MEDIA FACT CHECKS

Senator Gerard Rennick LNP (Australia) vs Sky News Chris Kenny

By Dr Juergen Ude | November 9th 2021
The following fact check applies to an interview between Senator Gerard Rennick and Chris Kenny from Sky News reported on the 3rd of November 2021. To watch the full interview visit Senator Gerard Rennick’s Facebook Page
Senator Gerard Rennick LNP (Australia) vs Sky New Chris Kenny

Statements made by both Senator Rennick and Chris Kenny have been checked for veracity and questioned by applying scientific clear thinking. Clear thinking has been notably absent from pandemic management throughout the crisis.

STATEMENT 1 - "WE KNOW THAT VACCINES ARE SAFE AND EFFECTIVE"

(Made by Chris Kenny in response to Senator Rennick alleging that data from the World Health Organization as well as the American Adverse Event database are showing that covid vaccines have had more reported deaths than any other vaccine combined).

"We know these vaccines are safe and effective. We're living it and we're living it in a highly regulated health environment in Australia in terms of what our state health care systems do and the TGA. What you are saying here about these vaccines being unsafe and ineffective. We've seen the exact opposite play out if you just look at the numbers in New South Wales and Victoria alone where there's been significant outbreaks"

First, we must recognize there are two components in Chris Kenny’s statement. The first is that the vaccines are safe and the second that they are effective. Let us commence with examining the ‘vaccines are safe’ component. We will do this by using the TGA database and independent survey results.

Are the Vaccines safe?

TGA Database

Vaccine adverse effects can easily be verified from the databases referred to by Senator Rennick and others, such as the TGA database. Figure 1 was extracted from the TGA database of adverse events as at 11th November 2021.

Senator Gerard Rennick LNP (Australia) vs Sky New Chris Kenny - Covid Vaccine Adverse Events Notifications
Figure 1 Covid Vaccine Adverse Events Notifications collated from the TGA database by Gary McRae assisting the CMN

The total adverse events reports, for Covid vaccinations, extracted from the TGA database, indicates that there have been on average 9,015 adverse events per month for 2021, up to October, whereas for all vaccinations during 2011 to 2020 the average monthly adverse events are 75.01. Thus, covid vaccination adverse events from the TGA database are 120 times as much and a cause for alarm that needs investigation.

According to Figure 1 the monthly deaths reported following vaccinations are 73 per month compared with 0.2 for the ten-year period 2011 to 2020, i.e., 365 times as much per month.

It has been argued by Professor Skerrit, TGA, that we cannot assume causality and the occurrence of deaths after injection may just be coincidental when applying simple arithmetic based on all deaths in year. This argument is flawed because total annual deaths include deaths such as due to road accident trauma and other causes. If deaths were coincidental then you would expect around the same frequency of deaths amongst the non-covid vaccine vaccinated.

Surveys

To obtain a possibly more accurate less ambiguous comparison between covid and other vaccines surveys are an alternative. These have the fortuitous benefit of being less dependent on the diligence effect. Surveys provide perspective by providing information on percentages and are hence more informative. Of course, the reliability depends on the number of respondents and randomness of the survey. Since over 4 million surveys have been completed, we can have a high level of confidence in the conclusions.

https://ausvaxsafety.org.au which is a National Centre for Immunization Research and Surveillance collaboration is conducting active vaccine safety surveillance of the COVID-19 vaccines in use in Australia to ensure their ongoing safety. As is shown in Figure 2 below, 43.8% reported at least one adverse event.

By extrapolating these percentages to the total number of jabs 15,643,490 adverse events are obtained to 4/11/2021

Out of these 321,444 people are estimated to have attended a GP or an emergency department.

Although we cannot ascertain the accuracy of this extrapolation as we do not know enough about the survey design, we can confidently say that there is a problem that cannot be ignored.

However, a recent survey conducted for the Covid Medical Network (https://www.covidmedicalnetwork.com) showed that 46% of vaccinated people reported at least one adverse event, confirming the ausvaxsafety findings. It is reasonable to conclude that adverse effects are almost half of the population vaccinated.

The number reported by the TGA is hence grossly underreported as shown above in Figure 1.

