Dr John Campbell YouTube videos - what happened?

[SchnitzelVonCrummsTum]

Can anyone who's watched his videos more regularly than I have explain this to me? Seems to have gone from mainstream to pro-ivermectin in the space of a few months.

@ollyollyoxenfree Regarding the kids it is US data from VAERS - I ran a search after someone shared a link from The Defender. I pasted the link from my results it on here but it just resets the start of the search when you enter it in.
Quite horrifying to read some of those descriptions, just a warning.

[quote CUniverse]@ollyollyoxenfree Regarding the kids it is US data from VAERS - I ran a search after someone shared a link from The Defender. I pasted the link from my results it on here but it just resets the start of the search when you enter it in.
Quite horrifying to read some of those descriptions, just a warning.[/quote]
I am unsuprised that your reports of child deaths from vaccination are unfounded.

You cannot assume causality from VAERS (or yellow card) data. That is not what it is there for. It is a self report mechanism designed so regulators can identify signals that are higher than what you would expect by chance. It is repeatedly hijacked by anti-vaccine groups who try and claim all reports are caused by the vaccine itself.

There are numerous cases of things like car crashes, appendicitis, choking etc and other events unlikely to be causally related to vaccination.

In the rare cases the coronavirus vaccines have caused a death, it is widely reported in the media.

Miscarriage is a good example of this. Sadly it occurs in ~1/3 pregnancies. If no one miscarried after vaccination, this would suggest the vaccine was somehow protective against miscarriage, and would be very suprising.

To identify if the vaccine was truely causing miscarriage (or death, or dementia, or appenditicis, or car crashes), you compare the rate of these events in the vaccinated group to that of what the rate normally would be. If it is substantially higher, this suggests that there is a causal link.

Throwing around raw numbers regarding adverse events is therefore meaningless @CUniverse

I watched a few of his videos at the start of the pandemic and found them helpful but then I stopped watching. I can't remember exactly what he said that put me off but I remember thinking 'he's gone a bit woo-woo'.

@ollyollyoxenfree

Please do not talk to me as if I am a dummy, as if I do not know what VAERS of YC are. You think all deaths that have been attributed to the vaccines will run in the MSM? You think all adverse effects have even been reported? Even so, VAERS and Yellowcard work to Governments agenda by letting people think they have a platform on which their adverse effects will be taken seriously. They set these reporting systems up feigning more transparency regarding vaccine injury when really all the reports from people and their vaccines injuries are written off as being anecdotal. Any one using the data will then be cast off as antivax activists attempting to scare the masses about the dangers of vaccines. All designed to work in the Governments favour in the end.

Attributing cause of death to vaccines is rare and we all know why. Correlation doesn’t imply causation. It is almost impossible to prove a vaccine was responsible for a death. But the important thing is to let people think they are being heard via the likes of VAERS. We’re a democracy after all right?

Bottom line is this, talking to you about science is like talking to a Christian about religion and God. You have blind faith because everything can be proven with Science. Your education is impenetrable. You are conditioned to think the way you do. Indoctrinated. The whole establishment is designed in this way, so that you regurgitate what are taught without question. For every 100 experts there will be 1 who goes rouge and questions what he/she has been taught. They become a pariah within their own community, labelled a quack, discredited and defenestrated. 

I happen to be open to hearing from those experts and physicians that are daring to look outside of what the establishment dictates, using their knowledge to be critical of the overarching narrative surrounding this nightmare pandemic.

BTW all questions are rhetorical. You can stop replying to me.
Thanks.

@CUniverse

Eh? You're making claims that all these children are dying from vaccination - when I ask you for a source (reasonable, given it's a bold claim with huge consequences), you quote the VAERS reporting system.bThat's you inferring causality from the data, which is why I explained the problems with doing so. It's a common misconception, propopgated by anti-vaccine groups ever since it was set up.

