What possible excuse could the CDC have for making the guidelines (that hospitals have to follow to get federal funding) that unvaccinated get tested with the absurd and unscientific 40 cycles, while vaccinated get tested with the drastically lower 25 cycles.
As I said before, have you considered looking into what the explanation is? The fact that you're acting solely on that one assumption is what doesn't make sense. There could be a legitimate explanation for the cycle differences, and I would ask a epidemiologist or someone in the field, instead of whatever the Weinsteins think. It seems far less likely that the Weinsteins suddenly discredited the thousands of scientists/doctors that worked on the vaccines by making a random assumption.
What possible excuse could the CDC have for making the guidelines (that hospitals have to follow to get federal funding) that unvaccinated get tested with the absurd and unscientific 40 cycles, while vaccinated get tested with the drastically lower 25 cycles.
As I said before, have you considered looking into what the explanation is? The fact that you're acting solely on that one assumption is what doesn't make sense. There could be a legitimate explanation for the cycle differences, and I would ask a epidemiologist or someone in the field, instead of whatever the Weinsteins think. It seems far less likely that the Weinsteins suddenly discredited the thousands of scientists/doctors that worked on the vaccines by making a random assumption.
What possible excuse could the CDC have for making the guidelines (that hospitals have to follow to get federal funding) that unvaccinated get tested with the absurd and unscientific 40 cycles, while vaccinated get tested with the drastically lower 25 cycles.
As I said before, have you considered looking into what the explanation is? That fact that you're acting purely on that one assumption is what doesn't make sense. There could be a legitimate explanation for the cycle differences, and I would ask a epidemiologist or someone in the field, instead of whatever the Weinsteins believe. It seems less likely that the Weinsteins suddenly discredited the tens of thousands of scientists and doctors that worked on the vaccines.
What possible excuse could the CDC have for making the guidelines (that hospitals have to follow to get federal funding) that unvaccinated get tested with the absurd and unscientific 40 cycles, while vaccinated get tested with the drastically lower 25 cycles.
As I said before, have you considered looking into what the explanation is? That fact that you're acting purely on that one assumption is what doesn't make sense. There could be a legitimate explanation for the cycle differences, and I would ask a epidemiologist or someone in the field, instead of whatever the Weinsteins believe. It seems less likely that the Weinsteins suddenly discredited the tens of thousands of scientists and doctors that worked on the vaccines.
What possible excuse could the CDC have for making the guidelines (that hospitals have to follow to get federal funding) that unvaccinated get tested with the absurd and unscientific 40 cycles, while vaccinated get tested with the drastically lower 25 cycles.
As I said before, have you considered looking into what the explanation is? That fact that you're acting purely on that one assumption is what I find illogical. There could be a legitimate explanation for the cycle differences, and I would ask a epidemiologist or someone in the field, instead of whatever the Weinsteins believe. It seems less likely that the Weinsteins suddenly discredited the tens of thousands of scientists and doctors that worked on the vaccines.
What possible excuse could the CDC have for making the guidelines (that hospitals have to follow to get federal funding) that unvaccinated get tested with the absurd and unscientific 40 cycles, while vaccinated get tested with the drastically lower 25 cycles.
As I said before, have you considered looking into what the explanation is? That fact that you're acting purely on that one assumption is what I find illogical. There could be a legitimate explanation for the cycle differences, and I would ask a epidemiologist or someone in the field. Instead of whatever the Weinsteins believe. It seems less likely that their one guess suddenly discredits the tens of thousands of scientists and doctors that worked on the vaccines.
What possible excuse could the CDC have for making the guidelines (that hospitals have to follow to get federal funding) that unvaccinated get tested with the absurd and unscientific 40 cycles, while vaccinated get tested with the drastically lower 25 cycles.
As I said before, have you considered looking into what the explanation is? That fact that you're acting purely on that one assumption is what I find illogical. There could be a legitimate explanation for the cycle differences, and I would ask a epidemiologist or someone in the field. Instead of whatever the Weinsteins believe. It seems less likely that their one assumption suddenly discredits the tens of thousands of scientists and doctors that worked on the vaccines.
What possible excuse could the CDC have for making the guidelines (that hospitals have to follow to get federal funding) that unvaccinated get tested with the absurd and unscientific 40 cycles, while vaccinated get tested with the drastically lower 25 cycles.
As I said before, have you considered looking into what the explanation is? That fact that you're acting purely on that one assumption is what I find illogical. There could be a legitimate explanation for the cycle differences, and I would ask a epidemiologist or someone in the field. Instead of whatever the Weinsteins believe. It seems less likely that their one assumption suddenly discredits the tens of thousands of scientists and doctors that worked on the vaccines.
