Open Letter to Minister Ong Ye Kung
23/08/2021
On 16 Aug 2021, I sent Minister Ong a link to a video which I felt had useful information on Covid-19.
Two days later, he replied "Advise you to access news from credible sources, so that you can better understand the benefits of the vaccines."
6 hours later, I responded with a two-page letter.
It has been 5 days and there has been no reply, which I optimistically take as a good sign that it is still be digested.
Regardless, I feel it appropriate to share this letter with some friends, to share some personal views and perhaps shed more light on this contentious topic.
In case this letter goes beyond my circle of friends, who know me well enough, please understand that the first paragraph was needed to quickly establish credentials and assuage the Minister's concern that I was falling for falsehoods from non-credible sources.
Below is the letter in full, without edits, shared purely as a concerned citizen. ==============================================================================
Dear Minister Sir.
Thank you for your reply. I am a retired analyst who left the industry shortly after being rated the top Asian Strategist for small caps, an area where distinguishing fact from fiction is most critical. Before that, I led one of Singapore's top research teams, and delivered a 72page report (Mar 2002) outlining the challenges that lay ahead for our country as a parting gift before leaving for the pan-Asian position. I believe Minister Tharman (MoF at the time) circulated this report through the entire Ministry and would also like to think that some policy decisions have been influenced by this work. Therefore, I would like to believe that my experience has honed me to sift truth from the current world of information overload, and drive towards clear actionable conclusions.
Please allow me to share three observations.
1. Mainstream media (MSM) has unfairly villainised the brightest minds in medical research. Their views should be heard, not censored.
My current information sources include top medical professionals like Drs Peter McCulllough, Robert Malone and Pierre Kory. Dr McCullough is an internist, cardiologist, epidemiologist, and Professor of Medicine who is one of the most published professional in the medical world (> 1000 publications and > 600 citations in the National Library of Medicine), with at least 46 peerreviewed publications related to this infection alone. Dr Robert Malone is the inventor of the mRNA technology and been a consultant to key US regulators over the last three decades on vaccine development. The video I sent you actually came to my attention via a tweet from Dr Malone.
Alas, all established medical professionals, like these three, who dared raise the alarm bells have been labelled as anti-vax by MSM and effectively "cancelled" by Facebook, Youtube and even Wikipedia. One should ask why these top professionals are willing to risk their careers by raising the alarm bells. For me, the most logical explanation is that they believe it is the right thing to do. If only because of this, I truly hope u can spend time examining and understanding what they have to say.
2. Supposedly credible information sources must also be challenged.
I used to believe in regulatory bodies like the CDC and WHO. But did you know that the WHO just issued a "pronouncement" that vaccines are better than natural immunity, without any scientific research backing? That's completely against established science. Did you know that in the latest Covid-19 outbreak in Israel, those who have recovered from the virus previously were just 1% of these cases (regardless of whether they were vaxxed or unvaxxed) vs 53% fully vaxxed!
I would also urge caution against taking Pfizer's word as gospel truth. Did you know they are the #2 most heavily fined drug company in the US, just below GSK and just ahead of J&J. Issues ranged from false claims to kickbacks and outright bribery of medical professionals. For these listed companies, it isn't about right vs wrong. They are just doing what they are supposed to do, i.e. maximise profits for shareholders.
3. We need to establish the facts for ourselves before pushing ahead with policies which might have serious long term consequences.
A) Increase research efforts into early treatment. I have gone through our current treatment protocols and find most of them following WHO guidelines, which are mostly based on one or two clinical trials. Most are expensive. Cheap protocols which have been shown effective are being ignored. You can easily access all the protocols and studies here
https://c19early.com. There are now 110 studies and counting on Ivermectin alone. Our own NUH study discrediting ivermectin was flawed - I don't understand why the study used 12mg STAT dose when an earlier India study already showed that this was insufficient and a 3 to 5-day 12mg/day dose was more appropriate.
Perhaps you can reach out to Dr Pierre Kory (Twitter @PierreKory), and I am sure he will be willing to spare some of his time to have a private teleconference if only to help shed light on his latest findings in early intervention therapies.
B) Why not show the computation for arriving at the "benefits outweigh the risks" motherhood justification? There remains much concern that the numbers don't jibe. Once u combine good early intervention therapies + v low incidence of bad outcomes amongst younger and healthy folks, what is the logic of even vaccinating these people? Won't they simply get more resilient and longer lasting natural immunity WITHOUT the Vaxx? Add the "small but not insignificant" risk of VAERS and it feels that the risks actually outweigh the benefits of vaxxing them.
C) Vax vs unvaxxed segregation of rules. Given that vaxxed have similar risks of getting infected and similar levels of contagion, there is no logical justification for having health safety rules to segregate the vaxxed from the unvaxxed. If the unvaxxed want to risk bad outcomes by refusing the vax, shouldn't that be their choice. In addition, if you go over the global data of the highest vaxxed countries vs the latest case surge, there is no correlation. Indeed, places like India and Sweden, where they are now, arguably, at higher levels of natural immunity, are experiencing general stability (zero deaths in Sweden now).
D) What is our current immunity status. Being vaxxed doesn't guarantee immunity. Likewise, being unvaxxed doesn't mean you are vulnerable. Shouldn't we test immunity directly before continuing on this mass vaccination spree? There is also a chance that unvaxxed individuals who have acquired natural immunity can be negatively affected by an additional vaccination. Getting a direct assessment of our nation's current immunity by testing for immunoglobin levels seems quite pertinent.
I could go on, but feel I need to stop.
To conclude, I am writing to you as a concerned citizen. Just as my previous Singapore strategy report written almost 20 years ago, was meant to shed some light on the risks facing our country and provide some actionable ideas, so too is my hope for this much shorter piece.
