| After I pointed out you post mountains of fake data and it would take me forever to get through it all and refute it, you challenged me to refute an entirely unrelated article from those links in your original posts. The reason that I posted a single article and invited you to refute it was to demonstrate that refuting bona fide scientific data is beyond your ability. You can't even begin to refute that article, can you?
Who would help you deflect from the truth of the article featured in this thread? It's about whether a scientific paper about the Covid vaccine was reinstated or not (peer reviewed literature). Instead, you posted an unrelated medical study for which all the sources/funding and management were Indian, while your original post was 100% dependent on the unverified word of the CDC. (Just reading something from the CDC and assuming it's true doesn't make it 'science'). You act like you are a CDC mouthpiece. Because all your links in your original posts are CDC. The world according to the filthy, lying, treasonous, CDC. You know, the CDC that determined a person 'with Covid' could be declared to have died 'OF Covid.' That CDC. Oh, I get it. If the information comes from the scientific community, you automatically reject it as fake. Obviously not. I post information from the scientific community often throughout the week. What I don't do is protect the CDC/NIH/FDA from liability for their medical crimes by refusing 'legitimacy' to any and all research they didn't 'bless, condone or fund.' Science used to be 'open' but now the medical regime has captured it and distributes the medical equivalent to the old Soviet 'PRAVDA'. You cannot provide any actual evidence that ANY article or webpage I linked is false, can you? As I said, I am not going to help you change the subject to something you are less defensive about. The problem is medical censorship, shills like you, and the dismissal of all content that the CDC/NIH/FDA deems 'vebotten' for people to know. The CDC is more of a clearinghouse for scientific information than anything else. False. Look a the last pandemic the CDC directed. They never acted like a clearinghouse.There were treatments for Covid in use by several doctors, and there still are because they work, but the CDC never told a soul. Researchers outside the CDC/NIH/FDA fold demonstrated supplements that work, cut risk of illness and death etc. and the CDC kept that information to itself and instead created a Covid Protocol completely lacking in that essentional information. The CDC should have been on TV/Radio telling people about supplements that help. The CDC is a regime, not a 'clearinghouse'. The job of the CDC is to collect medical/scientific information from all over the country, analyze it, and publish it so that the public can access it. So why were they driving the pandemic like a management team and denying the existence of all treatments/drugs that we successfully saving lives, when doctors outside the fold were successfully treating patients and saving lives with protocols they designed themselves? It is silly to expect the CDC to change its practices because some charlatans used word play to try to convince their marks that people who died of Covid really just spontaneously died and Covid was blamed. Where were you during the pandemic? There were press conferences about this. If a person died x number of days after having a positive Covid test, regardless of the circumstances of their death, if they died it was automatically 'Covid'. A reporter asked, 'what about a motorcycle accident' and the CDC rep said it would be counted as Covid, but to recall the number of instances like the motorcycle accident would be small. There have been many complaints from doctors and coroners about CDC 'rules' unique for the handling of deaths during the pandemic. The CDC incentivized Covid death reporting in hospitals. How can you have such hubris and know so little? I'll take this opportunity to mention that CDC collects cause of death data on every single person who dies in the US. If there is a death certificate, the CDC has that information. Yes. That is why they were resistant to admitting that many of the cases of 'died of Covid' were not actual Covid deaths. They have had to admit since then that their numbers were too large. Do you recall that the CDC failed to manage basic data collection (from hospitals) so Trump removed the collation of incoming data from hospitals to a 3rd party? The hospitals traditionally report proportion of all tests which were positive. When a few hospitals in FL started reporting 'number of positive tests' directly (no proportion) it made it look like 100% of all persons tested were positive (as if the virus was becoming more virulent). This boosted overall stats - hey look, the Plandemic is getting worse. A reporter skimmed the report and noted some numbers didn't look right because they seemed to reporting that 100% of all tests administered by the hospital that week were positive for Covid. When contacted, the hospital said that test results were a mix of positive/negative so the data can't be 100% positive results. The CDC hadn't even performed the most basic review of incoming data - they just blindly assimilated it and reported the result. When the CDC's latest lack of scientific competency was exposed, Trump moved data collation to a 3rd party that could be expected to at least skim incoming data for validity. The left went wild, yelling that Trump was 'politicizing' the pandemic. The CDC that used an invalid PCR test to inaccurately diagnose 'COVID'. Oh, my, do you have even a clue of how PCR works? Yes. Based on your lame lecture which follows, I understand it better than you do and you haven't done the basic research needed to know why your 'lecture' is false and misleading. And once again, you don't know of CDC admissions that rule the PCR they used through the pandemic as worthless.
