Omicron Optimism from the lovely John Campbell.

[CUniverse]

For those who still watch him, and respect his dedication to bringing unbiased reports on the Covid struggle these past 2 years.

Info from the studies mentioned sound promising for us all!

It's a shame he's gone completely batshit, especially for someone who is (presumably) very intelligent at heart.
I suppose it's the same as when religious sects target those they see as easy prey and vulnerable.
Charlatan quackery saw him, as the OP and others seem to "that lovely John Campbell" and thought we'll chuck him a few quid to publish misleading and potentially dangerous health information to further our attempts to flog snake oil.

Not quite like Pfizer producing a vaccine that's saved millions of lives.

(Though of course there are many reputable expects with cautious optimism about Omicron, it's just that they are neither flogging themselves, or said snake oil)

@PAFMO if that’s what you believe about him, go ahead. YouTube seem to think he’s still in the “safe” zone though. Clearly can’t be that much of a quack or he’d dust by now.

Re Pfizer, yeah, well done to them, they only act for the greater good of mankind…
How many times have they had pay out for other criminal activity over the years? Or falsifying data?

More recently speaking, ask Maddy de Garay.

Vaccines are beyond wonderful over all, being the most life saving innovation in medical history, however Pfizer aren’t exempt for being crooks all the same.
Remember, Pfizer is a COMPANY run by humans. Pfizer aren’t the science themselves.

In human hands greed, denial and ego mixed with science can go awfully wrong as we have seen many times in the past. Many atrocities have been based on science.

I think it's possible to watch someone like John Campbell and view his content as 'opinion' and differentiate from 'news' which is what you'd get on the BBC or any of the papers. Both approaches are subject to error, hyperbole and misinterpretation, albeit in different ways and to different degrees.

But as long as you view opinion as opinion, and understand that opinion is not the same as fact, and that opinions can be wrong, I don't see the major issue.

I rather like Campbell's analysis videos. (i.e the ones where he looks at case numbers, hospitalisations and deaths) He has a calm way of presenting and looking at data which contrasts with the sometimes rather selective approach of the press. He's very clear about vaccination being of major benefit, especially regarding severity of disease.

I do not like the ones where he starts on about mice or the one a couple of weeks ago where he finished off an otherwise perfectly sane video by reading out some Category 5 Lab Leak Theory Crazy from well-wishers while pulling faces. And I haven't even bothered watching the ivermectin ones -- absolutely zero interest.

@NightmareSlashDelightful

I think it's possible to watch someone like John Campbell and view his content as 'opinion' and differentiate from 'news' which is what you'd get on the BBC or any of the papers. Both approaches are subject to error, hyperbole and misinterpretation, albeit in different ways and to different degrees.

But as long as you view opinion as opinion, and understand that opinion is not the same as fact, and that opinions can be wrong, I don't see the major issue.

I rather like Campbell's analysis videos. (i.e the ones where he looks at case numbers, hospitalisations and deaths) He has a calm way of presenting and looking at data which contrasts with the sometimes rather selective approach of the press. He's very clear about vaccination being of major benefit, especially regarding severity of disease.

I do not like the ones where he starts on about mice or the one a couple of weeks ago where he finished off an otherwise perfectly sane video by reading out some Category 5 Lab Leak Theory Crazy from well-wishers while pulling faces. And I haven't even bothered watching the ivermectin ones -- absolutely zero interest.

There are lot of people who think that others are incapable of this type of thinking.

They think everyone is stupid. They literally say it.

@NightmareSlashDelightful

I think it's possible to watch someone like John Campbell and view his content as 'opinion' and differentiate from 'news' which is what you'd get on the BBC or any of the papers. Both approaches are subject to error, hyperbole and misinterpretation, albeit in different ways and to different degrees.

But as long as you view opinion as opinion, and understand that opinion is not the same as fact, and that opinions can be wrong, I don't see the major issue.

I rather like Campbell's analysis videos. (i.e the ones where he looks at case numbers, hospitalisations and deaths) He has a calm way of presenting and looking at data which contrasts with the sometimes rather selective approach of the press. He's very clear about vaccination being of major benefit, especially regarding severity of disease.

