CDC Busted for inflating death numbers

[Briss]

So, you're saying that it's only conjecture that a PCR cycle threshold of 35 or above is going to be meaningless?

It is. Unless we see the data otherwise.

Well what if I produced a statement from Tony himself saying that a PCR test using a cycle threshold above 35 is going to be meaningless?

 

[Concerned American]

It also was exposed to the air, and the sensitivity is the problem you pleb.

Just how much COVID do you think is floating in the air?

At 35 cycles it's everywhere you would be tested.

Like i said a fart could set it off

Just google about what normal PCR cycle ranges are.

It all depends on the cycles. You need to google if you don't understand. They are jacking up the sensitivity to unworldly levels at 35 cycles.

I don’t have to google it. I’ve done PCR assays for almost 20 years.

Has anyone tested your hypothesis of a fart being able to set off a PCR assay?

No but i got that line from some one who is in the same industry.

If you know this then why would you take a 35 cycle test seriously? It's absurd

Maybe that's appropriate in some scenarios but not an aerosol virus.

I would expect your shit to carry the virus but yes i haven't seen anything that confirmed that. There probably is evidence on that.

They have confirmed the existence of covid in college dorms by checking sewage. Then there is this National Wastewater Surveillance System

 

[Concerned American]

Why did Trump allow the CDC to violate federal law?

More likely he did the mafia move and made them violate the law.

These Trumpheads are finding it hard to set themselves on solid footing trying to claim anything about a pandemic they blew off...

Hard to work up a sweat over a virus that has a 99.9+% recovery rate without treatment.

But the sky might fall on your head while you are admiring China Joe's new clothes.

 

[colfax_m]

So, you're saying that it's only conjecture that a PCR cycle threshold of 35 or above is going to be meaningless?

It is. Unless we see the data otherwise.

Well what if I produced a statement from Tony himself saying that a PCR test using a cycle threshold above 35 is going to be meaningless?

Be my guest. Good place to start conversation.

 

[colfax_m]

It also was exposed to the air, and the sensitivity is the problem you pleb.

Just how much COVID do you think is floating in the air?

At 35 cycles it's everywhere you would be tested.

Like i said a fart could set it off

Just google about what normal PCR cycle ranges are.

It all depends on the cycles. You need to google if you don't understand. They are jacking up the sensitivity to unworldly levels at 35 cycles.

I don’t have to google it. I’ve done PCR assays for almost 20 years.

Has anyone tested your hypothesis of a fart being able to set off a PCR assay?

No but i got that line from some one who is in the same industry.

If you know this then why would you take a 35 cycle test seriously? It's absurd

Maybe that's appropriate in some scenarios but not an aerosol virus.

I would expect your shit to carry the virus but yes i haven't seen anything that confirmed that. There probably is evidence on that.

“Probably” is a dangerous term in science.

The virus is only aerosolized in specific circumstances. It’s not just lingering in the air all over the place and the swabs are only exposed to open air for mere seconds anyway.

Any lab test is verified and validated for accuracy. These tests have been done. Assuming 35 cycles is too many is just conjecture unless there’s data to support it.

Yea like people fucking breathing all over a hospital or clinic where you're getting tested

It's everywhere the dispersion patterns for all aersols are crazy.

If you want to prevent that you have to do a lot of work with pressure and air flow. Which the place you're getting tested does not have. And even if it did it would certainly have to slow down.

I'm pretty confident that it will be in your shit. Just like i was pretty confident a corona virus wasn't a big deal. Surprise it wasn't.

Now everyone is pretending they understand science as they track colds across the planet....What the fuck is wrong with people like you? You should be part of the cohort laughing at this shit.

Just because there isn't enough in the air to make you sick doesn't mean it won't pop a PCR test that is cycled 35 times

I mean, I have an undergraduate degree in biochemistry, a medical degree, and two board certifications. So I think I understand science a bit more than most people.

The coronavirus is indeed a big deal. Sorry to burst your bubble.

