That "variety of reasons" is the fraudulently adopted high cycle count
Sorry, HEET, my brain just autocorrected me
It's just methanol, the perfect clean burning alcohol fuel for small alcohol stoves (won't leave soot on your cooking gear, or create a smell)
Cost of a container has gone up. Something is causing that
No, the PCR test does NOT test for spike protein or the mRNA that produces it.
they would be even higher but for the impact of vaccination.
Coffee and cocoa are very good ideas
Perishables are as well. Wheat ships easily, fruits not so much. Get a dehydrator and go to town, vit c from a pill works, but something about getting it from a dried plum hits all the right neuro transmitters.
30mls of methanol will boil 2 cups of water with little regard for surrounding temps and an alcohol stove can be made from a single soda can. You can burn any alcohol, isopropyl works, but is dirty... on the other hand 'HEET' antifreeze from your automotive section is literally just methanol, burns clean, is cheap, is perfect. Stock up before the normies realize and clean it out. Much more cost effective and just as capable as any camping stove setup you might over pay on.
Alternatively a tea light can heat 2-3 cans of soup though you need to be patient, like, hours patient, and that presumes a normal 'room temp'. But it absolutely works.
A $200 generator from walmart can give you 1000w continuous watts - enough to run an electric toaster oven to bake in using fuel you stockpiled, or whatever gas you syphon from your car's tank after things go south.
LED lights are very low power consumers and you can get string lighting to plug into the generator to keep as much of the house minimally lit as you're happy buying and storing. Think christmas but the walls of the house is the tree.
There is no such thing as covid.
There very clearly is. The symptoms are not consistant with influenza, nor is the (actual) treatment, nor are the negative fluv tests given to covid positive (false or otherwise) patients. That Fluv numbers got rolled into the covid numbers does not mean covid doesn't exist. Not over thinking it may be how you avoid confusion, but someof us aren't burdened by double digit IQs.
Bring you wife over to the keyboard, I'd love to talk to her.
Zero ability to find covid is quite the statement.
Except you're wrong.
Covid was isolated and sequenced. It's not made up. False positives aside, true positives do find covid. It's a real virus that really leaked out of a shoddy lab in China.
I get how you could go from A to B like that, but as someone who does antiviral drug discovery for a living (crazy coincidence right?) I have to push back. By that lose definition, all drugs are built for viruses and diseases that "don't exist" because reduction is a critical part of the development process. There's no way you can efficiently design treatments by researching the actual thing - it would cost a thousand times more, assuming you could find a thousand times as many qualified people to work your thousand time larger lab. You're not going to work from live virus cultures, but you develop representative assays that replicate the part of the process you're focused on. That's all science, not just medicine, and it works... with caveats, but the problems that come with reductionism are the preferable ones.
See, reductionism is also why so many discoveries don't scale up. You read a hyped article claiming the end of cancer, and reductionism is why it doesn't pan out. What works on an isolated protein doesn't necessarily work in cells, what works in one cell line won't work in another, what works in cells may not work in animals, and what works in animals won't necessarily work in humans.
But reductionism scales at the research level. And so long as you validate your assays along the way you can get from the bench to the clinic without being misled - we do it all the time. And that's my only concern here, they seem to have not sweated the validation - which would be essential if you wanted an accurate test, but superfluous if you only wanted justification to recommend a false positive prone number of cycles.
But to be specific to your concerns, it isn't really a 'fake' virus. For developing this terst the envelope doesn't matter, spike proteins don't matter, the capsid and it's conformation are irrelevant. It's PCR. All you need are primers that are selective and reliable for the genome you're looking to detect. If you've successfully sequenced the viral genome (they had) and have successfully produced it in quantity, then you really just need to add the technical goopy bits that typically get in the way to test the only thing you really care about - Do the primers work? If not, design some new ones, lather rinse repeat.
When PCR is applied they are going to lyse the virus violently and indiscriminately to get at the genome anyway, so intact starting virus isn't relevant. stand in goopy bits along with legit genome is fine. And doing this with infectious cultured virus is not only unnecessary, it takes longer, and requires more people to accomplish the same scale experiment, in more stringent lab conditions (BSL-3 / 4 lab space and those who are qualified to work them are a finite resource). If you can do it in BSL-2 for 1/10th the cost in 1/10th the time, you do it.
The same can be said for the vaccine. Pickinng a protein, producing it de novo, and trialing it in an antibody titer assay is a perfectly legitimate approach to vaccine design. But once they did it, did they validate it? No. With the PCR test they just decided policy on data from serially diluted material - they never established the cycle threshold with actually infected individuals. And once they designed the vaccine, did they validate it on actual virus in humans? Well, they are, but the EUA extempted them from the sort of validation that really matters.
