The CDC did not change the CT value for vaccinated only

Peatogenic

Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2017
Messages
746
As you will see on page 4, the directive to submit specimens with a 28 CT is under a specific byline addressing determining the lineage. It's not for determining positivity.

Haidut, who has lab experience, and whose products literally saved my life posted this and nobody needed verification. Other members reference this point repeatedly in testing discussions.

Why do I post this? It's not to create division (as my ex-cult that I escaped from accused me of). It's to show how misinformation is actually a real thing. And before anyone's cult brain kicks in, I want to be clear that I've verified a lot of corporate media talking points as being false. But I've also done the same for contrarian talking points.

I don't post this to delegitamize the info shared here, but this is a massive contrarian talking point in the coronavirus deception. And truth is important.
 

Attachments

  • cdc_105217_DS1.pdf
    171.9 KB · Views: 49

Peatful

Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
3,582
I haven’t seen the post in which you refer-what I have seen are the emails to nurse managers from hospital administration stating that the PCR thresholds will differ between the vaxxed and unvaxxed.

Looks like your data is from the CDC? In whom I place zero trust- and would believe the opposite actually of whatever is stated.
(I have not opened nor reviewed above said PDF)

And I do agree- data must be vetted.
 
OP
Peatogenic

Peatogenic

Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2017
Messages
746
That's always the goalpost move. Haidut et al have used a link to the CDC and articles about it, but when it's pointed out the CDC never stated such it's always:. Well, I don't trust the CDC.

The CDC may be doing it, *but the linked documents to verify it don't say such.*.
 

Peatful

Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
3,582
Reference:
 

Attachments

  • DC145701-59D4-41B9-AC81-886A3ABF4A61.png
    DC145701-59D4-41B9-AC81-886A3ABF4A61.png
    172.6 KB · Views: 38

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
As you will see on page 4, the directive to submit specimens with a 28 CT is under a specific byline addressing determining the lineage. It's not for determining positivity.

Haidut, who has lab experience, and whose products literally saved my life posted this and nobody needed verification. Other members reference this point repeatedly in testing discussions.

Why do I post this? It's not to create division (as my ex-cult that I escaped from accused me of). It's to show how misinformation is actually a real thing. And before anyone's cult brain kicks in, I want to be clear that I've verified a lot of corporate media talking points as being false. But I've also done the same for contrarian talking points.

I don't post this to delegitamize the info shared here, but this is a massive contrarian talking point in the coronavirus deception. And truth is important.

 

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
That's always the goalpost move. Haidut et al have used a link to the CDC and articles about it, but when it's pointed out the CDC never stated such it's always:. Well, I don't trust the CDC.

The CDC may be doing it, *but the linked documents to verify it don't say such.*.

Do you mind providing evidence as to where somebody challenged my post and my response was to move the goalpost and say "don't trust the CDC"?
 
OP
Peatogenic

Peatogenic

Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2017
Messages
746
Do you mind providing evidence as to where somebody challenged my post and my response was to move the goalpost and say "don't trust the CDC"?

I didn't really word that right. I meant that it's a common goal post move in general, not you. Even with people who support vaccines. They will reference the CDC and then when you reference the CDC and it goes against their narrative they question suddenly the reliability of the CDC.
 
I

i_nomad

Guest
I’m not sure what your point is…

…if they didn’t change it to 28 then it’s still 35+ for all tests and that will continue to result in mostly false positives. The inventor said if you use enough cycles you can find anything in anybody. Which is why he also stated that it shouldn’t be used as a diagnostic tool.

Besides, the bigger controversy is that in the document provided, it states it will not count as a breakthrough cases unless it has been 14 days past the final dose… and only if they’re hospitalized or dead. Since the vaccine allegedly reduces symptoms then this means the majority of cases will be reduced but still spreading… but count as unvaccinated regardless of status.
 
OP
Peatogenic

Peatogenic

Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2017
Messages
746
I’m not sure what your point is…

…if they didn’t change it to 28 then it’s still 35+ for all tests and that will continue to result in mostly false positives. (inventor said if you use enough cycles you can find anything in anybody).

Besides, the bigger controversy is that in the document provided, it states it will not count as a breakthrough cases unless it has been 14 days past the final dose… and only if they’re hospitalized or dead. Since the vaccine allegedly reduces symptoms then this means the majority of cases will be reduced but still spreading… but count as unvaccinated regardless of status.

The mind of this forum is astonishing. My post does not imply anywhere that testing has been accurate or that the other part about defining cases isn't fraudulent. I was only correcting one claim. It's like a virus here, and I've seen it from at least ten people where you make one claim and they feel the need to ascribe all these other things to me like I've violated some kind of rule.
 
