Investigation of Singapore's vaccination plans
To all Singaporeans, vaccinated or unvaccinated, please read this petition carefully before passing judgement.
This petition is sent out to help protect Singaporeans, PRs, foreigners & their families from making in catastrophic mistake.
It takes a certain level of intellectual capacity to examine the numerous evidence provided. For those who lack this resolve, do read the segment on logical incongruity as it highlights the most obvious contradictions with respect to the vaccine narrative.
the hope to help resolve the coronavirus situation is shared, and that
while this may seem radical or even prove to offend, it is necessary for
what is about to be mentioned to be acknowledged impartially. After
all, science is based on intellectual humility. If the science one
believes in is undergirded by the firm foundations of facts, there would
be no reason not to entertain opposing contentions. Should one believe
the notion that ‘The science is already decided’ or engage in childish labeling, then he is only
wearing his blind faith as a badge of distinction; there is not enough
common ground shared to proceed.
Keep in mind the following quotes:
Emotion must warm reason but reason must rule emotion. - Aristotle
The further a society moves away from the truth, the more they will hate those that speak it. - George Orwell
Each lie we tell incurs a debt to the truth. Sooner or later that debt is paid. - Chernobyl, 2019
In the current climate of fear, most people living in Singapore have lost sight of the truth.
Many have taken the vaccines offered without any due diligence given to the REAL issues involved.
The production of vaccines requires the usage of fetal cell lines.
Fetal cell lines are cell cultures that are produced using fetal tissue. A quick search on the internet would show that the fetal tissues used to cultivate fetal cell lines comes from aborted babies. This should immediately raise some questions regarding the ethicality of the vaccine. Perhaps the most fundamental question that needs to be asked is: in what condition was the fetus in when the fetal tissues were extracted? Or more specifically, is the fetus alive and capable of experiencing pain during the moment of extraction? The information shared by Biologist Pamela Acker who has a master’s degree in Biology may shock some.
Firstly, Acker reveals that the fetal tissues cannot be obtained through spontaneous abortions.  This is because the fetal cells must be acquired within 5 minutes of an abortion; A miscarriage would simply not provide cells that were alive enough for researchers to be able to use the cells. After all, it is scientifically impossible to derive a living cell culture from a tissue that is already dead -- that is akin to resurrecting the dead.
Now that it is clear that the fetus is alive during the gathering of tissue samples, the next moral question to ask would be whether the fetus feels pain in the mentioned process. According to Acker, when the babies are delivered via caesarean section, they are still alive to the point where their heart is still beating. Additionally, the baby is not given anesthetic because that would disrupt the cells that the researchers are trying to extract. In other words, the baby will experience the immense pain of being dissected whilst being alive.
There are many who argue that the sacrifice of a single person to save many others is a noble and necessary one. While this principle may align with the worldview of some, the premise from which this argument arises is flawed. Although the fetal cells used for the testing or development of the current vaccines is not directly from an aborted fetus as mainstream media would lead one to believe, the fetal cell lines that creates the said fetus cells requires the abortion of fetuses. This is gathered through simple logic. Contrary to popular belief, fetal cell lines are not produced through the macabre death of only 1 or 2 fetus. Most fetal cell lines are named in a particular way. For example, HEK293, MRC-5, and WI-38. There is significance in why thay are named this way. Acker explains that HEK stands for Human Embryonic Kidney. But 293 stands for the 293rd experiment that a particular researcher did to develop the cell lines.  What this entails is that it is highly likely more than 293 fetuses were used for HEK293 alone. This is not surprising since each experiment may involve more than one abortion. More information can be examined through the sources linked below.
It should be noted that both Pfizer and Mordena covid-19 vaccines do not contain any fetal tissue in them per se. Having said that, they were utilized in stages of testing the efficacy of the vaccine.  On the other hand, while not as relevant in the Singaporean context, fetus tissues are used in the Johnson and Johnson adenovirus vaccine to create the active ingredient that enable the vaccine to function. Furthermore, Astrazeneca vaccine are produced directly in the HEK293 cells, which begs the question of whether the human cells are still present in the vaccine. This notion is of course rejected by many. However, ResearchBased.co raises the salient point that despite there being a purifying process, it is chemically impossible to remove all of the stems cells in their entirety.  The morality of such means to a result is of course subjective and relative to one’s own moral compass. Admittedly, there may be religious institutions that profess that these vaccines are ethically uncontroversial or morally acceptable. Then again, should one’s moral standards be decided by such organisation or one’s own beliefs and values? Should salvation be based on the sacrifice of babies who are without the means to defend themselves, give consent or decide their fates themselves?
