All posts by Kay

What Have the Communists Been Doing in North America Since the 50s

Our family watched the following documentaries several years ago; they gave us a deeper understanding of the society around us and the time we live in.  Recently, I came across these two videos with Chinese captions on YouTube (below).  The soundtrack is still in English.  It is wonderful that now these two important documentaries can reach a larger audience!

The review from Movieguide:

AGENDA: GRINDING AMERICA DOWN is the most powerful exposé of the communist, socialist, progressive attempt to take over America produced so far. This is not a conspiracy documentary about a secret collusion between two or more conspirators to affect some nefarious change, but rather a clear look at the publicized agenda of the hard left and shows how they have effectively implemented that public agenda. The documentary starts with a quote from Joseph Stalin, “America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within.” Then, the documentary shows the steps the Communist Party said were necessary to destroy America’s patriotism, morality and faith. Incredibly, they were able to achieve their agenda.

This clear exposé alone makes this documentary worth watching. More than that, the documentary presents the connections between the different communist, socialist, progressive organizations with great clarity and shows how they implemented their agenda in each area of life. AGENDA is absolutely brilliant for its well-researched understanding of the issues. It is must viewing. AGENDA is a great documentary.

The official website of these two Documentaries: AGENDADOCUMENTARY.COM

Podcast of the film maker Curtis Bowers: Here

AGENDA: Grinding America Down

AGENDA 2: Masters of Deceit

And…what about in Canada?

Did not the destruction in Canada happen even sooner?

Pierre Trudeau was a Communist

Justin Trudeau- born and raised a communist

The PLAN – Masks, Social Distancing, Lockdowns

“The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything.” –  Albert Einstein
In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousand-fold in the future. When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers, we are not simply protecting their trivial old age, we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations.–  Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn


The Biderman Report of 1956 and Covid-1984:
Methods for Eliciting Individual Compliance
This post is part of the series The PLAN.  The objective of this series is to share the other side of the story that is hard to find on the MSM.  The links provided here are for you to explore.  Quotations have been kept to a very minimum to encourage the reading of the whole article itself.  Other parts of the series: COVID-19 Test (I), COVID-19 Test (II),  The “Vaccines” (videos), The “Vaccines” and its Adverse Events (article links)
“The fear of the Lord is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.” – Proverbs 8:13
“Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good.” – Proverbs 12:9
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! – Isaiah 5:20
“The state is to be an agent of justice, to restrain evil by punishing the wrongdoer, and to protect the good in society. When it does the reverse, it has not proper authority. It is then a usurped authority and as such it becomes lawless and is tyranny.” – F. A. Schaeffer
“Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless.  Not to speak is to speak.  Not to act is to act.” – Dietrich Bonhoeffer


Over All Pandemic Measures

International Alert Message about COVID-19 by United Health Professionals

The lockdown « a global scientific fraud of unprecedented proportions »
Selected Highlights from the above international statement that has been sent to multiple governments of different countries :

“Stay home, save lives » was a pure lie.
Remove the following illegal, non-scientific and non-sanitary measures : lockdown, mandatory face masks for healthy subjects, social distancing of one or two meters.
The lockdown not only killed many people but also destroyed physical and mental health, economy, education and other aspects of life.
The natural history of the virus [the coronavirus] is not influenced by social measures [lockdown, face masks, closure of restaurants, curfew
When the state knows best and violates human rights, we are on a dangerous course.
Exclude your experts and advisers who have links or conflicts of interest with pharmaceutical companies.
Stop the vaccination campaigns and refuse the scam of the pseudo-health passport which is in reality a politico-commercial project.”

Leading Canadian Health Expert Outraged at Government Response to COVID  

Dr. Roger Hodkinson, MA, MB, FRCPC, FCAP, CEO and medical director of Western Medical Assessments, spoke at the Edmonton City Council Community and Public Services Committee meeting on Nov. 13 about the city’s move to extend its face-covering bylaw. 
Hodkinson was trained at Cambridge University in the UK. He is ex-president of the pathology section of the Medical Association. He was certified by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada as a general pathologist in 1976 and is a Royal College Fellow.

Questioning the COVID Narrative & Measures

A resource page with links to numerous open letters to different governments and also research documents, etc.



