I am american, but to be honest I don't quite know exactly what Q-Anon even is - I just never cared to read up on it I guess As far as covid stuff I was basica

I am american, but to be honest I don't quite know exactly what Q-Anon even is - I just never cared to read up on it I guess As far as covid stuff I was basically unemployed for the first three months of the pandemic (only having a small workload) so I got super interested in reading white papers etc. you wouldn't believe the amount of absolutely terrible science that got pushed through the peer review process during covid. In another thread I detail a study someone used as evidence to support their opinion on asymptomatic thread. The study was a model where they chose 75% asymptomatic spread relative to symptomatic spread for their model - the model unsurprisingly found asymp. spread to be roughly the same as symp. spread IIRC - now where did that 75% come from? I came from three studies they cite....2 of those 3 studies they cite do not have anything resembling the number they came up with. In one of the citations it was so bewilderingly wrong I can only conclude they cited the wrong study or they just made the number up entirely. Back to the topic of PCR - I've seen zero literature to date that suggests a PCR with a CT>40 is beneficial. Further we have many studies that show false positives are absurdly high for many viruses well before CT40 So for someone to claim it's reasonable to use CT40, I believe the burden is on them to prove it since all literature I've seen suggests otherwise. here's the garbage study: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2774707 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...