Medical Testing Kit 300215 entry is associated with general medical test kits.
[quote]In April 2020, the products were relabelled amid the pandemic and the WITS updated its product descriptions accordingly, including those attached to the data from 2017 and 2018, even if the products had not been used in relation to COVID-19 at the time.
The World Bank said, “In April, given the newfound importance of these products in diagnosing and treating COVID-19, the WHO and the World Customs issued a list of these key products to make it easier to track them—assigning COVID-related descriptions/labels to each of them. For the same reason (to facilitate easier tracking), the WITS team created a special section using this list (as well as the new WHO/WCO labels/descriptions).”[/quote]
The provisional application from 2015 refers to a similar test/process that was a predecessor to the 2020 filing of US2020027985A1, a test specific to Covid-19
@AbbySvenz Oh good, so there's no hokery-pokery going on. That's good to know!
It's good to know that the head of the World Health Organisation has zero medical qualifications and was a former man-the-barricades communist.
It's good to know that Bill Gates, initiator of the "decade of vaccines", has also no medical qualifications (no academic qualifications of any kind, in fact) and is merely a businessman seeking even more billions for himself.
It's also good to know that, according to Lord Zuckerberg, the "fact-checkers" - debunkers, as you say - are no more than opinion-givers, paid for giving opinions (which opinion they give will be dictated by the highest bidder).
It's not so good to know that we the people are at their mercy.
The people who actually do the work at the WHO either are scientists or medical professionals, or are advised by such (and maybe actually listen to that advice!)
Medical research takes money, something Mr. Gates has a lot of, and is keen to donate.
My fact checking isn’t done through Facebook, but through a variety of other fact checking sites, where the fact checkers link to their sources that I can further track down and read for myself.@WalterF
@AbbySvenz And you can prove that load of nonsense how? There is no evidence that the covid scam was based on any science. There are mountains of evidence that the whole thing is a scam. Cool technology but terrible science. Sadly the technology is not good for man nor beast and is killing more people than the artificial virus it its supposed to control.
@AbbySvenz Peer review proves nothing. It is credentialism at its worst. A peer reviewed study shows Tide is better than Sunlight. A different peer reviewed study shows that Sunlight is better than Tide. Peer review is little more than a soiled loin cloth worn to keep the masses fooled into thinking that Canute can control the tide.
@AbbySvenz I know exactly how peer review works. It is proof of nothing except your 'peers' agree with your methodology. It doesn't prove anything. It never has and it never will. The peers in Galileo's time thought the earth was flat. Did that prove anything? It proved the peers were wrong. The same is happening with the covid scam. Yes there were a bunch of 'peer reviewed' studies that came out early showing how wonderful the vaxes were. Now there are lots of peer reviewed studies showing the vaxes are extremely dangerous and should be pulled. Which peer review do you choose to believe? They both can't be right and the fact that there are conflicting peer reviewed studies proves that peer review proves nothing. As my old physics prof drilled into our heads back in university days, "Studies prove nothing, They may strongly indicate but they prove nothing". You are a credentialist and not a scientist if you think that any study, peer reviewed or not, provides proof.
@AbbySvenz I was pointing to the time when the scientific consensus was that the earth was flat. That idea was later debunked. Much like the idea that the vaxes are safe. Hell they can't even provide evidence they are effective. All the multijabbed people are getting covid. That doesn't require a peer reviewed study that simply requires you open your eyes. Much the same as the safety of the vax. I know 4 people in my immediate circle of friends and family that were killed by the vax. I know of two others who were nearly killed by the vax and of the other vaxed people know most had an adverse reaction to the vax. Peer review is nonsense and only a die hard credentialist would try to use them as proof. Scientists certainly wouldn't use them for anything more than anecdotal evidence.
@AbbySvenz Can't refute what I said? Nice deflection. No sale. I see the medical boards have stripped Dr McCullough of his medical license for disagreeing with them. The boards are not practicing science. They are killing people and you are agreeing with them. Covid is not a dangerous disease but the vaxes are an extreme danger. Not sure why anyone is promoting the vaxes. Maybe the worship of technology has blinded them? Not sure but it is insanity. Most vaccines are of no value and likely are doing immense harm to an otherwise healthy population.
@AbbySvenz Smallpox died out on its own. The latest polio outbreak is likely caused by the polio vaccine. I saw a peer reviewed study in the Lancet a number of years ago that showed the flu vax could not be statistically proven to have any effect on the course of the seasonal flu.
… It's also good to know that, according to Lord Zuckerberg, the "fact-checkers" - debunkers, as you say - are no more than opinion-givers, paid for giving opinions (which opinion they give will be dictated by the highest bidder).[/quote]@WalterF
You’re right. It wasn’t Zuck Himself, but rather the VP of Global Affairs and Communications: [quote] We rely on third-party fact-checkers to help reduce the spread of false news and other types of viral misinformation, like memes or manipulated photos and videos. [/quote] https://about.fb.com/news/2019/09/elections-and-political-speech/ @hippyjoe1955