To Mask, or Not to Mask?
First was none, then was one.
And it’s two, and then three?
When it’s four, breathe no more…

You would have thought this matter should be a simple one as we are living in a SMART age with top-notch technology.  Apparently, our stupidity level is still high, or the deception is deep.

Review of scientific reports of harms caused by face masks, up to February 2021

Masking Reports & Citations 

A resource page that includes a great number of studies, reports, articles and videos.

Parents For Mask Free Education: Resource Page

Links to multiple studies, documents, and articles.

Chemical Cocktail Found in Face Masks. “Breathing in Carcinogens, Allergens and Synthetic Microfibres” (Apr2021)

Twenty Reasons Mandatory Face Masks are Unsafe, Ineffective and Immoral

Is Wearing Three Masks Better Than One?

Horowitz: Comprehensive analysis of 50 states shows greater spread with mask mandates

Do Mandatory Masks & Vaccines Break the 10 Points of the Nuremberg Code?

Mindless Mask Mandates Likely Do More Harm Than Good


Social Distancing

Did you know the bogus idea of ‘social distancing’ was invented by a 14-year-old girl during the Bush administration in 2006?

‘Social Distancing’ is Snake Oil, Not Science

13 Studies Reveal How Social Distancing (i.e., Social Isolation) Can Increase Mortality



Yet Another Study Shows—Yet Again—That Lockdowns Don’t Work

More Evidence Proves Lockdowns Are a Dangerous Lie

“There has been an unexpected and rising number of young people who have died during 2020. Despite their low risk for COVID-19 death, adults from 20 to 44 years had the largest increase in “excess” deaths. This number is defined as “the number of persons who have died from all causes, in excess of the expected number of deaths for a given place and time.”

Excess deaths in this age group jumped by 26.5%, surpassing the number of excess deaths in older Americans who are at higher risk for a COVID-19 fatality. According to the CDC, these excess deaths were not linked to the coronavirus but, as the Daily Wire reports, it has been suggested they were “largely attributable to deaths of ‘despair,’ or deaths linked to our ‘cure’ for the disease: lockdown measures.”

During the first four months of the pandemic, Rape Crisis Network Ireland reported rape and child sex abuse had increased sharply and the number of survivors who contacted crisis centers for counseling jumped by 98% from March through the end of June 2020, as compared to 2019.”

A Standford Study : Assessing Mandatory Stay- At- Home and Business Closure Effects on the Spread of COVID- 19

What NO ONE is Saying About The Lockdowns (video)

“If you are advocating for lockdowns, you are complicit in tearing families apart. You are complicit in inflicting untold suffering on millions of people around the world. You are complicit in casting the poorest and most vulnerable in our societies into even further grinding poverty. You are complicit in murder.”

STUDY: COVID Lockdown Harms are 10 Times Greater than Benefits

It’s not COVID that’s a catastrophe. It’s the lockdowns.

Twelve Times the Lockdowners Were Wrong


“Is That a BABY? Is That a CHILD?”

It is heartbreaking…

And it is saddening that not too many politicians would publicly say that they are pro-life.  And the one who clearly states that he is pro-life in our province is being kicked out of his party…

I don’t understand…I don’t understand why it is controversial…..” – Sen. Lankford


If you buy a new GM car, a Nissan, Honda, Kia or Toyota, even a Hyundai. You’ll notice they started installing a new feature in their cars. It’s a reminder when you turn off your engine to check your back seat. Quite frankly, I rented a car not long ago, and it started dinging, and I tried to figure out what I had done. I kept looking around until I saw the little monitor on the dashboard, and it said check the back seat, which I thought was great. Because the makers of those cars all believe every child is precious, and they shouldn’t be harmed.

We’ve all heard stories like this, but I distinctly remember last summer seeing in the news the story about an infant who died because they were left in a hot car. That’s why these carmakers are making this feature now. I remember as I saw the story on the news and just the reports and how angry people were in the community, and they were angry at the store and they were upset on the news. And they couldn’t believe that a mom had left a child in the back seat of a car, and they had slowly died in the heat, because no one wants to see a child harmed. Everyone believes that every child is precious. But I remember when I saw the story on the news last summer, I remember turning to my wife and saying, ‘I can’t figure out our culture sometimes, because that same mom and that same baby could have gone into an abortion clinic just a few months before, and that child’s life could have ended, and it wouldn’t have made the news. In fact, no one would have flinched.’ In fact, the very same people that were furious at that mom for leaving her child in a hot car to die would have argued for her right to destroy that exact same child, and in fact would have called it her reproductive right or even the new euphemism out there reproductive ‘care.’ Same child, same mom, nothing was different but a few months in time.

