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?
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.
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?
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.
Where does it say that?