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.
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, 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!