This shouldn’t have to be so divisive.
Printable View
This shouldn’t have to be so divisive.
Defensive much? Careful… Posting baseless statements then getting angry didn’t work out for your pal very well, did it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Brew
That’s what makes this so frustrating, how is it?Quote:
Originally Posted by xu82
Considering that I have a runny nose and cough year round, I guess I should be testing every couple of days?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sounds like there is room for improvement on your maintenance treatment? That’s not normal, but most people in your spot don’t have covid. Referring to people that have mild symptoms not normal for them who still answer “no”.Quote:
Originally Posted by bjf123
What exactly shouldn't be so divisive?Quote:
Originally Posted by xu82
You’re kidding, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by xu82
Not defensive but over your nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun
I guess his facts could be annoying to someone who plays loose with factual statementsQuote:
Originally Posted by Strange Brew
Hey, look who’s here. What a surprise!Quote:
Originally Posted by Xville
What facts?
You should know, you are the one that replied to his post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Brew
And you are the one that replied to mine….Quote:
Originally Posted by Xville
Nice edit btw. Haha. What facts has he presented? I see a lot of pontification and little data.
You stated something false about the CDC and never linked anything. Just said “CDC website”. How am I to disprove a statement that doesn’t exist? Would you like me to post a statement by the CDC that states they never stated that covid and flu tests are indistinguishable?Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Brew
You are getting to be as bad as your buddy. His facts are the opposite of your cdc posted nonsense that doesn’t exist. You have a really hard time discerning what is fact and opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Brew
Did you eat paint chips when you were a kid?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xville
You could go to their website or Google it. You know, basics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun
Just as refresher since you apparently forgot what you posted. None of this statement is factual.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Brew
None of this is true..since you seem to forget what you posted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Brew
It is factual. Your not paying attention.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xville
Edit: Nice double post. Haha..
As previously noted, you play loose with facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Brew
You have been duped again by your fringe websites.
*You’re not yourQuote:
Originally Posted by Strange Brew
Anyways I did find what you are referencing and it is false. Here is your likely source:
https://web.archive.org/web/20211230...u-covid-virus/
And here is a decent explanation as to why your source is wrong.
That’s like, your opinion and no facts. You provide 0 data and are a very boring person.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xville
Not a double post..two separate statements by you. Just pointing out that you doubled down on your ignorance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Brew
Jesus, your rebuttal source is USA Today. Get the f out of here. I went the the damn CDC website and read it myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun
I.E. you can’t admit you are wrong, and can’t accept it. I can’t provide data to something that doesn’t exist. It’s funny you have been asked five times to link where you got your baseless statement and couldn’t provide a link. You just said look at the cdc website, well what you said doesn’t exist on the cdc website. .gee I wonder why?Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Brew
I’m not. Again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xville
You seem deeply involved here. I’ll pray for you.
And I’ll pray that one day you won’t believe everything that fits your bias just because it is on the internet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Brew
My rebuttal source initially was myself but you don’t seem to like that source either. I explained it just like the article does I linked. You don’t understand how a covid or flu test works, and that’s ok, but don’t pretend you know how it works and then refute the reason to which your opinion is wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Brew
So I will summarize it once again for you in my own terms. When we do a covid PCR test, we test for covid nucleic acid, aka presence of that particular virus. When we do a flu test, we test for nucleic acid from the influenza virus, usually influenza A and influenza B. These are typically ran separately, though there are tests that detect ALL of them which we have been using since April of 2020. These are called multiplex tests. Most covid tests are not done to also detect flu, so it’s possible someone can test positive for both if they were done together. But a positive covid test DOES distinguish between the flu because it is specifically testing for covid. The CDC is giving preference to the multiplex test because it tests for covid AND the flu. This does not imply that the covid tests alone cannot distinguish between the two as you have implied. It implies that it is better to test for all 3.
If you "read" something on the CDC website, it shouldn't be all that hard to post a link to that web page with your comment.
Lloyd I distinctly remember a discussion with you on this topic and finally found it. Post 3762, I understood that as you acknowledging it is possible that a COVID-19 RNA sequence could be arrived from the flu if run at a high enough Ct. No?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun
If that’s what you were implying I misunderstood you at that time. I thought you were referring to false positive covid tests being derived from people who were not actively infected with covid, which turns out to be true. I did not realize you were implying covid tests being positive from the flu virus’ presence. I don’t know how they would be confused as they don’t share NA sequences.Quote:
Originally Posted by Muskie in dayton
OK, thanks. I was implying that based on the prior post, but wasn't clear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun
Is Xavier making flu shots mandatory? Are they testing for the flu? The fact of the matter here is everything they have done is unethical. I took two medical ethics classes while at Xavier. Would be great classes for the Xavier Administration and a few who post on this website. The Covid vaccine is not a vaccine. It is a shot just as the flu shot is a shot. It doesn’t prevent you from getting it; period.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun
Who is paying for these kids to get tested if they’re asymptotic. Insurance sure as hell isn’t. Is the University paying? No they’re not. Out of pocket for the student/parents. A total waste of time and resources.
Over the last couple weeks, "The Experts" have acknowledged:
1. PCR tests should not be used for disease diagnosis (CDC Director Walensky)
2. Masks are ineffective: "nothing but facial decoration" (CNN Health Expert Wen), and "do very little since it's an airborne virus" (Pfizer-hired ex-CDC director Gottlieb)
3. Covid hospitalizations have been overcounted due to testing people without covid symptoms (Fauci).
Hmmm...
You are correct about who pays, and that it's a total waste. But not surprising since the current Administration is a total waste. It's certainly not the same place I attended, sadly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Double Down
Cool beans bro.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xville
Lloyd. I get it. Be a good Doc to your patients.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun
Last year I saw zero positive flu tests (out of hundreds of tests). This year I have seen 3 so far, all influenza A. One person contracted covid a week after the flu (her husband tested positive before her and she started with a new timeline of symptoms) which makes me think less of the competing virus theory. One case, but I was still surprised to see she got both in a matter of 2 weeks. Interesting stuff…
Does anyone on this board know how many people died of Covid during the Pfizer and Moderna Phase 3 vaccines trials?
Exactly 1.
So why were the numbers so low compared to what we’ve seen in the real world over the last 18 months? One, because not enough people were included in the trials. More importantly, the two trials lasted less than 4 months. So there wasn’t enough time to gage whether their efficacy would last or not.
Between the two “studies”, exactly 466 people got Covid during the trial periods.
Yes, that’s right; these garbage “studies” were used to justify jabbing every single person in the world with this snake oil. Isn’t it a coincidence that the efficacy of these same “vaccines” begins to wane after 3 or 4 months?
Before you try to gaslight and tell us that the vaccines were created to reduce the severity of Covid, remember, we were all led to believe, and were told countless times by Fauci and the medical establishment, that the vaccines would “stop Covid in its tracks”. Sorry, it’s all on video if you don’t remember.
If you still think vaccines are working, you’re simply not informed. The data is undeniable at this point.
This is a pandemic of colossal government failure in not using existing drugs, pursuing new therapeutics and implementing best practices from around the world.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2035389
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577