TR EMERITUS

When there are 5 deaths due to adverse reactions to a vaccine, the mass vaccination must stop. The autopsies are done on the corpses to ascertain the causes of the fatalities. Unfortunately, the mass vaccination continues as if nobody died! Please read the Straits Times report entitled 'Covid-19 vaccination bookings for P3 to 5 pupils to open next week if doses arrive as scheduled.' [LINK] Indeed, the so-called mRNA 'vaccines' for children have arrived in Singapore. The article in the Straits Times states the following. The expert committee on Covid-19 vaccination has said the benefits of the vaccine outweigh the risks posed to young children. These are some relevant questions. A) What are the benefits of these so-called 'vaccines'? Do the manufacturers of these vaccine products guarantee that the people who are jabbed with their products will not suffer any short-term and long-term adverse reactions to the human body? C) Do the manufacturers of these products guarantee that nobody will die as a result of their products? D) Is it correct to say that there are healthy children, adults and even athletes who have died after being jabbed with the mRNA so-called 'vaccines'? E) It it true that the patients and the families of those who suffered COVID-19 adverse reactions or death cannot claim any monetary compensation from the vaccine manufacturers? F) Why is the mass vaccination for children proceeding when the trials have just started in the KK Women's and Children's Hospital? G) If a child in Singapore suffered adverse reactions or even death, will the mass vaccination for children be halted? H) Can the parents or guardians decide not to jab their children? Hopefully, the MOE and MOH can reply quickly.   * Facebook post by Francis Thia.      Read More →

It is a pain to watch the examinations of Ms Loh Pei Ying and Ms Raeesah Khan by Minister Edwin Tong and his team. While they try to appear fair, polite, understanding, patient and even sympathetic to the witnesses, it is not difficult to see that all of them were not trying to ascertain facts but were looking for slip ups and words that would make the leaders of the Workers’ Party look bad and set the witnesses on a war path with the leaders of the party. It is evident that their line of questioning and suggestions are intended to inflict maximum damage on its leadership. The committee’s hypocrisy is shown from the speed at which their first Special Report was published - on 3 December 2021 or soon after the evidence of the first batch of three witnesses (Ms Loh Pei Ying, Ms Raeesah Khan and Mr Yudhishthra Nathan were taken. In paragraph 6 of the report, the committee arrived at this decision: “After hearing the above witnesses, the Committee resolved to make the entire video recording of their evidence available to Parliament and thereby to the public through the Parliament website.” If the committee have an iota of consideration for the witnesses, especially Ms Raeesah Khan, they would not have made the video recordings public for audiences not only in Singapore but all over the world. Further, what and where is the urgency for such an interim report to be made public when other witnesses who they intend to call have not testified? I am exceedingly disappointed by the action of the so called “fact finding” objective of the Committee of Privileges. Totally devoid of understanding and empathy (though Minister Edwin Tong kept repeating “I understand” during the proceedings), they have savaged Ms Raeesah Khan, a victim of a sexual assault. It is hypocritical to continuously use this phrase "victim of sexual assault" and pretend that it would alleviate the trauma of the victim when by their actions, they have aggravated the trauma of the victim. What they should have done was to keep the proceedings within the chambers and publish in written form at the appropriate time as they have done in past proceedings. PAP ministers are not known for being compassionate to opposition political parties. If they have an opportunity to score political points, they would do their utmost. This means employing means that may not be fair or even contrary to the rules of the game, in this case, parliament. And this is what they have done. On 4 October 2021, Ms Raeesah Khan was subjected to threats by Minister Shanmugam after she refused to disclose information he requested. He threatened that the police would contact her for “an interview”. The police naturally obeyed the Minister and followed up by email requests. All these appear in the police statement annexed to the Special Report. The minister knew full well when he made the threat that a lie uttered in parliament should be rectified in parliament as it is privileged. Why did he make the threat and instruct the police to investigate Ms Raeesah Khan? Is he taking advantage of Ms Raeesah Khan’s lack of experience and ignorance? As a minister for law and home affairs, I do not expect such conduct from him. Finally, I am not amused at the speaker, Tan Chuan Jin’s repeated assurance at the end of the taking of evidence of each witness. Why did he tell each of them “… Do note that the transcript and any evidence given to the committee are not to be disclosed to anyone, not to be published and kept strictly confidential until the committee has presented it report to parliament which means that you are not to discuss this with anyone else and would include your family as well.” Are committee members robots? Do they know what they themselves have done by making the proceedings public even before its conclusion?   Teo Soh Lung      Read More →

Click to enlarge The following is a comment posted by our in-house techie Andrew, who is based in China, in response to an article by one of our columnist Mr David See, titled "Just How Safe is Covid-19 vaccination for young children?". The team felt that it is a very insightful comment that warrants more exposure, so we have decided to escalate it to an editorial. Quoted below is our techie's original comment (edited slightly for clarity), with ending paragraphs inserted by the team: We all know that vaccination carries risk and that the mRNA vaccines can cause serious adverse reactions AND even death (ref: Vietnam & USA). So for the purpose of discussion, let us assume that the risk is very very minimal, say at 0.1%. Eligible children aged 5 - 11 is approximately 300,000. 300,000 x 0.1% = 300 will be seriously injured or die. Give a further deeper discount at say 0.01%, there will still be 30 who will be seriously injured or die. So the million-dollar question which I will ask is: Can any parents risk/afford their child to be within that 0.01%? Maybe for that handful of die-hard Party Above People worshippers, I doubt any parents in the world would want their child to be in the 0.1% or maybe even 0.01%. Remember that losing a beloved child bites you for LIFE, it’s not something that can be replaced by monetary compensation or with another child, even if the grieving parents eventually decide to have another. Even in China, I have seen and witnessed many families being torn apart ending in divorce when they lost their child in an accident and/or suicide. Some parents (especially mothers) even went bonkers, very few can really move on after the loss of a beloved child, it is not a pain that any normal person can bear, it will haunt you for the rest of your life, trust me. IMHO, this is one gamble any sane and responsible parents should NOT take. To the clowns at MTF, your child is only a digit, a means for them to feel and look good on the world stage, but to you as parents, it is your LIFE, your WORLD, your EVERYTHING! It is all parents' inherent duty to protect their child, as one reader aptly puts it, "I can lose my life gambling with the vaccine, but certainly NEVER my child's". In the event that you decides to gamble with your child's life, despite the numerous recommendations against the mRNA vaccine on children by medical experts, for better or for worse you would have to to live with that decision for the rest of your life. Appended to our techie's question, we would like to ask if there are any parents who think that they have the capital to take the gamble, even if the odds of losing is only 0.01%?   Disclaimer by our techie: For the record again, I am not against vaccination, just against those vaccines that have not been fully tested (experimental), i.e. mRNA ones. My ENTIRE in-laws’ family, including relatives are fully vaccinated (with Sinovac), with the exception of a cousin who is breastfeeding (doctor at the hospital vaccination center refused to let her vaccinate), me (specialist doctor say I cannot vaccinate) and my wife (choose not to vaccinate, say if kenna we can both die together).        Read More →