All along there have been questions as to the accuracy of the COVID tests. There was confusion about people testing positive, but having absolutely no symptoms. There were people who were very sick, but didn't test positive for COVID.

Interestingly there is a simple explanation for this. The COVID tests approved by the CDC were not accurate. Not only were they inaccurate, but they could show a positive for SARS-Cov-2 --when the patient had Influenza! Listen to this lab technician explain it. I guarantee you didn't see this on the LAM (Legacy American Media).

This video was posted December 18, 2020. The actual episode might have aired before that I'm not sure. I watched it on TV when it aired, that's why I remembered it.

Not enough evidence? Here's a link to the CDC website where they explain that the PCR test can't differentiate between Influenza and SARS-Cov-2.

Audience: Individuals Performing COVID-19 Testing

Level: Laboratory Alert

After December 31, 2021, CDC will withdraw the request to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel, the assay first introduced in February 2020 for detection of SARS-CoV-2 only. CDC is providing this advance notice for clinical laboratories to have adequate time to select and implement one of the many FDA-authorized alternatives.

Visit the FDA website for a list of authorized COVID-19 diagnostic methods. For a summary of the performance of FDA-authorized molecular methods with an FDA reference panel, visit this page.

In preparation for this change, CDC recommends clinical laboratories and testing sites that have been using the CDC 2019-nCoV RT-PCR assay select and begin their transition to another FDA-authorized COVID-19 test. CDC encourages laboratories to consider adoption of a multiplexed method that can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses. Such assays can facilitate continued testing for both influenza and SARS-CoV-2 and can save both time and resources as we head into influenza season. Laboratories and testing sites should validate and verify their selected assay within their facility before beginning clinical testing.

It's important to differentiate between the Flu and SARS-Cov-2 this Flu season, but it wasn't important last year? Really? What kind of reasoning is this? Who's making these decisions at the CDC, and based on what science? What "science" says it's better to have inconclusive worthless testing, then fix it later?

Here's a screenshot of the CDC website for posterity. This proves that many of the positive COVID cases were really false positives, not only that, but the patient might have had the Flu, which was left untreated!

The lab tech said that he tested the buffer solution, by itself, and it tested positive for Influenza A and B. It's possible that he just had a faulty buffer solution for that sample, but what are the chances of that? If that's the case, a TON of positive results were false, because by the CDC's admission, the test can't tell the difference in COVID and Influenza. This would explain the "asymptomatic" people. There weren't really any asymptomatic cases, there were just false positives. This also explains how the Flu magically disappeared last year. Not only did they stop testing for the Flu, the COVID test was showing positive when the Flu was present.

This gets to the bigger picture. We locked down cities and towns all over the country, destroying their economies, based on a faulty test. We listed numbers of people dying in the hundreds of thousands, which we now know are false.

People were also sent home, and to nursing homes with the Flu, and didn't know it. They weren't given therapeutics that exist for treating the Flu. It was mass misdiagnosis.

When the CDC or some other government organization says, "Trust us, this is what's best for you. These vaccines are perfectly safe, we've tested them." You might think a little harder before believing everything you're told.

!!! UPDATE !!!

#CDC just dropped "new science" on PCR tests
The newly updated CDC guidelines don't require testing at the end of isolation because PCR tests can stay positive for up to 12 weeks pic.twitter.com/z4aJIGToFz

— La French ConAction..🇫🇷 (@LFConaction) December 29, 2021

The image below is a link, for archiving purposes, Twitter could remove the tweet:

The CDC is now admitting that the PCR tests were completely useless, because they showed people who were NOT sick, as "positive for COVID." The PCR test could show someone as positive for UP TO 12 WEEKS AFTER infection and recovery! The inventor of the PCR test said in the beginning that the test was not used to determine if someone was infected with a virus or not. Of course that was ignored by the people who say, "Follow the science..."

This whole ordeal has been a scam from the beginning.

Buy me a Ko-Fi 😉👉

Please leave a comment, like it or hate it, I'm looking for conversation... You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

Here's what I posted a few days ago...

You can click on the images to view them full-size.

