The problem is more fundamental. It was a nonsense test for a bullshit disease assumed to be caused by a fictitious virus. Nothing sensible will come out of that.
The part never discussed (probably because few actually understand anything about any of this) is that when creating a test of any kind, you already have to know what the right answer is to even begin to judge the accuracy of the test.
The "right answers" are loosely called the "gold standard", but in our NewSpeak the term has lost all meaning. They decline to actually define it, but it has come to mean "the best available". Is "the best available" a synonym for "correct"? No, of course not.
So if you don't have the correct answers, it's like handing a stack of college exams on differential equations to a whacked out homeless guy and asking him to grade them without an answer key. Telling him you just need pass/fail.
I'm confused because before lock-downs there was an analysis saying the virus was created by combining multiple dangerous virus'. Like HIV. Then AU gave people, " false HIV positive" during a vaccine trial.
Well, that's really part of the whole thing: if They can't get you to believe this or that particular lie, then They'll take you being confused about it. So there ends up being this tornado of partial truths and misdirections and flying cows and actual truths and girls named Dorothy swirling all around. You can't make any sense of it because none of it is attached to the ground and there is no sense to be made of it.
You'll never, ever get to the truth from analyzing anything in the mainstream, and even the alternative media and conspir-o-spheres are totally polluted, both intentionally and unintentionally. To describe the state of affairs, there's an old saying in mathematics: "Spot me one miracle and I can prove the rest." How far will you get when you miss the "one miracle" and study "the rest"? Not too far, IMHO.
Let me give you an example: with the "PCR test" that everyone talked about endlessly, the inventor of PCR, Kary Mullis, said repeatedly not to use it as a test because you'll be able to find anything. He was entirely correct.
I studied PCR back in college and it's just a copying machine for DNA. That's it. It takes a tiny sample and makes copies so you can then have enough for testing or whatever other purpose.
So thinking of it in any way as a "test" was complete nonsense, and that was one of the miracles everyone spotted them. But every time they mentioned it on TV, it sounded to me like someone saying, "Well, even if you don't feel sick, you've got a deadly disease. My HP LaserJet says so. Irrefutable proof!"
Another miracle they got spotted was "HIV causes AIDS". Never demonstrated. Never. Another fake disease, other things mislabeled and misattributed. So then the test you mentioned, which I also heard about, is just confusion cubed, impossible to unsnarl. (Not that there is no knowledge to be had from that factoid, but we're so far from proper interpretation and correct placement in the framework it ain't even funny. Or maybe it is.)
Is this because the test was never designed for how it's being used?
The problem is more fundamental. It was a nonsense test for a bullshit disease assumed to be caused by a fictitious virus. Nothing sensible will come out of that.
The part never discussed (probably because few actually understand anything about any of this) is that when creating a test of any kind, you already have to know what the right answer is to even begin to judge the accuracy of the test.
The "right answers" are loosely called the "gold standard", but in our NewSpeak the term has lost all meaning. They decline to actually define it, but it has come to mean "the best available". Is "the best available" a synonym for "correct"? No, of course not.
So if you don't have the correct answers, it's like handing a stack of college exams on differential equations to a whacked out homeless guy and asking him to grade them without an answer key. Telling him you just need pass/fail.
Will what you get back be meaningful?
I'm confused because before lock-downs there was an analysis saying the virus was created by combining multiple dangerous virus'. Like HIV. Then AU gave people, " false HIV positive" during a vaccine trial.
Well, that's really part of the whole thing: if They can't get you to believe this or that particular lie, then They'll take you being confused about it. So there ends up being this tornado of partial truths and misdirections and flying cows and actual truths and girls named Dorothy swirling all around. You can't make any sense of it because none of it is attached to the ground and there is no sense to be made of it.
You'll never, ever get to the truth from analyzing anything in the mainstream, and even the alternative media and conspir-o-spheres are totally polluted, both intentionally and unintentionally. To describe the state of affairs, there's an old saying in mathematics: "Spot me one miracle and I can prove the rest." How far will you get when you miss the "one miracle" and study "the rest"? Not too far, IMHO.
Let me give you an example: with the "PCR test" that everyone talked about endlessly, the inventor of PCR, Kary Mullis, said repeatedly not to use it as a test because you'll be able to find anything. He was entirely correct.
I studied PCR back in college and it's just a copying machine for DNA. That's it. It takes a tiny sample and makes copies so you can then have enough for testing or whatever other purpose.
So thinking of it in any way as a "test" was complete nonsense, and that was one of the miracles everyone spotted them. But every time they mentioned it on TV, it sounded to me like someone saying, "Well, even if you don't feel sick, you've got a deadly disease. My HP LaserJet says so. Irrefutable proof!"
Another miracle they got spotted was "HIV causes AIDS". Never demonstrated. Never. Another fake disease, other things mislabeled and misattributed. So then the test you mentioned, which I also heard about, is just confusion cubed, impossible to unsnarl. (Not that there is no knowledge to be had from that factoid, but we're so far from proper interpretation and correct placement in the framework it ain't even funny. Or maybe it is.)
The confusion is their favorite imo. It's how they keep plausible deniability.
Yeah, that was Chinese propaganda to get support for lockdowns.
It was not Chinese people doing the study. It was material Axo posted that was removed from Reddit.
I don't remember enough other then for it to bother me. I would prefer to reread the articles I read before I say more then bring up the curiosity.