It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

CDC quietly changes testing guidelines to exclude people with no symptoms

page: 9
22
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2020 @ 09:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: muzzleflash

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: muzzleflash
a reply to: Liquesence

No you get your own material.

You don't copy me good enough to meet my standards or criteria for emulation.


You find that data to support your BS claim yet?

Asking for a friend.


I dont have a BS claim.

I try to stick to rationality as best as possible.

I have plenty to support my valid claims...
I post it pretty often.
You could learn tons going back to read all of it.


Your BS claim is that the common cold kills so many more people.

Yet you can't source your claim or provide data. Imagine that.




posted on Aug, 26 2020 @ 09:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: muzzleflash

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: muzzleflash

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: muzzleflash

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: muzzleflash




Here I brought evidence of no evidence and he thinks I needed evidence to prove it.

Incorrect.

All you have done is reject evidence.




What evidence did I reject?

Presented Here

One example.


Already been addressed.


So how's that data coming along?


Posted it like 20 times over the last couple months.

So I'm finished supplying it before this argument began.


Then it won't kill ya to provide it here, now, for the 21st time.

Unless you don't have it. And unless you're fos. Which is it?


I provided it.
Click my name
Click posts
Go back to January
Read everything in any covid thread.

Fully provided a complete book on the topic complete with reasoning and official science documents.



posted on Aug, 26 2020 @ 09:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: muzzleflash

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: muzzleflash

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: muzzleflash

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: muzzleflash

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: muzzleflash




Here I brought evidence of no evidence and he thinks I needed evidence to prove it.

Incorrect.

All you have done is reject evidence.




What evidence did I reject?

Presented Here

One example.


Already been addressed.


So how's that data coming along?


Posted it like 20 times over the last couple months.

So I'm finished supplying it before this argument began.


Then it won't kill ya to provide it here, now, for the 21st time.

Unless you don't have it. And unless you're fos. Which is it?


I provided it.
Click my name
Click posts
Go back to January
Read everything in any covid thread.

Fully provided a complete book on the topic complete with reasoning and official science documents.


So you can't provide it, but "read my book."

Which means you're fos that you can't provide one. single. link to data to support your BS claim.

Gotcha.



posted on Aug, 26 2020 @ 09:51 PM
link   
a reply to: muzzleflash




Read everything in any covid thread.


Unreasonable position.

Essentially saying, "Do your own research."

Surely you have links, charts. Data at your fingertips.
edit on 8/26/2020 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2020 @ 10:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Fine.

Here's an example of how surprisingly deadly the common cold is, but Im giving crumbs here so we'll start with the most common virus responsible for the cold - the rhinovirus.

Which is actually less deadly than corona, the 2nd most common virus that causes the cold.

common cold kills tons of ppl

Will add quotes in a sec my browser is glitching hold on...



posted on Aug, 26 2020 @ 10:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage


Among high-risk patients with cancer, rhinovirus infections are often fatal. In a study of 22 immunocompromised blood and marrow transplant recipients who were hospitalized with rhinovirus infections, 7 (32%) developed fatal pneumonia.43 The remaining patients had infections confined to the upper respiratory tract. In 6 of the 7 fatal cases, rhinovirus had been isolated in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid or an endotracheal aspirate before death.

In another study, rhinovirus was responsible for 25% of community-acquired VRIs among bone marrow transplant recipients.44 The investigators found that pneumonia occurred much more commonly among patients infected with respiratory syncytial virus or parainfluenza than among those with rhinovirus.

Nevertheless, these studies show that rhinovirus infections cause considerable pulmonary morbidity and mortality in high-risk patients with cancer.




posted on Aug, 26 2020 @ 10:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

It says "often" fatal to those with certain preexisting conditions.

That's the opposite of what ppl believed.



posted on Aug, 26 2020 @ 10:12 PM
link   
I'm a lil offended tho that we go thru this BS weekly, I link some # and then next we'll do this all over again because y'all are in complete denial.



posted on Aug, 26 2020 @ 10:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: muzzleflash

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: muzzleflash

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: muzzleflash

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: muzzleflash

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: muzzleflash




Here I brought evidence of no evidence and he thinks I needed evidence to prove it.

Incorrect.

All you have done is reject evidence.




What evidence did I reject?

Presented Here

One example.


Already been addressed.


So how's that data coming along?


Posted it like 20 times over the last couple months.

So I'm finished supplying it before this argument began.


Then it won't kill ya to provide it here, now, for the 21st time.

Unless you don't have it. And unless you're fos. Which is it?


