You can bet your last dollar and your house that none of these folks above, nor any other high profile personalities, really took the novel mRNA Covid-19 vaccine. They were all given saline solutions. The reason is very simple. Should any of these publicity stunts go awry with a Suspected Adverse Event (SAE) and heaven forbids, a death, the whole vaccination drive collapses. The risk to Big Pharma, not the actors, is just too big.
In November 2021, the head nurse of the University Medical Center in Ljubljana, Slovenia, resigned from her job and made a public announcement that based on her personal work routines, she claimed the novel Covid-19 vaccines came in 3 different markings. The ones marked "1" are saline solutions used as placebo for VIPs which accounted for 30% of the vaccines. Everyone else gets either those marked "2" or "3". Number 2 is classical RNA. The number 3 is an RNA stick that contains the oncogene associated with the adenovirus, which contributes to the development of cancer. Her short video clip is here.
The video caused a scandalous uproar in Slovenia. As it turned out, the 'chief nurse' was a Slovenian anti-vaxxer activist named.Vera Kanalec. The chief nurse of the University of Ljubljana Medical Center is Zdenka Mrak who has not resigned from her job. My point for showing this video is to highlight what the fake nurse said in November 2021 :
* 30% of vaccines are placebos
* Vaccines are identified by 3 different markers
* Vaccines are identified by 3 different markers
The initial novel vaccine narrative was "it will prevent a vaccinated person from catching Covid-19 and prevent the spread of the disease". When this was proven false, the narrative evolved to "it will prevent a vaccinated person from developing serious effects when infected". It is incredible a gullible world could not see through the new narrative for what is obviously an unfalsifiable fallacy.
The Danish study:
Due to Emergency Use Authorization, rapid production of Covid-19 novel vaccine and implementation of large-scale vaccination programs, there has been many reports of contamination and inconsistencies in toxicity levels and ingredients. There is also lack of reports on clinical data on individual vaccine batch levels. Consequently, there is no assurance of homogeneity of vaccine efficacy across all batches. If indeed this were so, then good luck to you as risk of SAE depends on which batch the dose that was injected into your deltoid came from.
A trio of researchers Max Schmeling, Vibeke Manniche and Peter Riis Hansen did a study on whether safety is batch-dependent using the Danish experience. Their peer-reviewed report was published by European Journal of Clinical Investigation on 30 Mar 2023. (Here).
The Danish Data :-
Period covered - 27 December 2020 to 11 January 2022)
Population - 5.8m
Numbers vaccinated - 4,026,575
Vaccine - BNT162b2 (Pfizer)
Number of batches - 52 (2340 to 814,320 doses per batch)
Doses administered - 10,793,766 doses
Total SAEs (Suspected Adverse Events) - 66,587 (some had no batch labels)
Total SAEs batch identified - 61,847
Total severe SAEs - 14,509 (23.5%)
SAE-related deaths - 579 (0.9%)
SAEs are classified into severity levels of (A) non-serious, (B) serious (hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization, life-threatening illness, permanent disability or congenital malformation), and (C) SAE-related death.
For each batch, SAEs per 1,000 doses is computed.
The 2 variables of the 52 batches tracked are (a) SAEs per 1,000 and (b) number of doses per batch.
The unanalysed chart (each dot represents a single vaccine batch) :
Some statistics gibberish here. (Doesn't matter if you are not familiar with these):
Since the observed relationship between the numbers of SAEs and BNT162b2 vaccine doses was highly heterogeneous, conventional regression statistics were not considered to be applicable. Therefore, heterogeneity in the relationship between the numbers of SAEs and doses per vaccine batch was assessed by log-transformation followed by non-hierarchical cluster analysis and general linear model (GLM) test for differences in SAE rates between batches. Reporting of the study conforms to broad EQUATOR guidelines.
The analysed chart (each dot represents a single vaccine batch) :
Three regression or trend lines become apparent:
Blue line - the batches have high SAEs per 1,000 doses (means higher toxicity) and low number of doses per batch.
