# SK: 91 Recovered COVID-19 Patients Positive Again



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

Interesting. I am sure that China "programed" the virus to "reactivate."



> There's been growing concern that patients who previously tested positive for COVID-19 and eventually recovered could actually 'relapse' or also be 'reinfected' for the virus, after prior reports out of China suggested this could be possible.
> 
> Disease experts have speculated over the nightmare possibility, but now the World Health Organization (WHO) is looking into nearly one hundred cases in South Korea which may be instances of just this feared scenario.
> 
> "South Korean officials on Friday reported 91 patients thought cleared of the new coronavirus had tested positive again," Reuters reports. "Jeong Eun-kyeong, director of the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, told a briefing that the virus may have been reactivated rather than the patients being re-infected."


https://www.zerohedge.com/health/who-investigating-nearly-100-recovered-covid-19-patients-tested-positive-again


----------



## 23897 (Apr 18, 2017)

RedLion said:


> Interesting. I am sure that China "programed" the virus to "reactivate."
> 
> https://www.zerohedge.com/health/who-investigating-nearly-100-recovered-covid-19-patients-tested-positive-again


110 testing positive for reactivated virus today. 
Though the test has high sensitivity it may not have specificity.

http://m.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20200412000213

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

fangfarrier said:


> 110 testing positive for reactivated virus today.
> Though the test has high sensitivity it may not have specificity.
> 
> Over 110 people retest positive for coronavirus: authorities
> ...


 And in their race to test , who can say they first test were right. Oh the experts again.


----------



## stevekozak (Oct 4, 2015)

I am sure we are all going to die from it and then reanimate so we can get it again and subsequently die from it.

SO SAYETH:


----------



## 23897 (Apr 18, 2017)

Smitty901 said:


> And in their race to test , who can say they first test were right. Oh the experts again.


Mate. Do you understand the difference between sensitive tests and selective tests?? Obviously not. Let me explain.

Sensitivity vs selectivity.

Sensitivity measures how often a test correctly generates a positive result for people who have the condition that's being tested for (also known as the "true positive" rate). A test that's highly sensitive will flag almost everyone who has the disease and not generate many false-negative results. 
(Example: a test with 90% sensitivity will correctly return a positive result for 90% of people who have the disease, but will return a negative result - a false-negative - for 10% of the people who have the disease and should have tested positive.
Or:
I have a test which finds stupid people. I have 100 stupid people, my test tells me that there are only 90 stupid people in that group. It INCORRECTLY identifies 10 people as not stupid, this time. )

Specificity measures a test's ability to correctly generate a negative result for people who don't have the condition that's being tested for (also known as the "true negative" rate). A high-specificity test will correctly rule out almost everyone who doesn't have the disease and won't generate many false-positive results. (Example: a test with 90% specificity will correctly return a negative result for 90% of people who don't have the disease, but will return a positive result - a false-positive - for 10% of the people who don't have the disease and should have tested negative.
OR 
I have 100 clever people. I test them all for stupidity. My test tells me there are 10 stupid people in the group, this time. )

Tests CANNOT be both highly sensitive AND highly selective.

This is applying the SAME test to ask TWO different questions. It won't give you your "truth".

This report tells us, at best, we are using the wrong tests for the data we need.

Honestly, your idea of "truth" and your label of "expert" are simplistic at best and childish at the extreme. 
Leave the scaremongering to the journalists and the science to the scientific community. 
The beauty about science is it changes as the information changes. What we believe on Friday may not be what we believe on Monday. That's how science works. We tell you our best HYPOTHESIS on the information we have and as that changes we change our minds until we have a theory that sticks and lasts the test of time. When we're wrong, scientists admit it WHEN GIVEN BETTER DATA. 
(OR before I believed I had a group of 100 stupid people, given better data I find that 20 of them don't speak English. Given the new data I now know my group is not 100 stupid people but 99 stupid people and 1 brain surgeon who couldn't answer the test because it was in English. My results [100 stupid people] is incorrect, statistically insignificant and invalid. I change my thinking.

Can you change yours?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

fangfarrier said:


> Mate. Do you understand the difference between sensitive tests and selective tests?? Obviously not. Let me explain.
> 
> Sensitivity vs selectivity.
> 
> ...


