4 ms·

People were spreading misinformation about the link. Just to be clear, there is no recall. The test is not defective. The test can be used through the end of th

People were spreading misinformation about the link. Just to be clear, there is no recall. The test is not defective. The test can be used through the end of the year. The CDC recommends using tests that can detect flu as well as COVID. The current PCR test from the CDC does not detect flu at all, or other coronaviruses. The test is very specific. See pages 40 on in the Instructions for Use[1] if you are interested. The test sequences were compared (by computer) to hundreds of thousands of genomes of flu, the human genome, and other organisms, as well as tested on physical specimens. [1] https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download#page=41 https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download#page=41 Here is a sample of messages that were shared on Reddit: > The FDA announced today that the CDC PCR test for COVID-19 has failed its full review. Emergency Use Authorization has been REVOKED. The FRAUDULENT PCR Test has finally been ruled a Class I Recall. This is the most serious type of recall. All measurements based on PCR Testing should come to an end ASAP: > CDC retracts PCR test as it can't differentiate between COVID and the flu. It was all a Lie. > CDC pulls PCR tests because they can’t distinguish Covid from the flu. We finally caught the SOBs who have lied to us about the coronavirus numbers the last year. > The Pandemic narrative is unravelling... The FDA announced today that the CDC PCR test for COVID-19 has failed its full review. Emergency Use Authorization has been REVOKED. It is a Class I recall. The most serious type of recall. Too many false POSITIVES. This is the test that started the pandemic! > CDC to Withdraw Emergency Use Authorization for PCR Test Because It Cannot Distinguish Between SARS-CoV-2 and the Flu. > Watch the panicked minority bombard the comments with establishment talking points to try and refute this tweet.. PCR is being rescinded as a test, vaccinated people are filling hospitals, and our government officials are still urging us to get tested using PCR and get jabbed with the Covid vaccines. Alrighty then.

Terretta 5y ago
This was beautiful, reading the actual text first, and only then the hot takes. Thanks for that collection.
dathinab 5y ago
There are people which distribute false information which use extreamly clever highly manipulative methods which more often then not show a clear understanding of the matter in question. And I feel that it's a degree of understanding of both the topic and method about how to subtitle manipulate people that I think they themself should be clearly aware about them spreading false information. One method often used is to take some "official" article, paper, etc. which is not targeting a general-public audience but a audience of people with specialized knowledge and then twist what it supposedly says and spread it to people which in general do not have this specialized knowledge but where they know that with the given combination of pre-feed misinformation and non-understanding of the content and complex language/terminology their targets will see it as proof for the false information. Even if it might proof the exact opposite. Examples include: - this link - a case where two very different statistics of the CDC (from different sources) used the same "label name" for a graph with similar but very different data - cases of studies showing that e.g. some vaccine is not perfect in some very specific situations being taking as proof that it's not working at all - same for tests etc. - court cases won due to formalities being taken as proof that vaccines don't work (e.g. anti-vaccer creating a bounty for a proof of them being wrong but intentionally formulating the requirement for the bounty submissions subtle in a way that no submission is ever valid for submission and as such they won the court case about not paying out the money, even through the submission proofed them wrong) A commonly used fallacy of the mind is that people jump from "this solution is not perfect" to "this solution MUST be replaced" to "a solution which is perceived to be the opposite is therefore true". Like "this test has wrong results in rare cases" => "this test can not be trusted at all" => "all tests of this kind are untranslatable" => "there is no need to test because all tests are fake anyway" => "covid doesn't exists". As a side not I have seen that kind of thinking to often in IT too like: "this library turned out imperfect once we knew more about it" => "we must replace this library" => "this other library which used the imperfection of the first library in it's advertisements but of which we don't know anything about is correct and must be used". I believe it's of upmost importance to improve science to general-public communications and argument all kinds of reports, articles and papers with a section targeting the general public. As well as rehabilitating state organs which are focused on providing easy understandable content and explanations, while being vowed (by law required) to objectivity and transparency and making it highly punished for politicians, other state organs or well any kind of institution trying to influence it.
neither_color 5y ago
If more fact checkers wrote like you I'd take them more seriously.

Terretta 5y ago

This was beautiful, reading the actual text first, and only then the hot takes. Thanks for that collection.

dathinab 5y ago

There are people which distribute false information which use extreamly clever highly manipulative methods which more often then not show a clear understanding of the matter in question. And I feel that it's a degree of understanding of both the topic and method about how to subtitle manipulate people that I think they themself should be clearly aware about them spreading false information. One method often used is to take some "official" article, paper, etc. which is not targeting a general-public audience but a audience of people with specialized knowledge and then twist what it supposedly says and spread it to people which in general do not have this specialized knowledge but where they know that with the given combination of pre-feed misinformation and non-understanding of the content and complex language/terminology their targets will see it as proof for the false information. Even if it might proof the exact opposite. Examples include: - this link - a case where two very different statistics of the CDC (from different sources) used the same "label name" for a graph with similar but very different data - cases of studies showing that e.g. some vaccine is not perfect in some very specific situations being taking as proof that it's not working at all - same for tests etc. - court cases won due to formalities being taken as proof that vaccines don't work (e.g. anti-vaccer creating a bounty for a proof of them being wrong but intentionally formulating the requirement for the bounty submissions subtle in a way that no submission is ever valid for submission and as such they won the court case about not paying out the money, even through the submission proofed them wrong) A commonly used fallacy of the mind is that people jump from "this solution is not perfect" to "this solution MUST be replaced" to "a solution which is perceived to be the opposite is therefore true". Like "this test has wrong results in rare cases" => "this test can not be trusted at all" => "all tests of this kind are untranslatable" => "there is no need to test because all tests are fake anyway" => "covid doesn't exists". As a side not I have seen that kind of thinking to often in IT too like: "this library turned out imperfect once we knew more about it" => "we must replace this library" => "this other library which used the imperfection of the first library in it's advertisements but of which we don't know anything about is correct and must be used". I believe it's of upmost importance to improve science to general-public communications and argument all kinds of reports, articles and papers with a section targeting the general public. As well as rehabilitating state organs which are focused on providing easy understandable content and explanations, while being vowed (by law required) to objectivity and transparency and making it highly punished for politicians, other state organs or well any kind of institution trying to influence it.

neither_color 5y ago

If more fact checkers wrote like you I'd take them more seriously.