TR EMERITUS

Professor Kenneth Mak It's really an Irony in life that "Experts" who claim to "follow the science" but got it so wrong in so many aspects right from the start of this mass vaccine (V) program, would character assassinate those people who didn't believe in them and their crappy narratives, as "unscientific nuts" but yet got so many issues and predictions right about the V. These Experts are just humans, not God. They have their weaknesses like everyone else. They presume they know something more than everyone else just because of the fanciful titles they have acquired in their professional life. But they had forgotten that they didn't really know anything about this new CV as well as the technology m R n a these V are using. People like me are nobody with no expertise in this field but I am just armed with my knowledge in statistics and honesty with no preset agenda. Science isn't that simple but neither it is that complicated. Theories are put up with past fundamental accumulated knowledge, hypothesis formed to be tested clinically with rigorous statistical methodology. I had the Statistical knowledge but not the professional technical knowledge required to understand the various theories and possible hypothesis. So I need to read and read and read and learn Almost non stop reading and learning during my free waking hours. It's really like a compressed crashed course on various topics and research publications. That doesn't make me any Expert and most probably I would still fail any examination in biology or any modules in medical science. But that's enough for me to understand the fundamental basics to use my common sense and analytical minds to formulate hypothesis and use raw data to determine the Truth and Lies. The first claim that was put to test is that elusive 95% efficacy to prevent Infec. The preliminary data did not support that at all, even before we have more robust mutated variants. When we put out the findings, it was not disputed but the so call " Experts" started to change narratives. We also concluded that the data didn't support the claim that the V could prevent transmission or infec. Thus, the Experts' claim that we could gain herd immunity if we could get 70% of population vaccinated is actually an impossibility. Inspite of our findings backed by data and robust statistical analysis, we were called all sorts of nasty names and people just believe the "Experts". I didn't stop there. I dug deeper, learning that Covid-19 (CV) is a RNA virus and the nature of such cirus is that it will mutate rapidly and it is almost impossible to have V to catch up with its mutations fast enough. That was the already KNOWN scientific theory that these so called Experts should know. But why did they keep such basic knowledge from us, the public? Why were they just pushing for V (like snake oil salesmen) in which known scientific knowledge would already predicted it would neither stop infec nor transmission? Why did they give FALSE HOPE of Herd Immunity when such basic scientific knowledge would already regard that as impossible? Did they just do all these for pushing everyone to take the V, which were made using relatively New technology which safety and efficacy were not known at all because there wasn't even long term data?! I was full of doubts by mid May 2021. The datas from US VAERS, UK Yellow Card and Eudra Vigilance sent shock waves through my mind. Local murmurs of serious side effects also added to my concerns. I always maintain that Public Health Policy should always err on the Safe side because lives are at stake. It was also apparent to me that by the limited statistics we had back then, majority of those who really suffered from CV were people with weakened immune system due to comorbidities. Thus the fundamental question is, why were they pushing EVERYONE regardless of age and health status to take the experimental V? All basic standard cautions were thrown off the table with the fuzzy narrative of " benefits outweigh the risks". By the end of June 2021, nobody could doubt our preliminary findings that the V doesn't stop infec and transmission. They shifted their goal poles and narratives to "the V prevent serious illnes & death" from CV. Such assertion wasn't base on the Gold Standard of Statistical clinical trials of Randomized Controlled Trials but casual analysis of a potentially bias natural selection. The only meaningful inference we could possibly get from the unrandom data is quite clear, regardless of V status, majority (99%) of CV deaths were those with weakened immune system like elderlies or people with pre existing comorbidities. When we raised the alarms of potential V injuries, we were all shot down with another falsehood... The V will stay at the injection site. This claim, by the very same "Experts" again, were proven categorically wrong, by the confidential Pfizer animal test reports sent to the Japanese gov. But they were never POFMA or "Fact Checked" on social media platform. As I have explained, common sense and logical deductions would lead us to the conclusion that if the V could possibly travel to other parts or organs of the body, they will create inflammation as this is what they supposed to do, invade the cells in these organs, create spike proteins and trigger or trained our immune system to attack it. Subsequent researches, more and more of them, are surfacing to prove that this theoretical mechanism of harm to our organs, especially the hearts, are indeed real threats. We do not really know about the long term impact on our bodies from such mechanism. Yet the snake oil Experts continue to push for V, even babies and toddlers are not spared. More Real Experts with conscience have come forward with their Research publications explaining and predicting what would happen if we continued such reckless mass V. Many have called for a halt to the V program, initiating a thorough investigation on the potential short and long term harm the V would bring to us. Some have concluded that with the massive signals we are seeing, data analysis would imply benefits no longer outweigh the risks of V. However, we continue to have operation gaslighting from the establishment "Experts", providing all kinds of possible reasons for the worrying Excess Deaths trend and increasing Sudden Deaths incidents. I am NOT an Anti V. Nope. I was hoping a real safe and effective V would surface but the current ones aren't the ones I hope for. Right from the start, the signals of harm were pretty alarming which cannot be ignored totally. When Pfizer documents show that they have listed 1291 of adverse side effects of major concerns, every so call " Expert" act deaf and dumb. Who are the ones perpetuating "misinformation"? The ones who are always vindicated and proven right most of the time or the ones who have been proven wrong repeatedly? You be the judge. It's not a difficult IQ test at all. There are real and genuine safety concerns with regards to the V. The signals are becoming stronger and more devastating in the form of prolonged Consistent Excess DEATHS along with the increased of unknown Sudden Deaths. It is fundamentally flawed to attribute deaths to only pre existing conditions while neglecting the possibility that something else could have triggered such deaths when these comorbidities exist. It applies to CV infec, it should also apply to V as well. I hereby, once again, call for a Halt to the V program because whatever concerns we have raised in the interest of Public Health, are not baseless but supported by many emerging studies and research publications. A much misrepresented statistical Quote taken out of context by the "Experts" should be rewritten: Correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation BUT Strong Correlations warrant attention and concerns for further scientific investigations.   Goh Meng Seng      Read More →

