Well at least I am not dishonest. You either are intentionally lying or do not understand the meaning of the term false positive. If you actually were to understand Baysian Statistics and the actual testing methodology, you would find that a false (+) is all but impossible with a PCR. It is a highly specific test and the genetic sequence of the virus is either there or it is not.
Of course this is not to be confused with sensitivity which is something entirely different. The number of reproductive cycles may be artificially high and that is a valid statement that perhaps we are uncovering insignificant viral loads, but that does not make the test falsely (+). It is, in fact a positive test from a highly specific technique.
Thank you for showing me the quote and revealing that you do not understand what is actually said. Oh -- and my real research -- it does not come from the idiot tube, it comes from those four years of medical school, 5 years of postdoctoral work and 20 years of practice.
I will await your apology and we shall see If you are able to recognize your mistakes, however, I hold little hope as I have seen the tenor of your other posts.
Now you are trying to change the point. I called you out, and your ego cannot even admit you were wrong. You are the one that has been dishonest. YOU OWE ME an apology! You said I made up the statistics. I sited the source with a link where I read it along with another link article that proves my point.
You can pivot over to a different discussion all you want, but that does not take away the fact that I just proved you wrong.