sequences of SARS CoV-2 as of June 6, 2021 and the CDC panel assay primers and probes shows that the risk of significant loss in reactivity and false negative results is very low due to the absence of significant numbers of mismatches. The design of the primers and probes, with melting temperatures of >60°C and an annealing temperature of 55°C, can tolerate up to two mismatches depending on location without significant loss in assay sensitivity."

So they were able to confirm that their early protocol was in line with actual sequenced Covid samples.

So your argument is to admit that the test isn't actually based on Covid, but a different virus, and you cite someone who says its close enough to Covid to avoid a 'false negative' and we just have to assume it's not close to other viruses?

A super smart and very strong argument there. 

You also argue that the test is "authorized only" to detect Covid. Is that even an argument?

A complete non sequitur. You would want to show that their liberal bias is present in this fact check.

What? Their articles are clearly left leaning. You just cited them to promote your leftist beliefs. They promote AOC merchandise and the CEO is a director of Pfizer. Please explain why this is a reputable unbiased source of information, considering their leftist and vaccine connections.

[stack]

From page 10, "This test has been authorized only for the detection of nucleic acid from SARS CoV-2, not for any other viruses or pathogens"

So your memes and Mike Huckabee's claims are bunk.

From page 43, "In summary, the assessment of homology between available sequences of SARS CoV-2 as of June 6, 2021 and the CDC panel assay primers and probes shows that the risk of significant loss in reactivity and false negative results is very low due to the absence of significant numbers of mismatches. The design of the primers and probes, with melting temperatures of >60°C and an annealing temperature of 55°C, can tolerate up to two mismatches depending on location without significant loss in assay sensitivity."

So they were able to confirm that their early protocol was in line with actual sequenced Covid samples.

So your argument is to admit that the test isn't actually based on Covid, but a different virus, and you cite someone who says its close enough to Covid to avoid a 'false negative' and we just have to assume it's not close to other viruses?

A super smart and very strong argument there. 

To be honest, I'm not virologist, so I'm not sure exactly how it works. But it seems that they didn't test the assay protocol with just a randomly selected virus like you make it out to be. Like I cited before, "The CDC 2019-nCoV Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel is a molecular in vitro diagnostic test that aids in the detection and diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and is based on widely used nucleic acid amplification technology." That tech in bold seems to be standard operating procedure for how all PCR tests are crafted.

It's way more complicated, advanced, and comprehensive than what you're asserting. Which is to be expected from you.

You also argue that the test is "authorized only" to detect Covid. Is that even an argument?

Yep, I'm gonna go with Dr. Susan Whittier, PhD, a professor of pathology and cell biology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, Dr. Christopher Polage, an associate professor of pathology at Duke University,  Kelly Wroblewski, director of infectious disease programs at the Association of Public Health Laboratories, & FDA spokesperson Jim McKinney who are all in the CDC PCR protocol only tests for Covid camp. And you can stick with Mike Huckabee's claim.

[Rama Set]

What? Their articles are clearly left leaning. You just cited them to promote your leftist beliefs.

The reliability of COVID tests isn’t a political issue. It really is true for you: when you are a hammer, everything is a nail.

They promote AOC merchandise and the CEO is a director of Pfizer. Please explain why this is a reputable unbiased source of information, considering their leftist and vaccine connections.

One, being left leaning doesn’t make one untrustworthy, that’s idiotic; second what does a PCR test have to do with vaccines?

Finally, having an editorial slant isn’t what makes a source untrustworthy. You obviously agree with this because you never criticize sources you agree with for their editorial slant, you absolute hypocrite.

[Tom Bishop]

To be honest, I'm not virologist, so I'm not sure exactly how it works.

Ah, so you have progressed to the "I don't know what I'm talking about" argument. Very persuasive.

Finally, having an editorial slant isn’t what makes a source untrustworthy. You obviously agree with this because you never criticize sources you agree with for their editorial slant, you absolute hypocrite.

If you ever disagree with my sources, feel free to Reee about it.