Green line - the batches have lower SAEs per 1,000 doses (means lower toxicity) and high number of doses per batch.
Yellow - the batches have no SAEs per 1,000 doses.
Danish vaccination reporting system provides anonymized data. Researchers can access individual information without medical privacy issues. Each batch data point can be further analysed to SAE severity levels of (i) total SAEs, (ii) serious and (iii) SAE-related deaths.
Interpretation:
The blue batches make up only a small 4.22% of total doses, but account for 70% of all SAEs (27% of those vaccinated with serious SAEs and 47% deaths, were caused by blue batches.)
The green batches make up the majority with 64% of total doses, but account for only 29% of all SAEs (72% of those vaccinated with serious SAEs and 52% deaths, were caused by green batches.)
The yellow batches make up 32% of total doses, but account for almost zero SAEs.
What can be inferred ?
1. There is no doubt whatsoever the Yellow batches are placebos.
2. The Blue batches have the highest toxicity but lower doses in each batch. Small but pack a lot of punch. This is intended to do the worse targeted damage. The fact blue batches make up only slightly less than 5% of total doses is highly suspicious. In statistical analysis, 5% is generally used as the threshold for significance testing. Anything higher draws attention and deeper scrutiny. For example, if someone has a winning formula for a casino game, if he attempts to win every game, he will be discovered fairly quickly by security. In WWII, when Britain broke into Nazi Germany's Enigma code which enabled it to locate enemy submarines, they only targeted 5% of the U-boats. Had Britain attacked all enemy submarines, then the Germans would have realised their Enigma code has been broken.
3. The percentages seem to fall into common categories of 5%, 30%, 50%, 60%, 70%. This does not seem accidental, but human connivance.
Calculate your risks:
Unless you are the privileged few to take placebos, and you are the smarter ones to want to know what is the risks now that data is available, let's review how you play with your life.
(a) Your overall chance of getting a Suspected Adverse Event is 1 out of 174, of getting a serious SAE is 1 out of 744, and of death is 1 out of 18,642.
(b) You have technically 32% chance of getting a placebo, a 64% chance of getting a toxic dose (green batch) and a tough luck 4% chance of getting a highly toxic dose (blue batch).
(c) If you are given a placebo, there will be no SAE. The SAE and death numbers are probably due to statistical anomalies from small population numbers.
(d) If you get the toxic dose, you have 1 out of 385 chance of getting SAE, a very very high 50% chance your SAE is serious, with a high 1 out of 59 chance of death.
(e) If your luck ran out and you got the highly toxic dose, you have a very high 1 out of 10 chance of getting an SAE. In which case, you have 1 out of 11 chance the SAE is serious and 1 out of 160 chance of death.
If the Danish data is universal, would you have taken the jab had you better understood the odds? Is 1 out of 18,642 chance of dying from a jab fine with you? Mind you, the Danish experience data is interesting for the fact their population base is fairly similar with Singapore's.
Vaccine - BNT162b2 (Pfizer)
Number of batches - 52 (2340 to 814,320 doses per batch)
Doses administered - 10,793,766 doses
Total SAEs (Suspected Adverse Events) - 66,587 (some had no batch labels)
Total SAEs batch identified - 61,847
Total severe SAEs - 14,509 (23.5%)
SAE-related deaths - 579 (0.9%)
SAEs are classified into severity levels of (A) non-serious, (B) serious (hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization, life-threatening illness, permanent disability or congenital malformation), and (C) SAE-related death.
For each batch, SAEs per 1,000 doses is computed.
The 2 variables of the 52 batches tracked are (a) SAEs per 1,000 and (b) number of doses per batch.