There is evidence that the vaccine creates variations of the virus which leads to higher infectivity and threat.
The phenomenon of Antibody-Dependent Enhancement (ADE) is one that remains overlooked and rarely discussed despite its importance in relation to the efficacy or even safety of the newly dispatched covid-19 vaccines. As quoted from Barry Bloom, MD, PhD, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in a MedPage Today article, “[ADE] occurs when non-neutralizing antibodies generated by past infection or vaccination fail to shut down the pathogen upon re-exposure. Instead, they act as a gateway by allowing the virus to gain entry and replicate in cells that are usually off limits (typically immune cells, like macrophages). That, in turn, can lead to wider dissemination of illness, and over-reactive immune responses that cause more severe illness”. 
Potential incidents of ADE caused by the vaccine is a serious concern. This sentiment is shared by Professor Luc Montagnier who is a French Virologist and Nobel Prize Winner. It should be noted that Prof Montagnier is a Nobel laureate due to his part in the discovery of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV).  As such, it stands to reason that his insights are worth noting. Prof Montagnier posits that it is the vaccination that is creating the variants.  He mentions that “the new variants are a production and result from the vaccination. You see it in each country, it’s the same: the curve of vaccination is followed by the curve of deaths.” Prof Montagnier came to this conclusion by referring to data that shows an increase in Covid-19 deaths after the widespread usage of vaccines in early January 2021.  His judgement is corroborated by a Youtube video showcasing a statistical analysis of the impact of Covid-19 vaccinations on mortality.  Some of the graphs featured in the video can be seen below. Indeed, the correlation between the increase in Covid-19 mortality rates and the beginning usage of Covid-19 vaccines portray a strong case for Montagnier’s concerns.
Moreover, the fact that the SARS-CoV-2 virus is genetically similar to the SARS-CoV-1 of the 2003 SARS outbreak in Singapore further delineates the risk of ADE occurrence.  Past SARS-CoV-1 vaccine efforts have proven to fail due to ADE. 
Having a 86.85% similarity to SARS-CoV-1 genetically, it follows that there is a very likely possibility for SARS-CoV-2 vaccines to trigger ADE.
Be that as it may, it would be intellectually dishonest to assert that the ADE phenomenon is not without its critics. In the same aforementioned article by MedPage Today, it is stated that scientists avoided targeting the nucleoprotein of the coronavirus because it would likely cause ADE.  Alternatively, the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 was chosen as the angle of approach instead. It was reported that scientists have not observed any effects related to ADE from the consumption of the vaccines too. This argument is raised by other sources too.  In spite of that and the limited research done on ADE in SARS-CoV-2, a recent study highlights how vaccines that target the spike protein can and will trigger ADE. 
To cite the study:
“Our experiments conclusively demonstrate with several lines of evidence that both SARS-CoVpp and replication-competent SARS-coronavirus infect certain immune cells only in the presence of anti-Spike immune serum and not in its absence.”
“It is believed that an antibody-mediated infection pathway could provide SARS-CoV additional entry routes, allowing the virus to broaden its tropism. Interestingly, early after ADE infection, we detected far more (ca. 50- to 100-fold) SARS-CoV-positive RNAs compared to its negative strand, a situation found during the productive replication of coronaviruses (55) and distinct from the abortive replication of SARS-CoV reported after direct infection of macrophages.”
Another contention by MedPage Today postulates that ADE is an acute problem, and it can be very dramatic. If it was an issue with these vaccines, we would have spotted it by now. The under-reporting of adverse events and deaths (explained in subsequent segment) serves to dispel this myth.
This is critical evidence that the vaccines distributed may very likely lead to more harm than good. For those who take the vaccine in hopes of lockdown measures and lockdowns easing, this previously unconsidered phenomenon of ADE renders the decision to take the vaccine superfluous. In fact, it may lead to even more severe cases or even a self-perpetuating cycle where mutations in the virus which are facilitated by rushed treatments (vaccines) spurs the development of more flawed vaccines which in turns leads to more mutations. In such a scenario, lockdowns will be the new albeit abnormal way of living everyone will have to suffer through.
Alternative treatment exists and are proven to work empirically
Vaccines are redundant as there are proven medical cures which are more effective and much more affordable. Other medical cures available such as oral hydroxychloroquine, povidone-iodine (PVP) solution and Ivermectin which are prophylactic drugs. Evidence presented in this document have proven the efficacy of the above-mentioned drugs in reducing the spread of the COVID-19 disease as preventive measures.
