Please do subscribe to our Rumble and YouTube channels, or elsewhere. Some of our material is visual, so video formats are more complete than pure audio podcasting.
Thank you, This is just what I wanted! I went through the false positive exercise with my teenagers after watching the interview with debunk the funk.
I'm sure those kind of debates are frustrating when you are in them, but I thought it was really interesting and it's important to have both sides of the argument tested.
I really wanted to watch this but the sound is so bad it's almost impossible to hear/follow the conversation between the two of you, even if I raise the volume when that's happening then lower it when you're speaking about the conversation. just an fyi for future videos (since this is a fairly common occurrence).
As long as we're getting picky, let's not say SARS-COV-2 testing (that's a virus) when we mean using RT-PCR to detect RNA produced by SARS-COV-2. If we mean antibody or antigen testing, we should specify exactly those things.
The reason that it matters that we not say "covid testing" is because that implies that running RT-PCR to detect SARS-COV-2 RNA is an accurate surrogate for testing for a clinical case of covid, when any such test is ambiguous as it may only detect RNA and not viable virus. The chances of only detecting RNA and not viable virus increases as cycling is run beyond 34 cycles. And we really should specify whether the RT-PCR test being run is qualitative or quantitative. A quantitative test that stops at 34 cycles means something entirely different than a qualitative test that spits out a positive result after having been run for 34 cycles. There is uncertainty with the qualitative test as regards the incipient RNA concentration, but there is certainty with the quantitative test.
Please do subscribe to our Rumble and YouTube channels, or elsewhere. Some of our material is visual, so video formats are more complete than pure audio podcasting.
"the narcissism of Performative Science" - I like this phrase, I think you're on to something.
Thank you, This is just what I wanted! I went through the false positive exercise with my teenagers after watching the interview with debunk the funk.
I'm sure those kind of debates are frustrating when you are in them, but I thought it was really interesting and it's important to have both sides of the argument tested.
Mathew thanks for this. PLEASE RESPOND: I've been trying to find out what's in the PCR nasal swabs. So far I have only found this article: https://www.holistichealthonline.info/pcr-swabs/
It cites research in Europe showing graphene oxide in the swabs. What do you know about this?
I really wanted to watch this but the sound is so bad it's almost impossible to hear/follow the conversation between the two of you, even if I raise the volume when that's happening then lower it when you're speaking about the conversation. just an fyi for future videos (since this is a fairly common occurrence).
Excellent, thanks for this post
As long as we're getting picky, let's not say SARS-COV-2 testing (that's a virus) when we mean using RT-PCR to detect RNA produced by SARS-COV-2. If we mean antibody or antigen testing, we should specify exactly those things.
The reason that it matters that we not say "covid testing" is because that implies that running RT-PCR to detect SARS-COV-2 RNA is an accurate surrogate for testing for a clinical case of covid, when any such test is ambiguous as it may only detect RNA and not viable virus. The chances of only detecting RNA and not viable virus increases as cycling is run beyond 34 cycles. And we really should specify whether the RT-PCR test being run is qualitative or quantitative. A quantitative test that stops at 34 cycles means something entirely different than a qualitative test that spits out a positive result after having been run for 34 cycles. There is uncertainty with the qualitative test as regards the incipient RNA concentration, but there is certainty with the quantitative test.