Reproductive care seems like such a nice little euphemism, but what it really means is paying someone in a clinic to reach into the womb with a surgical instrument to pull the arms and legs off of a child in the womb so that they will bleed to death in the womb and then suction out the little boy or girl’s body parts one at a time. That’s what reproductive care means. And I don’t understand why that’s normal, but leaving a child in the back seat of a hot car is a tragedy. Maybe it’s because as a nation, some people are afraid to answer the most obvious question: is that a baby? That’s the most obvious question. That face, that nose, those two eyes, that mouth, that chin, those fingers—is that a baby? 

That’s really the only question. Is that a child? 

Maybe there’s a second question that needs to be answered: are all children valuable, or are only some children valuable? We seem to have a great deal of debate today in our society—and we should—about facts. People say we can’t seem to agree on the same set of facts and truth. You can’t have your facts and my facts. We just only have facts. The media, big tech, activists have all decried of our loss of our ability as a nation to just accept clear facts in front of our face. The obvious truth.

So let me ask a question again: is that a baby? Yes or no?

Because if we’re all supposed to say let’s at least agree to the most basic of facts, how about that one? Is that a human child with a future and a purpose and a name? Are all children valuable, or are only some? Gold is valuable. It doesn’t matter its size. I have gold in my wedding ring. Many people have gold in their wedding rings. If we found a small piece of gold on the floor, it would be valuable. It wouldn’t matter its shape, wouldn’t matter its size, small or large. We don’t discriminate. Gold is valuable because everyone recognizes its worth. Every single senator in this room recognizes the value of gold. It’s around $1,800 an ounce right now to get gold. No matter how small gold is valuable, but we can’t seem to agree that all children is valuable. Literally gold is more precious to some people in this room than children are. Children aren’t valuable only sometimes, or only certain children. Children are valuable. It can’t be just if a mom or dad wants a child they’re valuable, and if they don’t want a child, they’re not valuable, they’re disposable. The mom or dad gets to choose who’s precious and who’s medical waste.

Is that a child? That’s really the only question that has to be answered, because everything else flows from that. 

There are political conversations in this room about the value of children, and every time it comes up, it gets noisy. People will say, ‘Well, you don’t fund enough money for education or child care or health care in communities, so you don’t love children.’ I would say I voted for the exact same bill you did last year for billions of dollars for assistance in child care, billions of dollars for early childhood education, elementary and secondary education, higher education. We did additional assistance for SNAP benefits last year and assistance of benefits of moms in need, increased health care for all communities, for federally qualified health centers to make sure we get health care to every single community. I voted on those exact same things multiple other people did in this room. I care about children outside the womb.

But those questions really aren’t the question. They are distractions to the question, and I get it. Because if I ask: is that a child, people respond, ‘Well do you spend enough for child care or health care?’ And I still say, “Stop, answer my first question. Is that a child?’ Maybe I should ask a more basic question: does everyone in this room believe in the principle we should do unto others as we would want done unto us? What would you want done to you when you were in the womb?

Listen, I don’t want to address this issue lightly. This is a difficult issue for some people. I don’t think an abortion is a flippant thing that anyone walks into an abortion. I don’t meet anyone that had an abortion is somehow gleeful about it. Quite frankly, I can’t imagine that anyone who had an abortion would ever forget the sights and the sounds and the smells of an abortion. Knowing that a helpless child is dying at that moment. I grieve for moms and dads who will never, ever forget that they went into a clinic and paid someone to get rid of their child in the name of ‘reproductive care.’ I can’t imagine what their emotion is. But we as a society have to answer this question still for every child that is yet to come.