No, there's not enough floating randomly around in the air to "pop" a PCR test that's cycled 35 times. If you're in a hospital or clinic, people have their faces covered. Aerosolization happens under some circumstances, like using NIPPV or sometimes singing loudly. Everything else is droplet, which fall out of the air in seconds. The swab is taken out of a vial, put into your nose and put back in a vial. The time it's exposed to air is miniscule.

What gives you the idea that you understand this issue? Do you even know how PCR works?

The corona virus being a big deal is an ethical question

Your degrees will not help you. And i'm not impressed by bio ethicists* anyway, that's not how we actually decide what is ethical at a political level. And quite frankly all the science applicable to this is so shallow and information* is so easy to access some one with a HS education could have just an accurate view as a MD at this point.

I didn't take gen eds so i had to bow to appeals to authority from overly sensitive data entry experts. Which is what most medical professionals are. I can read all the same stuff you can. You have no relevant expertise on these questions. We all know what PCR tests are now, time for your expertise to be relevant was about a year ago. We could all do your job with a few days training now.

Even if you take the tests seriously and consider ALL pneumonia deaths with a positive test as caused by covid. Which they no doubt are not. You're still only doubling normal numbers.

In a nation where 2.5 million die a year it's a meaningless blip, risk profiles have barely changed at all.

Nursing homes were just as vulnerable in 2019 just no one gave a fuck. New colds ripping through the nation all the time

And from what i've seen your peers disagree with you.

The only reason I brought up my credentials is because you intimated that I had no scientific knowledge.

You may indeed read the same stuff as me, but I doubt it. For starters, most people can’t access medical literate and those that do read it don’t necessarily have the background to understand it. I don’t understand construction blueprints because I’m not trained, so I wouldn’t offer my opinion over that or someone else’s.

 

[Juicin]

It also was exposed to the air, and the sensitivity is the problem you pleb.

Just how much COVID do you think is floating in the air?

At 35 cycles it's everywhere you would be tested.

Like i said a fart could set it off

Just google about what normal PCR cycle ranges are.

It all depends on the cycles. You need to google if you don't understand. They are jacking up the sensitivity to unworldly levels at 35 cycles.

I don’t have to google it. I’ve done PCR assays for almost 20 years.

Has anyone tested your hypothesis of a fart being able to set off a PCR assay?

No but i got that line from some one who is in the same industry.

If you know this then why would you take a 35 cycle test seriously? It's absurd

Maybe that's appropriate in some scenarios but not an aerosol virus.

I would expect your shit to carry the virus but yes i haven't seen anything that confirmed that. There probably is evidence on that.

“Probably” is a dangerous term in science.

The virus is only aerosolized in specific circumstances. It’s not just lingering in the air all over the place and the swabs are only exposed to open air for mere seconds anyway.

Any lab test is verified and validated for accuracy. These tests have been done. Assuming 35 cycles is too many is just conjecture unless there’s data to support it.

Yea like people fucking breathing all over a hospital or clinic where you're getting tested

It's everywhere the dispersion patterns for all aersols are crazy.

If you want to prevent that you have to do a lot of work with pressure and air flow. Which the place you're getting tested does not have. And even if it did it would certainly have to slow down.

I'm pretty confident that it will be in your shit. Just like i was pretty confident a corona virus wasn't a big deal. Surprise it wasn't.

Now everyone is pretending they understand science as they track colds across the planet....What the fuck is wrong with people like you? You should be part of the cohort laughing at this shit.

Just because there isn't enough in the air to make you sick doesn't mean it won't pop a PCR test that is cycled 35 times

I mean, I have an undergraduate degree in biochemistry, a medical degree, and two board certifications. So I think I understand science a bit more than most people.

The coronavirus is indeed a big deal. Sorry to burst your bubble.

No, there's not enough floating randomly around in the air to "pop" a PCR test that's cycled 35 times. If you're in a hospital or clinic, people have their faces covered. Aerosolization happens under some circumstances, like using NIPPV or sometimes singing loudly. Everything else is droplet, which fall out of the air in seconds. The swab is taken out of a vial, put into your nose and put back in a vial. The time it's exposed to air is miniscule.