And here's what I see when I try to comment on another story, this one about vaccine mandates in France.

Now I've had the pleasure of being banned from ABC News for telling the truth. Funny how that works isn't it. I didn't mention anything that wasn't true. I'm even going to fact check myself. I know that sounds absurd, but that's pretty much what they did to me. Let's see if I spread misinformation.

First masks. Here's what the Mayo Clinic says.

Can face masks help slow the spread of the coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) that causes COVID-19? Yes. Face masks combined with other preventive measures, such as getting vaccinated, frequent hand-washing and physical distancing, can help slow the spread of the virus.

Proper use, storage and cleaning of masks also affects how well they protect you. Follow these steps for putting on and taking off your mask:

Wash or sanitize your hands before and after putting on your mask.

Place your mask over your mouth and nose and chin.

Tie it behind your head or use ear loops. Make sure it's snug.

Don't touch your mask while wearing it.

If you accidentally touch your mask, wash or sanitize your hands.

If your mask becomes wet or dirty, switch to a clean one. Put the used mask in a sealable bag until you can get rid of it or wash it.

Remove the mask by untying it or lifting off the ear loops without touching the front of the mask or your face.

Wash your hands immediately after removing your mask.

Regularly wash cloth masks in the washing machine or by hand. (They can be washed along with other laundry.)

Don't put masks on anyone who has trouble breathing or is unconscious or otherwise unable to remove the mask without help.

Don't put masks on children under 2 years of age.

Do you still need to wear a facemask after you’re fully vaccinated?

After you're fully vaccinated, the CDC recommends that it's ok not to wear a mask except where required by a rule or law. You're considered fully vaccinated 2 weeks after you get a second dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine or 2 weeks after you get a single dose of the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine.

Even if you were to assume that masks really stop viruses --has anyone actually followed all of these steps? Unless you are on your way into or out of a cleanroom, you aren't going to be able to remove your mask without touching it, or wash/sanitize your hands every time you remove the mask. It's unrealistic.

As soon as you touch anything anywhere, you've already broken the rules. Break the rules once and the mask is ineffective. In fact it might increase your chance of infection. Ask yourself, do you have your hands on or around your face nearly as often when you're not wearing a mask?

Next Dr.Fauci, Fauci is definitely lying because he's on video in my last post explaining GOF (Gain of Function) research and how the NIH funded it through a proxy. Then in an interview with Fox News' Neil Cavuto, Fauci admits to funding the research at the Wuhan lab.

In an interview with Neil Cavuto on Fox News, Fauci was challenged on a Washington Post article that read, “What everyone can now see clearly is that NIH was collaborating on risky research with a Chinese lab that has zero transparency and zero accountability during a crisis — and no one in a position of power addressed that risk. Fauci is arguing the system worked. It didn’t.”

The Biden health official [Fauci] responded by defending NIH’s funding and repeatedly defending the integrity of the Chinese scientists.

“You know, it’s more complicated than that … If you look at the research that was done, it was research that was highly recommended by peer review, our United States peer reviews. It got a very high score in the peer review system,” Fauci said. “And the purpose of the research was very, very clear. It was to try to determine what was out there in the bat population that might be ultimately risky for us. It was done in the context of trying to find out what the precise environmental bat source was of SARS-CoV-1 so that we could prevent SARS-CoV-2.”

Fauci added: “So, it was research that was done by qualified people. Right now, when there’s all of this thing about China, that’s a different situation now back then when you’re dealing with qualified, highly respected Chinese scientists. So it isn’t what was made out to be about dealing with really, really bad people. Because those scientists were very well-respected in the scientific community internationally.”

NIH’s RePORTER website said the agency provided $15.2 million to Peter Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance over the years, with $3.74 million toward understanding bat coronavirus emergence. Daszak maintained a long working relationship with Shi Zhengli, sending her lab at least $600,000 in NIH funding. Daszak was also part of the WHO-China team that dismissed the lab leak hypothesis as “extremely unlikely” earlier this year.