Forty-eight years ago this week, the Supreme Court made a decision that has now resulted in the death of 62 million children in America—sixty-two million. That is hard to fathom. And like so many other Supreme Court decisions, America has not forgotten about this one. Our culture has not just moved on and accepted it. Every year since 1974, the first year after the Roe v. Wade decision, individuals from across the country have gathered in Washington, DC, in defense of the unborn. Friends, families, church leaders, community folks, they have all marched in the rain, the sleet, the snow. It’s cold every year this week in January. But they come. This year will be different due to COVID-19 and the ongoing security concerns in Washington, DC, marchers are staying home, and they are engaging virtually. Maybe this is one more moment where even more people can get involved online because I expect the rally this year will draw an even larger number of people. Students and families and people, quite frankly, from all over the world, just to ask a question is on the motion: will we recognize the most obvious thing in front of our face? That’s a baby.

President Biden this week celebrated the passage of Roe v. Wade by declaring that he wants to pass a federal law requiring abortion to be provided in every single state in America. Not just trust a court decision from 1973. He wants us to proactively require in statute that every state demands abortion in their state. And that the federal taxpayers with hard-earned tax dollars should actually be required to pay for those abortions all over America. It wasn’t long ago that Senator Biden was saying things like ‘taxpayers shouldn’t be required to pay for abortion. They shouldn’t be required to pay for something that they find so morally objectionable.’ It wasn’t that long ago, Senator Biden was talking about abortion being safe, legal, and rare.

Now as president, within the first week, he’s moving as fast as he can to promote abortion and demand taxpayers pay for it. In fact, painfully so, President Biden’s nomination for the Secretary of Health and Human Services has actually no health care experience at all. It’s a little surprising to a lot of us when we saw it because we are used to seeing the leader of Health and Human Services be a physician or scientist. Which would make sense in the time of enormous global pandemic to have a physician leading health and human services, but he actually nominated someone that his biggest qualification is he is one of the most radical advocates for abortion in the country. He did as a House member. He did as an attorney general in California. And clearly, the promise was made he’ll do it if you put him into Health and Human Services.

Let me just give you an example of what I am talking about for Mr. Becerra. I just, I can’t process some of these things. Mr. Becerra, when he was the Attorney General for California, actually went to Mississippi to be able to lead a suit against Mississippi, another state, obviously, because that state was talking about limiting abortions, only the earliest days of abortion. Their belief was after a child feels pain, we should at least not tear a child limb from limb in the womb when their nervous system is developed. Mr. Becerra led a coalition of state attorneys general to fight Mississippi and say, ‘You can’t protect children that way.’ He actually argued before the United States Court of Appeals in the Ninth Circuit against the Little Sisters of the Poor, trying to require that group of nuns to provide birth control services so the group of nuns literally attacking the Little Sisters of the Poor to kind of push this whole agenda.

When he was a Representative in the House of Representatives, he voted against the Born-alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act so if a child is in a botched abortion, is actually delivered instead of destroyed, he wanted to say, ‘No, even after they are fully delivered, that child can still be destroyed, even though they are fully delivered,’ which would make sense because he also, as a representative, fought against the partial-birth abortion ban. The procedure where they would—it was a rare procedure but it was a procedure—where they would deliver the child all but the head, and then penetrate the head with scissors and kill the child. He fought against that.

He fought against the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which really is odd to me. All it did was criminalize if someone attacked a pregnant woman and killed her child, they could also be liable for that death as well. He also didn’t want to recognize the child as a child, even if the mother saw the child as a child. He also fought against crossing state lines for minors and saying they shouldn’t have to get parents’ permission if they cross state lines to go get an abortion somewhere else.

As the Attorney General in California, he fought to require churches to pay for abortion care in their health care plans when it directly violated their religious belief. Unbelievably so, he also fought to be able to require pro-life medical clinics where you could go and say, ‘I don’t want an abortion, but I do want a sonogram. I want to be able to get some more information about this child.’ If you went into one of those pro-life centers and got a sonogram, he fought to require there to be a poster on the wall that would say, ‘If you would rather have an abortion, here’s the place that you would go.’ Now, this is beyond just protecting abortion. That has moved to promoting abortion, encouraging the death of children.

It got even so bizarre that in California, when there was a video taken of a Planned Parenthood group of folks that were trafficking the body parts of children and it was caught on video, instead of confronting the folks that were trafficking the child body parts, he went after the folks that took the video, the whistleblowers, and exposed them. I have to tell you, this is not an attack on Mr. Becerra. It’s just a shock to me that all of those things seem normal. I don’t understand that, culturally. I don’t understand how the person who is being appointed to lead Health and Human Services can say that children are sub human. I don’t have to recognize that as human, though I’m leading Health and Human Services. That’s apparently optional tissue, not a human child. I believe that children are human. We should honor every child’s life.

