Tell me why you're qualified to interpret anything for us first.
Ah! Deflection! Nice try.
More to the point: why should you or I believe Dan Dicks can even read it, let alone interpret it? From what I see on the Internet he's just another schmoe. Why should anyone believe he can understand stuff like "The product contains oligonucleotide primers and dual-labeled hydrolysis probes (TaqMan®) and control material used in rRT-PCR for the in vitro qualitative detection of 2019-nCoV RNA in respiratory specimens."
Oh, it's not deflection, it's literally the root of your argument.
You are taking the superior position, with literally no justification. To top it off, a very casual look at your comment history makes it clear that you are a propagandist. That's the only qualification I see here.
I see you're still avoiding the question. I'm not sure why I should answer any of yours if you won't answer the one I asked first.
I'll ask it again: why you think Dan Dicks is qualified to interpret that jargon-filled set of highly technical instructions, given that there's nothing about him that indicates he could understand it?
The author, Mike Adams, says he runs a lab and is suspicious because he can't get a sample of the virus - I wonder if they just hand those out to anyone who asks.
Furthermore he repeats the lie that the CDC's original test couldn't distinguish between covid and the flu: "CDC pulls its own fraudulent covid PCR testing protocol, implying it cannot differentiate between covid and influenza" while anyone who can read English can look at that CDC statement (https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dls/locs/2021/07-21-2021-lab-alert-Changes_CDC_RT-PCR_SARS-CoV-2_Testing_1.html) and see that it clearly states that the original test, the one they're setting aside, could detect only covid and nothing else, and that now there are single tests that can identify more than just covid.
Adams is relying on readers to take his word for it and not do their own research.
So far I haven't heard from anyone who can tell me why they think Dan Dicks can read and interpret the FDA document that is the basis of OP's post.
When you look up Dan Dicks you don't get anything that says he's in a position to be able to read, understand, and critique a high-level instruction set for bio-molecular testing.
The only reference to him I can find on the Internet aside from Mike Adams' reference in OP's post is a small-time arrest at an anti-racism protest in Vancouver 14 months ago. If he has any background that would mean his opinion on CDC testing instructions actually counts for anything it seems to be well hidden.
So again I'm asking why anyone should think his opinion is worth anything?
Interesting that these shills have zero real personal concern about the virus and instead speak weirdly "objectively" about the most contagious variant ever.
Oh, this virus is gonna kill everybody? Let me calmly hyperlink 30 MSM articles and attack any other sources instead of building a bunker for the impending doom. It's interesting that they try to play on people's emotions, but lack the awareness to see that their own emotions should jive with the message they are trying to push.
OH, and it's not symbolism that is going to be their downfall. It's attitude, and really a lack of intelligence in approach.
Except the whole lead paragraph is about him and what he thinks the document says, and I'm asking what reason anyone would have for listening to him in the first place?
And why should people listen to you again? Hard for you to be so critical when you have zilch backing it up.
You've shown you're not a conspiracy theorist, so, yet again, your reasons for being here are dubious, at best. As an actual scientist, your complete lack of neutrality on the subject in a pretty good indication of why you are here.
I know some people like to push the lab leak theory, but if the outbreak was real they wouldn't be forced to do this.
Here's a link to the document. Read it and tell me why you think Dan Dicks is qualified to interpret it for you.
https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download
What page? I’m trying to find where it says they used the common cold
Beats me. It might be buried somewhere in al that technical jargon.
Tell me why you're qualified to interpret anything for us first.
Ah! Deflection! Nice try.
More to the point: why should you or I believe Dan Dicks can even read it, let alone interpret it? From what I see on the Internet he's just another schmoe. Why should anyone believe he can understand stuff like "The product contains oligonucleotide primers and dual-labeled hydrolysis probes (TaqMan®) and control material used in rRT-PCR for the in vitro qualitative detection of 2019-nCoV RNA in respiratory specimens."
Oh, it's not deflection, it's literally the root of your argument.