Senator Gerard Rennick LNP (Australia) vs Sky New Chris Kenny - Influenza Vaccine
Figure 2 Covid-19 vaccine safety data. COVID-19 vaccines | AusVaxSafety

For comparison with the flu Figure 3 shows the infographics from another survey.

https://ausvaxsafety.org.au/safety-data/influenza-vaccine

BIS.Net Analyst Change Analysis used in Covid-19 analysis
Figure 3 Flu safety data. vaccine | AusVaxSafety

6.6% of adverse events were reported for the flu vaccines compared to 43.8% Covid vaccines.

Most of these can be considered minor requiring no GP or emergency department visit. But are they really minor? There have been many reports of minor adverse effects lasting for weeks? When comparing major adverse events requiring a GP or emergency department visit 0.3% reported such adverse events for flu vaccines during the survey and 0.9% (321,444 people) for covid vaccines.

So, can we say that the vaccines are safe as alleged by Chris Kenny, especially, even acknowledging that most adverse effects are 'minor'?

One definition of safe is “free from harm or risk

Safe | Definition of Safe by Merriam-Webster

Harm is generally defined as a physical, or other injury or damage. So even a swollen arm due to a bruise is harm caused by vaccination.

The vaccines are not free from harm. They are certainly not free from lethal risk, because there have been many cases of deaths reported. Some, such as TTS have been confirmed. Even if we cannot always prove causality for deaths and other harmful effects the risk is there and cannot be assumed to be coincidence. Coincidence would apply to all vaccines.

Are the Vaccines effective?

Definitions

First, we need to understand the difference between effectiveness and efficacy. Efficacy is determined in randomized controlled clinical trials and is based on the number of people who got vaccinated developed the outcome of interest compared with how many people who got the placebo developed the same outcome of interest. The outcome of interest can be death, or the disease or some other outcome.

The clinical trials are usually at one point at time. By the time a vaccine has rolled out, especially for the covid pandemic, where the whole population must be vaccinated, considerable time will have been passed and new variants formed, invalidating the efficacy data.

Further, clinical trials can be biased, if backed by profit making corporations, such as pharmaceutical companies.

The Burnet Modelling Report based its model on the following efficacies. The report can be downloaded here.

210919-Burnet-Institute-Vic-Roadmap.pdf (bisnetanalyst.com)
Senator Gerard Rennick LNP (Australia) vs Sky New Chris Kenny -

The fact that the Burnet model was based on efficacy is a modelling flaw. It should have been based on evidence-based effectiveness.

Vaccine effectiveness is a measure of how well vaccines work in the real world. There can be a big difference between efficacy estimates and effectiveness because clinical trials are not able to capture the complexity of the real world.

More information can be obtained from here.

W.H.O - Vaccine efficacy, effectiveness and protection

The host, Chris Kenny, was adamant that the vaccines are effective. However, he did not define effective against what, infections, hospitalizations, or deaths. Because he referred to significant outbreaks it is reasonable to assume he referred to infections. We will look at all categories.

Effectiveness against infections

Studies have shown that the effectiveness of current vaccines against infections has considerably reduced to the level where they can no longer be considered effective in stopping transmission.

For example, the following study showed waning effectiveness on reducing infections. Many other peer reviewed studies drew the same conclusions. Based on these studies alone we cannot say the vaccine is effective against infections.

BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness against the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant in Qatar

The same study concluded a high effectiveness against delta induced severe, critical, or fatal disease. But this conclusion must be discarded because the median age of participants ranged from 26 to 30 years and only 9% of Qatar’s residents are >50 years old. Hence the study was performed on a population which already has low risk of severe covid out comes and hence cannot be used to conclude high vaccine effectiveness against deaths and other severe outcomes.

Such flawed studies are not uncommon. We do suspect there is considerable scientific bias towards concluding high effectiveness in preventing deaths and severe illness because vaccines have been the promise out of the pandemic. For example, it was said that the vaccination saved thousands of lives in the UK, but when analysing UK data, we noticed deaths were already coming down before vaccination started. In Victoria we have concluded that we saved lives with vaccinations, yet there is no valid scientific proof. Victoria is typical of most countries who exaggerate reality to make a politically motivated point.

Failure to acknowledge the human element

We have noticed a trend in an unhealthy excessive faith in science. The scientific process cannot be disputed. The problem is the human element and the complexity of life where scientists are forced to make assumptions and yet these assumptions rarely hold.

Human beings, and that includes scientists, are generally self- interested, do seek to promote themselves, are biased, can be corrupt, have different levels of competence, and do take short cuts.