I provided it.
Click my name
Click posts
Go back to January
Read everything in any covid thread.

Fully provided a complete book on the topic complete with reasoning and official science documents.


So you can't provide it, but "read my book."

Which means you're fos that you can't provide one. single. link to data to support your BS claim.

Gotcha.


Actually I have tons of sources but I honestly wanted to know if you were truly seeking knowledge or if you'd rather have a petty meaningless back and forth.

It took 1 second to Google that link.
1 second dude.

How much time did we waste tonight hmmm?



posted on Aug, 26 2020 @ 10:15 PM
link   
a reply to: muzzleflash

Your quotes will say that Rhinoviruses can be deadly for some people.

There are no overall death statistics provided in that source but it does say this:

In 1996, the common cold was responsible for almost 20 million days of missed work, 22 million days of missed school, and 27 million physician visits in the United States.7 A more recent article by Gonzales et al8 reported that 76 million visits were made to primary care providers in 1998 for acute respiratory tract infections. Moreover, upper respiratory tract infections are the most common reason for inappropriate antibiotic use in children and adults, contributing to the emergence of resistant bacterial strains.8-1



It says "often" fatal to those with certain preexisting conditions.
Yeah.

Among high-risk patients with cancer, rhinovirus infections are often fatal. In a study of 22 immunocompromised blood and marrow transplant recipients who were hospitalized with rhinovirus infections, 7 (32%) developed fatal pneumonia.


Were there a lot blood and marrow transplants in New York this year? A lot more immunosuppresents being used? Is that what accounts for the excess deaths?
edit on 8/26/2020 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2020 @ 10:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

All I had to do was prove death is common.
Cuz Liq claimed it wasn't common.

I'm not concerned with your vague statistic that doesnt explain anything.

It's a correlation but that doesn't prove causation.
Cmon Phage.



posted on Aug, 26 2020 @ 10:27 PM
link   
I'm just insulted that you guys have been around me this long and yet you still doubted me....



posted on Aug, 26 2020 @ 10:29 PM
link   
a reply to: muzzleflash




All I had to do was prove death is common.

So, you were talking about a select sample of 22 people?

In a study of 22 immunocompromised blood and marrow transplant recipients who were hospitalized with rhinovirus infections, 7 (32%) developed fatal pneumonia.


edit on 8/26/2020 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2020 @ 10:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: muzzleflash




All I had to do was prove death is common.

You have not done so.

In a study of 22 immunocompromised blood and marrow transplant recipients who were hospitalized with rhinovirus infections, 7 developed fatal pneumonia.




That's nearly 30% fatality rate for that condition.
Huge % for death rate on a common cold.

Y'all were like the cold doesn't kill hardly anyone...



posted on Aug, 26 2020 @ 10:32 PM
link   
a reply to: muzzleflash




That's nearly 30% fatality rate for that condition.


32% of 22 people who had been hospitalized.

7 people is not a lot.

edit on 8/26/2020 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2020 @ 10:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I'm talking about the human race.

Let's go back to your link and insinuation that Covid caused more death than normal.

Correlation does not imply Causation


In statistics, the phrase "correlation does not imply causation" refers to the inability to legitimately deduce a cause-and-effect relationship between two variables solely on the basis of an observed association or correlation between them.[1][2] The idea that "correlation implies causation" is an example of a questionable-cause logical fallacy, in which two events occurring together are taken to have established a cause-and-effect relationship. This fallacy is also known by the Latin phrase cum hoc ergo propter hoc ("with this, therefore because of this").


So why imply such things from correlation alone?
edit on 8/26/2020 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2020 @ 10:34 PM
link   
a reply to: muzzleflash




I'm talking about the human race.


A very few members of the human race have had blood or marrow transplants, relatively speaking.

Even fewer of them have been hospitalized because of a cold.

edit on 8/26/2020 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2020 @ 10:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: muzzleflash




I'm talking about the human race.


A very few members of the human race have had blood or marrow transplants, relatively speaking.

Even fewer of them have been hospitalized because of a cold.


It said the fatality rate was high in cancer patients. Marrow transplants were an example of that.

There are many examples.
This is 1 link out of thousands...



posted on Aug, 26 2020 @ 10:38 PM
link   
a reply to: muzzleflash




It said the fatality rate was high in cancer patients.

No it didn't. It refers to a specific group.
edit on 8/26/2020 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2020 @ 10:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

So only data I provide is viable?
No one else will do? Not even you?

Thanks for the compliment.
Now watch this




top topics



 
22
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join