Comments by "childofthe60s100" (@childofthe60s100) on "Dr. John Campbell"
channel.
-
73
-
48
-
16
-
13
-
12
-
11
-
10
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
A great man - Chris Hoy - fit as it is possible to be and healthy and active.
How long before it is revealed that he took the "advice at the time" and took the mRNA contaminated vaccines, like the rest of us.
Two friends, of ours, otherwise fit and healthy, "fully vaccinated", have contracted cancer - one has died the other has had extensive surgery and has his fingers crossed, now.
Both have/had stories to tell about other patients, with cancer - that "like the rest of us", were the guinea pigs for Pfizer, Moderna et al.
Are there REALLY so many M.P.s with shares in pharmaceuticals and other politicians receiving hush money, that the UK will not (cannot be allowed to ) investigate this world wide issue, on the behalf of the British people????
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
John
This is an interesting and fascinating subject.
Thank you for a well researched and well presented account of this artefact – something that has interested me for some time.
This is an item of interest that religious leaders have, wrongly, claimed for themselves and for their religions. It is an item that should be available for all to see and in the interests of humanity and honesty, should be freely available to be very carefully examined, as new technologies develop.
With the exception of the unexplained origin of the image itself, you have made great attempts to (successfully!) explain the background history, testing methods and analyses. The carbon dating anomaly, that you raised, is most interesting and worthy of further reading!
The flaw, however, is in linking these findings and explanations, to the bible – a collection of legends, folk tales and myths, initially passed on by the oral tradition, later written down by “scribes” - some of whom were monks and religious leaders – and therefore had an agenda.
A massively unreliable, collection of many disparate documents, especially when you consider that some of the “cornerstones” of the NT bible – The Gospels, are known to have been written long after the events described.
Some documents, were allegedly written “at the time”, by scribes who did not witness the events themselves but were recording the reported speech of people who claimed to know what happened, not necessarily reliable witnesses.
Documents, in some cases, written hundreds of years after the event (based on hearsay) and NOT, in every case, by the people who's name they carry.
There were more “Gospels” written but they “did not make it to the final version” after the bible was meddled with, in The Middle Ages – altered and edited by religious translators and editors. Who knows what was lost?
Add to that, translations from the “original” tongue, Aramaic- to Greek and then the subsequent retranslations, to many other languages, there is every reason to be wary of regarding what is presented as being, even approaching, a true historical record.
Yet for some reason many people, indoctrinated from birth, take it all literally and disregard the many inconsistencies?
Later translations, edits, versions and author's opinions has made the final assembly of volumes, at best, unreliable. It is an interesting collection of tales (some enhanced by Chinese Whispers) but in no sense, to use the modern meaning of the word, is it the “gospel” truth.
And when considering that the stories, as stated, were written long after the events described, it can be seen that there is ample opportunity for religious zealots, to “fit their own facts and agendas to the evidence” and produce “written evidence” that this was their crucified deity.,,,,,and the opportunity to enhance the story with the reference to an empty tomb etc.
It was, almost undoubtedly, as the evidence and your explanation shows, an unexplained image of a crucified man - maybe even a man called Jesus but since the bible is inherently unreliable and (like the texts of other monotheistic religions, certainly man-made), there is no scientific reason to associate the evidence of the demise of this brutally tortured and sadistically killed, man with any religious superstition, or the dubious texts of any non evidence based faith system. (Faith being a by definition, non evidence based belief).
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The truth is that NOBODY who objected, did so on the basis of evidence.
The motivation was obstinacy - rejecting advice for the sake of it.
The "conformers" did so, based on what was believed to be, best evidence at the time.
People now gloating and saying they were right all along had NO extra, privileged, information at the time - they were just being bloody minded and ignoring the risk that THEY might have posed to the rest of the population.
Being wise, after the event is easy.
Being wise BEFORE the event - with no valid reason and no evidence is stupidity.
Sadly the issue has been revealed to be unbelievably corrupt and dishonest - but the "anti-vaxxers" AND the "vaxxers" did not and could not have known that, at the time.
