Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

surtur

Members
  • Posts

    2,867
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

5,918 profile views

surtur's Achievements

Canucks Regular

Canucks Regular (7/14)

1.1k

Reputation

  1. I have friends who work in our local hospital two are doctors, three are nurses and only one of them a nurse believes this is an issue and she doesn't work with "covid" cases. you sum it up perfectly when you say your dad is too scared to get surgery "fear" is going to kill more than the virus ever could. a close friend has recently been diagnosed with prostate cancer has about 3 months to live was too afraid to go see a doctor since April and will now die because it is too advanced. I think you need to look up the meaning of sarcasm because nothing I am saying falls in that category. links are available through the CDC website and through the links I have previously provided months ago.
  2. your looking at the wrong numbers excess deaths are up significantly due to O.D deaths and Suicides in 2020 not a bad cold but they will lie about the cause. something people should be looking at is the medical malpractice deaths 200k- 400k annually, how nice to have Covid as a cover for your incompetence. Basically a free pass, a get out of jail free card to cover your mistakes just say Covid who can disagree with you?.
  3. Not sure where you live but we have always had people in the hallways etc in our hospital .... that is until this pandemic now the hallways are empty? hmmm.
  4. No they didn't. Now that the year is over look at the CDC total deaths for 2020 and compare them to the last decade and please share what you find. Hint I was 100% correct months ago (long before the John Hopkins data came out that was removed because it didn't fit the narrative) when I said the death rate in the US is on pace to be exactly where it would have been without Covid. you have all been had and you are still eating up everything they are feeding you open your eyes.
  5. How? they actually cause people to take less precautions and spread viruses more than no mask and social distancing. You know what else can cause death ? eating are you going to stop making/buying your family food because how would you feel if someone choked and died?
  6. I am only showing the downfall of the PCR test being used to determine a positive case.
  7. As per actual science a positive PCR test is not a conclusive result to be able to claim a positive viral infection on its own.
  8. It shows that 71.1% of the samples taken were of an inactive virus, a non threat. If this exact experiment was expanded to a grander scale the results would be similar give or take a few percentage points. based on that Turner (depending on if and when he had symptoms) his test results unless it was 2-4 day after onset of symptoms (the highest probability period of having an active virus), means he is most likely not spreading an active virus. the Protocols in place are not based on science they are based on the lowest risk factor to being sued if something happens.
  9. So what you are saying is because they suggest needing more studies that this one doesn't count? you do know that small sample sizes are used to predict large scale results all the time and is a predictive indicator of what a larger sample size would see give or take a few percentage points in either direction. also the article I "picked" is a legitimate study based on real science. sorry it wasn't from the credible first page of a google search that your used to.
  10. So you mean that when all this started the "few" cases they determined were the result of a deadly virus was enough to conclude an epidemic was imminent but a small sample size to determine the validity of the test results to detect an active viral load are to be dismissed? sounds good got it. the fact is this is not the first test done to determine if the PCR test is a viable test to know if an active viral load is present.
  11. The point I was making was in the effectiveness in the PCR test and why it needs to be cautioned when it is the only result used to determine a positive case. The small sample size was proof enough that what I am saying about the PCR test is correct as far as detecting inactive viral loads. The fact that the study determined that the PCR test will detect both active and inactive versions of a virus.
  12. Oh I hear myself loud and clear. What is so difficult to understand? A positive PCR test does not mean active viral load. (PCR can not and will not be able to tell the difference between an active virus vs non active hence its infectibility) but yes they can detect very small amounts of a virus rather well. Please prove me wrong with factual science. here is a link to the Bullard study done in Manitoba, some light reading for you. https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa638/5842165 "Reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) has become the primary method to diagnose viral diseases, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). RT-PCR detects RNA, not infectious virus" "Ninety RT-PCR SARS-CoV-2–positive samples were incubated on Vero cells. Twenty-six samples (28.9%) demonstrated viral growth." If he was having symptoms then he shouldn't have been around the team even prior to a test.
  13. Testing healthy people when there is zero scientific evidence that asymptomatic hosts even have an active virus is pointless, that is the problem with PCR tests they need to be used in conjunction with symptoms. The detection of non viable viral loads just tells you that there are trace elements of the virus in the host and that is all. If he is coughing all over his teammates then its scientifically a problem.
×
×
  • Create New...