I do not like the ones where he starts on about mice or the one a couple of weeks ago where he finished off an otherwise perfectly sane video by reading out some Category 5 Lab Leak Theory Crazy from well-wishers while pulling faces. And I haven't even bothered watching the ivermectin ones -- absolutely zero interest.

Yes, I agree with that. It's a shame as at the beginning of the pandemic he was a voice of reason and logic and made clear, instructive videos. He's going to have to be careful, because alarm bells about his agenda have started to be voiced in the scientific community.

[quote CUniverse]@PAFMO if that’s what you believe about him, go ahead. YouTube seem to think he’s still in the “safe” zone though. Clearly can’t be that much of a quack or he’d dust by now.

Re Pfizer, yeah, well done to them, they only act for the greater good of mankind…
How many times have they had pay out for other criminal activity over the years? Or falsifying data?

More recently speaking, ask Maddy de Garay.

Vaccines are beyond wonderful over all, being the most life saving innovation in medical history, however Pfizer aren’t exempt for being crooks all the same.
Remember, Pfizer is a COMPANY run by humans. Pfizer aren’t the science themselves.

In human hands greed, denial and ego mixed with science can go awfully wrong as we have seen many times in the past. Many atrocities have been based on science.[/quote]
The Maddie de Garay case is supported and financed by the Vaccine Safety group in America. You know who they are right? So far, no medical evidence has been submitted by the family or the child's doctors to suggest vaccine damage. The family's advocate is a famous anti-vax ambulance chaser.
As you will know. We can talk about the Maddie de Garay case all day if you like. But you may need to do some fact checking first.

I am slightly interested in the mouse thing though.

Really only because I am interested in the jiggery pokery that seems to have been going on with virus research. That none of us know / knew was happening.

I know that lab leaks are not uncommon (we did our very own version of that with foot and mouth www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/sep/07/footandmouth.immigrationpolicy ) but I do think deliberately messing around with viruses, if that is what has happened, isn't insignificant and people should be informed and in agreement that that sort of work is OK.

@PAFMO

Btw, OP. Having done an AS I see that you're not only a big Campbell fan, but a big Malone "the inventor of MrNA vaccines" (only in his own words of course) fan and posted links to the "Declaration" read out by Malone at a conference he attended with like-minded people in Rome. I'm sure you wouldn't want to be accused of spreading lies and misinformation about Covid and vaccines so I've asked HQ to take a look. Mumsnet have a responsability to not give lying and dangerous anti-vaxxers a platform.

Why do you feel the need to do this?

Let people make up their own minds. They are not children.

Because I will not stand by and let lies and misinformation be spewed across this site.
You are against vaccination- I know. Your opinion.
Do you spread lies and misinformation and link to extremely dodgy sources?
If you do, I'll report you. If you don't, I won't.

@hamstersarse

I am slightly interested in the mouse thing though.

Really only because I am interested in the jiggery pokery that seems to have been going on with virus research. That none of us know / knew was happening.

I know that lab leaks are not uncommon (we did our very own version of that with foot and mouth www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/sep/07/footandmouth.immigrationpolicy ) but I do think deliberately messing around with viruses, if that is what has happened, isn't insignificant and people should be informed and in agreement that that sort of work is OK.

And I agree that that.

@PAFMO

Because I will not stand by and let lies and misinformation be spewed across this site. You are against vaccination- I know. Your opinion. Do you spread lies and misinformation and link to extremely dodgy sources? If you do, I'll report you. If you don't, I won't.

I am not against vaccination and am vaccinated. That is misinformation.

What I am against is the suppression of discussion and in this case particularly discussion about the cost/benefits of the vaccinations.

@PAFMO

So if you agree with the premise that the mouse thing is interesting and in the public's interest, why do you want to talk about suppressing it as lies?

This is the problem with suppressing speech, it is impossible at first glance to discern facts from fiction (however good you think you are at it) so it is only through discussion that you can get somewhere near the truth.

Talking about the mice currently is seen as anti-something, not sure what (CCP??) but there is no need to write it off as idiocy at the moment.

The same goes with Maddie de Garay. There is no proof either way currently, but suppress that discussion with caution because it may prove to be a vaccine injury and it may be true that Pfizer have suppressed that information. You cannot be confident of that right now just because the lawyers have views you don't agree with.