Nucleic acid sequences are extremely specific not just to the species but even to the individual. If I want to design a PCR test to detect, for example, the XBB.1.9.1 variant of SARS-CoV-2 that is currently in circulation, I can use Primer-BLAST to design a primer set that will ONLY detect that variant and no other. On the other hand, if I want to detect SARS-CoV-2 and not other coronaviruses, I can design a PCR primer set to do that. I can also design a primer set to detect coronaviruses in general. There are major problems in your thoroughly uneducated post. The PCR was designed as a diagnostic tool to detect materials present in samples in quantities so small that they would ordinarily be missed. According to the inventor, Kary Mullis, it amplifies tiny amounts of material so you can study it. Mullis also dismissed outright the idea that the PCR could ever diagnose any illness, because detecting tiny amounts of anything in a sample doesn't mean the person actually is ill with disease. It may be the person was exposed and the immune system fought off the illness so they never became ill with it. It could be they were ill a month ago and tiny amounts of that material are still in their samples. So Mullis said it was not capable of diagnosis as 'detecting' tiny amounts of anything could not indicate presence of disease. The PCR was an assay, and its name when invented includes 'assay' in the title, but the CDC knew all this and claimed it was a medical diagnostic test. You make a big deal about how specific the PCR assay is, but you fail to mention that the CDC said it didn't base the PCR on the isolated Covid virus because it was 'unavailable' at the time, but instead used a 'related Corona Virus'. So much for how 'specific' the PCR is. Pause to consider, the CDC said the whole reason we had to have lockdowns was because Covid was 'novel' and our immune systems had never seen it before, so they make a test out of an assay using a 'related corona virus'. How do we know if the PCR detected that related corona virus, and therefore the person was diagnosed as Covid and denied all treatments? How do we know how many other related corona viruses were 'detected' by the assay, declared Covid, and counted as a raging pandemic? What proportion, if any, were ever Corona Virus? You also seem ignorant of the fact that the PCR assay loses validity when it's run at excessively high cycle rates because the nucleic acid chains break and become fragments too small for use (not unique). Fauci is on video saying dismissively, "Well at 40 cycles all you have left are just nucleic acid 'building blocks.'" Do you want to guess the cycle rate often in use during the pandemic? 40 cycles. Then when the vaccine came out, samples from the vaccinated versus unvaccinated were to be run at different cycle rates. PCR is a very good and specific tool. It cannot show a positive result if the virus genome is not present, because there is nothing for the primers to attach to. The PCR assay is a laboratory tool, not a medically valid diagnostic test. Whether or not it shows a positive result is meaningless in terms of whether a person actually has the disease. The WHO had several versions of the PCR and one of them used part of the human genome as their primer set. I posted a video of the President of Tanzania revealing that when his nation was given PCR tests to use in the pandemic, he instructed his medical people to test it on a variety of materials. His staff found fruit that tested positive, motor oil that tested 'inconclusive' and other similar data. He exposed the use of the PCR as invalid. School children were able to get orange juice to test positive, elsewhere Spanish water tested positive. You may say these materials had strands of the 'related corona-virus' (NOT COVID) but you cant diagnose fruit or orange juice as actually having Covid. I just watched a video of an at-home test demonstrating how to use chemicals to force a positive Covid test so you can stay home from work. From your post #22 "The numbers of Covid deaths that were verified through laboratory testing, medical records, and/or autopsy were 350,831 in 2020, 416,893 in 2021, and 244,986 in 2022. The big drop between 2021 and 2022 is because of the vaccine." Those stats are worthless, we don't know what collection or 'related coronaviruses' patients had, the # of cycles at which the PCR'tests' were analyzed, or what proportion of patients would have been saved had people not been denied all treatment, told to go home until they needed hospitalization, given Remdesivir and put on ventillators. But most importantly, the 'laboratory testing' was the