You understand why the data can't be used that way, so why make the claim in the first place, and refer to an article that wrongly labours this point to scare people off vaccination?

VAERS and yellowcard data aren't being dismissed, or any of the other claims you make, it's how signals are identified for further investigation, and was how cardiac complications were identified as a side effects.

Any one using the data will then be cast off as antivax activists attempting to scare the masses about the dangers of vaccines.

Anyone using the data inappropriately without proper epi methods (i.e., just quoting raw numbers) is "cast off" yes. McCullough has repeatedly tried to do this.

You are conditioned to think the way you do. Indoctrinated. The whole establishment is designed in this way, so that you regurgitate what are taught without question.

I find it interesting a lot of these comments - with the exact wording - are being thrown around on MN when someone points out misinformation.

No one is "teaching me", my opinions are based on the best quality evidence currently available. When this changes, as new findings emerge, my opinions change too. If there was good quality, replicated evidence for example, that vaccination was uncessary in certain groups, then I'd say so.

For every 100 experts there will be 1 who goes rouge and questions what he/she has been taught

Again, scientists aren't being "taught" - you seem to have this idea that we all go to evening classes where we are told what opinions to have. If the vast majority of experts converge around a certain opinion after reviewing the current body of evidence - i.e., that vaccination of the general population is beneficial - it is crazy to decide to go with the minority who say otherwise, particularly when they are unable to back up their claims with decent evidence.

BTW all questions are rhetorical. You can stop replying to me.
Thanks.

@ollyollyoxenfree

BTW all questions are rhetorical. You can stop replying to me.
Thanks.

Sure thing

[quote CUniverse]@ollyollyoxenfree

BTW all questions are rhetorical. You can stop replying to me.
Thanks.

Sure thing[/quote]
Ha @Cuniverse

You realise you said that to me? It's a quote from your post...

@ollyollyoxenfree WAKE UP smarty pants. Yeah I said it first, you didn’t respect it and wrote it back to me.
My response was “Sure thing” respecting your request.

Our line of communication is skewed.

Let’s not converse anymore. Enjoy your Sunday, sincerely!

@CUniverse you ask @ollyollyoxenfree what qualifications they have. They tell you they have relevant qualifications, so you then immediately dismiss said qualifications by insulting them that they must merely be regurgitating what they have been taught. Have you studied the same subject then to know that this is what happens? Or are you just another egotistical conspiracy theorist who gets their jollies trying to put down others with far more expertise?

@CUniverse oh and the WAKE UP thing that all you conspiracy theorist constantly parrot is a definite form of regurgitating, wouldn't you say?

" I’m not interested in mainstream medicine full stop."

What?

@BlueBlancmange Hello. You think I’m a conspiracy theorist because I said “wake up”. I had to Google the connection there.

I now understand that conspiracy theorists think the masses need to wake up to what is “really going on”, I get ya! And I agree to ask extent, but that actually wasn’t my intention, it’s just something I say!

To be clear, I’m not a conspiracy theorist, which probably comes as a shock. I actually don’t share the beliefs most CTs have on this subject… yet. Who knows, one day I might call down the rabbit hole though.

I merely wish for informed risk to be taken into account and to presented clearly so people can make a true informed consent about whether they want to take any of these particular vaccines for this particular coronavirus COVID-19. I do not believe in mandatory vaccinations, neither do I believe that people under 18 need to be vaccinated. Risk is involved and any mention of it brands you an enemy of the state.

No vaccine is safe for everyone. Some people will be negatively affected. Fact. Who those people are? Who knows. This is why I believe that each individual should have their own agency over their own person, over their own health, because people have been and can be harmed by these particular vaccines.

Experts will say that the number of deaths or injuries within trials aren’t statistically significant, but that’s it’s a trial of a few thousand people.
Extrapolate that into the real world and where is the ecological validity?

The other individual I was going back and forth with, did indeed reveal their expertise. However, that means nothing.
That person is no more qualified to speak on the matter than I.

