Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="KDM" data-source="post: 441350" data-attributes="member: 314">Awesome BrockW.&nbsp; You can't even admit that there are NO APPROVED CWD TESTS for use on living animals.&nbsp; It's a FACT!!&nbsp; You CAN'T TRUST the live cwd test because NONE of them are accurate enough to be used in scientific liturature.&nbsp; It must be over 90% accurate to be considered.&nbsp; The IHC test is approved for testing DEAD ANIMALS. IHC is NOT APPROVED for testing on live animals.&nbsp; You conveniently forgot that little detail didn't you BrockW.&nbsp; You say it &quot;CAN&quot; be used to test live animals, but here's the thing, it's NOT ACCEPTABLE.&nbsp; Why?&nbsp; It's not accurate enough.&nbsp; Pay attention to the words BrockW uses and doesn't use guys.&nbsp; He's speaking in half truths and intentionally leaving out information.&nbsp; I've just proven it to you guys with his own words.&nbsp; Don't trust anything this guy says as even close to facts.&nbsp; THERE IS NO APPROVED TEST FOR CWD ON LIVE ANIMALS!!&nbsp; What's nonsense is stating in any way that there is. This is a great BrockW paragraph I'd like everyone to reexamine:&nbsp;If we were talking about these studies using live tests on a single animals, I would agree that’s weak evidence. But considering we’re talking thousands of animals on multiple studies, performed by multiple different research groups, in multiple regions of the country, using testing procedures with a high degree of confidence (that we can prove), this idea none of it scientifically sound is willfully denying the facts that are staring us right in the face.Sounds good doesn't it guys.&nbsp; However, we must keep in mind that all of this gobbledy gook was done with tests that aren't accurate enough to be approved for use.&nbsp; Testing thousands of animals with inaccurate tests means that everything collected has the same inaccuracy.&nbsp; PLEASE keep it up BrockW.&nbsp; I do so love exposing you and your half truths.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="KDM, post: 441350, member: 314"] Awesome BrockW. You can't even admit that there are NO APPROVED CWD TESTS for use on living animals. It's a FACT!! You CAN'T TRUST the live cwd test because NONE of them are accurate enough to be used in scientific liturature. It must be over 90% accurate to be considered. The IHC test is approved for testing DEAD ANIMALS. [B] IHC is NOT APPROVED for testing on live animals[/B]. You conveniently forgot that little detail didn't you BrockW. You say it "CAN" be used to test live animals, but here's the thing, it's NOT ACCEPTABLE. Why? It's not accurate enough. Pay attention to the words BrockW uses and doesn't use guys. He's speaking in half truths and intentionally leaving out information. I've just proven it to you guys with his own words. Don't trust anything this guy says as even close to facts. THERE IS NO APPROVED TEST FOR CWD ON LIVE ANIMALS!! What's nonsense is stating in any way that there is. This is a great BrockW paragraph I'd like everyone to reexamine: [I]If we were talking about these studies using live tests on a single animals, I would agree that’s weak evidence. But considering we’re talking thousands of animals on multiple studies, performed by multiple different research groups, in multiple regions of the country, using testing procedures with a high degree of confidence (that we can prove), this idea none of it scientifically sound is willfully denying the facts that are staring us right in the face.[/I] Sounds good doesn't it guys. However, we must keep in mind that all of this gobbledy gook was done with tests that aren't accurate enough to be approved for use. Testing thousands of animals with inaccurate tests means that everything collected has the same inaccuracy. PLEASE keep it up BrockW. I do so love exposing you and your half truths. [/QUOTE]

Verification

What is the most common fish caught on this site?

Reply to thread

Recent Posts

Friends of NDA