Its pretty easy to respond to really. Neither I nor most data scientists rely on CDC data at all. It is one tiny blip across countless data sets and only when they all agree do we draw conclusions from it.
sorry to disappoint your psychic abilities but I sure did. In fact its a rather old article and isnt even the first time I came across it
What the fuck are you on about.. I read it, why are you pretending to be psychic and telling me what I did and did not read... I asked you if you are asking me a question about what you posted. Are you trying to ask **me** while they are bundled, you seemed to answer your own question so im asking what are you asking me? Or are you going to deflect again and tell me I didnt read ?
As I stated before your talking about a data set that I didnt een use to come up with the figure I stated.. so any inaccuracies in it really isnt relevant to the assertion in the first place, im not using the source your accusing, so its moot.
Second, the number of cases are irrelevant, my statement is about your chance of survival if you catch the diseases (mortality rate) and therefore is uneffected by the number of people in the general population who get the diseases.
Third, when calculating mortality to ensure we get utmost accuracy we use a more restrictive dataset that only inclues the people who are actually tested to ensure we are measuring influenza or covid.
Taking large samples of people and testing them to objectively verify how many have the disease, then track who survives is not anecdotal, that would be the exact opposite of anecdotal actually.
Umm ok, I guess that explains why "no one ever debunked your link"... apparently lots of people do you just pretend like they didnt and then go one some tantrum that makes no sense... cool seems we are at an impasse then, im not sure your capable of understanding why your wrong no matter what I say.
No thats not what I said... I will repeat the rebuke a second time since your too emotional to see it..
All your concerns and the link were directed at the CDC's data set.. true or not, I (and the scientists I trust) did not use the data set or the process you accused of being inaccurate. Therefore I was able to arrive at my conclusion without any of your concerns being relevant since they apply to a data set I did not use.
There, now understand why your point was so easily dismissed? Or are you still going to pretend you dont understand why your whole argument and the article has no relevance to my statement?
by using tests that are able to determine if they have the disease combines with the circumstances of the death which tends to involve a second test to show the viral load had increased since the first, and by monitoring symptoms...
When someone is in the ICU from falling down th steps they will have very different symptoms then if they are there because the virus has progressed, the viral load will also be different.
Kary Mullis, who won a 1993 Nobel Prize for inventing the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing process later used to diagnose Coronavirus cases, said that Dr. Anthony Fauci lacks knowledge of medicine and is willing to lie on television. Mullis also admitted in another set of videotaped remarks that a …
ew
🎓 Doc Freemo 
🇳🇱
Tucson Coyote™