Chains of Reaction
There are recent petitions started by various concerned citizens including healthcare professionals that spark off heated discussion. On 5 June, an online petition to "Battle Plan Against Covid-19: The 3rd Front" has garnered more than 2,000 signatures to call on a nationwide sustainable Outpatient Home Treatment Plan, which was developed by international critical care doctors to provide cheap antiviral drug ivermectin as treatment and prevention. It also calls to hold off vaccinating those under 20 years as the mortality rate for this age group is statistically zero.
In this section, we highlight some notable discussion and chains of reaction resulting from this petition. Feel free to share your views in this post.
The first response was published on The Straits Times (7 Jun 2021) in an article entitled "infectious diseases expert David Lye calls out misinformation about Covid-19 vaccines" by Senior Health Correspondent Salma Khalik, in which detailed Facebook post of the expert who needed to correct certain messages and petitions making the rounds which have caused him to have sleepless nights.
Here are some responses to Dr Lye's Facebook post.
Reply by Cheryl Lee
I posted below reply on Dr David Lye's FB a few hours earlier. Soon after, he banned me from his FB.
Sir, with due respect, you have holes in your arguments :
1) I read the NUS paper on the human trials among migrant workers in SG. As a doctor u shd know. If you do not take the med dose as recommended, of course it doesn't work ! Did u even read about ivermectin & check the protocols developed by the doctors advocating for IVM?
(Salma - this is the paper by NUS https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33864917/
They gave 1 dose of Ivermectin (IVM) for 42 days. Whereas the FLCCC has 3 protocols (https://covid19criticalcare.com/covid-19-protocols/i-mask-plus-protocol/ )
- prophylaxis : 2 doses 48 hours apart and then once a week for 12 weeks or more
- Early treatment for those who are infected - IVM dose daily for 5 days until recovered. Fluvoxamine is only prescribed from under certain conditions if minimal improvement after administering IVM
- Hospital treatment - a different protocol )
2) About half of those above 50 yo, are vaccinated in SG. And more are vaxxing. So why vax the kids when mortality rate is 0.0035% for those under 20? Why subject kids to new vax risks?
How can the kids infect their parents or grandparents if they are vaxxed?
Moreover natural immunity acq by the kids lasts longer and more effective than vaccine immunity. They don't have to go for booster shots or annual vaccine updates.
3) You said mRNA vaccines don't last more than 2 days in our bodies. But the spike proteins can last up to 29 days !
World renowned Salk Institute of Biological Studies recently released a scientific study that spike proteins alone (without the virus) can cause vascular damage, blood clots and auto-immune diseases
Altho I'm not a doctor, I am quoting from doctors and what I've read from scientific journals
David Lye's post:
"Why faked science and anti-vaccine groups are dangerous in a pandemic"
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33864917/ - NUS study
www.flccc.net - Ivermectin
I am the main writer for a group of citizens that started a petition that has garnered more than 2000 signatories since we launched it on Sunday afternoon. We hope this can become a grassroot movement that provides ground-up feedback to the government.
About Citizens Against Covid-19
"Citizens against Covid-19" is a grassroot movement with a mission to educate the public on vaccine safety and to share alternative solutions in ending the pandemic. Since 26 Apr 2021, our core group has been trawling the internet daily for the latest research and news which you normally would not hear from our local media. As far as possible, we authenticate the news and research studies, and disregard fake news.
We believed that one should hear diverse views in order to obtain a wholistic perspective of a difficult situation so that we can make better informed choices.
I have a lot more to say, but suffice for now.
Reply by Khush Chopra
David, while I can understand your frustration at this difficult juncture in the Covid crisis, without any name calling "fake science" and "anti-vaccine" - I think we can all certainly agree that we should follow the science and where the evidence and data leads us.