The review process for journal publications does not protect against false conclusions due to the human element. This has been evidenced with several Lancet retractions. The review process failed and if the review process has failed for an established scientific publication such as the Lancet how can we blindly accept the pandemic science as being factual? This also applies to efficacy and efficiency studies.

The Lancet, world’s most credible medical journal whose trust has been hit by HCQ scandal

From my own university years, and recent dealings with universities, I have seen what can go on in universities. The more papers that are published the greater the esteem. It is not uncommon for numbers to be doctored to look more impressive. It is not uncommon to take short cuts. Of course, we cannot over generalize and there are certainly thousands of academics whose work has the highest integrity, but there are also thousands of unprofessional and incompetent academics and scientists just as in any profession. Covid seems to have attracted the incompetent element based on the level of incompetent science we witnessed. Our responses, labeled by our leaders as based on the best scientific minds, amounted to no more than knee-jerk reactions.

Point being made

It is foolish to have blind faith in science because of the human element. The countless of papers written on efficacy, effectiveness cannot be assumed to be reliable. Of course, they should not be ignored but propaganda statements made by the media and the many experts with conflicts of interest has resulted in misinformation that is hurting us just as much the countless conspiracy theories and denials

Hence, instead of assuming the current scientific conclusions and estimates regarding vaccine efficacy and efficiency are correct, we must look at data driven evidence to establish if Chris Kenny had his facts right claiming we just need to look what is happening in Victoria and NSW to see that vaccines are safe and effective.

Looking at Victoria

Looking at Victoria suffices to demonstrate that things are not so black and white.

Every country throughout the pandemic has made decisions based on cases which has shown how the pandemic management was driven by experts and advisers out of their depth.

Cases are dependent on test numbers which need to be factored in but never are. Figure 5 shows the cases for Victoria since the beginning of 23rd of March 2020. Figure 6 shows case positivity which, unlike Figure 5 is based on some semblance of science. Figure 5 caused panic and concluding that the delta variant is highly contagious flying at warp speed. Figure 6 does not conclude that we had a warp speed delta virus lurking round the corner, ready to pounce young and old alike.

Senator Gerard Rennick LNP (Australia) vs Sky New Chris Kenny -
Figure 5 Cases for Victoria since 23rd of March 2020
Senator Gerard Rennick LNP (Australia) vs Sky New Chris Kenny -
Figure 6 Case Positivity for Victoria since 23rd of March 2020

The first red line is when lockdown stage 4 started in Victoria. It was an unnecessary lockdown because infections were already on their way down. The second red line is when all of Victoria was placed under lockdown due to fear of the alleged contagious delta strain. These were not the only lockdowns. There were many knee jerk lockdowns (not one based on sound science) in between these two lockdowns. The green line is when the last Victorian lockdown was lifted after the double dose target of 70% was reached. Interestingly cases were still 2000 and no longer mattered where previously 3 cases would irrationally have resulted in lockdown, based on nothing else but fear. Perhaps we now feel safe with vaccines.

Because cases reporting does not tell the true picture case positivity must be used to determine if there is any evidence that vaccines have been effective as alleged by Chris Kenny, who is not a scientist.

Figure 7 shows the case positivity for Victoria ever since vaccination rollout. Figure 8 and 9 show vaccination levels.

Senator Gerard Rennick LNP (Australia) vs Sky New Chris Kenny -
Figure 7 Case positivity for Victoria as of 23rd of March 2021
Senator Gerard Rennick LNP (Australia) vs Sky New Chris Kenny -
Figure 8 Single vaccination doses.
Senator Gerard Rennick LNP (Australia) vs Sky New Chris Kenny -
Figure 9 Double vaccination doses.

If we look at the data as Chris Kenny suggested there is no evidence that vaccinations have reduced infections.

The curve between the red and green line in Figure 7 corresponds to lockdown. This incidentally shows how ineffective lockdown was. Infections kept increasing for one and a half months under lock down.

Vaccinations did not stop the infections increasing. Even when 60% were vaccinated infections kept increasing. Infections did start decreasing when the 70% double dose target was reached but that does not prove causality for two reasons. To conclude that the sudden drop in infections was due to vaccination is delusional science and shows complete incompetence in cause-and-effect science. The two reasons causality is not proven are -

  • Confounding with lockdown. Victoria was under lockdown until the magical number was reached. We cannot as scientists be sure whether vaccinations caused the reduction or the lockdowns. The science was so appalling, at least according to our standards.
  • Infections were expected to come down even without intervention. This is no different for the common cold and flu where infections and then fall.