Your shame SHOULD be for the "anti-vaxxers", who were prepared to take an arrogant, selfish stance that could have impacted on so many other people.
Morally indefensible!
Since the excess figures do not distinguish between vaccinated and unvaccinated people - you can only GUESS that your position was correct - but you have no evidence, from any data that what you are assuming is correct.
Too many people, obviously, made assumptions that cannot be validated.
2
-
2
-
2
-
You patronising fool!!!!
"I knew you'd eventually see the truth"???
What utter arrogance!
YOU had no data on which to blame your antisocial behaviour - the evidence (subsequently revealed as flawed!) was very clear, at the time - that the vaccine would protect against infection and arrest the spread of the virus.
Vaccination was recommended and people responded well, for the benefit of themselves and that of others.
That advice was uniform, from many ethical sources.
Dr Campbell analysed and presented the evidence.
You thought you knew better, without the benefit of, what you call, "science and data"!
The fact that you disagreed was due to your ignorance of the available information , NOT because of it.
How dare you speak to him in that way? You are a nobody, in terms of what you have done for the public!
John Campbell has worked hard to present all available evidence, clearly and in a way that has helped people and continues to help people, to understand the dangerous situation, that we were all in.
The fact that the evidence supplied has NOW turned out to be deliberately misleading, in no way validates your selfish approach to public responsibility.
Campbell approached the data in a truly scientific manner, a scientific manner., that eluded you.
You, with your self-certainty have made a shameful, conceited and arrogant comment - quite without value!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Lockdown" was never a lockdown.
Too many people (including our alleged "leaders") flouted the rules.
People boasted, on YouTube, about, deliberately, wilfully, ignoring the rules and posted videos of themselves doing so.
The data is based on a partial lockdown, where some people did the right thing for everybody and many who did the "right " thing for their selfish selves.
It doesn't take a genius to recognise that if there is a virulent disease in circulation, the only way to stop it's spread is to avoid it - 100%.
Remove the hosts and the virus cannot replicate, mutate and spread.
Too many people thought that their "rights" took priority over the health of the majority, so they mingled, partied, went about their normal lives - as if there was no threat.
They are responsible for the spread and the prolonged life and subsequent mutations of the virus.
There can NEVER be an accurate analysis of the effects of lockdown - simply because there was never a lockdown.
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So, this years flu jab will be the last for the majority of informed, critical thinking people.
After that, will the numbers going for the government's new Moderna deal vaccine, diminish as word gets round?
Will the £1000,000,000 be yet again, more government wastage - a cure that is potentially, more dangerous than the disease?
WHO?????
- WHICH PERSON OR PERSONS HAVE THE RIGHT TO SAY "YES WE WILL MAKE MODERNA RICHER BY BUYING AN UNPROVEN DRUG, WITHOUT EVEN HAVING THE RESULTS, FROM WHAT WILL BE DANGEROUSLY INADEQUATE TRIALS"?????
Who, in the government has the "right" to do this - without it being publicly accepted???
CAN WE HAVE NAMES - SO WE CAN QUESTION THEIR MOTIVES AND ALSO WILL BE ABLE TO APPORTION BLAME????
THE NAMES NEED TO BE MADE PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE - IT IS PUBLIC MONEY!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jameselliott1491 The evidence, at the time, indicated that the vaccination would save lives - and it did. It most certainly did.
The "many" you talk about had no evidence to back their reasons for rejection. They were merely obstinate, antisocial and shared a dislike for authority. They could make no logical nor medical objections to being vaccinated - they had no evidence to support their negativity.
The evidence available at the time was the ONLY evidence available at the time and it appeared, then, that the vaccination pros outweighed the possible cons - as divulged AT THE TIME.
We NOW know that the samples submitted to emergency, limited scope, testing were produced differently to the large scale "industrial" production of the vaccines for vaccination of the populations. Contamination occurred when the synthesis of the vaccine was scaled up using a different process.
John Campbell found this out in a published interview with a person (biochemist, I believe) who had worked for one of the "big two".