To explain the medical terms of these drugs, Oral hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is under the class of antimalarial drugs and is used to treat certain auto-immune diseases such as lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, and malaria. Povidone-iodine solution, also known as polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) is an iodine-containing antiseptic compound used as a mucosal skin disinfectant. Ivermectin is a drug used for treating parasitic infections. Studies done in Singapore and in other countries have shown that these preventive drugs have been viable in curbing the spread of the infectious SARS-CoV-2 disease.
A large-scale randomised controlled clinical trial was conducted in 2020 amongst healthy migrant workers in Singapore. This research was released by National University Health System (NUHS) Singapore. Statistics released have shown that the frequency of COVID-19 infection was significantly lower in participants receiving hydroxychloroquine (212 out of 432 participants, 49%) and povidone-iodine throat spray (338 out of 735 participants, 46%) as compared with vitamin C (433 out of 619 participants, 70%). Vitamin C has been used as a controlled variable here since it has been a home remedy used by many people despite the lack of scientific research for its effectiveness.  The use of HCQ and PVP have made a crucial reduction in the number of COVID-19 infections gained by the migrant workers in the clinical test. Hydroxychloroquine should be used as a preventive drug, given to people who are tested negative or did not contract the virus. News articles worldwide have been targeting the lack of effectiveness after using the drug on COVID-19 positive patients. There is a distinct mismatch of information reported here. Shanghai, China has conducted studies to assess the efficacy of multiple treatments, especially hydroxychloroquine, used in different disease stages of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). It has been proven that using hydroxychloroquine treatment used in early stages of the COVID-19 disease has been efficacious in deterring the disease from aggravating into more severe phases. 
Looking at the global scale, a case in point would be India. As part of the country’s efforts to curb the spread of the COVID-19 disease through prevention, the Indian Government has distributed 111.6 million pills of hydroxychloroquine to its citizens.  The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) has given the green light to using hydroxychloroquine as a form of prophylactic medicine. A study published in the journal, Lancet highlighted that hydroxychloroquine not only did not improve the conditions of severe COVID-19 patients but instead, it led to higher death rates.  However, the disparity in the research findings between the Lancet’s and ICMR’s should be clearly distinguished as the research studies are applied in two different medical contexts. The study published by Lancet was focused on the treatment of hospitalised COVID-19 patients - mainly on patients with severe conditions. The drug was administered to patients only on emergency requests. Whereas, for the ICMR study, the clinical trial was built based on the idea that hydroxychloroquine is an effective drug which should be consumed regularly by the individual. Research findings have shown that the constant dosage of hydroxychloroquine has led to a significant drop in the coronavirus infection among healthcare workers.  The emphasis here is that hydroxychloroquine should be used as a preventive drug against COVID-19, not as a cure. Would one agree that this drug serve the same purpose as what the Moderna or the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine does?
A prominent question to be asked is: with many alternative drugs that have already been proven to be effective, why is there such a strong desire for vaccines to be adopted as the only solution? Many lament that the lives of many are lost to COVID-19 each day. Yet, the same people neglect the already available treatment which is hydroxychloroquine, and povidone-iodine (PVP) solution. To some of our surprise, the vaccine may not be as effective as we thought it would be. Are the vaccines really proven to be 95% effective or is it just a misleading statistic used in headlines meant to deceive readers? The clinical trials conducted reveals that the research includes cases of suspected and confirmed COVID-19 patients. However, out of the 3,410 suspected cases, only a minor percentage - 170 PCR confirmed COVID-19 cases - were reported by Pfizer.  In fact, taking these suspected cases as confirmed ones, the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine’s efficacy would significantly drop to a low 19%. Moreover, the vaccine comes with an absolute risk of causing long-term neurological diseases, pain syndromes and severe allergies effects. Many who have taken the vaccine reported that the mDNA genetic material in the vaccine have developed severe allergic reactions such as anaphylaxis, seizures and convulsions, persistent headache and migraine, paralysis and sudden death within hours or days.  These allergic reactions are life-threatening, and it becomes a side effect of the vaccine in the long run. The individual will have to bear with these allergies while having the probability of contracting COVID-19 as the vaccine is only 19% effective. One question that the readers should ponder if it is worth the risk to take the vaccine now and put your own lives at stake? One may still be skeptical of the 95% vaccines efficacy statistic as it does seem to be astonishing at first glance. However, to place in perspective, a relative risk reduction and not an absolute risk reduction have been adopted, making the readers misconstrued the truth.  To cite directly from Dr Stuart Jeanne Bramhall, a 54-year-old psychiatrist and the author of The Most Revolutionary Act: Memoir of an American Refugee mentioned that “Absolute risk, simply explained, is “the likelihood that an outcome will occur.” Relative risk “compares the risk of a health event … among one group with the risk among another group.”  As such, using the relative risk statistics would undermine the underlying absolute risk which causes people to overestimate the positive outcome of the research results which is the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine in this case.
