https://www.bitchute.com/video/GA2mHSbta6cn/

From Dec 2019. Five months before the end of the first trials. Very old news, wouldn't you say?

Since then there have been 4.41 billion vaccine shots delivered. They have the statistics now, and the vaccines are safer than getting the virus.

you are in no position to talk about someone's qualifications. You have none.

Exactly. And neither does Dan Dicks. So why would anybody listen to him either?

Reuters lie.

Nope. If you believe the majority of politicians, healthcare workers, and media professionals are either outright lying to you or too dumb to know they're being played - millions of people, globally - then I guess rather than you I'm talking to anyone who might be reading our comments.

Nobody I know personally, internet or otherwise, ever contracted this "deadly disease"

Congratulations. Chances are you're not a bot.

"Human beings are notoriously poor at evaluating risk, particularly when the threat in question is more abstract, or when numbers are involved." (https://www.inquirer.com/health/coronavirus/covid19-know-someone-died-empathy-risk-perception-trump-20201012.html)

I expected a better insult from you.

I don't mind being a disappointment in that regard.

Since we're making predictions I'm guessing that if you get the virus first you'll disappear from here, and then you'll be one of those infected people we read about who regrets not getting vaxxed. If everyone around you is lucky none of them will get it.

Or will you be one of the ones who gets vaxxed in secret?

I stand corrected. Mike Adams and TheOxOnRocks say Mike has a lab. That's two.

Interestingly TheOxOnRocks recommends Mike Adams' dubious nutritional products, just like several hundred of Mike Adams' other web sites. Lotsa lead in your protein powder? No problem, says Mike. (https://cleanlabelproject.org/blog-post/addressing-mike-adams-the-fraud-ranger/)

Reuters lie.

Says you. So far I'm not convinced. Got anything else?

because the virus itself does not exist

.... says someone no one knows. Possibly a Russian troll, or maybe some poor stressed-out soul drowning in their own paranoia.

On the other hand: https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-cdc-idUSKBN27633R

Adams owns and runs a multimillion dollar lab

So he says. I can't find anyone else who says that. Feel free to try. Anyone who is curious about him and his operation might want to read this: https://www.isdglobal.org/isd-publications/investigating-natural-news/

I note that his lab's web site (https://cwclabs.com/About.html) hasn't bothered to update their expired certification: ISO/IEC 17025:2005. (https://www.iso.org/standard/39883.html)

You sound like you take your Maserati to the gas station.

Why?

So how do you know he's wrong?

I asked first. What makes you - or anyone - think he has any chance at all of being right?

If you haven't heard of these two yet (Mike Adams - as Natural News - and Judy Mikovits) search for them on wikipedia.org and start wading through the links at the bottom, in the references section.

They remind me of that guy from the north eastern states who loaded up with generators just after the Hurricane Katrina crisis and got busted for gouging when he tried to sell them down there for obscene profits.

He certainly worth listening to more than you, that's for sure.

Why? He doesn't know what he's reading, apparently, and I haven't pretended that I do.

cast aspersion for someone

If they have no qualifications then their opinion on the matter doesn't count for anything. Are you gonna take your Maserati to the local gas station when it starts acting up? It doesn't mean you don't respect the guys who work there.

Don't know why you have a hard on for Dicks (just wanted to get that pun in there)

Nice :-) Well done!

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.

Is that not the point of this board?

Where does it say that?

I asked first. I didn't notice anything in the rules that said posters to this group would have to go through an interview in order to get an answer after asking a question.

And why should people listen to you again?

Apparently no one is. At least no one is choosing to tell me why Mr. Dick is worth listening to.

he barely qualifies for the post

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?

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?

You didn't ask me that question, you asked the forum.

You're right.

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 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

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."