FAUCI AND RAND PAUL CALL EACH OTHER LIARS IN DEBATE OVER WUHAN LAB

In May, Fauci denied the NIH-funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab. Paul pointed to NIH grants going to EcoHealth that provided funding to the Wuhan lab, which a Trump State Department fact sheet contended carried out secretive gain-of-function experiments and worked with China’s military.

At the time, Fauci told Paul, “The NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”

Paul brought the issue up again during a Senate hearing on Tuesday, noting it was a crime to lie to Congress, stating, “Gain-of-function research was done entirely at the Wuhan institute by Dr. Shi and was funded by the NIH.”

Paul brought up a November 2017 scientific paper co-authored by Shi and other Chinese scientists, contending that “she took two bat coronavirus genes — spike genes — and combined them with a SARS-related backbone to create new viruses that are not found in nature.”

The paper by Shi noted it received funding from the NIH and was “jointly funded” by China’s government.

Fauci said that the NIH didn't fund research in Wuhan. Then he admits that they did, but it was all above board and there was no GOF research, but there was, Peter Daszak discussed GOF research in the Wuhan lab openly on numerous occasions.

Then there's the fudged CDC VAERS numbers. The CDC did mess up the numbers on the VAERS website.

A sudden jump in the post-COVID-19 vaccination death reports is not correct and was the result of an “error,” according to a U.S. health agency.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on Friday said a passive reporting system it runs with the Food and Drug Administration had received 12,313 reports of death among those who received a COVID-19 vaccine.

That was a sharp increase from the previous number of reports, 6,079.

The jump would have effectively doubled the percentage of post-vaccination death reports, from 0.0018 percent to 0.0036 percent.

But a CDC spokeswoman told The Epoch Times the number the agency has displayed on its website is not correct.

“It is double what it was yesterday and so it definitely is incorrect,” the spokeswoman said. “We checked our stats internally and it’s only 6,000. So someone doing an update misrepresented that or made a mistake, in other words.”

“We caught it this morning ourselves and noticed that it had doubled suddenly,” she added.

The spokeswoman was unable to say when the error would be fixed. “It’s being worked out,” she said.

My experience with COVID was truthful, I have no reason to lie about that.

Finally It doesn't make sense to attack a dire situation from one vector. That's common sense. Also, now that Trump is not in office. News outlets have started reporting on the effectiveness of Hydroxychloroquine

A new study shows that the controversial drug hydroxychloroquine touted by former President Donald Trump increased the survival rate of severely ill coronavirus patients.

The observational study, published by medRxiv, found that antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine, along with zinc, could increase the coronavirus survival rate by as much as nearly 200% if distributed at higher doses to ventilated patients with a severe version of the illness.

“We found that when the cumulative doses of two drugs, HCQ and AZM, were above a certain level, patients had a survival rate 2.9 times the other patients,” the study’s conclusion states.

Ivermectin is also being used in trials with good results.

Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified.

Why did ABC News ban me? You can draw your own conclusion, but I will tell you that I don't believe it's based on "facts."

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

Rand Paul should have played this video at the Senate hearing yesterday. Even though the DOJ would never move on his suggestion, they would have a hard time explaining it away. Get this video were out there.

Here's Fauci in his own words, describing Gain of Function Research that was funded by the NIAID.

As for Fauci being credible. Fauci is the position where he must lie. Nothing Fauci says now, or did say is credible, because he must lie, or implicate himself in all of this. He was directly involved in the Wuhan lab Gain of Function research funding.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

I wrote about this extensively on February, 2011. People forget things very quickly, also the Legacy American Media rarely reports on such things. I'll just call them the LAM (Legacy American Media) and then there's The Silence of The LAMs. That's right, I'm coining the phrase, you saw it here first... France was pushing for a global currency even back in 2011.

France, as current head of the Group of 20 countries, will help the transition to a global financial system based on 'several international currencies', French Economy Minister Christine Lagarde said today.

Lagarde, speaking ahead of a G20 finance ministers meeting in Paris on Friday and Saturday, said the world had to move on from the 'non-monetary system' it now has to one 'based on several international currencies'.