No it means they are collecting numbers and have no real idea if they prove or mean anything. So they attach what ever value they wish. So in the end everything they tried to claim was BS anyway.
Kind of like 2 years ago when they said I had cancer. 100% done deal. Well it turned out I did not. Test often only tell people what they want them to say and are then used to support an agenda.
So Not as dumb as you think. They have been feeding us a lot of carp from day one on this virus. Each day they come up with another line of bull.
We would all be better off if they just shut up until they do know something.


----------



## 23897 (Apr 18, 2017)

Smitty901 said:


> No it means they are collecting numbers and have no real idea if they prove or mean anything. So they attach what ever value they wish. So in the end everything they tried to claim was BS anyway.


You've just described science...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

fangfarrier said:


> You've just described science...
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


 So most that claim to be expert in science are just making it up as they go. So we are back to Global cool .warming , change. Agenda supported by fake science . Welcome to the world we live in.


----------



## 23897 (Apr 18, 2017)

Smitty901 said:


> So most that claim to be expert in science are just making it up as they go. So we are back to Global cool .warming , change. Agenda supported by fake science . Welcome to the world we live in.


You have to understand something:
There is no truth. 
There is only an approximation to it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

fangfarrier said:


> You have to understand something:
> There is no truth.
> There is only an approximation to it.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


 No there flat out misrepresentation aka lies by people that have an agenda. WHO that one word of truth has come out of them.


----------



## 23897 (Apr 18, 2017)

Smitty901 said:


> No there flat out misrepresentation aka lies by people that have an agenda. WHO that one word of truth has come out of them.


There is no truth. Lies are often different interpretations of the reality.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

fangfarrier said:


> There is no truth. Lies are often different interpretations of the reality.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


 So then why do we repeat their lies and give the creditably. Instead we should call then out.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Smitty901 said:


> So then why do we repeat their lies and give the creditably. Instead we should call then out.


Call them out. If I say 3+3=7, anyone beyond kindergarten could call me out on my erroneous adding. In the case of KungFlu, what do you know to be close to the truth?


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Denton said:


> Call them out. If I say 3+3=7, anyone beyond kindergarten could call me out on my erroneous adding. In the case of KungFlu, what do you know to be close to the truth?


 With so much BS out there who knows. We know it started in China. it may or may not have been a result of China lab work. We know it kills. But not everyone. We know it is being used as a tool to promote several agendas . we know there is little that comes out of experts we can bank on. They have proven that over and over.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Smitty901 said:


> With so much BS out there who knows. We know it started in China. it may or may not have been a result of China lab work. We know it kills. But not everyone. We know it is being used as a tool to promote several agendas . we know there is little that comes out of experts we can bank on. They have proven that over and over.


I read an article this morning, explaining how the bat DNA is from bats not from the Wuhan area but an area in China that is a far distance. Worse yet, the U.S. government has given many millions to the lab in Wuhan where it is suspected that the virus was released.

Research also indicates that the virus leaves some men impotent. Bill Gates comes to my mind, as does the Georgia Guidestone


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Denton said:


> I read an article this morning, explaining how the bat DNA is from bats not from the Wuhan area but an area in China that is a far distance. Worse yet, the U.S. government has given many millions to the lab in Wuhan where it is suspected that the virus was released.
> 
> Research also indicates that the virus leaves some men impotent. Bill Gates comes to my mind, as does the Georgia Guidestone


 Sad part is the minds and education of those that can really figure a lot of this out has been tainted. They are so caught up in the PC and other BS of the last 60 years they do not know how to be honest.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

I'm more concerned with whether we know the right time to test.
Let's assume a person *IS* infected. (my scenario, my rules)
They get tested 2 days after infection, 4 days after, 6 days after, and 8 days after.
Will ALL of the tests show the same result?

I'll refer back to my buddy, the fireman. He was tested 3 days after exposure. His test came back negative. Is this trustworthy? Should he have been tested 5 days after instead?
This is what I don't know, and the information I feel is lacking in the public realm.
Most people are only going to get tested after they show symptoms. If symptoms are apparent, the infection has established itself enough for the testing to be reliable. But what of asymptomatic people?
@fangfarrier
Can you shed some light on this for us lay-people?

(thanks for the description of the selectivity vs. sensitivity testing)


----------



## 23897 (Apr 18, 2017)

@Kauboy I'll try.

