bigrod

Awesome! How much do you sell them for? I've had several people ask me to make one for them.

There are many direct quotes. I guess the "fact checkers" can say whatever they want when someone isn't around to defend themselves. Look, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. I'm simply pointing out that some tend to act like this is totally scientific and airtight. It's far from either. Many, many scientists and doctors disagree with what is happening from diagnosis to treatment. At the end of the day, even if you believe the numbers they are putting out there, this has at least a 99.6% survival rate, with many people experiencing very mild or no symptoms at all. If you look at people under 70 years of age, your chances of survival go up drastically even from that number.

Since Mullis passed away a few years ago, I guess we can't get his direct words, but have to rely on quotes or people who knew him. I think this is reinforcing what some here are saying about testing, but also the problems with the PCR test: David Crowe, a Canadian researcher with a degree in biology and mathematics explained the problems with the PCR based coronavirus testing: “The first thing to know is that the test is not binary. In fact, I don’t think there are any tests for infectious disease that are positive or negative. What they do is they take some kind of a continuum and they arbitrarily say this point is the difference between positive and negative.” He continued: “PCR is really a manufacturing technique. You start with one molecule. You start with a small amount of DNA and on each cycle the amount doubles, which doesn’t sound like that much, but if you, if you double 30 times, you get approximately a billion times more material than you started with. So as a manufacturing technique, it’s great. What they do is they attach a fluorescent molecule to the RNA as they produce it. You shine a light at one wavelength, and you get a response, you get light sent back at a different wavelength. So, they measure the amount of light that comes back and that’s their surrogate for how much DNA there is. I’m using the word DNA. There’s a step in RT- PCR test which is where you convert the RNA to DNA. So, the PCR test is actually not using the viral RNA. It’s using DNA, but it’s like the complimentary RNA. So logically it’s the same thing, but it can be confusing. Like why am I suddenly talking about DNA? Basically, there’s a certain number of cycles.” Regarding Kary Mullis’ intention for the PCR, this is what he said: “I’m sad that he isn’t here to defend his manufacturing technique. Kary did not invent a test. He invented a very powerful manufacturing technique that is being abused. What are the best applications for PCR? Not medical diagnostics. He knew that and he always said that.”

You're right. I guess I should have said SUCCESSFUL vaccine. Look into that vaccine a little and you will find at the end of that last "scare," they quit collecting data because the only people who were getting it were people who were vaccinated.

So you are saying this is a conspiracy?

Thanks! Yeah, so far I've only been able to get a few bad photos with my phone.

Fact: We are using a PCR test to diagnose a virus which is not intended to be a diagnostic test for a virus or anything else. The inventor of the test, Kary Mullis stated, "PCR cannot be totally and should never be used as a tool in the diagnosis of infectious diseases.” Fact: When used for diagnostic purposes, this test has a history of causing false epidemic scares. Fact: The rate of false positive rate for this test is unknown. Fact: This is a subjective test which can produce varying results based on how the analysis is performed. The analysis method has not been standardized. Fact: In any statistical model, if you put crap data in, you get crap data out. Fun Fact: A goat and a papaya have tested positive using this test.

I made this squirrel feeder a couple weeks ago, really just messing around. I had some leftover 1" boards that I was basically just using for kindling for bonfires. I had seen versions of these, so just made this one just eyeballing it as I went. My wife says it's the cutest thing we own, so there's that.

This test has been around for decades. I know it's not intended to be used for diagnosing anything, but how long does it take? This doesn't make you wonder at all why they have chosen this test as the standard?

So they overturned 14 randomized, controlled studies with one that "suggests" the opposite? Call it what you want. Now you are suggesting that it is ok for the experts to lie, but we should believe them because they are experts.

I couldn't care less about FDA approval. I do, however, care that they have not bothered to validate the test. Seriously, how can any educated person put any faith in a test that hasn't been validated? You seriously don't think the possibility exists that asymptomatic positives could truly be false positives? What good is it to use a test that gives you results that you can't quantify?

And yet, we still haven't been told the rate of false positives on this test.

I'm sorry, but this isn't exactly true. I know they have changed the narrative, but in May, this appeared on the CDC website: “Although mechanistic studies support the potential effect of hand hygiene and face masks, evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza. We similarly found limited evidence on the effectiveness of improved hygiene and environmental cleaning. We identified several major knowledge gaps requiring further research, most fundamentally an improved characterization of the modes of person-to-person transmission.”

So, I should tell doctors not to use masks for what they were actually designed for? That is your argument? They were designed to keep contaminants from open wounds. They were not designed for virus protection. They stop a virus like a chain link fence stops a fly. Maybe to you the OSHA argument "sounds" like a bunch of crap, but maybe you should check into it for yourself. Or just continue to let the media tell you what to think. So let me ask you this: If we have had time to do studies to do a 180 on the first determination that masks served no useful purpose, to now they are lifesavers, why have we not had time to determine the validity of the PCR test. Why does the public not know how many false positives this test is producing? How can you possibly trust a test when you have no idea what it is giving you? Why have they not had time to isolate the virus? These have always been among the very first steps in the past, so why have the "experts" decided this is not necessary? Isn't this what the "experts" are supposed to be doing? Why are we continuing to believe them instead of holding them accountable?