It should be baseline for us to be able to say, ‘If a child is actually delivered in a botched abortion and had been fully delivered outside the womb, we should help that child get medical care.’ I don’t understand why that’s so hard.

I don’t understand why it’s so hard to say, ‘Some people are absolutely appalled by the taking of a child’s life. Don’t force them with their tax dollars to pay for it.’ I don’t understand why that’s controversial.

I don’t understand why it’s controversial that when a child can feel pain in the womb, that we shouldn’t dismember a child in the womb. I don’t understand why that’s controversial.

I don’t understand why it’s controversial to some that if a health care provider who has sworn to protect life, that that person shouldn’t be compelled to take life in an abortion procedure by their employer. I don’t understand why that’s controversial. But for some reason, it is.

Among our most basic rights in America, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, one of the most basic things that come out of our founding documents is these things are referred to as self-evident. Facts are facts, especially when those facts have a face. How can you look at that picture and say, ‘That’s not a human child?’ How can we not acknowledge the simple facts? Now, I do understand for some people, this is very difficult because they fought for years for abortion, and they don’t want that to change, because if it changes, they would have to admit there have been deaths of millions of children on their watch. That is not a simple thing to admit. But please do not tell me you’re following the science. Because that child has ten fingers and ten toes and a beating heart and a functioning nervous system. That child has DNA that’s different than the mom or the dad. That’s not random tissue. That is a separate person, and science would confirm that, so please don’t tell me you follow the science wherever it goes, because some facts are obvious. And the science is clear.

And this all gets resolved when we answer one simple question: is that a child or not? Because everything else goes from that.

For those of you joining the March for Life online this week, good for you. Keep going. Don’t give up. Defend the facts that are self-evident. Speak out for those who can’t speak for themselves because millions of future Americans are counting on it. And they’re watching for someone to admit the facts, the facts that have a face. 

Conquest Press

Our daughter Odelia has launched Conquest Press recently.  The following is the welcome post of the site.

Welcome to Conquest Press

Thank you for visiting Conquest Press! We are glad you stopped at our site. It is our prayer that our books, posts, and other content would be a blessing to you.

The purpose of this post is to provide an introductory history of how Conquest Press came to be, and why we are committed to bringing “old Christian books” back into print.


My name is Odelia. Ever since I learned how to read, I have been blessed by countless wonderful Christian books and their authors, all of which have shaped me as a person and guided me in my Christian walk. About a year ago, I wondered how I could share these treasures with others. Most of those book have been written in the 19th and 20th centuries, and have since gone out of print, and now exist only in digital formats. Some sites offered a few printed copies, but I was unable to find most of the books I loved. Perhaps there was something I could do to make these books available to fellow Christians, young and old. But I had no way to print them.

For months, I hesitated, doubting. Then my mother—who had introduced those books to me when I was young, handpicked them for my siblings and I, and read them to us by turns—urged me to find some way to reprint those books and make them available in hardcopies. Several mothers in our local homeschool group were looking for hardcopies of such books. Encouraged by her support, I began to look for ways to fill this need.

I found that Amazon offers a “free” publishing platform for those who want to produce books but did not have the means to print and distribute them. I did some research, then brought the idea to my sister Tiffany, and my mother.

We prayed about it. We discussed the idea for a few more weeks. Then, we began to plan.

And thus Conquest Press was born.

Our vision and mission at Conquest Press is simply this: we aim to publish books that edify, encourage and equip Christians who read them. We believe that words are powerful, because they carry messages and ideas that argue for one view of life and the world, or another. Stories hold even greater power, for they engage not only the mind, but also the emotions and imaginations. That is why each of the books we offer goes through rigorous, careful evaluation to ensure that the messages and arguments they contain align with Biblical values and truths.

Why “Conquest Press”?

The word “Conquest” succinctly defines how the life of the Christian is, or should be. We serve not only our Savior and Master, but the conquering King of Kings. We are His servants and soldiers. We are both to seek His kingdom and righteousness (Matthew 6:33), and to go out and teach all nations for Him (Matthew 28:19). We are to be Kingdom builders for a victorious Lord Who reigns over all.