Earlier this year, on Jan. 24, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists sets its iconic Doomsday Clock 90 seconds to midnight, the closest since 1947. The specter of WWIII, especially a nuclear version, portends such utter catastrophe for all involved that it is easy to dismiss it as irrational and thus unlikely. Nevertheless, a large exchange of thermonuclear weapons could kill hundreds of millions of people in less than an hour. But that would be just the beginning. Widespread fires and radiation from these weapons would kill hundreds of millions more over a time period of days. Then there is the distinct possibility of nuclear winter, where soot lofted into the stratosphere would block out the sun for perhaps decades. The famine that would result could well lead to the extinction of the human race, not to mention the extinction of many other animal species. There was a time when many in the US political/military establishment truly believed a nuclear war was winnable. The idea that I find scariest is how much more likely it can become for people to repeat actions - and mistakes - when those with direct experience of the actions are gone. It's 77 years since the end of WW2 with the atomic bombing of Japan for example. There are still people alive with those memories, though few who were directly involved. Lacking that experience residing among ourselves, I fear we are likely to start those cycles again. At the very heart of nuclear deterrence theory is the need for the leaders of both nuclear adversaries to believe that, without question, any launch of a nuclear first strike would be met with, to coin a phrase, fire and fury in response. This issue is getting even more complicated by the radically expanding types of weapons of mass destruction, where deterrence may require the threat of a nuclear response to a non-nuclear attack. Compromising the ability of one leader to respond with a counter-attack of weapons of mass destruction would increase the temptation for the other adversary to strike first. However as technologies like CRISPR which edits genes by precisely cutting DNA and then letting natural DNA repair processes to take over. The effect of "off-target" can alter the function of a gene and may result in genomic instability, hindering its prospective and application in clinical procedure. With these systems, researchers can permanently modify genes in living cells and organisms and, in the future, we'll eventually be able to see people brewing 'designer viruses' in untrackable ways. Sounds familiar isn't it? The whole idea that "mankind is doomed" on its' face is simply ghastly. While the evidence is strong that we are systematically destroying our home planet, and there seems to be a rising potential for conflict and strife. It simply doesn't have to be so, we have choices and agency to create and live a different destiny. If you have people who just want to see destabilization as the goal, we're move deeper into a world where it will be easier and easier to just keep destabilizing, all with the hope of then being able to act out apocalyptic scenarios. Whilst this image has come to shape our politics — we do after all live in catastrophic times where the future looks like an endemic terrain of crisis. Will humans go extinct at some point? -- that's the fate of all species. But I seriously doubt that current environmental problems, bad as they are, will cause our complete demise. Even so, I don't believe that we should just give up. Clean air and water will matter so long as humans exist. Preserving species from extinction, whenever we can, is a good thing to do. However, any type of global regime to reign in climate change is definitely not in the cards. That would require a global revolution in thinking; a change of mind about economic growth and the accumulation of personal wealth. That revolution in thinking, if it ever comes, will be far too late. So the clock is “a frighteningly symbolic image for a world that continued to live within the shadow of annihilation — with this symbolic attempt to calculate the time that remains. Will the Apocalypse be nuclear, biological/chemical warfare, pandemics, climate, asteroid impact or unknown risks?   Sjorne Shen      Read More →

1. My friend made this statement - base on the best available data in the world on the autopsies done on sudden deaths cases which were carried out in Germany, 30% of such sudden Deaths are attributed to vaccines. 2. On my request, he sent me the link to the Germany study. 3. I read the study and said - There were 286 deaths among the people vaccinated (the actual number is not provided). 3 deaths out of 28 were found to be probably connected to the vaccine. These cases had severe underlying conditions. The report said that the causal relationship was not established. The report did not state that "30% of the sudden deaths are attributed to the vaccines". 4. He gave a few statements that did not addressed my point. He said - the answer is, there exists a possibility but we don't know. I replied - In case of doubt, we should take a sensible judgment. We should avoid taking a small possibility and assume that it is the most likely outcome. 5. He said - I am strictly data based. I replied - I do not agree with your interpretation and conclusion of the data. 6. I have seen many reports and videos from anti-vaccine advocates. Their interpretation and conclusions from the questionable data are often unreliable. 7. I do not believe that the vaccine is totally safe. The health experts also acknowledge that it has some adverse effects on certain people. But they say that the risk is small and the benefits outweigh the risk. I agree with the experts, based on the information that is available now.   Tan Kin Lian      Read More →