I

i_nomad

Guest
The mind of this forum is astonishing. My post does not imply anywhere that testing has been accurate or that the other part about defining cases isn't fraudulent. I was only correcting one claim. It's like a virus here, and I've seen it from at least ten people where you make one claim and they feel the need to ascribe all these other things to me like I've violated some kind of rule.
I said…
I’m not sure what your point is…
As in, I’m not responding to anything directly because I’m… not sure. Which means, I didn’t infer anything specific from your post about your point nor your intentions.

I then proceeded to lay out what I saw as implications of this point you shared.

You sure have a chip on your shoulder… but with the tone and word choice I’m beginning to wonder if this is a self-ascribed “smartest guy in the room” sort of problem.
 
OP
Peatogenic

Peatogenic

Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2017
Messages
746
I said…

As in, I’m not responding to anything directly because I’m… not sure. Which means, I didn’t infer anything specific from your post about your point nor your intentions.

I then proceeded to lay out what I saw as implications of this point you shared.

You sure have a chip on your shoulder… but with the tone and word choice I’m beginning to wonder if this is a self-ascribed “smartest guy in the room” sort of problem.
Yes, the chip is what you admit to doing here - deriving a bunch of assumptions. And you're not in the minority here. It's a disturbing pattern.

I don't believe I'm the smartest guy in the room. I wouldn't even know what that means.

I never really last in groups, though, especially groups that have a lot invested in particular beliefs. Because I will invariably come right up against that and it's perceived as a threat.

My point was to correct a very common talking point here. That was literally my point. Does it bother you that I corrected the claim? Is it conceivable to you that I could know the testing is fraudulent, yet also make the correction I made? Does it seem strange to you that I could believe the CDC is corrupt, yet remove one of the talking points used in the case of their corruption?
 
I

i_nomad

Guest
I never really last in groups, though, especially groups that have a lot invested in particular beliefs. Because I will invariably come right up against that and it's perceived as a threat.
You realize that you’re describing the nature of humans since the dawn of time… right? I have to assume you’re not that naive, but in case you are… People form groups based on particular assumptions and beliefs about their understanding of the world. Some groups are receptive to interaction and learning new things which might change their world view… some are not. And when the disruptor is hostile and smug then all are less likely to engage nor, more importantly, to change.
My point was to correct a very common talking point here. That was literally my point. Does it bother you that I corrected the claim? Is it conceivable to you that I could know the testing is fraudulent, yet also make the correction I made? Does it seem strange to you that I could believe the CDC is corrupt, yet remove one of the talking points used in the case of their corruption?
Not going to engage this nonsense. Talk about the assuming pot calling the kettle black.
 
OP
Peatogenic

Peatogenic

Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2017
Messages
746
You realize that you’re describing the nature of humans since the dawn of time… right? I have to assume you’re not that naive, but in case you are… People form groups based on particular assumptions and beliefs about their understanding of the world. Some groups are receptive to interaction and learning new things which might change their world view… some are not. And when the disruptor is hostile and smug then all are less likely to engage nor, more importantly, to change.

Not going to engage this nonsense. Talk about the assuming pot calling the kettle black.

Yes, I'm aware of groups being a part of human nature. I'm just saying that I don't work well with groups, inevitably. I posted a simple concern yesterday and was met with condescension from a few group members. My goal is not to change the worldview of the group or its members, yet this morning I was met with condescension from a different member that flat out said my way of viewing the world was wrong and that I needed to change that.

You apparently had a reason to comment on this post. You didn't understand my point and then felt the need to educate me on things I already knew, which you apparently thought negated my post. You flat out assumed I thought the CDC wasn't that bad and then when I questioned if you thought that because you couldn't conceive of someone both believing the CDC to be fraudulent while correcting one of the claims of their fraudulence you say I'm assuming things about you. At this point, I think it is safe to assume that you couldn't conceive of that and are just now resorting to word games.
 
I

i_nomad

Guest
Yes, I'm aware of groups being a part of human nature. I'm just saying that I don't work well with groups, inevitably. I posted a simple concern yesterday and was met with condescension from a few group members. My goal is not to change the worldview of the group or its members, yet this morning I was met with condescension from a different member that flat out said my way of viewing the world was wrong and that I needed to change that.

You apparently had a reason to comment on this post. You didn't understand my point and then felt the need to educate me on things I already knew, which you apparently thought negated my post. You flat out assumed I thought the CDC wasn't that bad and then when I questioned if you thought that because you couldn't conceive of someone both believing the CDC to be fraudulent while correcting one of the claims of their fraudulence you say I'm assuming things about you. At this point, I think it is safe to assume that you couldn't conceive of that and are just now resorting to word games.
Maybe my responses haven’t been clear. Stating something isn’t necessarily an assumption. Sometimes it’s just conversational… maybe we can think of it as thinking out loud… in a group… to process information and see what the group thinks.

If your intention really is to just pop in and just state a fact to educate “people around here” because they’re so wrong… well, perhaps this is part of why you don’t do so well in groups.