Accordingly, France wants to see less need for countries, especially the emerging economies, to accumulate huge foreign reserves, she said.

At the same time, international capital flows should be better regulated and the role of the Special Drawing Rights issued by the International Monetary Fund should be reinforced by the inclusion of China's yuan in the system.

China, whose booming economy now ranks second only to the US in size after overtaking Japan, has accumulated massive forex reserves of more than $2.5 trillion on the back of its sustained trade surpluses and foreign fund inflows.

The U.S. Dollar should no longer be the world's reserve currency, and these SDR (Special Drawing Rights) should become the new standard. They are, of course, backed by currencies from a number of countries, China in particular. Now the Biden administration is taking the same approach. The Biden administration is making moves that will weaken the U.S. Dollar on the world stage.

A controversial plan to boost global liquidity means the days of the U.S. dollar being the undisputed king of the international monetary system may be coming to a close, experts told The Epoch Times.

Losing that status could contribute to a serious crisis for the United States involving a dramatic loss of economic purchasing power, a geopolitical realignment and everything associated with those shocks.

The Biden administration-backed International Monetary Fund (IMF) proposal to issue an unprecedented $650 billion U.S. dollars’ worth of new “Special Drawing Rights” (SDRs) this year alone will also help re-shape the international financial system.

That is more than twice the total amount of SDRs created by the IMF throughout its entire history.

The SDR is a sort of proto-global currency, based on a basket of leading currencies, dubbed an “international reserve asset” by the IMF. Each government receives an amount of SDRs proportional to its stake in the international organization.

The unprecedented new issuance, which has the support of both Beijing and Washington, will contribute to sidelining the U.S. dollar’s role as the global reserve currency, analysts warned. The Chinese Communist Party is expected to be a leading beneficiary.

It gets even better. You will see here that The Great Reset is not a hoax, it's not something that was dreamed up. These "world leaders" have been openly talking about this for decades. Again, the Legacy American Media has never covered this with any specificity.

Those calls are growing amid the push for a “Great Reset.” The “reset” plan, which would transform everything from business to governance, is being promoted by the United Nations, the World Economic Forum, the IMF, the British monarchy and other power centers as a way to improve the world.

Ostensibly aimed at making the world more “green” and “sustainable,” the shift would require a much larger role for the public sector at the national and international level while moving the world away from what remains of the free-market system. Widespread proliferation of new technologies associated with the “Fourth Industrial Revolution” are a critical component of the effort, too.

A restructuring of the international monetary system led by the IMF on the way to the globalization of currency—with the looming SDR issuance as a major step—is likely to play a key role in the global reset as well.

Just as significantly, the developments taking place at the IMF will empower global organizations to channel ever-larger sums of wealth from people in the United States and other major economies into projects selected by those organizations and their member governments.

Powerful global interests, for instance, are pushing to use the new SDR “allocation,” as the issuing of new SDRs is called, to finance everything from mass international COVID vaccinations to policy transformations around the world.

The IMF wants to fund the world by basically pooling money from all over the world, and redistributing wealth. All of this, while simultaneously weakening the U.S. Not just on the world stage, but economically as well. There is nothing good about this plan, so far as the U.S. is concerned. This "Great Reset" is centralizing global power through the IMF, by marginalizing the U.S. Ask yourself, was Biden elected to do this? Did Biden voters really hate Trump so much that they wanted to bring down the country to get him out of office? I think not.

Right now, governments, central banks and businesses around the world keep large amounts of dollars on reserve to settle international transactions. This creates a constant global demand for the dollar.

However, if the dollar were to lose its status to the SDR, the demand for dollars around the world would plummet. The resulting collapse in purchasing power would create an enormous crisis as Americans’ ability to purchase goods and services from abroad was decimated.

The leftists in control of the U.S. government are running us off a cliff. They are doing this while Legacy American Media are ignoring it --on purpose. No American would want this. This is the equivalent of working your whole life to make things better for your children, then, at the last minute, throwing all of your savings away. Nobody would do this willingly, that's why these sorts of stories are not covered by the LAMs. I guarantee that if you asked any Biden voter about SDRs they would not the slightest idea what you were talking about.

