The main point here has nothing to do with the vaccine or masks. You asked why asymptomatic people were being tested, I said:
asymptomatic hosts can still spread COVID-19
You then linked a local news channel source that mentioned nothing about asymptomatic cases. When I gave you two medical journals that proved my point, you cited (1) a hoax-paper experiment that did not include medical journals, and (2) some conclusory statements about "faulty data" and me making an assumption that "smart people can't be fooled."
You have yet to actually support any of your points. Even your attempts to attack JAMA/PNAS missed the mark entirely. Don't get me wrong — there are valid reasons to attack the journals and the studies in them; PNAS especially has been known to publish some theory-intensive stuff in the workplace-equality field. However, my experience has been that the hard-science publications in these journals are fairly reliable.
Again, I would sincerely appreciate if you can give me sources to support your claims. I'm not saying your claims are wrong, but you have to support them with more than broad, conclusory statements.
They’re getting debunked because they’re shit sources. Ever wonder why it seems like no one else is listening to the theories on this site? It’s because they can be shot down with a 10-second Google search.
Back to the main point?
The main point here has nothing to do with the vaccine or masks. You asked why asymptomatic people were being tested, I said:
You then linked a local news channel source that mentioned nothing about asymptomatic cases. When I gave you two medical journals that proved my point, you cited (1) a hoax-paper experiment that did not include medical journals, and (2) some conclusory statements about "faulty data" and me making an assumption that "smart people can't be fooled."
You have yet to actually support any of your points. Even your attempts to attack JAMA/PNAS missed the mark entirely. Don't get me wrong — there are valid reasons to attack the journals and the studies in them; PNAS especially has been known to publish some theory-intensive stuff in the workplace-equality field. However, my experience has been that the hard-science publications in these journals are fairly reliable.
Again, I would sincerely appreciate if you can give me sources to support your claims. I'm not saying your claims are wrong, but you have to support them with more than broad, conclusory statements.
They’re getting debunked because they’re shit sources. Ever wonder why it seems like no one else is listening to the theories on this site? It’s because they can be shot down with a 10-second Google search.
Not really. My point is if I can debunk your argument with 10 seconds of googling, it’s probably a shit argument.
I mean, all I had to do is read the Wikipedia page on the hoax-paper experiment to learn that it didn’t cover a single medical journal.