monkyyy.science

taglines are spooks

invisible pcr dragons

“A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage”

Suppose (I’m following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you’d want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

“Show me,” you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle–but no dragon.

“Where’s the dragon?” you ask.

“Oh, she’s right here,” I reply, waving vaguely. “I neglected to mention that she’s an invisible dragon.”

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon’s footprints.

“Good idea,” I say, “but this dragon floats in the air.”

Then you’ll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

“Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless.”

You’ll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

“Good idea, but she’s an incorporeal dragon and the paint won’t stick.”

And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won’t work.

-Carl Sagan

When someone answers a reasonable suggested test by explaining a complexity of the theory predicting the result the same as if their theory was full of shit, they are “invisible dragoning”. While others likely won’t take this as far as me I’m quite willing to say it’s good evidence your lying, either to me or yourself.

If someone knows god won’t answer prayers for a million dollars or saving grandma or messing with the result of coin flips; one must wonder why they believe God answers prayers. I’m willing to accept they are lying to themselves, their ego is saying gods exist while their animal brain is holding onto physicalism understanding it’s for the social reality.

Anyway, I’m willing to treat this as evidence someone is full of shit.

The CDC guidelines for testing vaccinated vs unvaccinated people are different.

Fascinating.

My take away from that source is that “PCR” is being simplified to a true or false when it used to be an int, and the tests are different protocols. I’m not exactly sure what “running a PCR” exactly means, but from the source, I got the numbers from PCR-28 means the DNA was bred 28 times and PCR-40 means 40 times and this should be treated as exponential. I don’t know what coefficient for a breeding of DNA is, but exponential math here applies, if it’s 2 the difference between 40-28=12, 2 ^12 power is 4096; meaning this test could easily be 4096x less sensitive for a vaccinated person. It could be 10 and be 1 trillion, it could be 1.3; I don’t know, but that’s sus.

So I will be assuming that the CDC expects a real fair test would be unflattering to their goals; this could range from the vaccines being 90% effective to the new variants, or that they did breed the varients with narrow immunity; very hard to say, but the CDC is acting as if something like this is true; I wonder what they know that isn’t public.

I wonder if by 2030 a scientist is regarded as dishonest as a lawyer. Never quite lying but someone practiced in jargon to always manipulated the truth.