Testing.

Your fireman friend. He gets exposed to the virus by coming into contact with the virus. We decide to test him. 
First test is negative. Our test in this example has a 90% sensitivity. Has he got it? If he had it our test would tell us that he is positive for 10% of the time when he hasn't. That's not what we are looking for. The fact that he tested negative means we have to look at the selectivity of the test. The selectivity of the test is (say) 50% (it's not but it will make this example more understandable). Like labour, you can have cheap and fast, cheap and easy, or easy and fast: you can't have all three, with tests you can have good sensitivity or good selectivity. Very few tests are good in both categories (we'll define good later). Anyway, 50%. So half the time you haven't got the virus the test will be correct. Is that terrible? No. Like flipping a coin. The coin has two faces. Let's use a modified US quarter. In reality we have a coin with a head on one side and a bat on the other. If you don't have the virus your coin has two heads, if you have the virus your coin has two bats. 
I flick the coin and it lands. The test reports that the coin lands heads up. You don't see the coin, the test tells you how the coin lands. A negative test result. Have I got the virus? Well off one test I'm 50% sure I am virus free. So I do the test again the next day. It's heads again according to the test. I'm 75% sure now. Another day, another test, I'm negative again. 87.5% sure. Another day, another test, another negative. I'm now 93.75% sure the next test is negative and I'm now 96.875% sure - above 95% is usually where we draw the line and call it statistically significant. I'm virus free. 
Now 50% is a terrible selectivity rate for a test.

Now the good news. We define a good test as 95% (or better) accuracy. The tests that have been developed have a sensitivity rate of 100%. They nail that virus every time and only the virus (I can try and explain why if you want). It also has a selectivity of 91.7%. This means two consecutive tests give a 99.3% chance of being correct - statistically significant.

Your fireman friend does not have coronavirus at the time he was tested.

Does that help?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 23897 (Apr 18, 2017)

Now @Kauboy

The next part.

He got tested three days, should it have been five?

We have a novel virus. That means that there was nobody who had an immune response to fight the disease. If you got the virus, it replicates and spreads inside you. It is found in the nose and throat. It is found in blood, faeces and urine in only 50% of those with symptoms so those tests are no good. 
We are not testing for the body's response to the virus (antibody test) because they are only going to work after about two weeks. That's too slow (but when a cheap, working version of that test comes out it will be useful to screen the population to see who has had it thus telling us the real extent of the disease and this will lower our fatality rate hopefully). 
The test we use is PCR - polymerase chain reaction. (WHAT????). It's like a photocopier. We take a swab. We only need a tiny amount of viri on the swab. Maybe even one virus. We then put it in the PCR. It has a chain reaction to "photocopy" and multiply the genetic sequence of the virus. So it it finds the virus, it copies bits of it so there is a whole bucketful of material. The bits we look for are the E protein (E is for envelope- the "shell" of the virus protecting the virus' "guts") and the N proteins (Nucleocapsid proteins - the wrapper for the genetic material which will hijack a human cell and make it a virus factory instead; the N protein also acts as a doorman stopping the human cells interferon [these are signals to surrounding cells that scream "I'm infected!! Protect yourselves!!] from working). Now we have two very very particular patterns (proteins) we are looking for that are found in absolutely nothing else on Earth. If you trigger both parts of this test you have SARS-CoV-2, coronavirus. 100%. Because we only need a tiny tiny amount we can test early. This is why the selectivity is lower. Big swab. Big area where the virus is but it is still possible to swab an area that has not been infected (silly example, both left side and right side of the throat/nose is infected but we swabbed the middle).

Back to the question. Three days or five days. 
95% of those who will show signs and symptoms will show, on average, by day 5.1. 97.5% show by day 14. That's no good to us. The period between getting the virus band showing symptoms is called the incubation period. You're building up the levels of virus in your body until you show signs and symptoms of the disease (the disease is called CoVid19, the virus is SARS-CoV-2). During incubation you spread the disease. We are not only testing for people who will develop the disease but also those who are spreading the virus. So testing at day 5 means you had 5 days to spread it but there is loads of genetic material in your throat/nose to swab. Testing at day 3 means you have less time to spread it but a slightly less chance of collecting genetic material to test. Testing at day 1, less chance to spread, more chance to miss with the swab. 
Day three seems about right.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 23897 (Apr 18, 2017)

Smitty901 said:


> So most that claim to be expert in science are just making it up as they go. So we are back to Global cool .warming , change. Agenda supported by fake science . Welcome to the world we live in.