@hamstersarse

Pfizer set to make $100bn profit this year but nothing to see there

Not true.

Anything opposed to the mainstream narrative is lies, misinformation and anti-vax rhetoric

Nope, anything that is not based on robust evidence is misinformation, whether it agrees with the mainstream or not @CUniverse

Scientists are broadly in agreement regarding various policies based on the available evidence - and the government finally seem to be listening to scientists, so we are at a point where in general, the mainstream views are currently evidence based. This certainly wasn't the case in the early days of the pandemic though.

Nope, anything that is not based on robust evidence is misinformation, whether it agrees with the mainstream or not

So what is the problem with discussing Maddie de Garay - there is no robust evidence either way. There is no statement from Pfizer either. At this point it is a discussion and enquiry. Not misinformation. It would only be misinformation if there was "robust evidence" to show that she was not injured by the vaccine.

@leafyygreens What have scientific evidence have I disagreed with pertaining to the vaccines? How do John Campbells views in his video that I posted suggest anything against the scientific evidence?

My issue with the pandemic as it stands only relates to the lack of transparency concerning the risks involved with the vaccines.

It is scientifically known that myocarditis/pericarditis are side effects of the mRNA vaccines.

Thousands of people are reporting those two as side effects and then going on to develop further illness and worse. These cases though are being dismissed. What does the science say about those people who are seriously ill and harmed after taking these vaccines?

People will start to latch on to other radical ideas when they are ignored, silenced and muted. This is how we have reached such levels of "conspiracy". Open conversation is needed.

@hamstersarse

Nope, anything that is not based on robust evidence is misinformation, whether it agrees with the mainstream or not

So what is the problem with discussing Maddie de Garay - there is no robust evidence either way. There is no statement from Pfizer either. At this point it is a discussion and enquiry. Not misinformation. It would only be misinformation if there was "robust evidence" to show that she was not injured by the vaccine.

As I said, I'm happy to discuss the Garay case. Because the way her parents have been manipulated by Johnson (their advocate, not the pharmaceutical company or our own party-goer) absolutely should be brought as far into the open as possible. As should the central tenets (which are anti-vax) of the "Vaccine Safety" group leading this family around like circus animals. Let's damn well talk about it.

@PAFMO - you seem well informed so what is it you want to say?

I imagine that all of us here are in the same boat and the only information that we have is what we can read online. What seems rather dreadful to me is that according to what this poor child's mother says Pfizer are not attempting to find out what has happened to her despite her being in their clinical trial.

The child with basically a psychological condition that doesn't have a plausible link to the vaccine? What are Pfizer supposed to do about that then?

[quote Beachcomber]@PAFMO - you seem well informed so what is it you want to say?

I imagine that all of us here are in the same boat and the only information that we have is what we can read online. What seems rather dreadful to me is that according to what this poor child's mother says Pfizer are not attempting to find out what has happened to her despite her being in their clinical trial.[/quote]
This is more anti-vaccine hysteria and has been posted before.

Maddie Garay is a perfect example of how hideous the anti-vaccine community actually is. She has FND, a pyschological condition that will only be made worse by the horrific things they are saying about her and her prognosis. Her access to psychological support & occupational therapy are also being blocked because of this, despite the fact they are the gold standard for FND.

Of course Pfizer have invested considerably in terms of finding her a diangosis - because understanding if she had something like a tumour or advanced MS that obviously could not be caused by a vaccine in such a short time frame, would be important to them. To say that investigations haven't been done is ridiculous.

This has all been addressed to @hamstersarse on previous threads but I see the same old claims being repeated.

My thoughts are with Maddie & I hope she recieves the support she needs and gets out of the toxic anti-vaccine community.

@herecomesthsun

The child with basically a psychological condition that doesn't have a plausible link to the vaccine? What are Pfizer supposed to do about that then?

Quite.

They have offered her psychological support & occupational therapy, the gold standard therapy for FND, which has whipped the anti-vaccine groups into a hysterial frenzy.

Despite the fact that they proclaim to be all about protecting children, they are actually hindering this poor girls recovery and turning her into the poster child for their own agenda. It's so upsetting.

Where is it said that she had a psychological condition?
Is that what you’ve surmised or is this “robust evidence”?