Also… leaving these discussion only up to the experts and standing back like a lemming is what makes you a sheep. A rodent in actually fact, but metaphorically speaking, a sheep.

Not all the experts are saying the same thing, after all ;)

Experts will say that the number of deaths or injuries within trials aren’t statistically significant, but that’s it’s a trial of a few thousand people. Extrapolate that into the real world and where is the ecological validity?

Not entirely sure what you mean by this but we have "extrapolated into the real world" with the vaccination of billions of people.

It is clear that for adults it is safer to vaccinated than not be vaccinated - the evidence is overwhelming.

Throwing around raw numbers from the VAERS/yellowcard databases does not inform anything.

Mate, not you again… @ollyollyoxenfree the vaccine does its job as recently described by Gov officials and medical professionals. Preventing COVID-19 deaths and lessening the chances of hospitalisation, for some people.

I have said that above. Overall I am grateful for the human advancement in science and technology, I’m grateful for the wonderful minds who create medicine and devote their lives to the betterment of our health. I believe in vaccines overall and appreciate what state we’d be in without them.

However, what are the RISKS of these vaccines for COVID-19? What else do they do outside of the purpose for which they are meant? This is something that cannot be discussed for some reason. Any mention of wanting to know the risks is met with hostility.

If Government heads stood on their little podiums and reeled off statistics pertaining to the risks of taking these particular vaccines as they do everyday for Covid deaths and infections, it would quell most theories. People would trust and respect the transparency. There might be more uptake in those still hesitant.
However they don’t. No government heads anywhere do. They act as though there are zero risks involved.

No vaccine is 100% effective and none are 100% safe. So what does this mean for people?

Crickets…

In recent medicine we deal with medical blunders. People just went to be reassured that this isn’t going to become one.

Let’s come back here in 10 years. We might have some answers then.

@CUniverse

However, what are the RISKS of these vaccines for COVID-19? What else do they do outside of the purpose for which they are meant? This is something that cannot be discussed for some reason. Any mention of wanting to know the risks is met with hostility.

I'm not sure where you get your information from, but if you read outside of this you would see that it's patently not the case.

It's an incredibly active area of research and has been since the vaccines were developed - a huge number of published research papers (with heaps more currently as pre-prints) are available for you to look at.

Individuals are actively encouraged to report to the vigilance programmes in their country, and the data is monitored continually for signals that indicate a side effect is occuring higher than you would expect by chance.

Try following some immnunologists or epidemiologists who specialise in this area - understanding the relative benefit/risk profile of vaccination has been critical in terms of expanding the roll out to various groups, like pregnant women.

No vaccine is 100% effective and none are 100% safe. So what does this mean for people? Crickets…

Again I'm not sure where you've been if you think this is something that hasn't been discussed. No intervention is 100% effective or 100% safe - they are recommended when the benefits outweight the risks.

@CUniverse

Bottom line is this, talking to you about science is like talking to a Christian about religion and God. You have blind faith because everything can be proven with Science. Your education is impenetrable. You are conditioned to think the way you do. Indoctrinated. The whole establishment is designed in this way, so that you regurgitate what are taught without question. For every 100 experts there will be 1 who goes rouge and questions what he/she has been taught. They become a pariah within their own community, labelled a quack, discredited and defenestrated. 

I happen to be open to hearing from those experts and physicians that are daring to look outside of what the establishment dictates, using their knowledge to be critical of the overarching narrative surrounding this nightmare pandemic

Once again how can you know what their education entailed unless you pursued the same path yourself? I'm assuming from what you write you did not, but rather think you have found a way to discredit those who have actually put the time and effort into learning and understanding. I imagine you feeling very puffed up and superior as you wrote the above, rather than pathetic which is what you should feel.

As for the rogue experts, well there are lots of reasons why they might go against the grain. Financial gain, attention seeking, resentment over experts who are more successful. There is no reason to think it can only mean they're telling the truth.