Yes. Sort of. 
Here's how it works. We'll use your global warming/ climate change as an example. 
Two researchers, Ali and Bev, what to see if humans cause a change in climate. Both researchers like not to live on the streets and to eat regularly. They need to be be paid. They are paid directly or indirectly by research grants. Who gives these research grants? Big corporations, governments or private individuals. They decide who gets the money. 
So Ali and Bev bid for the money. Ali says I want to see if humans cause the climate change, Bev says I want to see if the climate change is caused by humans. Both are asking the same question. Or are they? Who gets the money. Ali is focusing slightly different approaches to the research than Bev. There is possibly bias in there already. Already money will flow to one faster than the other. 
So let's say they both ask the same question: what causes climate change. Already there is an assumption that the climate changes AND there is a cause (that can be measured & therefore managed). Interesting. Now who gets the money. Well the more prestigious and reputable the research institute is the more likely it is to attract funds. How does a research institute become prestigious and reputable? By publishing their research. How do you get work published? You write it up and submit is to a journal. The journal takes your paper and sends it to several other leading researchers who pick holes in your work looking for flaws or biases. They then send you corrections, you correct your work and it may get published. Each Journal has an "impact factor " the bigger the number the greater the kudos. But what if the editorial board all agreed on what is the truth? Ali says humans cause climate change, Bev says it's not humans. The journal is running papers saying Humans are the cause. Who's work gets published?
Hence we get massive bias (have a look for the University of East Anglia Climate scandal and how that was later spun to be ok).

So science is messy. Science is political. It shouldn't be. It is. Sometimes people stick to the pure science and the world is better for it (Salk, Tesla, Curie, Pasteur) but look at how many times politics and business drive the agenda and ruin lives ( the two first mass produced drugs were an headache cure and a cough suppressant- Aspirin and Heroin).

But truth is not simple. Once you understand truth you understand how messy the world is. Go and have a look at ontology and epistemology and you'll start to realise how the world works. Think about this: does mankind cultivate wheat or does wheat cultivate mankind. You'll tell me that it is the former. The farmer grows the wheat. Easy. But think about this. The wheat's purpose in life is to grow strong, live disease and pest free, die and pass on its genetic material, to breed. The farmer plants the seeds, looks after the plant the plant grows, dies and some of its seed is eaten. Some is replanted. The wheat lives another generation. It doesn't have to do anything. The farmer dies after spending all his life looking after the wheat. He will probably toil day and night to ensure that the wheat is healthy. He may even have children that he teaches how to look after the wheat. When the farmer dies his body will provide nutrients to the soil. The wheat benefits from nutritious soil. Now. What is farming what?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 23897 (Apr 18, 2017)

Denton said:


> Call them out. If I say 3+3=7, anyone beyond kindergarten could call me out on my erroneous adding. In the case of KungFlu, what do you know to be close to the truth?


You are right. 3+3 does not = 7. Why? Because we say so. 
But if I said 1+1= 10, am I wrong or do I have a different base to work from?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

@fangfarrier
You succeeded.

I've not seen an explanation such as yours anywhere. Thank you for taking the time to write those lengthy replies to what I thought were simple questions. I now know they were not so simple.
I watched the "NinjaNerd" video posted here a few weeks ago, and it went deep into how the virus causes the disease, and it's replication function. So I'm on board with how you described what the test is looking for. (shell and guts)
It does sound like 3 days *should* be enough time to allow the infection to spread sufficiently to get a good swab. 5 days would increase the chance, but also increase the time allowed to spread without informing the patient to self-quarantine.
A balancing act, for sure.

Thanks again. Very enlightening.


----------



## 23897 (Apr 18, 2017)

Kauboy said:


> @fangfarrier
> You succeeded.
> 
> I've not seen an explanation such as yours anywhere. Thank you for taking the time to write those lengthy replies to what I thought were simple questions. I now know they were not so simple.
> ...


You are very welcome, Sir.


