On Sat, 4 Sep 2021 12:33:25 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<
cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Saturday, September 4, 2021 at 9:26:20 AM UTC-7,
jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sat, 4 Sep 2021 07:51:22 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie <
jbeat...@msn.com>
>> wrote:
>> >On Friday, September 3, 2021 at 11:38:27 PM UTC-7,
jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 3 Sep 2021 14:27:19 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>> >> <
cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Here is the actual testing that you could have found found yourself, but you much prefer your false beliefs:
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-1342?fbclid=IwAR1arBfDNIfUrfr1rn4C44Nuekv0b8LbtC94JbCP5on-TuRlHCm532xwSzU&
>> >> This article has been retracted. See Notice of Retraction.
>> >> <
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/L20-0745>
>>
>> >It was rejected in other respects early on as noted in the comments. Its also a year old, which is a lifetime with COVID-related public health research. The most recent data indicates mask-use slows community spread. Masks are not perfect or 100% effective, and neither is most PPE.
>> >-- Jay Beattie.
>> I read some of the reader comments. The big problems were that the
>> study was centered around a tiny test population of four patients. In
>> the Table, much of the data appeared as ND (no data). The findings
>> had little to do with the tests conducted. The procedures used were
>> badly described or missing. In a subsequent posting, the authors
>> somewhat agreed with the retraction, but then offered to perform
>> damage control by reporting additional test results, presumably in the
>> same manner.
>>
>> My guess(tm) is that Tom didn't read the article or either missed or
>> ignored the retraction.
>
>Apparently you cannot read - they got POSITIVE transmission detectable on a petri dish.
Out of a population of 4 patients. I suggest you read re-read the
"Methods and Findings" section and show me where it says something
about transmission. What they more likely got was positive
contamination to a petri dish with an unknown number of Covid-19
patients in a closed (negative pressure) room.
However, if you believe the results, I just flipped a coin. It came up
heads 3 out of 4 times. I can therefore conclude that heads are more
likely than tails by a ratio of 3:1.
>They CANNOT retract the results because of complaints that the test didn't have a larger group.
But the publishers did retract the report. They can do so because of
insufficient sample, vague methodology description, a creative
conclusion, and failure to understand the LOD (limit of detection) of
the reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction, something which
you are allegedly familiar with having working with the inventor of
the PCR technique. As I recall, Dr Mulligan warned against using his
PCR technique as a virus test due to the problem of amplifying both
the virus and any associated errors. Oddly, you didn't mention that
in reference to the report you cited. Did you really read the report
that you cited?
"Notice of Retraction: Effectiveness of Surgical and Cotton Masks in
Blocking SARS-CoV-2"
<
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/L20-0745>
See 2nd paragraph.
>I will ask you again Jeff. What have you ever done in the medical field?
I've done nothing in medical the medical field, unless you consider
reading far too many medical research papers trying to deal with my
own medical problems qualifies. Also, helping with research into the
biological effects of RF (radio frequencies) on various animals.
Please inform the assembled multitudes what my medical research
experience has to do with the publishers of medical research
retracting the publication of a report containing procedural,
statistics, and analytical deficiencies? Are you suggesting that only
a person with experience in medical research can understand such
reports? Are you an elitist?
>How many patients did you sit there and interview while they were dying in an effort to attempt to find the cause of their illness so that we could STOP it?
Zero. However, since you are apparently immune to Covid-19 by virtue
of your support of ideas which claim that "it's nothing but a bad
flu", I assume that you volunteered to interview patients. Thank you
for your service.
>You and Frank are in exactly the same boat, you have a fist full of criticisms from a position of nothing.
Well, you are entitled to an opinion, even if it's wrong. It would
seem that you don't share that entitlement with others who have
different positions.
--
Jeff Liebermann
je...@cruzio.com
PO Box 272
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS
831-336-2558