(Less so if others are exculpatory. Which is not the case here. A known false positive is not conclusive proof, but neither does it explicitly clear a source.)
They already told you clearly, so it sounds like you're trying to browbeat them with a fallacy of equivocation over the scope of "it".
These things are not equivalent:
1. A biological test for a parasite in a sample of equipment/material from the factory. (Claimed as false-positive.)
2. The analysis of the supply-chain for the food that sickened people which led to that facility as a common factor. (Presumably still accurate.)
___________
To use a criminal-investigation metaphor: Suppose a dead woman is found covered in knife wounds, and the circumstantial evidence leads to one Knifey McStabberson, since he (A) previously dated the woman and (B) sent a death-threat once via text-message, and (C) has a collection of hundreds of suitably-sized knives. Investigators notice one that looks bloody, and test it... It's her blood! Wait, oops, no, false-positive, it was something else.
What is your takeaway from the story so far? Is it that Knifey McStabberson himself is "a false-positive" and obviously totally innocent... or is it that it would be a good idea to check more of the knives scattered around his house and in his car?
Meh, I don't see how I could make anything worse, with how they were featured in Leave it to Cleaver, and recently dissed in that song by the Full-Tang Clan.
"That $1 million donation came six days after the FDA announced plans to delay the enforcement of a "food traceability rule" that would affect fresh fruits and vegetables, among other products, until 2028. The rule is unrelated to the inspection of fresh produce — it requires companies to track products at seven different key points in the supply chain to better prevent foodborne illness outbreaks."
It’s not worth much because the take away from this is you can call and pay to have heinous crimes pushed under the rug. It’s simple corruption, and devastating.
This is the most upsetting thing about everything that is happening. Like, sure I have plenty of criticisms about the FDA, but by and large, I thought the body was slowly working in the direction of the public good.
Once you destroy that trust, every single announcement becomes suspect. You no longer have anything you can believe.
And if you don't think the Republican's will use this distrust to their advantage, well, I have a bridge to sell you. It's a very common tactic by them: create a problem that never existed, then wine about said problem.
It’s so unbelievably destructive. We had a kid recently and I was looking up vaccine research. Do we have to prod the kid with the Hepatitis B vaccine at birth? I looked it up and promptly said, “well, CDC actually just came out with a thing that says it’s optional.” Wife turned to me and said, uh yeah, and who is the new director of the HHS now? Looked it up, and I come to find that many scientists were opposed to the decision to make it optional.
Yep, now I’ll be second guessing everything I read from the CDC. Good news though, I can ask a fucking AI Chatbot what to do. As a normal person with basic civic values this shit makes me so mad. It’s beyond disgusting. The gates of Hell are wide open for these people.
Yeah guess in hindsight that didn’t read as clear as it should have.
The chat bot is only even correct because of obvious, authoritative, trustworthy sources like the CDC. Makes it even more enraging to see bot tech makers meeting with the destroyers of truth.
This admin has lied repeatedly. Why would any of us believe a statement solely because the admin said it? Do we need to give them the benefit of the doubt despite how many times they lie?
> This admin has lied repeatedly. Why would any of us believe a statement solely because the admin said it?
At this point they've lied enough that the assumption should just always be "They're probably lying again. I need more evidence / facts / details if this is a thing I care about at all." Honestly though, I'm at a point where I simply won't trust much anything anymore without seeing / hearing more (provably true) facts first. Lying / deceit has just become far too common / accepted / normalized these days.
During the COVID pandemic situations we’re evolving quickly and the admin admitted they were wrong previously or had updated their views based on new information.
If you ask this admin about their obviously incorrect or fallacious statements their response is to call you a nasty person or piggy and then double down on the lies.
It was very possible at the beginning of COVID that it was an airborne virus. However the CDC proclaimed that there was no evidence, therefore no one should wear masks.
>In March 2020, as the pandemic began, Anthony Fauci, the chief medical adviser to the president of the United States, explained in a 60 Minutes interview that he felt community use of masks was unnecessary. A few months later, he argued that his statements were not meant to imply that he felt the data to justify the use of cloth masks was insufficient. Rather, he said, had he endorsed mask wearing (of any kind), mass panic would ensue and lead to a surgical and N95 mask shortage among health care workers, who needed the masks more.
There was also the messaging that the vaccine did not cause myocarditis.
>This obvious error was compounded weeks later during a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. The committee met to discuss what we knew and did not know about heart inflammation, or myocarditis, that had been linked to mRNA vaccination, and most notable in young men who received the vaccine.
I agree that the current administration is bad but I can't call it worse because the prior administration worked to illegally censor it's critics.
The administrative agencies response to the pandemic was very telling, there were multiple large conversations here with lots of comments about how we were being lied to.
>> FDA says...
>This admin has lied repeatedly. Why would any of us believe a statement solely because the admin said it? Do we need to give them the benefit of the doubt despite how many times they lie?
The fact of the matter is that both sets of officials lied.
Fauci only admitted to lying when he was brought in front of congress and there was a chance they were going to prosecute him if he lied to them.
We will see what this admin does if they ever get brought up to task.
Fauci thought his intentions were noble.
RFK Jr. believes the same I am sure.
Doesn't make either of them right, understanding why the other side is/was upset is the first step to fixing the problem.
If you can't see the equivalence between saying don't trust the government because it's lying and don't trust the government because it's lying there is nothing that will convince you.
> This is the same argument that the anti-vaxers had about the COVID vaccine.
It’s not the same argument because one group is a true believer who will never admit fault. The other isnt. There is no equivalence to people who believe in anti vaxx ideology and people who don’t believe in RFK jr.
Yes it is because the argument is that you can't trust the government because they lied.
>Comments on YouTube videos during the COVID-19 pandemic clustered similarly around "concerns about side-effects, effectiveness, and lack of trust in corporations and government".
I don't share the same believes as anti-vaxers but I do believe that their cause was bolster by the government deliberately lying.
In the very early days of COVID, there were numerous studies that backed up the government position that COVID was not spread via airborne route.
>Airborne transmission, either by droplets (route 3) or by aerosol (route 4), contributes less than 1% of the total viruses needed to cause an infection....This finding is consistent with studies that sampled the air where symptomatic COVID-19 patients reside and found that all collected samples were negative for SARS-CoV-2
But earlier it even states:
>Due to the fact that most of these estimates were made in countries that lead a public health policy of immediate isolation of cases upon symptoms’ onset, these estimates represent the effect of pre-symptomatic carrier transmission. In fact, pre-symptomatic transmission was recently referred to as the Achilles’ heel of COVID-19 pandemic control, as symptom-based detection of infection is less effective in comparison to the control of the SARS epidemic in 2003
So we know that pre-symptomatic transmission is the primary driver but claim it's not airborne because we sampled air of symptomatic patients.
This was the quality of the "Science" that we were supposed to believe.
When you have the scientific establishment publishing what amounts to bullshit to back up the lies of government how can you trust it in the future?
Andrew Wakefield study is discredited, I am not aware of any others but there may be.
I doubt that I am going to change your mind that the argument you presented is the same as anti-vaxers. But my advice remains the same, become a domain expert or be close friends with one you can trust.
I have several family member in the medical field, when the push for adolescent vaccine began some of them quietly cautioned me about the risks that were being downplayed. I read through the studies and made my own decision. Just as I made my own decision about wearing a mask when the government was telling me it increased my risk of infection.