What gives you the idea that you understand this issue? Do you even know how PCR works?

The corona virus being a big deal is an ethical question

Your degrees will not help you. And i'm not impressed by bio ethicists* anyway, that's not how we actually decide what is ethical at a political level. And quite frankly all the science applicable to this is so shallow and information* is so easy to access some one with a HS education could have just an accurate view as a MD at this point.

I didn't take gen eds so i had to bow to appeals to authority from overly sensitive data entry experts. Which is what most medical professionals are. I can read all the same stuff you can. You have no relevant expertise on these questions. We all know what PCR tests are now, time for your expertise to be relevant was about a year ago. We could all do your job with a few days training now.

Even if you take the tests seriously and consider ALL pneumonia deaths with a positive test as caused by covid. Which they no doubt are not. You're still only doubling normal numbers.

In a nation where 2.5 million die a year it's a meaningless blip, risk profiles have barely changed at all.

Nursing homes were just as vulnerable in 2019 just no one gave a fuck. New colds ripping through the nation all the time

And from what i've seen your peers disagree with you.

The only reason I brought up my credentials is because you intimated that I had no scientific knowledge.

You may indeed read the same stuff as me, but I doubt it. For starters, most people can’t access medical literate and those that do read it don’t necessarily have the background to understand it. I don’t understand construction blueprints because I’m not trained, so I wouldn’t offer my opinion over that or someone else’s.

I'm not one to respect IP

35 is from as far as i can see insane. Which is why most countries don't run them that high and we have reduced the recommended to 27

edit - Media has finally started admitting this too. I suspect everyone knew it long before tho

Your Coronavirus Test Is Positive. Maybe It Shouldn’t Be. (Published 2020)

The usual diagnostic tests may simply be too sensitive and too slow to contain the spread of the virus.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Briss]

So, you're saying that it's only conjecture that a PCR cycle threshold of 35 or above is going to be meaningless?

It is. Unless we see the data otherwise.

Well what if I produced a statement from Tony himself saying that a PCR test using a cycle threshold above 35 is going to be meaningless?

Be my guest. Good place to start conversation.

Okay.

". . . If you get a cycle threshold of 35 or more…the chances of it being replication-competent are miniscule…you almost never can culture virus from a 37 threshold cycle…even 36…it’s just dead nucleoids, period.”

That's what Tony said. Do you still contend that the meaninglessness of a PCR test set at over 35 replications is just conjecture?

Also, why did the FDA recommend a cycle threshold of 40? And more importantly, why didn't Tony fill them in on the misleading ct setting?

 

[colfax_m]

It also was exposed to the air, and the sensitivity is the problem you pleb.

Just how much COVID do you think is floating in the air?

At 35 cycles it's everywhere you would be tested.

Like i said a fart could set it off

Just google about what normal PCR cycle ranges are.

It all depends on the cycles. You need to google if you don't understand. They are jacking up the sensitivity to unworldly levels at 35 cycles.

I don’t have to google it. I’ve done PCR assays for almost 20 years.

Has anyone tested your hypothesis of a fart being able to set off a PCR assay?

No but i got that line from some one who is in the same industry.

If you know this then why would you take a 35 cycle test seriously? It's absurd

Maybe that's appropriate in some scenarios but not an aerosol virus.

I would expect your shit to carry the virus but yes i haven't seen anything that confirmed that. There probably is evidence on that.

“Probably” is a dangerous term in science.

The virus is only aerosolized in specific circumstances. It’s not just lingering in the air all over the place and the swabs are only exposed to open air for mere seconds anyway.

Any lab test is verified and validated for accuracy. These tests have been done. Assuming 35 cycles is too many is just conjecture unless there’s data to support it.

Yea like people fucking breathing all over a hospital or clinic where you're getting tested

It's everywhere the dispersion patterns for all aersols are crazy.

If you want to prevent that you have to do a lot of work with pressure and air flow. Which the place you're getting tested does not have. And even if it did it would certainly have to slow down.

I'm pretty confident that it will be in your shit. Just like i was pretty confident a corona virus wasn't a big deal. Surprise it wasn't.