It's because of people's blissful ignorance and sense of removed responsibility that we've ended up in this mess. People are too willing to believe that other people actually want to look out for their best interest. While sometimes that's the case, perhaps with people that you know personally, it's rarely the case with people you've never met. It's even more rare when the people you're trusting to protect you have antipathy towards you.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

There are many things missing from the public debate. With BLM, Antifa, Critical Race Theory, and any "intersectional social justice movement" there's one very important aspect that is often overlooked. That one particular question that's missing, to me one of the most important questions to ask. How are these "movements" supposed to help, or fix what they claim is a problem in society?

Take BLM for example, they used to have their version of a mission statement on their website. Take a look at what they propose.

It reads, "We this and we that." Notice there's never any mention of how these beliefs are to manifest themselves? BLM says, "Here's a big list of what we believe, but we never get into what we're going to do." BLM says, "We believe 'stuff,' so get in the streets to let people know what you believe!"

It's like a cleaning company that raises awareness of dust. There's lots of dust out there, we should do something about it! Of course, they never talk about step (1). "There's dust" that's it. That's the depth of their argument in total.

Police and oppressors are the problem. We need to get rid of them. Then what? You know, if you ask that question you might be labeled as a racist. Logic and reason are weapons of the oppressor. Kind of like racist math with all of it's absolutes.

Is Seattle really teaching that "math is racist"? Why did parents start to see ideas for math lessons that go far beyond numbers and into questions of identity?

In math, lessons are more theoretical. Seattle's recently released proposal includes questions like, "Where does Power and Oppression show up in our math experiences?" and "How is math manipulated to allow inequality and oppression to persist?"

It's not that the formulas and equations taught in current math classes are racist, Castro-Gill said it's about how they're used in daily life.

"Nowhere in this document says that math is inherently racist," she said. "It's how math is used as a tool for oppression."

One example teachers might mention in an ethnic studies math class, she said, is how black voters in the South were given literacy and numeracy tests before they could cast their ballot. Another might be a lesson on ratios that discusses gaps in incarceration rates and how the weight of a type of drug determines the length of a sentence.

"The numbers are objective," she said, "but how we use it is not objective."

This is the same logic that gun control activists use. Guns are bad because people do bad things with them. Math is bad because people do bad things with it. What's the difference? Both arguments ignore the fact that the object(s) in question are inanimate!

There is no logic in either argument. To believe that math is racist, or used as an oppressive tool, is nonsense. These paradoxical beliefs require you to willfully ignore reality.

There is one author that pretty much sums up the issue quite nicely, British author Douglas Murray.

According to Murray, who is gay, one of the “central conundrums” of our time is expressed by people with marginalized identities: You must understand me. You will never understand me.

Murray dubbed these moral strictures as “paradoxical, impossible demands.”

“The inherent willingness to rush towards contradiction” is “not enough to stop this new religion of social justice,” Murray wrote. One reason “why contradiction is not enough is because nothing about the intersectional, social justice movement suggests that it is really interested in solving any of the problems that it claims to be interested in.”

That left Murray with only one possible conclusion: “Their desire is not to heal but to divide, not to placate but to inflame, not to dampen but to burn.”

Douglas Murray nailed it! He pointed out the exact same thing that I've been looking at. Where does any of this lead? It leads nowhere is the best answer. It leads to societal collapse. All of the "intersectional social justice movements" are designed to remove existing power structures, but that's it, that's as far as they go. It's a tool of "revolutionaries" to destabilize a civilization, so that they can take control. That's it. It's no more complicated than that.

What people MUST understand is that there is no reasoning with people who have fallen prey to these belief systems. There is absolutely no point in arguing with people involved with intersectional social justice movements. Those who actually believe that these movements will result in a better society has proven, through their belief, that they lack the ability reason.

That's not to say that violence is the answer. But these types of ideologies CAN NOT be allowed to fester in a society. Intersectional social justice movements are all Marxist in origin and designed to destroy whatever society their followers inhabit.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"