I've never watched the Stew Peters Show but I did see this clip the other day, and it's definitely worth watching! This man has single handedly caused a reversal in COVID mandates for Alberta Canada all over a $1200 fine!

Health Minister Tyler Shandro is defending the province’s plan to do away with most of its public health measures aimed at curbing the spread of COVID-19, as case numbers climb in Alberta.

“This is a plan that is based on the science and based on the data,” Shandro said during an unrelated news conference in Edmonton Thursday morning.

“We know that people will continue to have that anxiety but this was work that was done by public health based on the science, based on the data.”

Effective Thursday, close contacts will no longer be notified of exposure by contact tracers nor will they be legally required to isolate – although it still recommended.

Further measures will be eliminated Aug. 16. People who test positive for COVID-19 will not be mandated to isolate at that time but it is still strongly recommended. Isolation hotels will also close as quarantine supports end.

Also Aug. 16, provincial mandatory masking orders will be lifted. Some masking in acute care or continuing care facilities may still be required.

Effective Aug. 31, COVID-19 testing will no longer be available through assessment centres. It will be available in primary care settings including doctors’ offices or in acute care and hospital settings.

While the province could not point to another jurisdiction that is taking a similar approach, Shandro maintained this is the next step as the province moves from a pandemic to an endemic response, adding that Alberta is leading the way.

This is amazing, truth actually won! I just don't know if we're too late here in the US.

Now this sets the stage for challenges all over the world. All of those businesses that were fined in California and New York, they need to take this approach. Have health officials, in court, "make the case" for their actions based on science. We know they can't do that.

Which gets to another point. If they still haven't isolated the virus, how are they coming up with all these variants? Another simple question, if the first strain of SARS-CoV-2 can infect vaccinated patients, how can they claim that the new variants are any more or less infectious than the original strain --based on vaccinated patients becoming infected? How would you know the difference?

And lastly, the virus not being isolated would explain why they are pushing an mRNA vaccine, and not a traditional vaccine. They are generating mRNA vaccines from part of what they claim is the SARS-Cov-2 virus. You can't create the traditional vaccines without first isolating the virus. It has to be cultivated and weakened to create a vaccine.

How are labs supposed to calibrate their equipment to scan for the virus, when they have no comparable source by which to gauge calibration? How are you supposed to gauge the immune response without viral isolation? This all seems a little too convenient. And yet, they say "follow the science." If you do "follow the science" you'll find that this is all a little too sketchy, and far too convenient to extend lockdowns and force vaccinations. This is the best invisible enemy ever. Nobody can see it, nobody can even prove it's there. It allows the best possible vector for limiting people's freedoms, while simultaneously pitting one group against another. The "vaccinated vs the "unvaccinated."

I'll leave you with this last little nugget of truth from WhatsHerFace.

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

There is a new variant in town. And the messaging behind it is anyone's guess depending on the day. Many people would consider this to be incompetence, but I have a different view of things.

In this news article there is a discussion about reporting surrounding the Delta Variant and the media's handling of the issue. The odd thing is that they are not talking about saving lives, or discussing ways to mitigate outbreaks. Instead, they are discussing how to "handle" the public's perception of what's going on.

The White House is frustrated with what it views as alarmist, and in some instances flat-out misleading, news coverage about the Delta variant. That's according to two senior Biden administration officials I spoke with Friday, both of whom requested anonymity to candidly offer their opinion on coverage of the CDC data released that suggests vaccinated Americans who become infected with the Delta coronavirus variant can infect others as easily as those who are unvaccinated.

The White House is worried about the way things are being reported. Meaning that they don't want people knowing what the CDC data reveals.

Here's Fauci on Face The Nation telling everyone that vaccinated people can spread the virus as easily as unvaccinated people.

I find it interesting that the CDC tries to tackle this issue from the standpoint of, "The vaccine is effective, more than it is not effective." That's pretty much their current selling point. It's not that it will save you, or anyone, but it might make things slightly better, and might make the spread slightly slower. The other thing to notice is that everything is referenced from the number of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated individuals. Those who have contracted and recovered from the virus are never mentioned. Why might that be?

"The media's coverage doesn't match the moment," one of the Biden officials told me. "It has been hyperbolic and frankly irresponsible in a way that hardens vaccine hesitancy. The biggest problem we have is unvaccinated people getting and spreading the virus."

There are two things going on here. First the use of the phrasing "doesn't match the moment" are they following a script? Who talks like this? Second, there is no way to know what percentage of the unvaccinated are spreading anything. They have themselves admitted that people who have been vaccinated can also spread the disease. In other words, how many of the unvaccinated have already contracted and recovered from the virus? They aren't testing people for antibodies, why not? Why don't they prove what they are claiming, it can be done?

The worry about this line of messaging from major media sources worried officials so much, I'm told, that they reached out to several major news organizations with the aim of getting them to dial back the coverage...

This is very troubling. The Biden administration reached out to news organizations and told them to, "dial back the coverage?" This is a very important distinction. They aren't claiming that what was reported is false, but that it might drive people away from getting vaccinated, so it should not be reported. It sounds like the Biden administration needs to control the flow of information in order to get people vaccinated. I thought we were in a Pandemic, where people were dying by the truck load and vaccination was the only way to save us.

The Washington Post ran a headline that read, "CDC study shows three-fourths of people infected in Massachusetts covid-19 outbreak were vaccinated." As Matthew Gertz commented, "Please don't do this. Provincetown has one of the highest vaccination rates in the country. As vaccination rates increase the percentage of cases that are in vaccinated people NECESSARILY increases." The Post's headline was later updated to note that in the outbreak "few required hospitalization."

The whole point of the vaccine was to reduce the spread. At least that's what they were claiming in the beginning. Now the Biden administration is putting out a directive admitting that those areas with the highest vaccination rates are also seeing a higher number of infections, but the hospitalizations are lower. Now the vaccines have been knocked all the way down to "reduce hospitalizations."

News orgs aren't the only ones to blame

I also called up Dr. Leana Wen, a CNN medical analyst and former Baltimore health commissioner, who agreed that the media is "missing the big picture, but so is the CDC." Wen explained that the CDC said it was changing its mask guidance because of the new data regarding rare instances in which a vaccinated person becomes infected and can then spread the virus. "They got it wrong," she said. "The reason why the guidance is changing is that Covid-19 is spreading really quickly, Delta is a big problem, and the reason for the spread is because of the unvaccinated." Wen said the primary reason the CDC needed to change its mask guidance is because the honor system wasn't working. In other words, people who were not vaccinated were acting as if they were and not wearing masks or following other basic safety protocols...

Let's check out Dr. Leana Wen's Bio on Wikipedia.

Isn't it convenient that they fail to mention what Dr. Leana Wen is most known for? Dr. Leana Wen was the head of Planned Parenthood. I think it goes without saying, that someone who fights for the rights of people to euthanize their own children, is not exactly the best spokesperson for saving everyone through vaccination.

The moral of the story is; once you lie to a point, there's no way to walk back the lies. As Dan Cummins (the comedian) would say, "They’ll endlessly invent new lies, to cover up the previous lies, because reality is not an issue in their heads."

The Biden administration is loosing control of the narrative. Their endless stream of lies is catching up with them. They don't have an information problem. They have a problem telling the truth. If they were truthful from the beginning, they wouldn't be in the situation they're in now.

People are hesitant to take the vaccines because even if they don't have all the data, they still can sense when someone is lying to them.

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

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"