Moreover, I would like to directly pinpoint the gap of information written in news articles regarding the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine. Studies done on hydroxychloroquine are flawed. Most of the studies ‘debunking’ hydroxychloroquine misrepresent this drug because the drug was used in the late stage of treatment of Covid-19 where most drugs proved to be ineffective. Hydroxychloroquine was only used when the patient was already in the critical phase or had already been tested positive for a certain period. COVID positive patients usually go through two phases, a milder phase and then a more severe phase where most drugs tend to fail.  Hydroxychloroquine at the mild phase works wonders which is precisely the reason why the Brazil health ministry decided to endorse the drug to treat mild COVID symptoms.  Secondly, many of these studies use dosages that were not optimum, thus, reducing the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine. A randomized clinical study conducted by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) compared the use of high-dose chloroquine and low-dose chloroquine in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19. High dosage of chloroquine has been defined to be 600 mg twice daily for 10 days and this has been associated with more severe toxicities than lower-dose chloroquine (450 mg twice daily for 1 day, followed by 450 mg once daily for 4 days). It was eventually observed that there were higher mortality rates in the high-dose chloroquine group vis-a-vis the low-dose chloroquine group.  The optimal dosage for the prescription of the hydroxychloroquine drug remains unknown. As a matter of fact, there are more than 200 studies researching hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19.  If that is too little, then how many more studies must be conducted to be considered enough?
Some articles found on the Internet would argue that hydroxychloroquine is effective only because it serves as a placebo effect in preventing COVID-19.  The sample size for this research study conducted by Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania is too small to conclude anything. To elucidate, looking at Pfizer’s trial, of 22,000 volunteers in a placebo group, 162 of them had a positive PCR test. This is approximately 0.74% which is completely different from the 6% quoted in the study. Admittedly, the participants of the study here are high-risk personnel which may have caused the increase in transmission rate. However, if this study is attempting to prove how HCQ would be useless in treating the ‘general population’ then this study fails completely. After all, whether the preventative capability of HCQ is applicable to the general population cannot be directly translated from data pertaining to high risk personnel. There is also a flaw within the study - the exposure time to COVID-19 by each medical personnel is not revealed. With such a small sample size, the results may be skewed where one group has higher exposure than the other.
More importantly, a critical question to ponder upon is, why was the target group specifically high-risk medical personnel as opposed to the general population? To answer this, we must understand that the smaller the statistics, the easier it is to use relative risk for exaggeration. A hypothetical example would be a decrease in transmission rates from 0.1% to 0.01% as compared to 99% to 98.01%. Both are a 0.99% decrease. However, for the former statistics, it can be presented that xxx decreases the transmission rate of xxx by ten-folds. The latter, while having the same absolute effectiveness, will probably be regarded as a useless cure. Look at the Pfizer example too, since the numbers are so small, it is easy to declare a 95% effectiveness. If we were to compare the absolute risks, Pfizer’s was 0.70% while HCQ in the study was 0.30%. Surely one would not want to partake in experimental therapy with very possible risks for a 0.40% absolute risk and that is assuming the HCQ example can translate into the general population context, right? In other words, the high-risk medical personnel were selected to inflate the statistics such that relative risks cannot be used for HCQ. Statistics are deliberately used to mislead again.
Recently, there has been new evidence to support the efficacy of Ivermectin which brings this drug to light in this document here. A study conducted by the Monash Biomedicine Discovery Institute (BDI) with the Peter Doherty Institute of Infection and Immunity (Doherty Institute), a joint venture of the University of Melbourne and Royal Melbourne Hospital, has scientists delivering results that the ivermectin drug stopped the coronavirus growing in cell culture within 48 hours of lab experiment. “We found that even a single dose could essentially remove all viral RNA by 48 hours and that even at 24 hours there was a significant reduction in it," Dr Wagstaff said. Ivermectin is an FDA-approved anti-parasitic drug that has also been shown to be effective in vitro against a broad range of viruses including HIV, Dengue, Influenza and Zika virus.” . As the new SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant spreads globally, Ivermectin has been a popular drug dispensed in Indonesia, Malaysia, and India. The New Delhi-based All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) has issued novel guidelines for the treatment of COVID-19 cases among adults. In the list of guidelines provided, AIIMS has suggested various treatments classified under three levels of severity for COVID-19 cases i.e. mild, moderate, and severe cases. From the infographic released by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India, one of the plausible treatments for mild COVID-19 cases is to consume Ivermectin tablets (200 mcg/kg once a day for 3 days). The disclaimer here is that these are therapies based on low certainty of evidence due to the limited clinical trials in April 2021. Those who wish to consume Ivermectin must not be pregnant and/or lactating. The definition to determine if one falls under the category of ‘mild COVID-19 cases’ is that the patient has upper respiratory tract symptoms and/or fever without the shortness of breath or hypoxia which can be life-threatening. 