Now everyone is pretending they understand science as they track colds across the planet....What the fuck is wrong with people like you? You should be part of the cohort laughing at this shit.

Just because there isn't enough in the air to make you sick doesn't mean it won't pop a PCR test that is cycled 35 times

I mean, I have an undergraduate degree in biochemistry, a medical degree, and two board certifications. So I think I understand science a bit more than most people.

The coronavirus is indeed a big deal. Sorry to burst your bubble.

No, there's not enough floating randomly around in the air to "pop" a PCR test that's cycled 35 times. If you're in a hospital or clinic, people have their faces covered. Aerosolization happens under some circumstances, like using NIPPV or sometimes singing loudly. Everything else is droplet, which fall out of the air in seconds. The swab is taken out of a vial, put into your nose and put back in a vial. The time it's exposed to air is miniscule.

What gives you the idea that you understand this issue? Do you even know how PCR works?

The corona virus being a big deal is an ethical question

Your degrees will not help you. And i'm not impressed by bio ethicists* anyway, that's not how we actually decide what is ethical at a political level. And quite frankly all the science applicable to this is so shallow and information* is so easy to access some one with a HS education could have just an accurate view as a MD at this point.

I didn't take gen eds so i had to bow to appeals to authority from overly sensitive data entry experts. Which is what most medical professionals are. I can read all the same stuff you can. You have no relevant expertise on these questions. We all know what PCR tests are now, time for your expertise to be relevant was about a year ago. We could all do your job with a few days training now.

Even if you take the tests seriously and consider ALL pneumonia deaths with a positive test as caused by covid. Which they no doubt are not. You're still only doubling normal numbers.

In a nation where 2.5 million die a year it's a meaningless blip, risk profiles have barely changed at all.

Nursing homes were just as vulnerable in 2019 just no one gave a fuck. New colds ripping through the nation all the time

And from what i've seen your peers disagree with you.

The only reason I brought up my credentials is because you intimated that I had no scientific knowledge.

You may indeed read the same stuff as me, but I doubt it. For starters, most people can’t access medical literate and those that do read it don’t necessarily have the background to understand it. I don’t understand construction blueprints because I’m not trained, so I wouldn’t offer my opinion over that or someone else’s.

I'm not one to respect IP

35 is from as far as i can see insane. Which is why most countries don't run them that high and we have reduced the recommended to 27

edit - Media has finally started admitting this too. I suspect everyone knew it long before tho

Your Coronavirus Test Is Positive. Maybe It Shouldn’t Be. (Published 2020)

The usual diagnostic tests may simply be too sensitive and too slow to contain the spread of the virus.

www.nytimes.com

What information led you to believe 35 is “insane”?

Besides, every lab has been setting their own standards.

 

[colfax_m]

So, you're saying that it's only conjecture that a PCR cycle threshold of 35 or above is going to be meaningless?

It is. Unless we see the data otherwise.

Well what if I produced a statement from Tony himself saying that a PCR test using a cycle threshold above 35 is going to be meaningless?

Be my guest. Good place to start conversation.

Okay.

". . . If you get a cycle threshold of 35 or more…the chances of it being replication-competent are miniscule…you almost never can culture virus from a 37 threshold cycle…even 36…it’s just dead nucleoids, period.”

That's what Tony said. Do you still contend that the meaninglessness of a PCR test set at over 35 replications is just conjecture?

Also, why did the FDA recommend a cycle threshold of 40? And more importantly, why didn't Tony fill them in on the misleading ct setting?

All that means is that they were previously infected within a marginal period of time. It does not mean that the DNA came from thin air.

 

[Briss]

So, you're saying that it's only conjecture that a PCR cycle threshold of 35 or above is going to be meaningless?

It is. Unless we see the data otherwise.

Well what if I produced a statement from Tony himself saying that a PCR test using a cycle threshold above 35 is going to be meaningless?

Be my guest. Good place to start conversation.

Okay.