Throughout the pandemic there have been unscientific conclusions drawn based on wishful thinking. Some will say that had we not vaccinated then infections would have increased faster. That is delusional incompetence, not science. Science is about reasonable evidence, not jumping to conclusions when an observation supports our pet theory. If we look it Figure 6, where there was no vaccination, the rate of increase is the same. Some will say that that was prior to the delta variant and with the delta variant had we not vaccinated there would have been even higher infections in Victoria’s last wave. There is no evidence to support this.

It is no wonder Victoria has been the worst performing state with highest deaths, and Melbourne having had the longest lockdown in the world.

We have not seen anything that supports Chris Kenny’s misinformed statement “the exact opposite occurred if you look at the numbers” in Victoria and NSW.

When half of Victoria’s population was double vaccinated infections were still increasing. The W.H.O has earlier in the pandemic said to the effect that 50% of efficacy will bring results.

‘For infections We are NOT living it, and neither is the world.’

Effectives for reducing hospitalizations

The effect of vaccination on hospitalization is difficult to quantify. Both sides for and against vaccination have used percent of vaccinated people in hospitals as evidence vaccination is or is not reducing hospital admissions.

At the beginning mathematically, there will be a higher percentage of people who are unvaccinated. At the other extreme once there is 100% vaccination the only people admitted to hospitals will be the vaccinated. In between proportions can be very deceptive because of 'the mathematics'. Due to the mathematical complexity, beyond the target audience I will discuss the human factor instead.

The human factor has been ignored when estimating effectiveness for reducing hospitalization numbers. Vaccinated people will feel more confident that they will survive than unvaccinated when feeling symptoms. One can thus expect less vaccinated people checking into hospitals. Indeed, the Burnet Institute's model documentation acknowledged “An independent behavioural factor was also modelled where people who are vaccinated had a 50% reduction in their probability of seeking testing if they had mild symptoms, compared to people who were not vaccinated.” 50% is another academic assumption but shows this a real problem.

Due to the fear of dying from Covid that has been instilled by irresponsible mainstream media propaganda and government narrative, if someone has been tested positive then they may panic and present themselves to hospital. There is a large percent of people in the population that panic with even the slightest symptoms. One has to just research the hospital overwhelming during some flu seasons. Covid is seen as deadly by this element of the population. With all the hype about vaccination it is not unreasonable to expect less panic with vaccinated people.

We have considerable anecdotal evidence supporting that fear can result in patients checking themselves into hospital. For example:-

"That’s a very good analysis, Juergen, and is completely in accordance with what I have witnessed."
"I’ve also witnessed the panic people have when they get Covid and take themselves to hospital. One patient of mine was recently in Box Hill hospital with Covid . She was ringing me up almost on a daily basis the whole time she was in there from beginning . She was in the ward on oxygen via nasal prongs. She discharged herself after she found out she had been given remdesivir. She told the doctor she did not want remdesivir. the doctor told her that if she did not have remdesivir she would be admitted to the ICU. The fear of being admitted to the ICU and having the remdesivir was greater than her fear of having Covid so she discharged herself. She then came under my care and I managed her at home by Tele health she was fine and she has now fully recovered. she did not need to be in hospital, she did not need to be on oxygen, she did not need to have remdesivir and she certainly did not need to be in ICU, so she made the right decision!"

So, if fear is an influencing factor then it is conceivable that there will be less vaccinated people, possibly far less vaccinated people that present themselves to a GP or hospital, simply because they feel safe having been vaccinated.

So, what does the data say?

Figure 10 shows daily hospitalization data for Victoria.

Senator Gerard Rennick LNP (Australia) vs Sky New Chris Kenny -
Figure 10 Daily hospitalization data for Victoria since April 2020

Hospitalization data more closely, though not exactly, follows the case positivity shown in Figure 6 compared with cases shown in Figure 5. There is some, but not conclusive evidence that hospitalisation was driven up due to panic caused by high case numbers (driven by testing increases).

Of interest is the slopes and curve shapes. Both curves have the same slope. Vaccinations should have affected the last slope if they were effective in reducing hospitalizations.