However, studies on the efficacy of Ivermectin have surfaced and the results have been reflecting well on countries who encouraged their citizens to consume Ivermectin as a prophylactic drug instead of mass vaccination. An article published by The Desert Review and written by Dr. Justus Hope, a medical doctor who justified his stance well on Ivermectin - the substitute drug for vaccines in India. It is apparent that India has had a sharp decline in the number of COVID-19 cases after the ICMR and AIIMS added Ivermectin to their protocols on April 20, 2021. The daily COVID-19 cases, which peaked at 414,188, are now down to 84,332. This resulted in a 80% fall in the number of COVID-19 cases in India after the use of Ivermectin.  Adding on to these statistics, it is a known fact that for those Indian states who actively adopted Ivermectin policies has a significant decline in COVID-19 cases daily than the mere 80%. “[S]tates like Uttar Pradesh - down 98% [37,944 to 596], like Uttarakhand - down 97% [9642 to 287] and Goa - down 90% [4195 to 423]. Delhi saw a 99% drop [28,395 to 238].” If these statistics and facts are not enough to convince the readers to support the use of ivermectin to fight against the COVID-19 virus, then the next piece of evidence would surely be one that would convince all, if not most. The consensus amongst clinicians, health researchers and patient representatives would attest to the truth that evidence-based medicine should be practised for medical treatments as patients’ lives are in the hands of their clinicians. The British Ivermectin Recommendation Development Group (BIRD) advocates for the use of Ivermectin against COVID-19. Dr. Tess Lawrie graduated with a Bachelor of Medicine & Surgery (MBBCh) and a Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. In January 2021, Dr. Tess Lawrie and her team from the Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy in Bath conducted discussions in a BIRD meeting with regards to the evidence that Dr. Tess gathered from her systematic reviews and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of Ivermectin for the prevention and treatment.  Ivermectin, like Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and povidone-iodine (PVP) solution, are inexpensive prophylactic drugs which have proven their effectiveness well.
The consumption of Covid-19 vaccine can lead to adverse effects on one's body.
The Covid-19 vaccines are created within a year since the first Covid-19 case was discovered. During the creation of the vaccine, experimental technology are used to aid in the clinical testing of the vaccines. This can be found through a quick research on FDA's website. The mRNA vaccines that many have been taking contains polyethylene glycol (PEG) which is a controversial substance that has been questioned for a long time due to its adverse immune reactions, which anaphylaxis, a life-threatening allergy reaction. 
Additionally, the vaccines, when taken, could also lead to adverse effects such as blood clot. Former Pfizer vp, Dr Mike Yeadon, expounded that the reason why the vaccines pose such serious side effects such as blood clot is due to Covid vaccines using experimental technology. This is exacerbated by the severe blood clotting 795 incidences reported for all 3 vaccines from 14 December 2020 to 1 April 2021.. This is further supported by the death of a florida doctor, Dr Gregory Michael after developing a rare blood disorder days after he received the Pfizer vaccine. He was diagnosed with immune thrombocytopenia, a blood disorder that stops the creation of platelets and eventually died of brain hemorrhage. Other than him, there are also 37 other people developing such blood disorder after vaccinated.  Interestingly, a recent study showed how Pfizer’s vaccine had a fatality rate around twice that of AstraZeneca in France and around quadruple that in Germany. 
Some might argue that the amount of cases are very little as there are 227,805 adverse events  and 4201 deaths  following the vaccination from mid-December 2020 through 14 May 2021, which makes the vaccine still very safe. However the amount of adverse vaccine events are actually unreported, which makes the amount of cases seemingly insignificant. A study done in 2010 found out that there were around less than 1% of adverse vaccine events that were reported. Another recent Harvard study corroborates this finding.  A simple mathematics calculation will show us that the amount of adverse vaccine events are in fact much more than it should have been.