----------



## OrneryOldBat (Feb 10, 2017)

S. Korea was reporting 7K+ recovered at the same time the 91 reoccurring positives were reported. My guess was testing error. Thanks fangfarrier for the in-depth explanation.


----------



## Green Lilly (Nov 8, 2018)

fangfarrier said:


> 110 testing positive for reactivated virus today.
> Though the test has high sensitivity it may not have specificity.
> 
> Over 110 people retest positive for coronavirus: authorities
> ...


Hi @fangfarrier Just wanted to say thanks for the thorough explanations regarding testing on this thread. I had a question that I thought you might have some insight on. I have heard that there are now 30+ variants of this virus floating around. Will the tests that are currently out there pick up all of them and show a positive or are the tests only able to pick up the original strain? Not sure how the tests work in that regard. Thanks!


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 12, 2014)

@fangfarrier is one smart hombre and we are lucky he shares his knowledge base with us here.

Huzzah for Sir Fang!

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## RadioPrepper (Feb 2, 2020)

The reason is that the test does not actually test for COVID specifically. That would be too complex. It is testing for genetic material like exosomes which are released during any type of infection. It's a scam to bring in NWO. The londonreal David Icke interview details this. I don't agree with Icke on everything, but he's right on a number of things that I double checked for myself.


----------



## 23897 (Apr 18, 2017)

RadioPrepper said:


> The reason is that the test does not actually test for COVID specifically. That would be too complex. It is testing for genetic material like exosomes which are released during any type of infection. It's a scam to bring in NWO. The londonreal David Icke interview details this. I don't agree with Icke on everything, but he's right on a number of things that I double checked for myself.


Well I can't say I agree with the above. 
Let's go through it:



RadioPrepper said:


> The reason is that the test does not actually test for COVID specifically..


Well, yes. Covid-19 is the disease. SARS-CoV-2 is the virus. The test is for the virus.



RadioPrepper said:


> It is testing for genetic material like exosomes which are released during any type of infection.


Can you tell me more about the test not testing for CoVid but for exosomes please? Please could you define exosomes for me?



RadioPrepper said:


> It's a scam to bring in NWO. The londonreal David Icke interview details this.


Details or hypothesised?



RadioPrepper said:


> I don't agree with Icke on everything, but he's right on a number of things that I double checked for myself.


Could you reference your sources from which you double-checked, was please?

Regards

Fang

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 23897 (Apr 18, 2017)

Green Lilly said:


> Hi @fangfarrier Just wanted to say thanks for the thorough explanations regarding testing on this thread. I had a question that I thought you might have some insight on. I have heard that there are now 30+ variants of this virus floating around. Will the tests that are currently out there pick up all of them and show a positive or are the tests only able to pick up the original strain? Not sure how the tests work in that regard. Thanks!


Hi @Green Lilly.

I'm sorry for the delay in replying but I had to do some research. 30+ variants is a figure I've seen too but it's really hard to pinpoint peer-reviewed research on this. Depending on what mutated, what part of the virus that changes will answer the test question. 
If we are testing for the capsule/envelope and the spike but the mutations don't change that bit then our tests and vaccines will probably still work. If it changes the spikes then the disease may not be able to infect humans; if it changes the envelope then the virus may not be viable.
I'm sorry, but I don't feel I can answer your question well enough as for now I don't know enough yet.

Yours

Fang

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

fangfarrier said:


> You are right. 3+3 does not = 7. Why? Because we say so.
> But if I said 1+1= 10, am I wrong or do I have a different base to work from?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


No 3+3 does not equal 7 because we say so it does because it does How any feels about has nothing to do with fact
If you say 1+1 = 10 you are wrong period. That is a big problem we have today with many thing. Your personal view has nothing to do with fact.
There is little confidence that early test were correct. We live in an agenda driven society. Numbers are fudged to fit the agenda. we are being be coned now jacking the numbers up using new test then claiming infections are on the rise. When they are really just counting people they never knew were infected. But it fits the agenda and gives them numbers the average person would not question.
Drug use deaths are down. Last year 70,000+ OD this year 60,000. But look into it. 10 to 15,000 saved by narcan. So is the drug use down ? NO but it fits an agenda. Crime is down 11% in Milwaukee. They failed to mention they stopped taking police reports.


