Godlike Productions - Discussion Forum
Users Online Now: 1,983 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 830,538
Pageviews Today: 1,121,767Threads Today: 305Posts Today: 4,819
09:35 AM


Back to Forum
Back to Forum
Back to Thread
Back to Thread
REPORT ABUSIVE REPLY
Message Subject COVID* STANDFORD MASK STUDY---Elsevier journal to retract widely debunked masks study whose author claimed a Stanford affiliation p345
Poster Handle NawtyBits
Post Content
So now they're including numbers from people that weren't tested but were diagnosed clinically. That means that up until now the deaths reported were based only on patients that tested positive, not the ones that just got sick and died without being tested or that were diagnosed by clinical observation only. This would account for the discrepancy between numbers of dead reported and the activity at crematoriums that suggest a much higher number of dead. Why are they changing the way they classify the infected, sick and dead now after a more than a month of under reporting the numbers? Do they know that it's a matter of time before we have serious outbreaks outside of China and they are trying to save a bit of face? And now we have reports that people can go as much as 24 days without symptoms, while infecting family and strangers.
 Quoting: KeepingItReal


this is the reason they are giving

Now the ability to detect viral nucleic acid is constantly improving, but the accuracy of different reagents is different. Not all patients can detect nucleic acid positive, so there are a lot of clinical symptoms in the history of epidemiology and contact history. It ’s also like, but patients whose nucleic acid has not been confirmed are now listed as suspected cases. I suggest that such patients in Wuhan should be classified as clinically diagnosed cases because the positive rate of nucleic acid for confirmed patients is only 30. % ~ 50%, so it is necessary to set the level of clinical diagnosis.


[link to m.news.cctv.com]
 
Please verify you're human:




Reason for reporting:







GLP