There are also others that might contend that since people contracted with Covid-19 have significantly higher incidence of blood clot than that of those who are vaccinated, individuals should take the vaccine and reduce their risk of blood clot. This contention may seem logical at first glance. However, with medical cures that are much more affordable and effective, the usage of vaccine is absolutely unnecessary.
There have been several blunders by the government in the handling of the virus.
The current measures decided upon by the government is not predicated on sufficient scientific basis.
Let us first take a look into perhaps one of the most fundamental aspect of the ongoing pandemic -- the testing of Covid-19. The most common test for Covid-19 is the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) test. The PCR is invented by Kary B Mullis, a biochemist who won a nobel prize for the said invention.  Here is what Mullis had to say about his own invention:
“PCR is separate from that, it’s just a process that’s used to make a whole lot of something out of something. That’s what it is. It doesn’t tell you that you’re sick and it doesn’t tell you that the thing you ended up with really was going to hurt you or anything like that”
“With PCR if you do it well you can find almost anything in anybody. It starts making you believe in the sort of Buddhist notion that everything is contained in everything else, right? Because if you can amplify one single molecule up to something that you can really measure, which PCR can do, then there’s just very few molecules that you don’t have at least one single one of them in your body.”
This is quoted from an interview Mullis participated in.  It is expedient to note that the response by Mullis was in the context of HIV virus. Nevertheless, in no way does his response fail to hold true for other pathogens. The fact that the creator of PCR tests asserts that his brainchild play no role in the diagnosing diseases, their infectivity or severity of symptoms is a smoking gun that impugns the credibility of the way PCR is employed today. Unsurprisingly, some may try to rationalise by hinting that there might be a possibility that PCR tests are tweaked to function properly as diagnostic markers for Covid-19. That misplaced hope holds no water and collapses in face of scientific results.
PCR is an amplification technique, it amplifies specific gene sequences of a virus, it does not reveal any virus. 
To cite Dr. Pascal Sacre in his article (highly recommended to read the entire article), 
“PCR can push up to 60 amplification cycles, or even more!
Here is how it works:
Cycle 1: target x 2 (2 copies)
Cycle 2: target x 4 (4 copies)
Cycle 3: target x 8 (8 copies)
Cycle 4: target x 16 (16 copies)
Cycle 5; target x 32 (32 copies)
Etc exponentially up to 40 to 60 cycles!”
“This over-sensitivity of the RT-PCR test is deleterious and misleading!”
“Above Ct 35, it becomes impossible to isolate a complete virus sequence and culture it! In France and in most countries, Ct levels above 35, even 40, are still used even today!”
“Most RT-PCR tests set the Ct at 40, according to the NYT. Some set it at 37.
“Tests with such high thresholds (Ct) may not only detect live virus but also gene fragments, remnants of an old infection that do not represent any particular danger,” the experts said.”
This is corroborated by another study that demostrates that at “Ct = 25, up to 70% of patients remain positive in culture and that at Ct = 30 this value drops to 20%. At Ct = 35, the value we used to report a positive result for PCR, <3% of cultures are positive.”.  This essentially shows how the current Ct used for PCR tests leads to a staggering false positive rate of 97%.
In addition, a peer review from a group of 22 international experts has found 10 “major flaws” in the main protocol of the PCR tests employed. 
Furthermore, PCR tests are rendered even more preposterous when the subject they are testing for have not even been identified clearly. Dr. Derek Knauss and his colleagues from 7 different universities are filing a lawsuit against CDC. The rationale for this is that out of 1500 Covid-19 samples, not one of them was the Covid-19 coronavirus found. What was found was instead Influenza A and to a lesser extent, Influencza B.  Without the target Covid-19 being recognised, any call for testing or even solutions carries no logical merits whatsoever.
Once more, there are indeed sources that claim otherwise; that Covid-19 has been isolated (Fullfact.org).  Fullfact.org states that “Isolating a virus means taking a pure sample of a virus from an infected being so it can be studied.” and proceeds to cite 3 research papers that proves this. The first research paper linked (or rather article) have zero mentions of the purity of samples.  The second paper cited was by a group of Korean scientists which will be discussed shortly.  The last paper cited did not mention how the Covid-19 sample obtained was purified under the ‘Specimen Collection’ segment.  All these claims of the covid-19 samples being purified for isolation are completely unfounded. In an article written by Torsten Engelbrecht and Konstantin Demeter (recommended to read), it is revealed that the science teams of relevant which are referred to in the context of SARS-CoV-2 are unable to provide proof for whether the electron-microscopic shots depicted in their in vitro experiments show purified viruses.  This includes the study by the group of Korean researchers mentioned earlier. The article also denounced the usage of PCR tests for the diagnosis of the Covid-19 infection. It is noteworthy that Torsten Engelbrecht and Konstantin Demeter have written a rebuttal to Politifact’s attempted disabuse of their article to which they have received no response from Politifact so far.  Other ventures to debunk such information by mainstream media is primarily done so through fallacious reasoning. 