So while plenty of experiemnts won't have been conducted on actual infectious virus, the alternative isn't that they ran those experiments on a 'fake' or 'different' virus. And the issue isn't the reductionism, but the blatant seemingly purposeful decision to skip normal validation.
Sorry, was this too stream of consciousness? Did I touch on anything helpful?
The test (and the primers) are developed against the genomic material. You don't NEED whole virus to do that. They absolutely need to have validated their results against real virus however, and not doing that is another red flag on the validity of this standard...
...but a lot of you are going way too conspiratorial on this.
No, it was sequenced covid.
If it was 'just the flu' then flu tests would come back positive in every covid case and it would be a 100% comorbidity, which it isn't. There could be overlap (this test is shit for plenty of other reasons), but not because they used fluv to develop the comercial primers for the test.
That's not what this says at all
You argue with those who can't be convinced not because you think you magically will, but because whether you realize or not, 4 other people in the distance are listening in, maybe only for a bit, maybe only in passing, and the strengths of the two arguments and the validity of their approaches subconsciously imprints on them. Without being the direct target of the argument, their double think shields are down and it gets in.
Want to convince someone? Try arguing with someone else in ear shot of them.
Prayer. That's it right now.
I recall reading a bit where they were finding in some vaxed nuerofibrillary tangles similar as with Ahlzheimers, ALS, and others which themselves have some provocative viral links, though still largely speculative. Thing is, there's no treatment for NFTs of any source.
You can remove him from the accute source, but since in this case that's likely the spike proteins churning out from the mRNA swimming inside him that avenue is locked down.
So Prayer. Yours and mine and everyone in between.
It has been proven that the current COVID RT-PCR tests, set to a cycle threshold (Ct) of 40 by the FDA and CDC, generate false positive results due to the Ct value being set too high. To further complicate matters, the CDC has elected to set the Ct value to 28 when testing samples from vaccinated Americans
That's not statistical manipulation. That's fraud. Having said that, this appears to be a misreading. Allow me to explain:
For breakthrough cases (vaccinated but still got covid) the CDC wants sequence data on the strain (so they can track strains and detect novel ones). The CDC guidelines state they will accept locally sequenced data, but in cases where sample is to be sent to the CDC for them to sequence they won't accept samples that aren't positive at or below 28 cycles. Basically, don't send us dilute shit because we aren't going to just do a simple yes/no thing with it, we are sequencing - we need significant amounts of material to do that effectively so if it takes more than 28 cycles don't waste our time.
The current CDC protocol they cite does repeat the 40 cycle standard, which does have a huge issue with false positives (my cursory reading shows that the mean ct necessary for detection is 32-35 depending on reagents with SDs of ~0.8) so even trusting the reporting it's crazy high; intentionally designed to minimize false negatives (5 SD beyond mean) while maximizing false positives.
In the reporting form, it makes no specifics as to a threshold to be considered positive, but does have a section to note the cycles at which it is positive, which could be less than 40, but does not mean they are excluding any below 40. The absence of guidelines on this suggest the standard protocol is otherwise to be the standard.
I found no evidence that the testing or reporting is different for vaccinated vs non vaccinated, and all available evidence suggest the reverse, that the methodology is the same.
Do not say that they are being a bully, say they are ACTING like a bully. That little verbal 'out' pays dividends
God bless civilian authority over the military
This is useless without something to compare against. Is it a lot? a little? bottlienecking somewhere? You need a map from say, 2 years ago, to compare against.
It's what's called a negative control, and no possitive effect can be claimed without one.
Didn't they take on a ton of intel duties that were previously spread across agencies, and not just military but three letters as well? A lot of room for 'accomplishment'
900,000 reported, 63,000 in actuality
So they reported a figure 15x reality
Literal whitehouse set
To my knowledge Aircraft have never been operated (openly) off those carriers. Violating the treaty of their surrender would put Japan at the mercy of it's signatories, which includes the US.
It's clear that Japan doesn't care what China thinks anymore. And that they are american planes shows America doesn't care that Japan holds to that treaty. Biden cares, obviously. And so it's clear that the military, at least in the pacific, is not under Biden's chain of authority.
Another big key in devolution
Nah, not risky at all. Covid-19 isn't something magical. It's a corona virus. It's an engineered virus, but it's still just a corona virus. And even if it was somethign completely new, it's still a virus. We know what these are and how they work.
The news present it as a mystery because 1) they don't know the fucking field and it's a mystery to them and 2) the politician-"scientists" they interview are idiots that love to make the themselves sound mysterious and cool bby proxy.
But it's a fucking virus. You sequence it's genome, design primers, done. Not winging it, no risk, it's literal par for the course... for PCR.
I mean I want to make this very clear. "novel" corona virus is as novel as the 2021 Ford F-150. Is it the same as last years model? No. Is the new engine a gamechanger? Maybe IDK I'm not a truck guy but let's pretend it is. But can you change the oil same as ever? Sure can.