Forums, like groups, are about conversing… not stating. Not every comment is a challenge nor a correction. Sometimes it’s just to establish common ground. Sometimes it’s just to catch others up should they be unaware of some of the context surrounding the points being made.

My frustration is toward your smugness and shoulder chip. Btw, smartest guy in the room refers to somebody who tends to feel inclined to educate others, because they feel they already know more than others and, subsequently, are unwilling to converse… they usually don’t do well in groups.
 
OP
Peatogenic

Peatogenic

Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2017
Messages
746
Maybe my responses haven’t been clear. Stating something isn’t necessarily an assumption. Sometimes it’s just conversational… maybe we can think of it as thinking out loud… in a group… to process information and see what the group thinks.

If your intention really is to just pop in and just state a fact to educate “people around here” because they’re so wrong… well, perhaps this is part of why you don’t do so well in groups.

Forums, like groups, are about conversing… not stating. Not every comment is a challenge nor a correction. Sometimes it’s just to establish common ground. Sometimes it’s just to catch others up should they be unaware of some of the context surrounding the points being made.

My frustration is toward your smugness and shoulder chip. Btw, smartest guy in the room refers to somebody who tends to feel inclined to educate others, because they feel they already know more than others and, subsequently, are unwilling to converse… they usually don’t do well in groups.

If you look through my post history, I would challenge you to find any posts where I just pop in to correct everyone. I know you need that image of me to justify your offense to the fact that I called out your inability to conceive (which you've still not responded to), but you won't find it.

I literally made a post yesterday *asking* for the expertise of others. Which devolved into a group think thing which I've already described to you. I also described to you someone literally trying to persuade me away from my way of thinking this morning. He said he was doing it out of love.

I'm sorry if it bothers you that I'm bothered by mass assumptions about my intent or beliefs. As I mentioned, you're just one in a long line here.

If I'm treated with rigid authoritarian tactics and smugness (assumptions about me or my beliefs just because I've broken a tiny piece of the narrative) and then word games when I call it out - all things I've encountered over the past two days, I will naturally get angry. That's the healthy response.
 

kyle

Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2016
Messages
399
Presumably, by requesting 28 ct data for the vaxxed, it would set a standard for the tests being performed in the first place. It also filters out what gets reported to the cdc.

"If a tree falls in the forest and no one around to hear it, did it make a sound?"
 
OP
Peatogenic

Peatogenic

Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2017
Messages
746
Presumably, by requesting 28 ct data for the vaxxed, it would set a standard for the tests being performed in the first place. It also filters out what gets reported to the cdc.

"If a tree falls in the forest and no one around to hear it, did it make a sound?"

Yes, haidut discussed this in his big PCR thread.
 

mariantos

Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2021
Messages
483
Brethren, the ego does not help us, it is true that we have different opinions and we can therefore disagree with each other, but let's not resort to divisive practices, because we are already divided by all possible means, we are constantly exposed to stress taking into account the current circumstances and not only, without accusing each other, without engaging in discussions that do not add value, but let us gently correct each other, if we really want to be mutual help between us, because otherwise, if we let our pride to be our guide, nothing good will come out of it and this is a truth.

It is an extensive experiment in progress, first of all we must be aware of this and not fall prey to the race that stretches us, this is probably the most elaborate attack on the human psyche, although apparently it seems to be an attack on the body.

Stay strong, firm, confident, do not add load to the weight that is placed on your back, but let's look for effective methods by which we can carry this weight and if possible, together.

My brother is just like me, prone to mistakes, if I give him reasons to crash, then there is a very high probability that he will do it and he will give me back the same revulsion I sowed and we get nowhere. There is no point in disturbing our peace unnecessarily.
 
OP
Peatogenic

Peatogenic

Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2017
Messages
746
Brethren, the ego does not help us, it is true that we have different opinions and we can therefore disagree with each other, but let's not resort to divisive practices, because we are already divided by all possible means, we are constantly exposed to stress taking into account the current circumstances and not only, without accusing each other, without engaging in discussions that do not add value, but let us gently correct each other, if we really want to be mutual help between us, because otherwise, if we let our pride to be our guide, nothing good will come out of it and this is a truth.

It is an extensive experiment in progress, first of all we must be aware of this and not fall prey to the race that stretches us, this is probably the most elaborate attack on the human psyche, although apparently it seems to be an attack on the body.

Stay strong, firm, confident, do not add load to the weight that is placed on your back, but let's look for effective methods by which we can carry this weight and if possible, together.

My brother is just like me, prone to mistakes, if I give him reasons to crash, then there is a very high probability that he will do it and he will give me back the same revulsion I sowed and we get nowhere. There is no point in disturbing our peace unnecessarily.

Pride is important for self protection. And while my attempt is not to be divisive, division is natural and healthy. It's not natural to be unified.
 
Back
Top Bottom