With that said, this is just the testing of Covid-19 alone. Measures like complete lockdowns and prolonged mask-wearing are all met with strong resistance from many in the scientific community. For the sake of brevity, the articles elucidating such will be linked.     Many petitions detailing the very information mentioned above are endorsed by medical professionals and like-minded individuals all over the world. To name a few: the Great Barrington Declaration , an open letter from health professionals in Belgian , a petition compiled by anonymous health professionals , another petition by anonymous individuals , and an open letter from doctors and scientists to the European medicines agency regarding COVID-19 vaccine safety concerns. 
With all of these in mind, many basic but essential questions needs to be asked.
Why has mainstream media, local news, and even the government not once revealed such information?
Why has mainstream media, local news and even the government engaged in the use of misleading statistics? 
Why do organisations like CDC fail to maintain intellectual consistency through surreptitiously adjusting the Ct values for vaccinated personnel such that it is more difficult for them to be tested Covid-19 positive in their guideline?  
The burden of proof lies on the policymakers or the government when they choose to implement measures that may be controversial: has the government provided concrete evidence that the rationale behind their actions supersedes the scientific concerns posited?
If not, what is then, really the motivating factor behind the government’s decisions?
These questions all need to be answered for accountability.
If the answer to these questions are ‘it is for the welfare of the people’ and they are only doing what they deem best for the people, it would be ludicrous beyond measure because of the good intentions fallacy. As quoted by Nobel Laureate economist Milton Friedman, “One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.”. Therefore, such response are patronising at best and asinine at worst.
Important Logical Incongruities to note
If all the aforementioned message are still met with skepticism, perhaps these few logical incongruities would enable one to have their worldview shifted. After all, these contradictions are enough to shake the very foundations of the mainstream narrative.
The first mishap in rationality lies in the much touted claim that the vaccine is not ‘experimental’ as some asserts. To better understand such a statement, it is best to trace what it is predicated on. With that said, such postulation stems from an analysis of trial records pertaining to the vaccines currently being adopted as of now. In the trial records, it is explicitly stated that estimated study completion dates for the Pfizer, Mordena and AstraZeneca safety-related study are May 2, 2023, October 27, 2022, and February 14, 2023, respectively.    Considering how these dates are of the future, the suggestion of the vaccines being experimental appears to be legitimate. However, it would of course be prudent to view both sides of the story: what does mainstream media have to say about this? According to a ‘fact check’ by Reuters, “it is standard practice for safety monitoring to continue after a vaccine has been approved for use.”  Based on this premise, it is concluded that the vaccine is not experimental by the fact of it being standard procedure. This is a ludicrous explanation, a mere red herring. According to Collin’s dictionary, the term experimental is used to denote “an experimental action (that) is done in order to see what it is like, or what effects it has.”  The fact that safety monitoring is a standard procedure does not in any way precludes the fact that possible long term detriments are being tracked just like how one observes for unknown incidences in scientific experiments. Undoubtedly, if the long term effects of the vaccine is already established, there would be no need for further monitoring whatsoever. Therefore, it is clear that the vaccine is indeed experimental.
The next lapse in logicality lies in the mysterious drop in flu cases worldwide.  Most notably, Singapore reported 0 flu cases in polyclinics for more than 8 months.  This is very curious considering how influenza has been a recurring medical problem that has never been eradicated per se. Undeniably, this is a great opportunity for advocates of lockdown measures to declare the effectiveness of their solutions.  For the sake of conciseness, only the situation in Singapore is analysed (Although the same logic is applicable for other countries). The allegation that flu cases declined due to lockdown measures does not hold because of the simple fact that Covid-19 cases have risen. If lockdown measures are as effective as purported, it makes little sense that this supposed effectiveness does not hold for Covid-19. While one may contend that Covid-19 is more contagious than the common flu, how can it be that flu cases are eliminated completely while total cases in Singapore can increase by approximately 10,000? (From 1st July 2020 to 1st March when the article was written)  Even if lockdown measures have a greater impact on influenza, the change is too disproportionate when compared to Covid-19. ‘Experts’ have also stated that this is due to a higher uptake of flu vaccines and people with mild symptoms who refuse to visit polyclinics for fear of being diagnosed with Covid-19. The problem with this argument is that flu vaccines have not been proven to eradicate flu at all and does not account for the mentioned change in flu cases number. Furthermore, while not all with mild symptoms visited polyclinics, there are still those who did. How is it that none of them are diagnosed with influenza but rather Covid-19? With all that said, the reason lies in the unreliability of the PCR test as explained in the previous segment.