Our tagline for Conquest Press, “The World is a Battleground,” speaks to what it is that we are to conquer; that is, the world, the flesh, and the devil. The world we live in, the activities we engage in, and yes, even the books we read, are not to be enjoyed without prudence and discernment. The world is not a playground. The world is a battleground—it is a battleground of conflicting ideas and worldviews, a battle for souls.

As Christians, we must be steadfast and single-minded. We are soldiers of Christ the King. Through Him, we are more than conquerors; through Him, we can and must cast down strongholds and imaginations that rise up against the truth; through Him we can proclaim the power of God unto salvation to all who will listen and receive Him.

It is our prayer that every book, every article, and every other thing Conquest Press offers will aid in equipping Christians for life-long service as a good soldier under King Jesus (2 Timothy 2:3), and continue fighting the good fight of faith (1 Timothy 6:12).

In closing, we would like to thank you for taking the time to read this behind-the-scenes introduction to Conquest Press. We encourage you to sign up for our newsletter; that way, you would be notified of new books and articles, as well as any news and updates on our website, when they become available.

Thank you again for stopping by! May God bless you.

Conquest Press

The PLAN – COVID-19 Test (II)

Before sharing about the issues of COVID measures, The “Vaccines” (videos), The “Vaccines” and its Adverse Events (article links), I would like to add more to the previous post ‘The PLAN – COVID-19 Test‘ as it is vital to understand how the test is used as a tool to create deception and fear.  I truly hope that less and less people would be emotionally affected by the daily reported number of ‘new cases’ despite how it reaches a ‘record high’.
“A merry heart doeth good like a medicine: but a broken spirit drieth the bones.”  Proverbs 17:22

More importantly, if someone is/was tested positive, please do not treat the person as if he/she is a monster.   And if you are healthy, please do not feel guilty of showing a smile to someone.  You are certainly not harming that person in any way though we are being told otherwise.

In the first mentioned article in my last COVID-19 Test post, Kary Mullis was introduced, and also the PCR technique that he had invented.  It is also an important article to understand the corruption within the medical world (enterprise) today.  Below is a 2 mins clip of Kary Mullis talking about some medical professionals including Dr Fauci.

Other articles:

External peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-CoV-2 reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level: consequences for false positive results Curated by an INTERNATIONAL CONSORTIUM OF SCIENTISTS IN LIFE SCIENCES (ICSLS)


The COVID-19 RT-PCR Test: How to Mislead All Humanity. Using a “Test” To Lock Down Society  by Dr. Pascal Sacré, an emergency physician unjustly fired for his writings on the COVID Crisis


Portuguese Court Rules PCR Tests “Unreliable” & Quarantines “Unlawful” – Important legal decision faces total media blackout in Western world  by Off-Guardian


Coronavirus Scandal Breaking in Merkel’s Germany Over Drosten PCR Test   by F. William Engdahl


COVID-19 Testing Scandal Deepens   by Dr J Mercola


Why COVID-19 Testing Is a Tragic Waste   by Dr J Mercola

Twelve Principles of Public Health

This article is authored by Dr. Martin Kulldorff via American Institute for Economic Research

Martin Kulldorff, PhD, is a Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School. His research centers on developing new epidemiological and statistical methods for the early detection and monitoring of infectious disease outbreaks and for post-market drug and vaccine safety surveillance.

  1. Public health is about all health outcomes, not just a single disease like Covid-19. It is important to also consider harms from public health measures. More.
  2. Public health is about the long term rather than the short term. Spring Covid lockdowns simply delayed and postponed the pandemic to the fall. More.
  3. Public health is about everyone. It should not be used to shift the burden of disease from the affluent to the less affluent, as the lockdowns have done. More.
  4. Public health is global. Public health scientists need to consider the global impact of their recommendations. More.
  5. Risks and harms cannot be completely eliminated, but they can be reduced. Elimination and zero-Covid strategies backfire, making things worse. More.
  6. Public health should focus on high-risk populations. For Covid-19, many standard public health measures were never used to protect high-risk older people, leading to unnecessary deaths. More.
  7. While contact tracing and isolation are critically important for some infectious diseases, it is futile and counterproductive for common infections such as influenza and Covid-19. More.
  8. A case is only a case if a person is sick. Mass testing asymptomatic individuals is harmful to public health. More.
  9. Public health is about trust. To gain the trust of the public, public health officials and the media must be honest and trust the public. Shaming and fear should never be used in a pandemic. More.
  10. Public health scientists and officials must be honest with what is not known. For example, epidemic models should be run with the whole range of plausible input parameters. More.
  11. In public health, open civilized debate is profoundly critical. Censoring, silencing and smearing leads to fear of speaking, herd thinking and distrust. More.
  12. It is important for public health scientists and officials to listen to the public, who are living the public health consequences. This pandemic has proved that many non-epidemiologists understand public health better than some epidemiologists. More.