The unanalysed chart (each dot represents a single vaccine batch) :
Some statistics gibberish here. (Doesn't matter if you are not familiar with these):
Since the observed relationship between the numbers of SAEs and BNT162b2 vaccine doses was highly heterogeneous, conventional regression statistics were not considered to be applicable. Therefore, heterogeneity in the relationship between the numbers of SAEs and doses per vaccine batch was assessed by log-transformation followed by non-hierarchical cluster analysis and general linear model (GLM) test for differences in SAE rates between batches. Reporting of the study conforms to broad EQUATOR guidelines.
The analysed chart (each dot represents a single vaccine batch) :
Blue line - the batches have high SAEs per 1,000 doses (means higher toxicity) and low number of doses per batch.
Green line - the batches have lower SAEs per 1,000 doses (means lower toxicity) and high number of doses per batch.
Yellow - the batches have no SAEs per 1,000 doses.
Danish vaccination reporting system provides anonymized data. Researchers can access individual information without medical privacy issues. Each batch data point can be further analysed to SAE severity levels of (i) total SAEs, (ii) serious and (iii) SAE-related deaths.
The blue batches make up only a small 4.22% of total doses, but account for 70% of all SAEs (27% of those vaccinated with serious SAEs and 47% deaths, were caused by blue batches.)
The green batches make up the majority with 64% of total doses, but account for only 29% of all SAEs (72% of those vaccinated with serious SAEs and 52% deaths, were caused by green batches.)
The yellow batches make up 32% of total doses, but account for almost zero SAEs.
What can be inferred ?
1. There is no doubt whatsoever the Yellow batches are placebos.
2. The Blue batches have the highest toxicity but lower doses in each batch. Small but pack a lot of punch. This is intended to do the worse targeted damage. The fact blue batches make up only slightly less than 5% of total doses is highly suspicious. In statistical analysis, 5% is generally used as the threshold for significance testing. Anything higher draws attention and deeper scrutiny. For example, if someone has a winning formula for a casino game, if he attempts to win every game, he will be discovered fairly quickly by security. In WWII, when Britain broke into Nazi Germany's Enigma code which enabled it to locate enemy submarines, they only targeted 5% of the U-boats. Had Britain attacked all enemy submarines, then the Germans would have realised their Enigma code has been broken.
3. The percentages seem to fall into common categories of 5%, 30%, 50%, 60%, 70%. This does not seem accidental, but human connivance.
Calculate your risks:
Unless you are the privileged few to take placebos, and you are the smarter ones to want to know what is the risks now that data is available, let's review how you play with your life.
(b) You have technically 32% chance of getting a placebo, a 64% chance of getting a toxic dose (green batch) and a tough luck 4% chance of getting a highly toxic dose (blue batch).
(c) If you are given a placebo, there will be no SAE. The SAE and death numbers are probably due to statistical anomalies from small population numbers.
(d) If you get the toxic dose, you have 1 out of 385 chance of getting SAE, a very very high 50% chance your SAE is serious, with a high 1 out of 59 chance of death.
(e) If your luck ran out and you got the highly toxic dose, you have a very high 1 out of 10 chance of getting an SAE. In which case, you have 1 out of 11 chance the SAE is serious and 1 out of 160 chance of death.
If the Danish data is universal, would you have taken the jab had you better understood the odds? Is 1 out of 18,642 chance of dying from a jab fine with you? Mind you, the Danish experience data is interesting for the fact their population base is fairly similar with Singapore's.
Given a low probability of catching Covid if one takes all precautions, and an extremely low fatality rate of less than 1%, would you have taken the novel vaccine in light of what this Danish study shows? Let's not even take into consideration long term unknowns.
Had the government known about this risk profile and not advised the public, it is malfeasance, and in the case of death, it is culpable homicide.
The inevitable question:
Now how in the world can that fake nurse know in November 2011 that 30% of the vaccines were placebos. If this was a coincidence, how did she know there are 3 classifications of vaccines based on the level of toxicity?
Conclusion:
The Danish study proves there is no batch homogeneity. The percentages seem to betray human connivance. The statistics seem to indicate intention to cause harm. The risk of serious SAEs including deaths with the the blue and green batches, are unexceptionally high, but averaged out overall presents a more acceptable risk level. But with no batch homogeneity, the Swedish study shows the safety of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 vaccine is batch-dependent. This is a critical piece of information that has not been presented to the medical community.
