So by your logic your saying pcr test etc etc that have been used to test for covid 19 wont be able to differentiate from previous corona virusesCovid -19 is a variant / mutation of a Corona virus that has been around since 2003. Hence many people will have anti-bodies against that 2003 corona virus, these antibodies will be very similar to those antibodies specific to the covid-19 virus. They may be so similar that testing cannot differentiate between 2003 antibodies and 2019 antibodies .
So by your logic your saying pcr test etc etc that have been used to test for covid 19 wont be able to differentiate from previous corona viruses
Quite.makes a change for you not having the ability to read what has been put
You don't know the difference between a PCR test and an antibody test. Pipe down in the dunces chair.I guess it doesnt suit the head in the sand brigade in here when a guy who takes his time to check stuff and not to be censored by youtube etc presents a peer reviewed paper with facts and figures
yeah and an anti body test is far more accurate so glad your agreeing that it was present well before they said it was now take that thumb out your ass .You don't know the difference between a PCR test and an antibody test. Pipe down in the dunces chair.
You really don't understand any of this do you.yeah and an anti body test is far more accurate so glad your agreeing that it was present well before they said it was now take that thumb out your ass .
guess you struggled with what bernard was thinking
No, that's not what's being said.and neither does "his" logic say what you said.So by your logic your saying pcr test etc etc that have been used to test for covid 19 wont be able to differentiate from previous corona viruses
Again. it's not what you're trying to believe it is. The report doesn't say what you think. It doesn't say what he says either.I guess it doesnt suit the head in the sand brigade in here when a guy who takes his time to check stuff and not to be censored by youtube etc presents a peer reviewed paper with facts and figures
Wrong again. You really haven't got a clue.yeah and an anti body test is far more accurate so glad your agreeing that it was present well before they said it was now take that thumb out your ass .
guess you struggled with what bernard was thinking
Wrong again. You're too - er - careless, to get anything right or read or hear the the words right.Loving it yous are disagreeing with a video of a guying confirming covid but think he is wrong because he says it was there 6 months before you all think it was there
Who is he? What qualifications and experience ?Loving it yous are disagreeing with a video of a guying confirming covid but think he is wrong because he says it was there 6 months before you all think it was there
No, that's not what's being said.and neither does "his" logic say what you said.
Yes it is read what he put
Again. it's not what you're trying to believe it is. The report doesn't say what you think. It doesn't say what he says either.
Bear in mind this youtube blogger makes things up, he's been caught several times as Fake News. He lies to promote his income.
Drug addicts like you will suck up any old slop you can't understand, thinking it's a hit.
the links to the peer reviewed papers with all the evidence is there so where do the figures not confirm what he is saying
Wrong again. You really haven't got a clue.
not wrong so yet again your just bumping your gums
Wrong again. You're too - er - careless, to get anything right or read or hear the the words right.
You're spinning up fake news compounding his errors. .......Fake news what from a peer reviewed paper what bit of covid was there before they first thought do you not like or agree with ?