With regards to the mRNA vaccines, I am sure we can all agree the following facts
- this is a new and experimental vaccine being used for first time on a very large scale on the human population
- safety and efficacy was established based on barely a 2 month Phase 3 trial ( See: Pfizer Phase 3 trial https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-announce-publication-results-landmark)
- no one including the manufacturers can tell us with certainty the long term safety and efficacy of these vaccines because none of us have that data unless we all time travel into the future
-On short term safety I think we've passed the point on relying on Phase 3 trial results. Wouldn't you agree that the US VAERS database which has recorded 4,000 deaths is a good place to start. Granted that the records do not reflect causation - but are you not concerned enough to review and comment on it? (VAERS database https://vaers.hhs.gov/)
Your comments on Ivermectin are unfortunate. The NUH study was conducted very early in the pandemic and there wasn't sufficient data on Ivermectin. Our researchers used a single 12mg dose of Ivermectin for the full 42 day trial duration. We now know from protocols established by real life clinicians using it, that dose by our researchers was probably incorrect and too low to establish efficacy ( See Ivermectin protocol from FLCCC: https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/FLCCC-Alliance-I-MASKplus-Protocol-ENGLISH.pdf)
Your reference to the 2 journal retractions is mixing fact with fiction. I am assuming it was an honest mistake. The journal retractions last year related to Hydroxychloroquine NOT Ivermectin. And even in the case of Hydroxychloroquine, the retraction was not on its effectiveness but its ineffectiveness. To your credit, you did get the name of the fake database company correct. Sugisphere (See: 19. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31180-6/fulltext)
So I agree with you, lets follow the science and evidence and stop all the naming calling. We are all interested in getting to the truth and the best course of action for our families and our country.
Reply from Brad Bowyer
Being a "political figure", it is sometimes very hard to share your personal thoughts but I am very disturbed by the messaging by Dr David Lye of NCID that has been circulating and reported on heavily by our media calling us not look at "questionable" scientific sources from overseas and appearing to encourage us to use the mRNA vaccines on our youth and I feel I can't not share them.
Apart from the fact that his article is clearly a reaction to the growing number of what look like valid concerns many in Singapore have around vaccinating children, including members of our medical establishment, I feel his original words also cherry-pick facts, ignores context, does not even talk about true numbers of children who get affected or the many cures that have been developed over the past 18 months and so I feel, even though I believe he is acting in good faith, it also should be questioned.
In the article, he says that the mRNA vaccines reduce symptomatic Covid by 95% but it neglects to note that, although according to the American CDC everyone seems about equally as likely to catch it, the chance of someone under 18 getting a severe case and needing hospitalization is between 40 and 95 times less than an elderly person depending on age group. ( see Risk for COVID-19 Infection, Hospitalization, and Death By Age Group | CDC)
Indeed, succumbing for those few in that age group is even less likely, between 1,300 and 8,700 times less than the elderly, and in Singapore the youngest victim I believe was a lady in her 50's with multiple other conditions. In fact, even though the actual numbers who passed on in the US are still a matter of contention, the numbers they do have shown less than 0.03% of them were under 18 and most had underlying issues and were not normal healthy children.
There is also silence on the many treatments that are now available and actually have been available for a very long time in some countries. Instead, a limited test done in Singapore for Ivermectin is mentioned as a reason to discount it, which on examination was out of line with the protocols now known to have worked, and he has some other errors such as for the Lancet article mentioned which was actually about the more "contentious" role of HCQ in treatment and not Ivermectin, and which was proven to be a poorly constructed attack on HCQ based on faked information.
In fact, in the case of HCQ, aside from the hundreds of positive studies and outcomes now on record we now know from the recently revealed "Fauci Emails" that Dr Fauci likely colluded with several conflicted parties to generate and promote negative studies (including the Lancet article) while burying hundreds of front-line testimonials and studies that showed it does in fact work and its earlier use would likely have prevented many deaths.
You can read more at (Fauci Emails: How Top Public Health Officials Spun Tangled Web of Lies Around COVID Origin, Treatments • Children's Health Defense (childrenshealthdefense.org)) amongst others. For those questioning this source, I would add that Children's Health Defense is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization whose board is chaired by Robert F Kennedy Jr, and has members and a team consisting of doctors, nurses, lawyers, and concerned citizens and operates with legal and scientific advisors so it has some standing, although the information on Dr Fauci is freely available in many locations if you search for it.
And when looking more closely at Dr Fauci it could well be possible that he has been motivated in some of his actions by the fact that he appears intimately and financially involved in both the development of Covid and in the vaccine industry that is profiting heavily from it and has a lot of reasons to suppress the idea of cures.
I don't believe Dr Lye has any such conflicts so I must question why he is not talking about the positive developments that have arisen over the last 18 months or the fact that there are other options available than vaccination alone to deal with this crisis.
Because while US VAERS data does not directly prove causation as all cases need to be independently verified, as of late May it shows hospitalization due to myocarditis after vaccination in the 12 to 17 age range being 12 times greater than hospitalization number for actual Covid and there have been several deaths.