The Danish data carries a caveat of biased reporting. Just as the VAERS are notoriously under-reported, so too the data in this study, especially pertaining to vaccine deaths. The risk figures from this study could potentially be worse than shown here.
The US has the VAERS which has online information available for downloading. In Denmark, vaccine batches are registered by the Danish Serum Institute and all SAE cases with corresponding vaccine batch labels are reported to the Danish Medical Agency (DKMA) and classified by the DKMA according to SAE seriousness. The DKMA-managed spontaneous SAE reporting system accepts reports of SAEs from any source, for example healthcare providers, patients and other members of the public. Anonymised data are available for downloading by the public.
Singapore obviously has some similar reporting systems in place. But Singapore data is not available to the public.
Note:
My bad. I had been mentioning Swedish report when it should have been Danish. now edited. (11 Dec 2023).
This platform has withdrawn it's subscriber widget. If you like
blogs like this and wish to know whenever there is a new post, click the
button to my FB and follow me there. I usually intro my new blogs
there. Thanks.
Thank you for crunching up so many numbers and making sense of it.
ReplyDeleteTakes time, effort and a lot of screen time.
I am not good at statistics or even numbers, fractions, percentages etc.
But thanks again.
My anger is at how our Government, employers decided to prevent people
from going to earn a salary, unless they were vaccinated.
And at the same breath, say that vaccination is voluntary.
I will not forget this.
How employers carried out the Government's mandate. They were complicit.
Vaccines generally are helpful, if they have had time to be tested.
This "emergency" loophole has got to be closed, but has not.
Regardless vaccinated or not, getting infected with any respiratory type of virus,
the treatment remains generic. Rest, fluids, reduce fever, and more rest.
Getting tested is of no use either. Treatment is the same.
An accurate test is far more expensive and time consuming.. and serves no practical
purpose other than for data collection.
For every study that showed the vaccines were flawed, there are 100 studies that showed they were effective.
ReplyDeleteExcreta tauri cerebrum vincit.
"For every study that showed the vaccines were flawed, there are 100 studies that showed they were effective."
ReplyDeleteNobody is saying anything about the vaccines.
It just the statistics, silly.
Recent quote by Fauci when asked why he stopped being a practicing Catholic :
“A number of complicated reasons. First of all, becoming a messiah figure for a competing religion made it kind of AWKWARD. Plus, as the literal incarnation of The Science, I just thought it would be a bad look.”
He actually meant to say :
I AM THE WAY, THE TRUTH AND THE SCIENCE
So, Lee Hsien Loong, Biden, Boris Johnson, the Pope and other world leaders were in a Whatsapp group and agreed to be injected with saline for the camera.
ReplyDeleteWell they didn't die. Heck no one died.
ReplyDeleteHave you taken your 5th booster?
No need to hurry. Lots of stocks.
“Have you taken your 5th booster”?
ReplyDeleteYes.
The blogger should read the studies published in The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine, the two foremost medical journals in the world, which will disabuse him of his negative views of vaccines.
ReplyDeleteBut, as he has a Ph. D. in virology and immunology he will probably dismiss the studies in the Lancet and NEJM.
Anonymous :
ReplyDelete"The blogger should read the studies published in The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine, the two foremost medical journals in the world, which will disabuse him of his negative views of vaccines.
But, as he has a Ph. D. in virology and immunology he will probably dismiss the studies in the Lancet and NEJM."
Haha, glad you brought up the Lancet. Scientists put their research out there for their peers to review and conduct scientific inquiry. It is how scientific knowledge advances. Many studies and research have got it wrong, and there is no shame in that. However, sometimes some report are published for an agenda, and that is ethically and morally wrong.