It seems a little far-fetched that the second hospitalization curve is due to mainly unvaccinated people throughout the curve, as some suggest. We would expect a change in slope. The curve should have flattened as unvaccinated people were rapidly replaced with vaccinated people. When the hospitalization numbers first started to increase only 20% of people were double dozed. At the peak of hospitalization numbers 70% of people were double dozed. The data makes no sense!

There should have been a change in the curve’s flatness. Instead, it followed the same pattern as the second wave. The drop is no different to the first drop experienced August 2020 and hence there is no scientific basis for concluding a cause-and-effect relationship.

Effectiveness for reducing deaths

Victoria, as have all countries, recorded death with covid, not autopsy proven death from covid.

Such death numbers are meaningless. Registered deaths from all causes for Victoria and Australia showed there has not been any impact on deaths from covid. This does not mean that people did not die purely from covid. There could have been compensation by a reduction in deaths such as less road deaths. However, since we do not know the true covid caused deaths we cannot draw conclusions on vaccine effectiveness for reducing deaths.

Interestingly, Sweden without vaccination and lockdown, in 2020 had its total deaths came down by THEMSELVES as fast as for countries with drastic lockdowns. This supports the possibility that had we just left the virus to mother nature we would not have been worse off.

Senator Gerard Rennick LNP (Australia) vs Sky New Chris Kenny -
Figure 11 Excess deaths for Sweden in 2020 shown with red circles without lockdowns and vaccination
Senator Gerard Rennick LNP (Australia) vs Sky New Chris Kenny -
Figure 12 Excess deaths for Italy in 2020 shown with red circles with lockdowns

Due to the incompetent way the pandemic was globally and locally managed we cannot determine how effective vaccinations are in reducing deaths at this stage. Chris Kenny is wrong when he said we are living it. There is no scientific evidence, just conclusion jumping which characterizes many in the modern science community.

Figure 13 shows how bad the situation is. It was said that UK saved thousands of lives with the vaccines. Some would call this a blatant lie, or gross scientific incompetence proven with registered deaths for England and Wales because the data does not support this statement.

It is a waste of time analyzing reported deaths because we do not know how many deaths were due to Covid, a comorbidity, or both. Any scientist who understands cause-and-effect science would not base cause-and-effect on confounded data.

Senator Gerard Rennick LNP (Australia) vs Sky New Chris Kenny -
Figure 13 Registered total deaths for England and Wales. The red line refers to a double vaccination rate of approx 4.8% at a time when there were normal excess deaths.

So how can one conclude thousands of deaths were saved due to vaccines in the UK (which is only a little larger than England and Wales)? Total deaths were already down with negligible vaccination numbers. The increase after the red line is the normal seasonal increase the UK encounters every year.

Victoria and NSW are no different. There is no evidence that vaccines reduced thousands of deaths and certainly we are not living it. Victoria never had an increase in normal total deaths throughout the pandemic as shown in Figure 14.

Senator Gerard Rennick LNP (Australia) vs Sky New Chris Kenny -
Figure 14 Augmented Control Chart of Registered deaths for Victoria 2010 to October 2021.

Please note a control chart was used as excess deaths make assumptions and hence are subject to error. From 2016 there has been no change in registered deaths, apart from 3 outliers. One was due to an update of death statistics that was not included in the year that it should have. We clearly have an issue with intelligence and competence amongst our experts.

First, if there has been no change in total deaths then the reported covid deaths did not contribute to deaths. The people who died with covid most likely would have died anyway. It is no different than classifying a pimple death just because a patient had a pimple when she died. If the average and variability did not change with covid reported deaths then why the obsession with reported deaths just because covid was present?

Secondly, Victoria's monthly deaths increased by 400 per month after 2016. That is a whopping 4800 deaths per year? We have destroyed the economy and ruined people's lives over a handful of deaths that have had no impact on total deaths. But 4800 per annum was never questioned.

So how can we conclude vaccines have saved thousands of lives? How can we say we are living it? It has been acknowledged by the science community that vaccines are not effective against infections. Australia and Victoria never had any change in total deaths due to covid. How can we conclude that vaccines reduced deaths when there has never been an increase in total deaths in the first place. ? It does not matter what the biased and unscientific reported death numbers are. Total deaths were not effected, so why cripple the economy and take away our dignity to make our own choices and bring little children into the equation, even the Doherty Report stated it would make no difference.

