Good Q. It's also worth nothing that this is a 3-year contract for all of England, so the cost isn't necessarily out of the ballpark.
That's USA Today though. Even the NBC article linked in this is the same that I linked above. It looks like USA Today misquoted NBC, then Malone took that quote as granted without actually checking to see if NBC said it.
Do you see an unnamed government official in your article? No? Think it might be from a different NBC source? Do you think NBC might have more than one article?
I think it's more likely that Robert Malone is misquoting NBC. Especially given that I've just supplied you with an article that directly contradicts his statements.
Right, I posted the NBC link because that's where this all started from. I'm sorry that upsets you. Do your due diligence next time.
The source is Robert Malone on War Room. Robert Malone said that an NBC article included information that titers are higher in vaccinated.
Right, this is wrong.
Then he ("Robert Malone on War Room") gave the interpretation listed in the other bullet points.
The interpretation of? You guessed it! The NBC Article's information that titers are higher in the vaccinated, which (as we have established) was wrong. Guess what happens when you interpret incorrect data? Bingo, you get a wrong interpretation.
This is like fifth grade shit mate.
I agree with your analysis. My main point is that there's nothing in the article to support the OP's claims that:
titres are HIGHER in vaccinated
worst case event that vaccinologists dread
antibody dependent enhancement means vaccines are making the situation WORSE
vaccine makes the disease worse
they seem to be unable to process this new information, causing cognitive dissonance
increasingly frantic in their decision making and messaging
Not really. My point is if I can debunk your argument with 10 seconds of googling, it’s probably a shit argument.
I mean, all I had to do is read the Wikipedia page on the hoax-paper experiment to learn that it didn’t cover a single medical journal.
The NBC Article this is allegedly pulled from supports none of your bullets
Back to the main point?
The main point here has nothing to do with the vaccine or masks. You asked why asymptomatic people were being tested, I said:
asymptomatic hosts can still spread COVID-19
You then linked a local news channel source that mentioned nothing about asymptomatic cases. When I gave you two medical journals that proved my point, you cited (1) a hoax-paper experiment that did not include medical journals, and (2) some conclusory statements about "faulty data" and me making an assumption that "smart people can't be fooled."
You have yet to actually support any of your points. Even your attempts to attack JAMA/PNAS missed the mark entirely. Don't get me wrong — there are valid reasons to attack the journals and the studies in them; PNAS especially has been known to publish some theory-intensive stuff in the workplace-equality field. However, my experience has been that the hard-science publications in these journals are fairly reliable.
Again, I would sincerely appreciate if you can give me sources to support your claims. I'm not saying your claims are wrong, but you have to support them with more than broad, conclusory statements.
Not really sure why you guys keep quoting Lindsay and Pluckrose, especially given that they did not submit to any medical journals, let alone JAMA or PNAS.
The problem is that you are basing your assumption that people are overall good natured and smart people can't be fooled.
Ah yes, I forgot that the great scholars of conspiracies.win — with such intellectual predictions as Biden won't become president and Trump's attorneys have Epstein — have debunked world-renown, peer-reviewed medical journals that researched everything from bandages to modern antibiotics. All without actually offering any peer-reviewed studies of their own. Golly.
JAMA and PNAS — i.e., the peer-reviewed medical journals that have lead medical development since the 20th century, including alerting people to radiation poisoning from atomic weapons, eradicating small pox, and documenting hidden government experiments on the civilian population — want to crush all resistance?
Bruh. You’re just looking for any ad hominem you can make, and even that isn’t working.
Idk man, I’m not the one circle jerking a forum that has been continuously wrong about its theories since the election.
Here’s more info on WGS, if you’d actually care to learn how it works. TLDR: The CDC receives a sample batch of individual test results from states and conducts WGS to extrapolate variance presence because (no shit) it would be impossible to do that for every single COVID test.