At the beginning of the pandemic, I was like you. Full faith in MOH, WHO, FDA, CDC etc. Just like you, I lashed out at conspiracy theorists. In early 17 Feb 2020 I blogged :
"In an international crisis, some seek to dwell on negatives, others work hard to save lives, some live in the danger zones to collect data, and still others find solutions."
"Purveyors of these infodemic are evil and mindless. If you share such articles mindlessly without some critical assessment or fact checking, you are part of the problem."
However, by first half of 2020 I already knew too much of deception was going on. For eg - Dr Kary Mullis, the inventor of PCR technique had been crying out loud it is not meant to test the presence of virus. He had been bashing Fauci and trying to debate him on the wrongful use of PCR. Mullis died suddenly shortly. Then there is Dr Robert Malone, the founder of the technique to deliver mRNA directly to cells who said the novel vaccine is dangerous. And many virologists who found cancer will be a big problem. BUT IT WAS A LANCET REPORT THAT WOKE ME UP.
In early days, Lancet came up with a timely report signed by 18 scientists to say the virus was zoonotic. This was to put to rest the disquiet of Gains of Function and lab leak theory. One of the 18 scientists was a young researcher who a few weeks after the pandemic broke, had written the virus was not zoonotic but made in a lab. So why the 180 degrees turn within weeks? It's always about money. I eventually found out he received substantial research funds from Fauci's NIAID shortly after that Lancet report.
But you are right there are many many other studies and research papers. Why do you think 9 of those 18 scientists have by now retracted their names from that Lancet report?
On 25 Sep 2021 I blogged :
"From documents obtained through Freedom of Information suits, the conspiracy lab leak theory is now no longer in doubt. The protagonists have outright lied, falsified medical reports and misguided the WHO investigation of WIV. Fauci's NIAID provided grant funds to Ecohealth which Daszak used to fund WIV. Daszak led 18 scientists to publish a scientific report to say the SAR-Cov-2 has all the evidence of natural evolution, ie a zoonotic virus. It was a timely report for Fauci to wave the science in the Senate inquiry that the lab leak theory is false and there was no GoF. Several months later, 8 of the scientists retracted their signatures. A couple of months back, a second Lancet Report has been published by other scientists which now says the SAR-Cov-2 has signs that point to GoF. Dr Baric led the WHO investigation in Wuhan and came back with a clean report on WIV. No GoF research there, no lab leak."
If you don't know Daszak, Baric, Fauci and Ecohealth connection, then you don't know nothing. There has been too much circulatory substantiation of the agenda driven narrative and suppression of honest scientific inquiry going on.
You have nothing to refute the Danish studies except a generalisation that there are hundreds of reports out there. What is lacking in your criticism is a rebuttal of the Danish study which is what the blog is about. Instead you produce typical ad hominem. When one is bereft of any critical rebuttals, one attacks the messenger.
“Have you taken your 5th booster”?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous : "Yes."
See. You aren't interested in the Truth. There is no vaccine with a 5th booster at the moment>
Why lie about stuff like this?
I meant I am up todate. I had 3 shots so far.
DeleteLet me cut through the fog and ask you a simple question.
ReplyDeleteAbout 24 billion doses of vaccines have been administered by about 200 countries. Do you think the governments of these 200 countries are stupid?
Let me ask you some questions.
ReplyDeleteWhen you fall sick, do you go see a doctor or OYK?
Why are medical practitioners shut out and non-practitioners given all the say?
Why was Bill Gates given all those power to influence WHO?
And why do you still believe the vaccines work when your Lord Bill Gates now said it doesn't work?
Why do yo believe non doctor OYK when he said "The association of COVID-19 vaccination with severe side effects like stroke, cancer and heart attack is a "misperception" that has to be corrected"
But you chose to disbelieve Dr Peter McCullough a heart specialist who have treated thousands of patients and written 600+ research papers in this field?
This is getting silly. OYK is not a doctor but he is advised by health professionals in the MOH. Ng Eng Hen is not a soldier. Vivian Bala is not a diplomat but an eye doctor. Chan Chun Seng is not an educator but an army general. I am not a woman but I used to sell women’s products.
