koshergrl
Diamond Member
- Aug 4, 2011
- 81,129
- 14,025
- 2,190
Utterly unreliable? No, a positive test is reliable. The problem is that you can get false negatives during the 3 to 5 days after symptoms first appear. This why we monitor so many possible cases, isolate patients with symptoms and exposure.you lost, get over it.Stop lying about ebola, and I'll stop posting information about it.
I didn't lose. You look like a retard for claiming that there are tests that can accurately and quickly determine whether or not a person has ebola:
"“The US diagnostic test for Ebola is utterly unreliable. Using the test to claim a patient has Ebola or doesn’t have Ebola is scientific fraud. Therefore, any pronouncements made by the Centers for Disease Control, where all the US testing is done, are worthless. The PCR is completely unreliable for a disease diagnosis."
Are Ebola Tests Reliable
But then..you always look like a retard. So this is nothing new.
Utterly unreliable? No, a positive test is reliable. The problem is that you can get false negatives during the 3 to 5 days after symptoms first appear. This why we monitor so many possible cases, isolate patients with symptoms and exposure.you lost, get over it.Stop lying about ebola, and I'll stop posting information about it.
I didn't lose. You look like a retard for claiming that there are tests that can accurately and quickly determine whether or not a person has ebola:
"“The US diagnostic test for Ebola is utterly unreliable. Using the test to claim a patient has Ebola or doesn’t have Ebola is scientific fraud. Therefore, any pronouncements made by the Centers for Disease Control, where all the US testing is done, are worthless. The PCR is completely unreliable for a disease diagnosis."
Are Ebola Tests Reliable
But then..you always look like a retard. So this is nothing new.
The experts do not concurr. Take it up with them, loon.