You are taking the superior position, with literally no justification. To top it off, a very casual look at your comment history makes it clear that you are a propagandist. That's the only qualification I see here.
So why are you on conspiracy again?
I see you're still avoiding the question. I'm not sure why I should answer any of yours if you won't answer the one I asked first.
I'll ask it again: why you think Dan Dicks is qualified to interpret that jargon-filled set of highly technical instructions, given that there's nothing about him that indicates he could understand it?
Nope, you are avoiding my question. You didn't ask me that question, you asked the forum.
Your purpose for being here is dubious. That is certain.
You're right.
And I asked what qualification you have. Pretty simple, really.
You can't expect people to speak for another, when you obviously can't speak for yourself.
Why should we think YOU can understand it?
Can't answer that, and there's absolutely no reason to trust a single thing you say.
Which I never will, given your horrendous attitude.
Nope, I asked why you are qualified.
Is there a link to the article?
Here's a copy of the article: https://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=364940
The author, Mike Adams, says he runs a lab and is suspicious because he can't get a sample of the virus - I wonder if they just hand those out to anyone who asks.
Furthermore he repeats the lie that the CDC's original test couldn't distinguish between covid and the flu: "CDC pulls its own fraudulent covid PCR testing protocol, implying it cannot differentiate between covid and influenza" while anyone who can read English can look at that CDC statement (https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dls/locs/2021/07-21-2021-lab-alert-Changes_CDC_RT-PCR_SARS-CoV-2_Testing_1.html) and see that it clearly states that the original test, the one they're setting aside, could detect only covid and nothing else, and that now there are single tests that can identify more than just covid.
Adams is relying on readers to take his word for it and not do their own research.
I note that while running this lab he also has time to manage 50+ other web sites and write over 2,000 articles for the one where where he sells health-related stuff. He is definitely "out there": https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/quackery/mike-adams-building-alternate-reality-online
Thanks!
So far I haven't heard from anyone who can tell me why they think Dan Dicks can read and interpret the FDA document that is the basis of OP's post.
When you look up Dan Dicks you don't get anything that says he's in a position to be able to read, understand, and critique a high-level instruction set for bio-molecular testing.
The only reference to him I can find on the Internet aside from Mike Adams' reference in OP's post is a small-time arrest at an anti-racism protest in Vancouver 14 months ago. If he has any background that would mean his opinion on CDC testing instructions actually counts for anything it seems to be well hidden.
So again I'm asking why anyone should think his opinion is worth anything?
Interesting that these shills have zero real personal concern about the virus and instead speak weirdly "objectively" about the most contagious variant ever.
Oh, this virus is gonna kill everybody? Let me calmly hyperlink 30 MSM articles and attack any other sources instead of building a bunker for the impending doom. It's interesting that they try to play on people's emotions, but lack the awareness to see that their own emotions should jive with the message they are trying to push.
OH, and it's not symbolism that is going to be their downfall. It's attitude, and really a lack of intelligence in approach.
Nice :-) Well done!
Except the whole lead paragraph is about him and what he thinks the document says, and I'm asking what reason anyone would have for listening to him in the first place?
And why should people listen to you again? Hard for you to be so critical when you have zilch backing it up.
You've shown you're not a conspiracy theorist, so, yet again, your reasons for being here are dubious, at best. As an actual scientist, your complete lack of neutrality on the subject in a pretty good indication of why you are here.
Apparently no one is. At least no one is choosing to tell me why Mr. Dick is worth listening to.
He certainly worth listening to more than you, that's for sure.
Why? He doesn't know what he's reading, apparently, and I haven't pretended that I do.
So how do you know he's wrong?
Hint, you don't.
Where does it say that?
You aren't here to talk about conspiracies, so....
Sure I am. What's the rationale for listening to one that comes from Mr. Dicks, who's not qualified to put one forward?
Wow, you are a broken record. Really don't bring anything to the table, do ya?