Dr. Syafiq Nordin

From LifeSiteNews

By Angeline Tan

Dr. Syafiq Nordin asked for forgiveness if he misguided anyone.

On April 17, a restorative doctor from Malaysia posted what seemed to be a sincere apology for administering the experimental COVID-19 “vaccines” to patients.

In a Facebook post, Dr. Syafiq Nordin said (English translation below from his native Malay):

“PLEASE FORGIVE ME

1. New revelations about Pfizer have revealed a weakness in the industry, of which I am part of.

2. I am saddened as, before meeting Dr. Razin Jaafar, the medical advice I gave contained many mistakes, particularly with regard to COVID.

3. However, I am very grateful to him because I am now more open-eyed and more enlightened about health sciences, which honestly are more natural and fitting to my soul as a medical practitioner and as a Muslim.

4. During the past COVID times, it is undeniable that it was difficult for health care workers who strove to provide the best health services, and even more difficult for the rest of the citizens facing the Movement Control Order (MCO) lockdown.

5. The administration of the vaccine at that time was seen as the best way, and the mass vaccination program was launched very rapidly.

6. I was also involved, in my capacity, in giving medical advice and obtaining “consent” so that the vaccine could be administered.

7. I, as a medical practitioner, also took 3 Pfizer vaccines.

8. Everything happened in a “touch & go” manner, it was impossible for me to identify whom I had given medical advice pertaining to this matter.

9. With this, I would like to apologize a thousand times for the mistakes I had made in the previous years, particularly to those who came to me during the mass COVID-vaccination season.

10. Honestly, I am unable to assist anyone financially should complications happen.

11. Nonetheless, I will try my best to provide more holistic medical advice in line with the Restorative sciences brought by Dr. Razin.

I apologize, Malaysian Citizens!”

Dr. Nordin’s post went viral, receiving 2,800 likes, 1,500 comments and 4,300 shares at the time of reporting.

One comment by Mohammed Shazni read:

“Congratulations doctor because doctor is man enough to admit his mistakes and apologize. Hopefully the others will also get rid of their ego and make a massive apology, including all ‘religious people’ yeah.”

Another comment by Biskut Jagung said:

“Thank you Doctor for the recognition And the doctor’s honesty. I was able to take mom to get her post v treatment with Doctor Razin because the vax has changed my mom’s life 360 degrees.”

Mohamad Shafiq wrote:

“The best doc.. I salute the doctor for his bravery to admit it. not an easy thing. May more medical practitioners come forward and raise awareness to the people.”

Top fan Raja Intan Ris also penned:

“Sad but thanks for the open apology Dr Syafiq Nordin. Hopefully more doctors who already know about the badness of V will appear to correct the condition”

With his apology, Dr. Nordin joins the ranks of people all over the world, including mRNA pioneer Dr. Robert Malone, U.S. journalist Megyn Kelly, and former CNN anchor Chris Cuomo who have changed their minds regarding the experimental COVID-19 shots.

In 2021, amid the COVID-19 “vaccination” craze worldwide, Malaysia launched the National COVID-19 Immunization Programme (NIP), known as “Program Imunisasi COVID-19 Kebangsaan” in Malay. At that time, Malaysia set a target of inoculating at least 80% of its population by February 2022, according to Reuters reports.

Moreover, just like any other COVID-19 czar and globalist worldwide, the Malaysian Health Minister at that time, Khairy Jamaluddin, who was elected as vice president of the 75th World Health Assembly (WHA) in 2022, threatened Malaysians who were resistant to the COVID-19 shots, saying:

“Sorry to say, we will make life very difficult for you if you’re not vaccinated by choice.”

“If you choose not to vaccinate, then we will probably ask you to do regular tests that you have to pay for,” he added.

“Although Malaysia is unlikely to mandate vaccination at the national level, it is seriously looking at sectoral mandates.”

In a post on X (formerly Twitter) on February 16, 2022, Khairy attempted to debunk claims that his son was injected with air rather than the COVID-19 “vaccine”:

“Don’t disturb others who want their children vaccinated,” he posted.

Earlier, Khairy had shared a video of six-year-old son Raif getting “vaccinated,” but some social media commenters retorted that the video was just “for show” and that his son had not actually received a COVID-19 shot.