ReplyDeleteYou didn’t answer my question whether the governments of the 200 countries are all stupid.
Ng Eng Han makes defence policies, but he is not going to command me in battlefield. Hitler was the political leader advised by military commanders. When he interfered and ordered the attack on St Petersburg, it was a bad decision that caused the destruction of the Third Reich. OYK is not a doctor. When he denied medical practitioners the right to treat patients the way they know best, he interfered in their practice.
ReplyDeleteYou can sell women's products, but sure as hell you are not going to instruct them what they can wear or which lipstick to use.
You are right. This is getting silly. Cos you can't tell the difference.
There is a big difference between making policies and making operational decisions.
"You didn’t answer my question whether the governments of the 200 countries are all stupid."
For Singapore, as at 6 Dec 2023 the numbers :
Population = 6,000,000
Death from covid = 1,872 deaths (assume all deaths are covid, none from vaccine)
Covid cases = 2,690,776.
Thus :
Probability of catching Covid is 44% (2,690,776 x 100/6,000,000)
Probability of death is 0.06957% (1872 x 100/2,690,776)
Thus probability of catching covid and dying from it is 0.000306(0.44 x 0.006857) 0r 1 out of 3,268 without vaccination.
Compare this to the Danish experience of Vaccinating where probability of getting serious adverse events including death is 1 out of 744.
I have no idea how you place your bets. You figure out the stupidity.
Ahh! So Robert Kennedy is right. He said chinese and Ashkenazi Jews have the highest immunity and Caucasians and Blacks have the lowest. We are 75% Chinese and Danish are 90% Caucasians.
ReplyDeleteFunny he only said the Ashkenazi Jews, not the Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews.
As an aside if Ng Eng Hen orders you to go into battle you bloody do so or you will be shot for cowardice. Go check the SAF Act.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous December 11, 2023 at 8:46
ReplyDeleteRobert Kennedy has his opinions. No one has ultimate truth.
Danish study established some truth to what has been suspected all along. If same study can be conducted by a few more small countries than it can be established a universal batch distribution of 5% high toxicity, 30% placebo and 65% low toxicity.
I don't think the vaccines have genetic differentiation for ethnicity. If they want to target say blacks, then simply change batch distribution accordingly.
China, and possibly Russia, do not use mRNA vacs. North Korea had practically no vac programme. A study of these countries would be interesting.
Why don’t you write to the Ministry of Health and ask whether it is true that 30% of the vaccines here were placebo. This will settle your claims. But of course you won’t believe what they say because you are smarter than them.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous December 11, 2023 at 9:08
ReplyDelete"As an aside if Ng Eng Hen orders you to go into battle you bloody do so or you will be shot for cowardice. Go check the SAF Act."
Please grow up.
Going to war is policy.
Battle field proceedings are operations.
I remember as a platoon commander in reservist training once, we had an exercise where I had deployed my lead section to execute certain manoeuvres. Our battalion commander was a regular from the service vocation. (If you don't know what I am differentiating between a service and a combat officer, you are not a true blue Singaporean) During the debrief, my men told me Sir the black panther (that was our code for the CO) checked them and said they should have done this way and that way. I raised my voice to a higher level, intending a nearby party where the CO was with, to hear what I was explaining. I told them as commander on the ground I alone make the tactical decisions as I see fit. The CO or anyone else can take the instruction manual and shaft it up somewhere. Same advice I am giving you.
I suppose if Ng Eng Hean sent you to do battle somewhere, you will whatsapp him for instructions every turn you make. Civil service mentality. So you take no responsibility, no blame. I fully understand you .
Just write to the MOH and ask them.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with you is you don’t know the meanings of sarcasm, satire, mataphor and allegory
ReplyDeleteAnonymous December 12, 2023 at 9:49
ReplyDelete"Why don’t you write to the Ministry of Health and ask whether it is true that 30% of the vaccines here were placebo. This will settle your claims. But of course you won’t believe what they say because you are smarter than them."
