Lynette Looi Ling Liar:
From Singapore to Birmingham to Aston to Murdoch
On Wednesday 10 May 2023, University of Birmingham had on its homepage the following advertisement:
Lynette Looi Ling
MSc Brain Imaging and Cognitive Neuroscience
“I have had very understanding, supportive and knowledgeable tutors who have infused my enthusiasm, and I am happy to say that I have been accepted onto a PhD in the field!”
However, Lynette Looi Ling appears not to have attained any MSc from the University of Birmingham.
She appears to have attained a hodgepodge doctoral degree from the nearby Aston University.
A link to Lynette Looi Ling's thesis at Aston University is here, and in typical Singaporean style she has changed her name around in its reference.
A link to University of Birmingham thesis repository is here where you may confirm that she has not attained a Master's degree at the University of Birmingham.
A link to a Lynette Looi Ling Linkedin profile is here, one who claims to have attained a Master's of Science in brain imaging and cognitive neuroscience at the University of Birmingham, a doctor of philosophy in neuroscience at Aston University, and worked as a tutor in, of course, Singapore. If she has taken the page off by the time you read this, contact me.
The thesis by Lynette Looi Ling from Aston University, who is reading a doctorate at Birmingham, and, get this, based partly on data from Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Australia, is a hodgepodge. A hodgepodge of what, one may ask? The answer is: Everything. Anything. It does not matter. There is no matter. What?
Click here for a selection of quotations from the hodgepodge thesis of Lynette Looi Ling, curtesy Aston University, sponsored by the University of Birmingham, supported by Murdoch.
I copy-pasted some of Lynette Looi Ling's thesis into an AI (not Irelynn), the following was returned:
Model did not return an output or an error.
While it is impossible, by definition, to make sense of hodgepodge, due to the gravity of the situation, and after careful consideration, an attempt to enlighten the world to the achievements of Lynette Looi Ling is made, below.
Because behavioral tests are expensive, this study aims to find out if brain imaging of brain injury, be it blunt trauma, epilepsy, stroke, anything that might damage a brain from within or without, can tell us about attention in behavioral tests without doing the behavioral tests. Also without doing any brain imaging because they are time-consuming.
Data was begged, borrowed, or stolen from somewhere including Birmingham, Aston, Murdoch (Australia), and somewhere else. Ethical opinion was favorable unless the patient moved during the experiment, then the data was removed after verbal consent. Data was compared within brains, between brains, and across brains. Also, without brain, sideways.
Patients' age and gender was insignificant. Everything else was not significant.
We need to pay attention if there is any injury at all to the brain without paying anything else.
IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY
Nobody who has ever done anything within a brain, across a brain, nor without a brain knew what they were talking about. The author of this thesis does. Also sideways.
Clearly we need larger samples to understand if testing injured brains pays attention.
The ethical conundrum raised within Lynette Looi Ling's Aston University thesis, simultaneously being read at the University of Birmingham is at least twofold:
(1) To the best of my knowledge, neither Lynette Looi Ling nor her supervisor, Professor Amanda Wood, Director, Aston Neuroscience Institute, are registered psychotherapists in the UK. But what would stop Lynette Looi Ling, with her doctoral thesis, from going through registration procedures, in the UK or indeed without? Would you want Lynette Looi Ling paying attention to your child's brain? In clinical settings?
(2) Even if Lynette Looi Ling never practices psychotherapy, she has already 'talked down' at us. Refer to the email correspondence under Gianluca Esposito (Nanyang Technological University) here for more information. Briefly, when Esposito or Lynette Looi Ling deign to profess their superior knowledge down at society, either face-to-face or through publications, the outcome will be bad. Because it will probably go something like this:
Your brain is damaged and there is nothing you can ever do about it. If you ever want to be sort of 'normal' and get good grades at school, you will have to pay me for two hundred private sessions in advance / swallow these pills produced by the sponsors of Nagaendran Kandiah, three times a day, for the rest of your life.
What I would dearly love to know is why?
Why did Murdoch Children's Research Institute send their data, apparently not anonymized, to someone before checking that that someone is qualified to handle it at all let alone ethically? Why did Murdoch not follow-up to see what was done with this apparently not anonymized data after it was sent?
Why is Aston University putting hodgepodge from a fraudulent person on their thesis repository as if it were a doctoral thesis? With the name of the Director of Aston Neuroscience Institute in said hodgepodge, nothing less?
Most perplexing, as much as something can be more perplexing than another in hodgepodge, why is the University of Birmingham celebrating on their homepage an individual known to the University of Birmingham to be a fraud?
Has it got anything to do with the University of Birmingham's intimate connections with corrupt Singapore academia and industry (see here under World Scientific for one notable example)? I guess I'll never know.
In her acknowledgements, and even though Lynette Looi Ling appears to be a liar, we can try to believe what she wrote there:
I am also thankful to Kelvin Ho – Kor, thank you for being so patient with my pessimism during my write-up year, and for the constant reminders that a life outside my PhD exists
It is regrettable that Kelvin Ho - Kor is not available to remind us what life inside Lynette Looi Ling's doctoral thesis may have existed.