Malaysia, a Southeast Asian country, has seen its fair share of those resistant to the COVID-19 shots. According to a survey by the Ministry of Health Malaysia conducted in December 2020, as reported by establishment media outlet Channel News Asia, 17 percent of those polled said they were unsure of the “vaccine.” Up to 78 percent of those in the uncertain group were not confident that the experimental “vaccines” would be effective, and 71 percent thought they would be unsafe for use.

In 2023, The New Straits Times reported that Khairy was one of several defendants, along with “vaccine” makers Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Pharmaniaga, in domestic lawsuits over side effects from the COVID-19 “vaccine.”

The plaintiffs demanded that the defendants like Khairy be held culpable for the side effects of the “vaccines,” including severe complications causing “death, permanent disability, and other complications resulting in losses.”

Besides Malaysia, neighboring Singapore was not spared from various rounds of draconian COVID-19 lockdowns and experimental “vaccination” campaigns either, with the Singapore government coming down harshly on “vaccine” resistance. Religious houses of worship, including Catholic churches, had to implement government-mandated “vaccination-differentiated safe management measures” (VDS) in 2022.

Based on Singapore’s VDS measures, only those considered by the government as “fully vaccinated” or who were “medically ineligible for Covid-19 vaccines or have recovered from the disease as well as children aged 12 and below,” could attend in-person worship services and Catholic Masses. No religious exemptions were granted to those who expressed doubts about receiving the abortion-tainted “vaccines.”

From the Brownstone Institute

BY JEFFREY A. TUCKER 

Now that there is more open talk about vaccine injury, we are continually assured that overall these vaccines were worth it even so. The thought always occurs: it has not been worth it for the injured. Nor is their injury lessened by the knowledge that others were helped, if they were.

What precise metric are we going to use to determine costs and benefits population-wide? Many millions were forced to take experimental injections that they did not want nor need. Many were injured and with no chance of compensation. This is gravely unjust. You don’t need to take recourse to fancy philosophical conjectures (The Trolley Problem, The Lifeboat Dilemma, The Fat Man on the Bridge, etc.) to do the utilitarian calculation.

And yet, such calculations are precisely what the defenders of society-wide pandemic interventions are citing as evidence that we can and should do it again. The costs are high, they now admit, but worth the benefit.

Well, maybe not. It’s hard to say but they will keep working on it. They will decide in due course.

This is the argument of Professor John M. Barry. His book on the 1918 flu pandemic kicked off the entire pandemic-planning industry once George W. Bush read the book flap in 2005. Barry’s new article in the New York Times raises alarms about the Avian Bird Flu, the same as the whole pandemic industry is doing right now, and makes the argument that the interventions last time were just great overall.

“Australia, Germany and Switzerland are among the countries that demonstrated those interventions can succeed,” he claims even though all three countries have been torn apart by the pandemic response that is still rocking politics and showing itself in economic decline “Even the experience of the United States provides overwhelming, if indirect, evidence of the success of those public health measures.”

What is that indirect evidence? This you won’t believe: that flu deaths dramatically fell. “The public health steps taken to slow Covid contributed significantly to this decline, and those same measures no doubt affected Covid as well.”

That’s a heck of a thing. If you burn down the house to kill the rats and fail, but happen to kill the pets, surely you have some bragging rights there.

There is indeed a big debate on why seasonal flu seems to have nearly disappeared during the pandemic. One theory is simple misclassification, that flu was just as present as always but labeled Covid because PCR tests pick up even slight elements of the pathogen and financial incentives drove one to displace the other. There is surely an element of this.

Another theory relates to crowding out: the more serious virus pushes aside the less serious one, which is an empirically testable hypothesis.

A third explanation might in fact be related to interventions. With vast numbers staying home and the banning of gatherings, there was indeed less opportunity for pathogenic spread. Even if granting that is true, the effect is far from perfect, as we know from the failure of every attempt to achieve zero Covid. Antarctica is a good example of that.

That said, and even postulating this might be correct, there is nothing to prevent the spread among the population after opening except with even worse results because immune systems are degraded for lack of exposure.