Conclusion and Discussion

This section was not about proving, or disproving vaccinations are safe and effective. It was about showing that Chris Kenny, not being a scientist, not understanding data science, not understanding cause and effect science was wrong when he said :

"saying here about these vaccines being unsafe and ineffective. We've seen the exact opposite play out if you just look at the numbers in New South Wales and Victoria alone where there's been significant outbreaks."

We have not seen the exact opposite. There is no scientific evidence to confirm we have seen the exact opposite

Chris Kenny also stated that the reason we are vaccinating young is to prevent them infecting the vulnerable. Clearly, he does not believe in the effectiveness of the vaccines in protecting the vulnerable. If the vaccines were so effective in preventing death, then as long as the vulnerable are vaccinated there is no need to risk the health of the young with experimental vaccines where we do not know the long-uterm effects.

It is time that mainstream media, who are not scientists, who are not affected by the hardship caused by the pandemic, to not express their opinions and instead fight for the right of non-government paid experts to express their viewpoints without labelling them as deniers and antivaxxers, which is a school yard strategy used by children to win an argument. It is time they realize that throughout history it was not the majority that changed the course of humanity but a small number of people who could think out of the box.

No one would argue against lockdowns and mandatory vaccination if the facts were real and proven. If there were thousands of people dying in the neighbourhood who would not cooperate? The problem is that the science is so appalling that some who can see how appalling it is are speaking out. They need to be listened too if there is a conscience.

Governments need to get their conscience back. It does not matter which party or who is in power. Either our leaders are completely out of touch with reality listening to the wrong academic advice, or they have lost their conscience, or maybe there is a whiff of evil involved that those in power cannot recognise within themselves.

Refer to Figure 15 below. Figure 15 shows total registered deaths in Australia since 2015 to July 2021. The ABS who supplied the data plotted excess deaths which implied that deaths were higher. This is not true. The practice of plotting excess deaths is once again about showing how smart the author is, a need that seems to be important to some scientists. This practice is highly flawed for reasons that go beyond article. Instead, a distribution optimized control chart was used.

Senator Gerard Rennick LNP (Australia) vs Sky New Chris Kenny -
Figure 15 Australian registered deaths from 2015 onwards to July 2021.

Figure 15 shows that from at least 2015 onward there have been no changes in total deaths. If Covid truly CAUSED deaths in Australia we would have seen an increase as in some countries, or the deaths were insignificant. To believe that had we not locked up, or vaccinated, deaths would have been much higher, is scientific delusion. The probability of our containment efforts reducing high deaths that 'would have been' to exactly previous levels is too small. To believe so shows unconscionable bias and we suffered for it. Also note that flu deaths in 2017 were higher but no lockdown.

Figure 17 shows a response by Mr. Morrison regarding the proposed pandemic law. We have not been able to authenticate it. If it is truly from the Prime Minister's office then there is little hope left. Conscience has disappeared.

Senator Gerard Rennick LNP (Australia) vs Sky New Chris Kenny -
Figure 16 A 'standard' response to an open letter by Mr. Morrison .

First, we can not assume this is a one in a hundred year life time event. The W.H.O suggested it to give confidence to people. Copying other people's statements is not leadership.

Our government did NOT save lives as has been shown above. It thinks it did because it believed its academic based experts who seem have lost touch with reality.

We have not saved 30,000 lives. That figure came from models. Models are always wrong. We have saved no lives, at least not in numbers that made a difference to total registered deaths

We destroyed lives. The jobs we gave back are 'hollow'. We took them away in the first place. How can we brag with a conscience after destroying lives? People have been forced into jobs that provide little job satisfaction. Would Mr. Morrison be happy to work as a toilet cleaner after years in politics.

Senator Rennick was right.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Dr Juergen Ude has a certificate in applied chemistry, a degree in applied science majoring in statistics and operations research as top student, a masters in economics with high distinctions in every subject, and a PhD in computer modelling and algorithms. He has lectured at Monash University on subjects of data analysis, computer modelling, and quality & reliability.

Prior to founding his own company (Qtech International Pty Ltd), Dr Ude worked as a statistician and operations researcher for 18 years in management roles having saved employers millions of dollars through his AI and ML algorithms. Through Qtech International, Dr Ude has developed data analysis solutions in over 40 countries for leading corporations such as Alcoa, Black and Decker, Coca-Cola Amatil, US Vision and many more. Additionally he has developed campaign analysis software for politicians.