Lastly, perhaps the most glaring absurdity in reasoning is the assumption that vaccine companies and even the government only have our best interests at heart. Most of the dominant vaccine companies subscribed to by governments have questionable histories. Pfizer, Johnson&Johnson and Astrazeneca have all been shown through legal lawsuits and settlements that they have no qualms with endangering the lives of those who use their products so long as their agendas are met.    Moderna, on the other hand, does not have any successful drugs or products in the market prior to their current vaccine.  In other words, Moderna, with relatively lesser experience in developing vaccines is trying its hand at the novel mRNA vaccines. All of these may be mitigated by stringent regulations. Unfortunately, what is shocking and perplexing is that there are no such restrictions. Instead, there are measures that aims to fulfil the opposite. The PREP act provides complete immunity from liability for any loss relating to or resulting from, any product used to prevent or treat illness during a public health emergency.  Telling a criminal that he can commit a crime with zero implications does not in the slightest deter him whatsoever, it only encourages him. Trusting vaccine companies with a checkered history especially when legislation like the PREP act exist is at best, extreme optimism(or naivete) and risk taking, and at worst insanity. Truth be told, there is no way whatsoever to rationalize the usage of vaccines based on this premise alone.
For those who believe that the government has no possible motives, would you still hold the same belief when seeing that Temasek Holdings [Private] Limited is one of the top 10 institutional holder of BioNTech SE shares? 
Having said these, what does the future entail? Many fear a future where the allegedly more deadly and contagious delta variant of the coronavirus reaches Singapore. Perhaps, maybe this once, the vaccine is the hero of the story, the wonderdrug that resolves the Covid-19 issue, the guardian angel that shields those who seek salvation. This is nothing but a pipe dream. In a document from Public Health England, an examination of the effects of the delta variant is conducted.  Statistics show that there were 92,029 cases, 19,957 infected received a single dose, 7,235 received both doses and 53,822 were unvaccinated. (pg 13 of source) Of these cases, there were a total of 117 recorded deaths, 20 from those who received a single dose, 50 from those who received double doses and 44 from unvaccinated. (pg 14 of source) A closer inspection reveals that of 27,192 vaccinated delta cases, 70 died, resulting in a mortality rate of 0.26%. On the other hand, of 53,822 unvaccinated delta cases, 44 died, resulting in a mortality rate of 0.08%. The chances of dying from the delta variant if you got the vaccine is 3.25 times in contrast to the unvaccinated. This is even admitted by mainstream media.  Nothing further needs to be said about the efficacy of the vaccine against the delta variant.
In closing, there are several important questions we wish to pose to the Singapore government, MOH, MOE & the so-called 'experts' advising the government.
1. We are told that the 'vaccinations' are effective, yet across the world, the majority of the spreaders of the variants are people who have taken the shot.
If the respective authorities are honest, why has this information being kept away from the public in clear violation of the Nuremberg Code?
Why the dishonest cherry picking?
2. In real democracies around the world, the data presented regarding 'vaccine' deaths is alarming.
Why is it that every person in Singapore who has died of jab, is assumed to have died of other causes?
What makes Singapore so different?
Is the government willing to allow an independent body of inquiry?
Why the secrecy?
3. The respective authorities are now pushing a vigorous load of misinformation on the public that 'unvaccinated' people are variant factories.
Data from Israel, Japan, the European Union, the United States & the UK clearly indicate that the current biggest spreaders of the Delta variant are those who got the shot.
Why is the public being misled?
Why are the authorities planning on medical apartheid?
Why did MOH stop providing the relevant data?
If we, the citizens of Singapore, are not being misinformed, would the government be prepared to open the data up for independent scrutiny?
We, the citizens of Singapore, want answers from the government or MOH within 7 days.
We want the government to seize the 'vaccination' program within 7 days until clear answers are given.
If the government is not willing, we want an open, televised debate - within 14 days - with the so-called experts.
There should be transparency.
Do not take this lightly.
No point reciting the pledge on 9 August 2021 regarding a "democratic society, based on justice and EQUALITY" when society is being segregated into the informed who choose not to take the shot and the rest.
Refer to the following:
1. The Nuremberg Code
2. UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (art.6)
3. UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (art.7)
4. UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (art.3)