I made no claims. I am only sharing the Danish study and parsing the data and lamenting we have no publicly available data in SG.
Do you think Big Pharma can sell the vac for $x and tell MOH these are saline solutions?
Anonymous December 12, 2023 at 10:19
ReplyDelete"The problem with you is you don’t know the meanings of sarcasm, satire, mataphor and allegory"
That is very chim. I give you a mirror. It's easier.
Hit me with a factual rebuttal of my blog content and cease and desist the ad hominemism. That is if you can add anything meaningful.
My comment about Ng Eng Hen was an aside. There is no need for you to tell us about your glory days in NS, chapter and verse.
ReplyDeleteJust write that letter to MOH and ask if 30% of the vaccines were placebo. There are feedback forms galore in the MOH website.
ReplyDeleteIf you don’t write that letter to MOH it means I have got you by the short and curly hairs. You know that claim about placebo is false.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous
ReplyDelete"My comment about Ng Eng Hen was an aside. There is no need for you to tell us about your glory days in NS, chapter and verse."
"The problem with you is you don’t know the meanings of sarcasm, satire, mataphor and allegory".
You should add anecdote to your to your vocabulary.
Since you have nothing to discuss as an adult, I will stop entertaining your juvenile incursions. Your next ad hominem will go to the garbage bin.
Anonymous December 12, 2023 at 10:38
ReplyDelete"If you don’t write that letter to MOH it means I have got you by the short and curly hairs. You know that claim about placebo is false."
I think you should write to researchers Max Schmeling, Vibeke Manniche and Peter Riis Hansen and tell them their study is false.
If you are too lazy or have 2 things missing, why don't you let me have your real name and contact here and state clearly their study is false and I will write to them on your behalf.
They deleted your post again.
ReplyDeletePLus the fact that it attracted all these little minions....seems to me that your posts are indeed causing little oyk to lose sleep.
Should take that as a compliment.
Congrats.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.reddit.com/r/singapore/comments/18fnixl/from_ong_ye_kungs_fb_organisers_created_a_mock/
little oyk blasted in reddit.
He's one of the most active Ministers on social media, so it helps the younger crowd recognise who he is. How else will he win younger votes? /s
A lot of my friends working in MOH and its three clusters are properly pissed at him. He'll disrupt the workflow to film his tiktoks etc. (even in the middle of pandemic when everyone is stretched), while MOH vetoes the ground workers' requests for more resources and help.
Utter charade for his own political clout that belies the hard work done by the ground healthcare staff.
Minion has to reverse stance and imply covid not serious to save oyk's ass.
"disagree on AnE wait time. if you're waiting that long, it's not an emergency"
https://twitter.com/kinlian/status/1732217602142097449
ReplyDeleteMr Tan Kin Lian decides not to heed MOH advise because he wants to live longer.
He sounded scared. Seems to be fearful of MOH more than covid.
@ excel4routine said...
ReplyDeleteSo you noticed the takedown.
I have written to the platform to show proof of where rules were infringed. But I know that's in vain.
I am trying to address this issue.
Unfortunately I was too lazy to save a copy.
Anonymous said...December 13, 2023 at 11:14 PM
ReplyDeleteThks for the OYK sideshows. Sad.
There was a massive tech layoff previously shortly after "misinformation mgt" kicks in aggressively (i ended up having my online accounts banned).
ReplyDeleteIts frustrating but at the same time.....that sends a very conflicting msg to those remaining "online covid army".
Its the usual planned obsolescence issue.
"If all my targets were banned and eliminated 100% effectively, will my role still be relevant? "
Its interesting to observe the behavior of these remaining goons.
You just explained something the goon army does not understand.
ReplyDeleteThe goons, just like covid virus, must bow before Darwin's law of evolution. To survive, the parasites must learn not to kill off the host that sustains them.