". . . If you get a cycle threshold of 35 or more…the chances of it being replication-competent are miniscule…you almost never can culture virus from a 37 threshold cycle…even 36…it’s just dead nucleoids, period.”

That's what Tony said. Do you still contend that the meaninglessness of a PCR test set at over 35 replications is just conjecture?

Also, why did the FDA recommend a cycle threshold of 40? And more importantly, why didn't Tony fill them in on the misleading ct setting?

All that means is that they were previously infected within a marginal period of time. It does not mean that the DNA came from thin air.

I don't recall saying anything about DNA coming from thin air . . .

Anyway, are you telling me that a cycle threshold of 40 is reasonable?

Also, you said that every lab has been setting their own standards. Can you link me to where you learned this? Even more importantly, can you point me in the direction of information concerning which labs set which standards?

 

[colfax_m]

So, you're saying that it's only conjecture that a PCR cycle threshold of 35 or above is going to be meaningless?

It is. Unless we see the data otherwise.

Well what if I produced a statement from Tony himself saying that a PCR test using a cycle threshold above 35 is going to be meaningless?

Be my guest. Good place to start conversation.

Okay.

". . . If you get a cycle threshold of 35 or more…the chances of it being replication-competent are miniscule…you almost never can culture virus from a 37 threshold cycle…even 36…it’s just dead nucleoids, period.”

That's what Tony said. Do you still contend that the meaninglessness of a PCR test set at over 35 replications is just conjecture?

Also, why did the FDA recommend a cycle threshold of 40? And more importantly, why didn't Tony fill them in on the misleading ct setting?

All that means is that they were previously infected within a marginal period of time. It does not mean that the DNA came from thin air.

I don't recall saying anything about DNA coming from thin air . . .

Anyway, are you telling me that a cycle threshold of 40 is reasonable?

Also, you said that every lab has been setting their own standards. Can you link me to where you learned this? Even more importantly, can you point me in the direction of information concerning which labs set which standards?

That was what the conversation was about. The idea that these people are false positives isn’t true. It’s just that the test reflects previous infection within the previous month, or so.

Fauci was saying that positive tests with high cycle counts are no longer infectious and therefore there’s burden of have to isolate.

Development or lab tests was decentralized from the FDA after they screwed the pooch early on. Part of a trend of the federal government not really taking the lead.

Op-Ed: Why PCR Cycle Threshold Is Useful in Coronavirus Testing

It can help better triage patients, physician argues

www.medpagetoday.com

 

[Briss]

So, you're saying that it's only conjecture that a PCR cycle threshold of 35 or above is going to be meaningless?

It is. Unless we see the data otherwise.

Well what if I produced a statement from Tony himself saying that a PCR test using a cycle threshold above 35 is going to be meaningless?

Be my guest. Good place to start conversation.

Okay.

". . . If you get a cycle threshold of 35 or more…the chances of it being replication-competent are miniscule…you almost never can culture virus from a 37 threshold cycle…even 36…it’s just dead nucleoids, period.”

That's what Tony said. Do you still contend that the meaninglessness of a PCR test set at over 35 replications is just conjecture?

Also, why did the FDA recommend a cycle threshold of 40? And more importantly, why didn't Tony fill them in on the misleading ct setting?

All that means is that they were previously infected within a marginal period of time. It does not mean that the DNA came from thin air.

I don't recall saying anything about DNA coming from thin air . . .

Anyway, are you telling me that a cycle threshold of 40 is reasonable?

Also, you said that every lab has been setting their own standards. Can you link me to where you learned this? Even more importantly, can you point me in the direction of information concerning which labs set which standards?

That was what the conversation was about. The idea that these people are false positives isn’t true. It’s just that the test reflects previous infection within the previous month, or so.

Fauci was saying that positive tests with high cycle counts are no longer infectious and therefore there’s burden of have to isolate.

Development or lab tests was decentralized from the FDA after they screwed the pooch early on. Part of a trend of the federal government not really taking the lead.

Op-Ed: Why PCR Cycle Threshold Is Useful in Coronavirus Testing

It can help better triage patients, physician argues

www.medpagetoday.com

So, Tony said that a positive result from a PCR test set at 40 cycles means that the person is no longer infectious. Good so far?