----------



## 23897 (Apr 18, 2017)

Smitty901 said:


> No 3+3 does not equal 7 because we say so it does because it does How any feels about has nothing to do with fact
> If you say 1+1 = 10 you are wrong period. That is a big problem we have today with many thing. Your personal view has nothing to do with fact.
> There is little confidence that early test were correct. We live in an agenda driven society. Numbers are fudged to fit the agenda. we are being be coned now jacking the numbers up using new test then claiming infections are on the rise. When they are really just counting people they never knew were infected. But it fits the agenda and gives them numbers the average person would not question.
> Drug use deaths are down. Last year 70,000+ OD this year 60,000. But look into it. 10 to 15,000 saved by narcan. So is the drug use down ? NO but it fits an agenda. Crime is down 11% in Milwaukee. They failed to mention they stopped taking police reports.


Dear @Smitty901. 
Thank you. Thank you, you proved my point elegantly.



Smitty901 said:


> No 3+3 does not equal 7 because we say so it does because it does How any feels about has nothing to do with fact


"It does because it does" - indeed it does because we SAY it does. It is a man made counting system. If, tens of thousands of years ago we had put the word/figure 9 where 7/seven is then you would tell me it equals 9 because it says it does.



Smitty901 said:


> If you say 1+1 = 10 you are wrong period. That is a big problem we have today with many thing. Your personal view has nothing to do with fact.


My dear friend again you prove my point. My personal view is not the problem, yours is. You see, ask an school child what 1+1 is in binary and they will tell you 10 ( there are 10 types of people, those who understand binary and those who don't. ) Here, *your* personal view is that everything is in base 10. Mine wasn't. Here, again, your personal view is factually incorrect.(notice the use of the word base in my statement to give you a clue?). You could not see a fact from another point of view. You live in a positivist paradigm (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism) (you think your viewpoint is fact). Then, just when I fear you don't "get it" you "get it"! Yes. Figures are misleading. Yes, they are cherry-picked. Yes, they fit an agenda. You proved that by berating me for 1+1=10. You didn't stop to see it from any viewpoint but your own. Next you'll counter me with the "no true Scotsman " argument (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman )and we'll just agree to differ. You seem to have opened your eyes, now open your mind.

Yours

Fang

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

fangfarrier said:


> Dear @Smitty901.
> Thank you. Thank you, you proved my point elegantly.
> 
> "It does because it does" - indeed it does because we SAY it does. It is a man made counting system. If, tens of thousands of years ago we had put the word/figure 9 where 7/seven is then you would tell me it equals 9 because it says it does.
> ...


 1=1 is 2 no liberal double talk will change that. We are being played with this virus and that is a clear fact


----------



## 23897 (Apr 18, 2017)

Smitty901 said:


> 1=1 is 2 no liberal double talk will change that. We are being played with this virus and that is a clear fact


Yes. It's 2 because we say it is 2. For now. This virus is being taken advantage of is another way of putting it too.

Although.....

Let x=y. Then

x - y + y = y

x - y + y y
--------- = ---
x-y x-y

x-y y y
-- + -- = --
x-y x-y x-y

y y
1 + --- = ---
x-y x-y

1 = 0

Now we know that 1 = 1, so add the following three equations together:

1 = 0
+
1 = 1
+
1 = 1

On the right is 1+1, and on the left is 3 ones, and 3 ones make 3. So 1+1=3

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

fangfarrier said:


> Yes. It's 2 because we say it is 2. For now. This virus is being taken advantage of is another way of putting it too.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


 And the world is not round, if you want to think it is flat then it is flat. The moderate will say it is roundish flat. We are lied to everyday. After 3 years some truth is coming out about the FBI , but we will never know how far it really goes. But even with all the evidence, they still are sticking to the agenda.
The virus is real but it is used as a tool. Think for your yourself don't be played. The entire system is agenda driven Not much is going to change that. Political correct business can remain out, others are closed. Courts decide cases on felling not law. welcome to the new world.


----------



## RadioPrepper (Feb 2, 2020)

“What we’re seeing with some of these rapid antigen tests is that they will miss up to four out of ten positive patients when they test,” said Dr. Pritt. “So, four patients will get a negative result when they are indeed actually positive.”

So there is a huge accuracy problem. In addition, another doctor said that the antigens do not appear until several weeks after infection. The PCR test appears to be more accurate at about 80% (based on what reference test - no idea how they got that).