Barry concedes the point but says “such interventions can achieve two important goals.” The first is “preventing hospitals from being overrun. Achieving this outcome could require a cycle of imposing, lifting and reimposing public health measures to slow the spread of the virus. But the public should accept that because the goal is understandable, narrow and well defined.”

Fine, but there is a major glaring error. Most hospitals in the US were not overrun. There is even a genuine question about whether and to what extent New York City hospitals were overrun but, even if they were, this had nothing to do with hospitals in most of the country. And yet the grand central plan closed them all for diagnostics and elective surgeries. In major parts of the country, parking lots were completely empty and nurses were furloughed in more than 300 hospitals.

Overall, that scheme (and who imposed this?) didn’t work too well.

The second supposed benefit you can predict: shutting down buys time “for identifying, manufacturing and distributing therapeutics and vaccines and for clinicians to learn how to manage care with the resources at hand.” This is another strange statement because authorities actually removed therapeutics from the shelves all over the country even though physicians were prescribing them.

As for the supposed vaccine, it did not stop infection or transmission.

So that scheme didn’t work either. There is also something truly cruel about using compulsory methods to preserve the population’s immunological naïveté in anticipation of a vaccine that may or may not work and may or may not cause more harm than good. And yet that is precisely the plan.

The most alarming part of Barry’s article, even aside from his incorrect claim that masks work, is this statement: “So the question isn’t whether those measures work. They do. It’s whether their benefits outweigh their social and economic costs. This will be a continuing calculation.”

Again we are back to benefit vs costs. It’s one thing for a person confronting a true moral or personal difficulty to make that calculation and live with the consequences. Every philosophical problem listed above – Trolly Cars and Lifeboats – involves personal choices and single decision-makers. In the case of pandemic planning and response, we are talking about groups of intellectuals and bureaucrats making decisions for the whole of society. In the last go-round, they made these decisions for the entire world with catastrophic results.

Many hundreds of years ago and following, the Western mind decided that giving such power to elites was not a good idea. The “continuing calculation” about what costs and benefits are experienced by billions of people from compulsory impositions is not something we should risk, not even with AI (which Barry says will solve the problems next time). Instead, we generally decided that a presumption of freedom is a better idea than empowering a small elite of scientists with the power to make “continuing calculations” for our supposed benefit.

Among many problems with the scientistic scheme for elite rule in the realm of infectious disease is that the population as a whole has no way to evaluate schemes and claims made to them by the government itself. They told us terrible population-wide death would come from Covid but it turned out to be exactly what others said back in February 2020; a disease impactful mainly on the aged and infirm.

Similarly, with the bird flu, we’ve been through a quarter century of claims that half of humanity could die from it. So far, every jump from animals to humans has resulted in reparable maladies like conjunctivitis.

But let’s say the bird flu really does get bad. Should the scientists who ruled us last time be trusted to do it again? That’s Barry’s plea: he demands “trust in government.” At the same time, he wants government to have the power to censor dissent. He falsely claims that last time, “there was no organized effort to counter social media disinformation” despite vast evidence of exactly this.

More information is actually what we need, especially from dissidents. For example, Barry celebrates that dexamethasone worked against Covid. But he fails to point out that the “experts” said in February 2020 that dexamethasone should not be used. Indeed, if you followed the Lancet, you would not have used them at all. In other words, Barry’s article refutes itself simply by showing the experts were desperately wrong in this case.

And, honestly, he knows this. Every bit of it. I have no doubt that if we met for cocktails, he would agree with most of this article. But he would also quickly point out that, after all, the New York Times commissioned the article so he can only say so much. He is merely being strategic, don’t you know?

This is the problem we face today with nearly all ruling-class intellectuals. We don’t actually disagree that much on the facts. We disagree on how much of the facts we are in a position to admit. And this puts Brownstone in a very awkward position of being a venue to say publicly what most people in the know say only privately. We do it because we believe in doing so.

All of which underscores the more general point: government and its connected scientists simply cannot be trusted with this kind of power. The last experience illustrates why. We forged our societies to have laws and guaranteed liberties that can never be taken away, not even during a pandemic. It is never worth using the power of the state to ruin lives to fulfill anyone’s abstract vision of what constitutes the greater good.