Oh @BlueBlancmange what a drain.
You are reaching so far with that comment you might sustain an injury, be careful.

I’m not putting down anyones education in the slightest. I’d be putting down my own in that case.
I want to tell you to step aside for a moment of repose because quite evidently you’re making things up, but that would be facetious of me. Instead, I will state that you’re so far removed from my intended point that it serves no purpose for me to break it down to you.
I suspect you wouldn’t care to hear an explanation, and I predict you wouldn’t understand one, after all, we are not on the same page I think you could agree on that.

Goodnight.

@CUniverse

Oh *@BlueBlancmange* what a drain. You are reaching so far with that comment you might sustain an injury, be careful.

I’m not putting down anyones education in the slightest. I’d be putting down my own in that case.
I want to tell you to step aside for a moment of repose because quite evidently you’re making things up, but that would be facetious of me. Instead, I will state that you’re so far removed from my intended point that it serves no purpose for me to break it down to you.
I suspect you wouldn’t care to hear an explanation, and I predict you wouldn’t understand one, after all, we are not on the same page I think you could agree on that.

Goodnight.

Your superiority complex seeps out more with every sentence you write. Pitiful really.

@CUniverse

Why start a new thread about John Campbell when you're on a perfectly good one here?

@leafyygreens - sweet, nice to know you follow my contributions. Pleasure to meet you.

None of the above is relevant to the positivity of findings from the new video.

I think people might to hear something positive rather than the usual doom and gloom.

[quote CUniverse]@leafyygreens - sweet, nice to know you follow my contributions. Pleasure to meet you.

None of the above is relevant to the positivity of findings from the new video.

I think people might to hear something positive rather than the usual doom and gloom.[/quote]
Surely it is relevant when his existing videos are full of misinformation?Why promote a source that is biased and not credible?

There are plenty of genuine epidemiolgists who are sharing interpretations of the current data.

I think people might to hear something positive rather than the usual doom and gloom.
Sure, but something positive that is based in reality is preferable to nonsense from John Campbell.

@leafyygreens

Plenty of reality in the video. If you don't grasp that from it, then I think you should perhaps take some of your own advise and dose up on leafy greens, may help bring your pressure down.

There are plenty of genuine epidemiolgists who are sharing interpretations of the current data

Yes there are, and you might get even more mad if I were to share some on here.

Sadly, beyond this comment, will not get an audience with me today, I find you utterly depressing. So doomy, and gloomy. Your poor OH.

Oops, sorry I didn't mean to say that out aloud.

[quote CUniverse]@leafyygreens

Plenty of reality in the video. If you don't grasp that from it, then I think you should perhaps take some of your own advise and dose up on leafy greens, may help bring your pressure down.

There are plenty of genuine epidemiolgists who are sharing interpretations of the current data

Yes there are, and you might get even more mad if I were to share some on here.

Sadly, beyond this comment, will not get an audience with me today, I find you utterly depressing. So doomy, and gloomy. Your poor OH.

Oops, sorry I didn't mean to say that out aloud.[/quote]
Such a bizzare reply!

Yes there are, and you might get even more mad if I were to share some on here.

Why would I get "mad" if you're sharing interpretations from genuine, credible epidemiologists? It's not the conclusions that frustrate people, it's whether they are evidence based, which John Campbell's opinions are not.

You can't seem to see past this false dichotomy of "doom and gloom" or "positivity".

Sadly, beyond this comment, will not get an audience with me today, I find you utterly depressing. So doomy, and gloomy. Your poor OH.
Where have I posted anything that is "doom and gloom"? Indeed, where have I even given an opinion on omicron?

I'm just pointing out the source you are linking is biased, repeatedly makes errors, and is not qualified to be making the comments that he is. But this has all been explained to you before.

Another John Campbell debunking video from the excellent Dr Wilson;