 

[colfax_m]

So, you're saying that it's only conjecture that a PCR cycle threshold of 35 or above is going to be meaningless?

It is. Unless we see the data otherwise.

Well what if I produced a statement from Tony himself saying that a PCR test using a cycle threshold above 35 is going to be meaningless?

Be my guest. Good place to start conversation.

Okay.

". . . If you get a cycle threshold of 35 or more…the chances of it being replication-competent are miniscule…you almost never can culture virus from a 37 threshold cycle…even 36…it’s just dead nucleoids, period.”

That's what Tony said. Do you still contend that the meaninglessness of a PCR test set at over 35 replications is just conjecture?

Also, why did the FDA recommend a cycle threshold of 40? And more importantly, why didn't Tony fill them in on the misleading ct setting?

All that means is that they were previously infected within a marginal period of time. It does not mean that the DNA came from thin air.

I don't recall saying anything about DNA coming from thin air . . .

Anyway, are you telling me that a cycle threshold of 40 is reasonable?

Also, you said that every lab has been setting their own standards. Can you link me to where you learned this? Even more importantly, can you point me in the direction of information concerning which labs set which standards?

That was what the conversation was about. The idea that these people are false positives isn’t true. It’s just that the test reflects previous infection within the previous month, or so.

Fauci was saying that positive tests with high cycle counts are no longer infectious and therefore there’s burden of have to isolate.

Development or lab tests was decentralized from the FDA after they screwed the pooch early on. Part of a trend of the federal government not really taking the lead.

Op-Ed: Why PCR Cycle Threshold Is Useful in Coronavirus Testing

It can help better triage patients, physician argues

www.medpagetoday.com

So, Tony said that a positive result from a PCR test set at 40 cycles means that the person is no longer infectious. Good so far?

Good with me. I’m fine with that statement.

A good argument can be made that you could consider this when determining what to do with a positive test.

But a positive test from a high cycle count does not mean it’s a false positive as is being suggested.

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

Why did Trump allow the CDC to violate federal law?

More likely he did the mafia move and made them violate the law.

These Trumpheads are finding it hard to set themselves on solid footing trying to claim anything about a pandemic they blew off...

It was more about it being politicized. Where the Prog politicians did not even attempt to practice unity with Trump over it and did not let a crisis go to waste. Progs kill people for their goals. Collateral damage that is acceptable.

For , "The Greater Good." What a crock of shit. The greater good means a lot of blood will be spilled.

 

[Briss]

So, you're saying that it's only conjecture that a PCR cycle threshold of 35 or above is going to be meaningless?

It is. Unless we see the data otherwise.

Well what if I produced a statement from Tony himself saying that a PCR test using a cycle threshold above 35 is going to be meaningless?

Be my guest. Good place to start conversation.

Okay.

". . . If you get a cycle threshold of 35 or more…the chances of it being replication-competent are miniscule…you almost never can culture virus from a 37 threshold cycle…even 36…it’s just dead nucleoids, period.”

That's what Tony said. Do you still contend that the meaninglessness of a PCR test set at over 35 replications is just conjecture?

Also, why did the FDA recommend a cycle threshold of 40? And more importantly, why didn't Tony fill them in on the misleading ct setting?

All that means is that they were previously infected within a marginal period of time. It does not mean that the DNA came from thin air.

I don't recall saying anything about DNA coming from thin air . . .

Anyway, are you telling me that a cycle threshold of 40 is reasonable?

Also, you said that every lab has been setting their own standards. Can you link me to where you learned this? Even more importantly, can you point me in the direction of information concerning which labs set which standards?

That was what the conversation was about. The idea that these people are false positives isn’t true. It’s just that the test reflects previous infection within the previous month, or so.

Fauci was saying that positive tests with high cycle counts are no longer infectious and therefore there’s burden of have to isolate.

Development or lab tests was decentralized from the FDA after they screwed the pooch early on. Part of a trend of the federal government not really taking the lead.