Here is an accepted criteria for source credibility by the University of Maryland. I went ahead and answered the prompts for you based on that Reuters page:

https://sites.umgc.edu/library/libhow/credibility.cfm

Articles

The definition of a credible source can change depending on the discipline, but in general, for academic writing, a credible source is one that is unbiased and is backed up with evidence. When writing a research paper, always use and cite credible sources. Use this checklist to determine if an article is credible or not:

Is the source in-depth (more than a page or two), with an abstract, a reference list, and documented research or data?

No - Brief article advertised as a '5 min read'

Who is the audience (researchers, professors, students, general population, professionals in a specific field)?

General Population

What is the purpose of the source (provide information or report original research or experiments, to entertain or persuade the general public, or provide news or information specific to a trade or industry)?

Persuade the general public - a 'fact check' article

Who are the authors? Are they respected and well-known in the field? Are they easily identifiable? Have they written about other similar topics? What are their credentials?

Anonymous author

Is the source reputable? Is it published on a reputable, non-biased web site, or in a peer-reviewed, scholarly journal, and not from a newspaper, blog, or wiki?

No - "Reuters is an international news organization owned by Thomson Reuters"

No - Leftist editorial slant, as admitted by Rama Set

Is the source current for your topic?

Yes

Is there supporting documentation (graphs, charts, illustrations or other supporting documentation)?

No

[Rama Set]

Tom, we aren’t writing academic papers, you… you do know that right?  That being said, my fact check is more in depth than your shitty interpretation of a single sentence from the CDC. You are in your self-owning phase I see.

[Tom Bishop]

Tom, we aren’t writing academic papers, you… you do know that right?

It says it's for academic writing. It definitely seemed like you were trying to teach us something here.

If you want to disclaim what what you write and cite is not meant to academically inform, feel free. You can put that in your signature and continue to spew garbage sources.

[Rama Set]

Tom, we aren’t writing academic papers, you… you do know that right?

It says it's for academic writing. It definitely seemed like you were trying to teach us something here.

If you want to disclaim what what you write and cite is not meant to academically inform, feel free. You can put that in your signature link and continue to spew garbage sources.

We are debating on a FE site. Neither of us is doing anything academic. I’m too flippant and you’re too incompetent for this to be taken seriously lol

That being said, all you’ve done is highlight a sentence and said “See??? I’m riiiiight!!!!!”

But hey, don’t believe Reuters, how about the medical professionals at The Cleveland Clinic, a not for profit research hospital who in November 2020 said PCR tests are the most accurate and reliable test available.

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diagnostics/21462-covid-19-and-pcr-testing

[stack]

To be honest, I'm not virologist, so I'm not sure exactly how it works.

Ah, so you have progressed to the "I don't know what I'm talking about" argument. Very persuasive.

No, I've progressed to you and I don't really don't know what we're talking about, equally so. That's why I'll stick with my Dr. Susan Whittier, PhD, a professor of pathology and cell biology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, Dr. Christopher Polage, an associate professor of pathology at Duke University, Kelly Wroblewski, director of infectious disease programs at the Association of Public Health Laboratories, & FDA spokesperson Jim McKinney who are all in the CDC PCR protocol only tests for Covid camp. You know, experts in the actual relevant fields to the topic at hand.

And you can stick with Mike Huckabee's dubious no-expertise, no-knowledge, claim, that from the perspective of an American politician, Baptist minister, political commentator with no expertise in the relevant fields to the topic at hand.

Seems appropriate.

[Rama Set]

https://www.asrm.org/news-and-publications/news-and-research/press-releases-and-bulletins/new-study-reveals-covid-vaccine-does-not-cause-female-sterility/

In case anyone was worried

[Tumeni]

To be honest, I'm not virologist, so I'm not sure exactly how it works.

Ah, so you have progressed to the "I don't know what I'm talking about" argument. Very persuasive.

Please tell us what qualifications you have, Tom.