Despite these problems, I am still unable to find the information Icke was talking about claiming they are not testing for the actual genetic material of the virus. Maybe he's just plain making it up. Not sure how much I trust him at this point cause he has made stuff up in the past.

Regardless, corona is a tool for the NWO. ID2020, Agenda 2030, Event 201, Bill Gates/Fauci funding china lab. Chinese stealing viruses from Canadian and US lab. Bill Gate's vaccine agenda. The fact he wants to reduce world population. The sterilization agents found in his vaccines. There's just too much info pointing to NWO. The lockdowns are a test to see how the populace will react to the situation.
The lockdowns were said to be for flattening the curve, but they did not claim that it would reduce the total infections (they actually said the amount would be the same regardless). The idea was to not let hospitals get overwhelmed. That has clearly been accomplished given that most hospitals are empty right now, yet they still have not lifted the lockdowns in many places. This indicates it is purely about control. If they crash the world economy, it makes it much easier for them to initiate the NWO.
I still don't believe Trump is part of the Deep state, but there may be a possibility.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

RadioPrepper said:


> "What we're seeing with some of these rapid antigen tests is that they will miss up to four out of ten positive patients when they test," said Dr. Pritt. "So, four patients will get a negative result when they are indeed actually positive."
> 
> So there is a huge accuracy problem. In addition, another doctor said that the antigens do not appear until several weeks after infection. The PCR test appears to be more accurate at about 80% (based on what reference test - no idea how they got that).
> 
> ...


 Yes. The test are maybe the best we have but they are not always right. To say people are being reinfected when you can not prove they ever were is a crime . You can say we think but at the same time expose the faults in the testing.


----------



## Mad Trapper (Feb 12, 2014)

fangfarrier said:


> Yes. It's 2 because we say it is 2. For now. This virus is being taken advantage of is another way of putting it too.
> 
> Although.....
> 
> ...


Some of that is incorrect, or poorly written, to describe the equations.

Use parentheses to clarify your operations, keep 1 equation on one line, so you can follow communicative and distributive operations

eg

x = y

x-y =0

x-y X yy = 0 X (yy) =0 one of the incorrect above......


----------



## 23897 (Apr 18, 2017)

Let x=y. Then 

x - y + y = y

(x-y+y)/(x-y)= y/(x-y)

(x-y)/(x-y) +y/(x-y) = y/(x-y)

1+y/(x-y)=y/(x-y)


1= y/(x-y)-y(x-y)

1=0

Now we know that 1 = 1, so add the following three equations together:

1 = 0
+
1 = 1
+
1 = 1

On the right is 1+1, and on the left is 3 ones, and 3 ones make 3. So 1+1=3

I know it's a mathematical phallacy - it is because we define the rules as such or it doesn't work. Hence we are working within a prescriptive framework. 

(I'm aware infinity makes this go haywire)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

fangfarrier said:


> Let x=y. Then
> 
> x - y + y = y
> 
> ...


 No you just make it up to fit the current agenda. If we stop calling red, red and call it yellow in time some will think it is yellow. Some because they don't know any better, some because they just like to a pain in the neck others because they think they will profit by confusing others. In the end they are still wrong. In the end Red is still red.
When the dust settles COV19 will have been and may continue to be dangerous. just as dangerous is how much we were played . The out right lies, the misrepresentation. The power grabs in the name of safety and security. 
Look where the most deaths are happening. The narrow it down even more with in those places. Even the blind can see there is a pattern. 1 big one is people are not meant to be stacked on top of each other. They do not belong crowed on the peoples bus or trains. They should not be warehoused in nursing homes and retirement prisons. 
All about agenda and nothing else.


----------



## 23897 (Apr 18, 2017)

@Smitty901

I give up

You are right.

There is no other option other than your way.

Sorry I tried to make you think.

Carry on.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

fangfarrier said:


> @Smitty901
> 
> I give up
> 
> ...


 You just like to make things up to fit the game you are playing. Leave a few words out add a few. That does not work with me. Play it straight look at the facts and the truth not the spin. You have an agenda and will never stop pushing it. Facts be dammed.
The place between what we know and don't know allows those like you to fill in the blanks with what ever you wish. By doing so influencing other to join you in the misrepresentation .


----------