What possible excuse could the CDC have for making the guidelines (that hospitals have to follow to get federal funding) that unvaccinated get tested with the absurd and unscientific 40 cycles, while vaccinated get tested with the drastically lower 25 cycles.
As I said before, have you considered looking into what the explanation is? That fact that you're acting purely on that one assumption is what I find illogical. There could be a legitimate explanation for the cycle differences, and I would ask a epidemiologist or someone in the field. Instead of whatever the Weinsteins believe. It seems less likely that their one assumption suddenly discredits the tens of thousands of scientists and doctors that worked on the vaccines.
What possible excuse could the CDC have for making the guidelines (that hospitals have to follow to get federal funding) that unvaccinated get tested with the absurd and unscientific 40 cycles, while vaccinated get tested with the drastically lower 25 cycles.
As I said before, have you considered looking into what the explanation is? That fact that you're acting purely on that one assumption is what I find illogical. There could be a legitimate explanation for the cycle differences, and I would ask a epidemiologist or someone in the field. Instead you choose to believe whatever the Weinsteins have told you is their belief. Personally, I find it less likely that that one assumption suddenly discredit the tens of thousands of scientists and doctors that worked on the vaccines.
What possible excuse could the CDC have for making the guidelines (that hospitals have to follow to get federal funding) that unvaccinated get tested with the absurd and unscientific 40 cycles, while vaccinated get tested with the drastically lower 25 cycles.
As I said before, have you considered looking into what the explanation is? That fact that you're acting purely on that one assumption is what I find ridiculous. There could be a legitimate explanation for the cycle differences, and I would ask a epidemiologist or someone in the field. Instead you choose to believe whatever the Weinsteins have told you is their belief. Personally, I find it less likely that that one assumption suddenly discredit the tens of thousands of scientists and doctors that worked on the vaccines.
What possible excuse could the CDC have for making the guidelines (that hospitals have to follow to get federal funding) that unvaccinated get tested with the absurd and unscientific 40 cycles, while vaccinated get tested with the drastically lower 25 cycles.
As I said before, have you considered looking into what the explanation is? That fact that you're acting purely on that one assumption is what I find ridiculous. There could be a legitimate explanation for the cycle differences, and I would ask a epidemiologist or someone in the field. Instead you choose to believe whatever the Weinsteins have told you is their belief. Personally, I find it less likely that that one assumption suddenly discredit the tens of thousands of scientists and doctors that worked on the vaccines.
What possible excuse could the CDC have for making the guidelines (that hospitals have to follow to get federal funding) that unvaccinated get tested with the absurd and unscientific 40 cycles, while vaccinated get tested with the drastically lower 25 cycles.
As I said before, have you considered looking into why? That fact that you're acting purely on one assumption is what I find ridiculous. There could be a legitimate explanation for the cycles, but you choose to believe whatever the Weinsteins have told you is their belief instead. Also, it's far less likely that your one assumption suddenly discredit the tens of thousands of scientists and doctors that worked on the vaccines.
What possible excuse could the CDC have for making the guidelines (that hospitals have to follow to get federal funding) that unvaccinated get tested with the absurd and unscientific 40 cycles, while vaccinated get tested with the drastically lower 25 cycles.
As I said before, have you considered looking into why? That fact that you're acting purely on one assumption is what I find ridiculous. There could be a legitimate explanation for the cycles, but you choose to believe whatever the Weinsteins have told you is their belief instead. Also, it's far less likely that your one assumption suddenly discredit the tens of thousands of scientists and doctors that worked on the vaccines.
What possible excuse could the CDC have for making the guidelines (that hospitals have to follow to get federal funding) that unvaccinated get tested with the absurd and unscientific 40 cycles, while vaccinated get tested with the drastically lower 25 cycles.
As I said before, have you considered looking into why? That fact that you're acting purely on one assumption is what I find ridiculous. There could be a legitimate explanation for the cycles, but you choose to believe whatever the Weinsteins have told you is their belief instead. Also, it's far less likely that your one assumption suddenly discredit the tens of thousands of scientists and doctors that worked on the vaccines.
What possible excuse could the CDC have for making the guidelines (that hospitals have to follow to get federal funding) that unvaccinated get tested with the absurd and unscientific 40 cycles, while vaccinated get tested with the drastically lower 25 cycles.
As I said before, have you considered looking into why? That fact that you're acting purely on one assumption is what I find ridiculous. There could be a legitimate explanation for the cycles, but you choose to believe whatever the Weinsteins have told you is their belief instead.