[Roundy]

https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/05/opinions/how-to-move-people-from-hesitant-to-vaccinated-bregman-jacobson/index.html

I'm not sure this guy "gets it".

At this point, I'm not lashing out at the unvaccinated in the hopes that it will change their minds. These morons are too thick-headed and mired in conspiracy theory groupthink to ever expect them to change.

I just want them to know they're assholes, and make sure that, even though their feeble little brains are not sophisticated enough to understand it, I've at least articulated to them why they're assholes. At that point the decision to continue being an asshole (which is a decision you can bet they will make, which is why I'm beyond trying to change minds) is theirs. And that's why they are worthy of being treated as pariahs (well that and the fact that it really is just the medically responsible thing to do).

I hope to see lots more draconian restrictions imposed on the unvaccinated in the coming months. Not because I think the assholes will stop being assholes, but because I just want to see them suffer for being assholes. They deserve it!

So yeah, I'm well aware that I'm not changing any minds by calling these idiots out. It's just cathartic, and I suspect that's how a lot of people who are doing it see it. And I will continue doing it, only because it feels good. Fuck 'em.

[Rama Set]

As Tom unintentionally pointed out, a good chunk (most?) of the unvaccinated are not hesitant, but don’t have as good access. Efforts should focus on them.

[Roundy]

As Tom unintentionally pointed out, a good chunk (most?) of the unvaccinated are not hesitant, but don’t have as good access. Efforts should focus on them.

That's fine. It's just the loud assholes talking about their rights being violated or crying about horrible consequences that exist purely in the imagination that I direct my anger at, because (in this country at least) there seem to be a lot of them, and many of them love flaunting it. Fuck 'em.

Honestly I recognize that the bigger problem is that there are whole large regions of the world with limited access to the vaccine, and I imagine that's where the nasty variants are really going to originate, so of course some priority must be given at this point to get those places the vaccine. When I heard recently how few people in places like Japan and South Africa have been vaccinated I was shocked. Why?

[Tom Bishop]

I don't really don't know what we're talking about

So according to you, you don't know what you're talking about, admit that plainly, and yet you claim that you are capable of deciphering truth from fiction and opinion from fact on this topic. Not a compelling argument there. I would suggest that you should start by having a clue of what you're talking about.

But hey, don’t believe Reuters, how about the medical professionals at The Cleveland Clinic, a not for profit research hospital who in November 2020 said PCR tests are the most accurate and reliable test available.

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diagnostics/21462-covid-19-and-pcr-testing

You linked me to the testing facility of a clinic in Cleveland which states that the PCR test is "the most accurate test available for COVID-19 detection".

How is that different than linking me to the website of CVS or Walgreens? They also employ qualified people to administer the tests and 'inform' the public.

Typical, horrid sources.

[Action80]

https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/05/opinions/how-to-move-people-from-hesitant-to-vaccinated-bregman-jacobson/index.html

I'm not sure this guy "gets it".

At this point, I'm not lashing out at the unvaccinated in the hopes that it will change their minds. These morons are too thick-headed and mired in conspiracy theory groupthink to ever expect them to change.

I just want them to know they're assholes, and make sure that, even though their feeble little brains are not sophisticated enough to understand it, I've at least articulated to them why they're assholes. At that point the decision to continue being an asshole (which is a decision you can bet they will make, which is why I'm beyond trying to change minds) is theirs. And that's why they are worthy of being treated as pariahs (well that and the fact that it really is just the medically responsible thing to do).

I hope to see lots more draconian restrictions imposed on the unvaccinated in the coming months. Not because I think the assholes will stop being assholes, but because I just want to see them suffer for being assholes. They deserve it!

So yeah, I'm well aware that I'm not changing any minds by calling these idiots out. It's just cathartic, and I suspect that's how a lot of people who are doing it see it. And I will continue doing it, only because it feels good. Fuck 'em.

I hope the vaccinated catch the delta variant quickly and suffer convulsions and long lasting effects.

Fuck em.