Tweet
unless you had your blood drawn that there is no test for Covid from the flu?
Just wanted to give everyone a reminder of factual information unless you’ve had your blood drawn there’s no way you knew if you’ve ever had Covid. The PCR test has a 98% flaw rate. Just wanted to put this out there for everyone
-
-
Gee wrong 98% of the time. Imagine that. Trust the authorities.
May I always be the type of person my dog thinks I am -
Why is Wuhan virus still relevant?Comment
-
An occasional useless face diaper covered COVID freaker seen in public in this neck of the woods.Comment
-
who still tests?Originally posted by KestryllOriginally posted by Libertarian777Comment
-
Where is the link to this flaw rate?Beans and BulletsComment
-
Google it, my friend
Fosse invented the PCR test back in the day and he used it falsely then as well. The court case for Covid went before the judge and they admitted how poorly it worked and then they claim just the only thing we have to use during emergency and it got reapproved
But Google can’t even hide that
it’s also here in the Covid form covered many of times to keep in mind that was 3 years agoComment
-
I don’t give a rat’s *** about Covid. It’s just another respiratory affliction that is not worthy of worrying about.Let us not pray to be sheltered from dangers but to be fearless when facing them. - Rabindranath Tagore
A mind all logic is like a knife all blade. It makes the hand bleed that uses it. - Rabindranath Tagore
Talent hits a target no one else can hit. Genius hits a target no one else can see. - Arthur SchopenhaurComment
-
It's not as 'simple' as just 'Google it;' which is why I assume you're being asked for a link which causes the definitive conclusion you are asserting as to a "98% flaw rate."
Why isn't it 'that simple?'
In November of 2020... CDC Report: Officials Knew Coronavirus Test Was Flawed But Released It Anyway
Short version... We've known, since relatively early on, that PCR tests weren't entirely accurate and that a number of theories existed as to why. However, the 'inaccuracy' rate was set against the perception of a public health crisis and it was evidently decided that 'something' was better than 'nothing,' inaccuracies and all. That's without getting into the reports which stipulated that 'steps' were taken to deal with some of the reasons for the inaccuracies.On Feb. 6, a scientist in a small infectious disease lab on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention campus in Atlanta was putting a coronavirus test kit through its final paces. The lab designed and built the diagnostic test in record time, and the little vials that contained necessary reagents to identify the virus were boxed up and ready to go. But NPR has learned the results of that final quality control test suggested something troubling — it said the kit could fail 33% of the time...
When the lab ran the very last quality control test, using the correct Emergency Use Authorization procedures and showing a possible 33% failure rate, it was Feb. 6, according to the review. The kits, with their four little vials, were already in their boxes. There was time to recall them before they went out, but Lindstrom decided not to do that, three officials familiar with the review said.
One HHS official told NPR this shouldn't have been a tough call. "The QC records showed that the test had a problem," the official said. "Lindstrom signed off on a quality control that was clearly flawed. He should not have released that kit."
Wroblewski agreed. "The thing that hangs me up most is probably the 33% and not recalling or not immediately going to remanufacture or something at that point," she said, "because 33% is clearly a lot."
Compounding the problem, officials said, was the fact that the CDC had not established specific benchmarks for the test. There was not, for example, an agency directive that said the test needed to be correct some specific percentage of the time before it could be released.
Obviously, the CDC would like the tests to be completely accurate, one official told NPR, but something less than that is typically acceptable, particularly during a public health crisis...
Bear in mind that by June of 2021... PCR tests are not prone to false positives, despite what's on Facebook, experts say
Additionally, what I'm seeing in the scientific literature, or what could be deemed that, is a 98% ACCURACY rate, not 'false positive' or 'flawed' rate.Infectious disease experts are again pushing back against "armchair" molecular biologists who continue to make false claims about PCR tests — the primary method for diagnosing COVID-19.
These claims have circulated on social media since the beginning of the pandemic and have been repeatedly debunked, but nevertheless they persist in a variety of forums.
One of the most common false claims is that PCR tests are prone to huge numbers of false positives, and this is often rooted in a misunderstanding of how the tests work, says Jonathan Jarry, a biological scientist with McGill University's Office for Science and Society in Montreal...
"The PCR test that we use has been confirmed to be highly specific for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19," said Dr. Deena Hinshaw, Alberta's chief medical officer of health, who recently devoted a news conference to combating "myths" surrounding the tests...
All of this is to say that infectious disease is complicated, and PCR tests are one part of the larger COVID-19 picture.
Experts in the field spend careers learning the intricacies of it all, so Jarry, of McGill University, said it can be frustrating when "armchair" scientists pick up on a tidbit of information and spin it into incorrect conclusions...
It's just like Google's AI stipulates...
In addition, when queried as to who invented the PCR test, Google's AI states...The notion that PCR tests have a "98% flaw rate" is incorrect. In reality, highly accurate PCR tests typically have a specificity and sensitivity of 98% or more, meaning a very low actual flaw rate in a controlled laboratory setting. The term "fosse" is likely a misspelling or misunderstanding related to public discourse surrounding test accuracy during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Thus, I think it's likely fair to ask how your asserted "98% flaw rate" was arrived at by asking for a link to your source so we can all determine the relevance/accuracy of the assertion.The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technique was invented by American biochemist Kary Mullis in 1983 while he was working at the Cetus Corporation in California. For this groundbreaking invention, he was awarded a share of the 1993 Nobel Prize in Chemistry.
Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 11-25-2025, 2:03 PM.Comment
-
excactly as stated above by Trapped..
OP..user named "Covid" your posts are clapped. I did do a google search..you know what came up on first few pages...ZERO of what you said. I know they hide this anti clot shot stuff..so Do yourself a favor and don't look like a jackass and post these "facts" you claimBeans and BulletsComment
-
What a surprise - the Calguns Covid forum is still spreading lies - worst part is all of the idiots here believe it like it was written by Christ himself. Read the first reply - blind acceptance.
This cesspool can't die fast enough
Anyone press will hear the fat lady sing.
Originally posted by Vin ScullyOriginally posted by William James.Originally posted by BigPimpingComment
-
when the gub and media tell you to give 6' distance between you the and person behind/front, mask up while allowing you to buy groceries and eat in a restaurant, nude bars .... what credibility do they have? ZERO!!!!Comment
There are currently 5579 users online. 135 members and 5444 guests.
Most users ever online was 239,041 at 11:39 PM on 02-14-2026.
Comment