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?
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
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?