Op-Ed: Why PCR Cycle Threshold Is Useful in Coronavirus Testing

It can help better triage patients, physician argues

www.medpagetoday.com

So, Tony said that a positive result from a PCR test set at 40 cycles means that the person is no longer infectious. Good so far?

Good with me. I’m fine with that statement.

A good argument can be made that you could consider this when determining what to do with a positive test.

But a positive test from a high cycle count does not mean it’s a false positive as is being suggested.

Well just so we don't become confused with each other's position, what exactly do you think a false positive means as it pertains to a pandemic?

 

[Faun]

No way!

BUSTED: CDC Inflated COVID Numbers, Accused of Violating Federal Law

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) stands accused of violating federal law by inflating Coronavirus fatality numbers, according to stunning information obtained by NATIONAL FILE. CDC illegally inflated the COVID fatality number by at least 1,600 percent as the 2020 presidential...

nationalfile.com

Why would the CDC want to inflate numbers?

LOL

You're right ... no way.

Your nationalfile.com article claims the CDC "stands accused" of falsifying fatality numbers, only when you actually read the article, they're the ones accusing the CDC and nationalfile.com is nothing but a rightwingnut conspiracy site. Even worse, if you actually read the article, their complaint is about PCR testing producing false negatives. That affects the number of cases.

I guess you didn't realize if the number of cases is really lower than what's being reported, that increases the fatality rate.

 

[Dragonlady]

No way!

BUSTED: CDC Inflated COVID Numbers, Accused of Violating Federal Law

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) stands accused of violating federal law by inflating Coronavirus fatality numbers, according to stunning information obtained by NATIONAL FILE. CDC illegally inflated the COVID fatality number by at least 1,600 percent as the 2020 presidential...

nationalfile.com

Why would the CDC want to inflate numbers?

I really doubt that they have. You need better sources.

"

• Overall, we rate National File an extreme right Tin-Foil Hat Conspiracy website based on the promotion of unproven/debunked claims and a Strong Pseudoscience purveyor based on using junk science to support claims.

"National File - Media Bias Fact Check

 

[Briss]

No way!

BUSTED: CDC Inflated COVID Numbers, Accused of Violating Federal Law

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) stands accused of violating federal law by inflating Coronavirus fatality numbers, according to stunning information obtained by NATIONAL FILE. CDC illegally inflated the COVID fatality number by at least 1,600 percent as the 2020 presidential...

nationalfile.com

Why would the CDC want to inflate numbers?

LOL

You're right ... no way.

Your nationalfile.com article claims the CDC "stands accused" of falsifying fatality numbers, only when you actually read the article, they're the ones accusing the CDC and nationalfile.com is nothing but a rightwingnut conspiracy site. Even worse, if you actually read the article, their complaint is about PCR testing producing false negatives. That affects the number of cases.

I guess you didn't realize if the number of cases is really lower than what's being reported, that increases the fatality rate.

What happened to the flu this year?

 

[Briss]

No way!

BUSTED: CDC Inflated COVID Numbers, Accused of Violating Federal Law

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) stands accused of violating federal law by inflating Coronavirus fatality numbers, according to stunning information obtained by NATIONAL FILE. CDC illegally inflated the COVID fatality number by at least 1,600 percent as the 2020 presidential...

nationalfile.com

Why would the CDC want to inflate numbers?

LOL

You're right ... no way.

Your nationalfile.com article claims the CDC "stands accused" of falsifying fatality numbers, only when you actually read the article, they're the ones accusing the CDC and nationalfile.com is nothing but a rightwingnut conspiracy site. Even worse, if you actually read the article, their complaint is about PCR testing producing false negatives. That affects the number of cases.

I guess you didn't realize if the number of cases is really lower than what's being reported, that increases the fatality rate.

So tell me the ratio of false negatives to false positives given a cycle threshold of 40?

And why use a ct of 40 when it is common knowledge that anything over 35 is going to be meaningless?

 

[BluesLegend]

How many people who died when herpes was out of control had herpes listed as the cause of death?

Deaths from the leading causes of death are way down.