The PLAN – COVID-19 Test

For more than 7 months I have been collecting articles, planning to share them here with some highlights and comments. However, the reality proves that I do not have the ability to accomplish the project in a timely manner.  Therefore, I resolve to just list out the links here, and hope that these information and opinions would reach more people. These articles would be organized into several posts : COVID-19 Test (I), COVID-19 Test (II), COVID-19 Measures, The “Vaccines” (videos), The “Vaccines” and its Adverse Events (article links), BLM, Global Reset etc.

First, let’s talk about the Covid-19 test. After all, one will wonder how we should end the lockdown measures if the number of positive cases keep surging.

I never doubted the function of the test back in January and February this year. I just assumed a test is a test that is able to tell you ‘yes’ or ‘no’, ‘positive’ or ‘negative’, though I understand, as of all biological tests, test results are never 100 % accurate. But then, as I learned more about the PCR test and the procedure that is used to obtain a result, I finally realized the so called “Covid-19 positive case number” is highly misleading. One more positive test result simply do not and cannot reflect that there is one more person being infected with the disease, or sick.  In other words, a positive test result does not necessarily mean we have a ‘case’.  When we have a ‘case’, that implies there is a situation, there is something that we need to deal with. However, a positive test result simply DO NOT and CANNOT lead to this conclusion. This is serious, as this will show that the lockdowns and strict measures like the closing of business etc are not justified at all, since the governments push all these measures based upon the ‘positive case number‘.

Please find out more about the test:

Was the COVID-19 Test Meant to Detect a Virus?  By Celia Farber, a journalist who had interview Kary Mullis,  the inventor of Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR), who was awarded the Nobel Prize for it.

Lies, Damned Lies and Health Statistics – the Deadly Danger of False Positives  By Dr  Mike Yeadon, the former CSO and VP, Allergy and Respiratory Research Head with Pfizer Global R&D and co-Founder of Ziarco Pharma Ltd.

Chief Science Officer for Pfizer Says “Second Wave” Faked on False-Positive COVID Tests, “Pandemic Is Over”  This is an article that talks about an interview with Dr Mike Yeadon.  The interview video is also linked on the page.

SARS-CoV-2: The Stitched Together, Frankenstein Virus

Does the 2019 Coronavirus Exist?


It is obvious that more testing would result in more ‘positive cases‘ as what the test can find is only something this is inside many of us anyway. Therefore, if the governments set their policies based on the number of ‘positive cases‘, this game will never end.  That is, until some people have achieved what they have planned to accomplish, whatever that is.

Presentation of Dr. Jenő Ébert at the conference on PCR tests

Go to Part II : The PLAN – COVID-19 Test (II)

Also: The PLAN – Masks, Social Distancing, Lockdowns


Over 37,000 Scientists and Medical Professionals Call for ‘Focused Protection’ and End to Lockdowns – The Great Barrington Declaration

The following declaration was authored and signed in Great Barrington, US, on October 4, 2020.  As of  5:30pm EST of October 8, 2020, it is

As of 11:00am EST of October 16, 2020:

For videos and/or to sign the declaration, please visit

Great Barrington Declaration

The Great Barrington Declaration

As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection.

Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice.

Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.

Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza.

As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e.  the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity.

The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection.

Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent PCR testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home. When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals.

Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity.

On October 4, 2020, this declaration was authored and signed in Great Barrington, United States, by:

Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, and epidemiologist with expertise in detecting and monitoring of infectious disease outbreaks and vaccine safety evaluations.

Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, vaccine development, and mathematical modeling of infectious diseases.

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician, epidemiologist, health economist, and public health policy expert focusing on infectious diseases and vulnerable populations.

For videos and/or to sign the declaration, please visit

Great Barrington Declaration