Our own A/Prof Mak in the news conference that announced the expansion of vaccine use mentioned this myocarditis issue and said they are watching it. So, if it is a concern, as data is starting to show, and the benefit to someone under 18 is marginal, which the data when fully looked at is also starting to show, I must ask is the risk-reward ratio there? Where is the data that shows that?
While those under 18 can catch Covid just like the rest of us very few get it bad enough to need hospitalization and even fewer have succumbed to it and that is even before you consider so many treatment protocols that have been developed so are the risks of the vaccine worth it to "protect" them from the virus?
Of course, the other argument is to protect others and then we get to the herd immunity idea, and I feel there are 2 things we should consider for that. When looking at the mRNA vaccines reducing transmission by between 50 and 60% as Dr Lye claims as a reason for preference over Sinovac you only have to look at Wikipedia and a range of online studies to see that Sinovac has similar effects but so far without the long list of negative side effects, although we can't say for sure as there are not comparable adverse reaction reporting systems where it is being used, but even so why is that not a considered option if vaccination is the choice solution? I say if because we do know from our current outbreak that in Changi Airport for example just as many vaccinated as unvaccinated caught it and in the Minds establishment over 90% of the staff and patients were vaccinated but still caught it at the same rate as the unvaccinated so even the 50 to 60% reduction in transmission number may be a high estimate.
The second consideration is that, although the WHO has changed the definition of herd immunity 3 times during this epidemic and minimized the idea of natural immunity, it is highly likely that we already have a level of natural immunity in Singapore after having had SARs, etc over the last few years. That and our climate and living conditions may well be large contributors as to why we have so few cases and even fewer hospitalizations and deaths so how immediate a threat is it really?
Add to that the fact that we now know that 40% of those who catch it will be asymptomatic and 40% will only have mild flu like symptoms... that makes 80% who if they catch it won't be too serious or sick at all (and the threshold for herd immunity is only 60 to 70%), plus we now know it's not a new "Spanish Flu" as there is a 99.9x% survival rate for those who do get badly sick, and most of our vulnerable age group population is already vaccinated, so surely we should be less worried about "the herd" now and be considering more targeted policies?
Policies that focus on identifying and early treatment of the known vulnerable section of our population (primarily very elderly with underlying issues) with automatic testing if they fall ill with flu-like symptoms for example, and not these blanket policies.
Blanket policies that we know are in themselves harming our health, our economy, and our society for what now looks like limited real-world benefit and, if the current policy of mRNA vaccines for 12 to 18 years olds is followed, exposing our children unnecessarily to experimental vaccines with unknown long-term effects.
While I am not anti-vaccination, I and my family have had all the standard ones most of us have had and I even had the very new H1N1 vaccine when we had the Bird Flu concerns as I was traveling a lot and thought it the responsible thing to do, I do question the single-minded focus on these experimental vaccines and whether this is a prudent and necessary path to follow at this time?
Not only has it been made difficult to even have these discussions there also seems a reluctance to consider other options, a loss of all proportionality when compared to other illnesses we deal with every day, a quick willingness to follow whatever the chosen "foreign experts" say regardless of whether they may be conflicted or not, and this terrible environment of censorship which actually encourages all sorts of potentially erroneous ideas to flourish while the official communication remains very selective, facts and data get suppressed and confused and which does not build a feeling of trust in its brevity and seeming lack of unbiased scientific support while focusing heavily on propaganda like techniques of fear and social pressure building.
This pandemic has been a terrible episode for all of us and it is more than time that we should look at all solutions to end it and not just follow a narrow set of ideas that others, often with their own agendas, overseas are doing. We need a balanced response designed and implemented for Singapore with our unique conditions in mind and not driven by fear, misinformation, or any non-public health-focused agendas and designed to get us back to normality as fast as possible and not dragging it on for months and possibly years more as already worryingly hinted at, I mean how could they even know that at this stage?
And as for vaccinating our youth?
My opinion is based on what I see, and what I see is that there is far too little definitively known at this time for far too little real benefit to justify a rush into such decisions. If I and my family are to decide to take the vaccine, we need very clear information on all the risks and benefits and why there are no other alternatives we can choose.So, I hope that those who should have more data than we do either tell us clearly and with strong supporting evidence why they believe this is the ONLY choice and it is so URGENT that it needs to be rushed at this time?
And if they cannot then please rethink what you are messaging to the public and asking them to do because serious medical decisions should not be made under the influence of any kind of psychological coercion.
This is our children's lives and futures at stake.
Feel free to share your views here.