PCR assay, not a diagnostic tool. I'm not sure you can perceive the humor in trying to convince a molecular biologist, someone who has years of experience designing PCR assays, that it is possible for a PCR test to be bogus. But I *am* amused. I think this must mean you do not have the training you claim to have, or you are intentionally lying through your teeth. Perhaps its that you work with the PCR and refuse to read non CDC content. Based on your condescension, I'd say you know you are running interference (you're lying). The CDC and its shills now declare they and they alone determine what a 'real' journal is. Um, no. The legitimacy and quality of medical and scientific journals is determined by the worldwide scientific and medical communities, not the CDC. You keep forgetting the other elements of the troika. The NIH has distributed something like 40 Billion dollars (at least) to researches and has the power to continue or end funding for labs worldwide. Anthony Fauci was in charge of distributing such funds for 40+ years - there's a reason why he became the highest paid employee in the federal government. He and others in our medical regime spent decades gaining extreme levels of control and are able to force the Lancet to publish lies on command. World-wide researchers were reporting treatments that worked and research of interest and the CDC denied them all and the medical regime instilled extreme levels of censorship so that the journals refuse to publish anything that would contradict the 'narrative'. The CDC gets information and guidance from us, not the other way around. Welp, that's not what happened in America during the pandemic. You must not have been here. If you actually look at and try to read any of the references that I have linked, you will see that they are written by scientists from all over the world who work in a variety of public and private sector organizations. While CDC scientists are encouraged to publish their work, their contributions to the scientific literature are swamped by input from the worldwide scientific community. When I link to a CDC source, unless it is an article written by CDC scientists, none of the information at the source originates from the CDC. You originally linked content from the CDC's own website. I hope they bother to read what they publish but there's no safe bet there. The CDC is a gate keeper - if the info doesn't support their bad decision making and manipulation, it won't be posted regardless of where it originated in the world. You then posted unrelated research from India and published in PubMed. What you have basically told me is that if the information I provide comes from the scientific community, you reject it out of hand. False. I've said that the CDC/FDA/NIH worked together as gatekeepers and censorship prevents research that detracts from the 'narrative' (for example, there are safe treatments that work = Ivermectin etc.), then it can't appear in the controlled peer review publishers. I've also said that the research paper which is the topic of this thread was legitimately re-instated. You have no evidence to refute anything. INteresting. You've changed the subject entirely by now. I said the paper re the Covid vax was reinstated in a legitimate peer reviewed journal, you said the journal was by no means legitmate. You provided me with unrelated (REALLY unrelated) research from India and dared me to refute it. WHY.WOULD.I.BOTHER? You've left the topic and thrown a variant research paper at me and commanded me to 'FETCH!' As I am beginning to think you're not American, know that my 'fetch' example means you are throwing a stick for me to go chase as if I were a dog. Not interested. You don't have the scientific background to even know how one would refute anything. You don't know what my scientific background is, obviously, and you are wrong on critical scientific counts, but still the problem remains, why would I chase the stick you just threw and told me to fetch? This conversation isn't about Indian researchers working to idenfity a Covid variant. You are trying to draw every ounce of attention from the article of this thread - the research re the Covid vax was good/correct. I see no reason to let you waste my time. And to refute even a single scientific paper, you need to provide both the theoretical background and empiric evidence of why and how the paper is wrong. I'm still not going to chase the stupid stick! I can do that with antivax rhetoric, but can you do that with real science? You failed with what you call 'antivax rhetoric' and 'real science'. Of this you remain blissfully, and entirely, unaware. | 