Campbell was one of the first to analyse the correlation between vaccines and excess deaths and supported MP Andrew Bridgen's attempts to raise the issue in parliament (when most Tory MP's got up and left the chamber - so as to, perhaps, not hear the truth about companies in which they hold shares? Clearly they had been told to leave, when Bridgen stood up!).
John has pursued the issue surrounding the contaminated vaccines - based on all available evidence - again!
It's not a case of trust in one person - it is a case of listening, thinking about what is said and evaluating the evidence for yourself - from the many links he provides (scientific papers!) and from your own research.
There are so many smug people writing on YouTube about how they refused the jab and seem so self-satisfied and proud of themselves - they are the fools who have convinced themselves that their bloody-mindedness was, somehow, a rational response.
They have a common feature: 20/20 vision IN HINDSIGHT!
1
-
Don't be SO SILLY - he has not been "building up " to any point!!!!
Typical comment of an indoctrinated, religious bigot!
John, as a scientist, has an interest in many things. His methods involve research and analysis. He forms conclusions after consideration of that evidence. He offers the results of same, in videos and provides references and ideas for further study.
As a slight diversion he was sharing with viewers, an item which has piqued his interest - and presented it in a largely factual way - with some references to YOUR book of myths, to show how the mystery developed.
YOU have chosen to THINK, in your religious arrogance, that John Campbell has somehow been on some enlightened path - that only YOU now interpret to be fulfilling your hopes and expectations. (Edification??? Oh dear!)
It is this sort of public display of self-satisfied, smug self-righteousness, that has driven so many people away from man-made religions. Programmed thought!
Leave the man alone, if the best that you can do is intimate that he is fulfilling some special religious role for you and your ilk.
He is a scientist doing what scientists do - investigating things that have spurred his interest and curiosity - he is not following some pre-ordained religious path, to suit you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
By NOT including the early lockdowns, the analysis is invalid - and was a waste of time.
Had everybody complied with lockdown, initially, then although 98% was rather ambitious, the results would have been so much better.
Sadly, too many people ignored the warnings and advice and so, the spread of the virus increased and mutated.
Logically - if NOBODY went around spreading it, it could not survive.
By the time of the second round of "lockdowns" the number of "refusers" had increased (Boris was partying), so the actual percentage of the population refusing to isolate had significantly increased.
Marches and protests were taking place, the rules were being ignored and the situation could more accurately be called a voluntary partial lockdown, by SOME sensible people.
Hence, this meta analysis was NOT analysing lockdown at all - just the fact that there was SUPPOSED to be a lockdown AND the analysis was at a late stage when compliance was very sketchy.
Tie that in with countries like Austria, who had a large amount of resistance - and the main premise of the analysis is worthless.
The obvious bias - to confirm what the economists wanted to hear but what was obvious, to all, made the study invalid from the onset. Of course economies struggled - we all knew that.
But lives were being saved!
"Those who were going to die, would have died anyway" - many people have co-morbidities, which do not mean they are going to die. Lockdown prevented many people from catching the virus and "becoming a statistic".
No scientists, no doctors involved - the study was "loaded" before it began! The initial filtering (cherry picking), and the fact that "like for like" comparisons were not possible (even in schools, pupils know all about "fair testing"), completely nullified ANY possible conclusions.
The lockdowns saved a lot of people's lives and you cannot put a price, on human life.
Overall, a very flawed study, completely callous and with a pre-determined outcome, no doubt to suit the sponsors of the study.
Shame on John Hopkins for such a badly executed study, that amounts to very little.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Terrifying!
Is it the "government" the NHS, or maybe Pfizer???????????
WHO is pressurising the statisticians to present such obvious and blatant lies?
The updated figures would be comical - if this weren't such a serious issue!
The "new", revised data would not even be plausible on Fantasy Island.
The government and the NHS obviously want to detach themselves from any blame or responsibility (as ever!) - but if it's Pfizer.....who do they "own" - to force them to make the ridiculously, unrealistic data changes?
Whoever or whatever is applying the pressure, it seems that the statisticians are saying "lets make the changes so ridiculous that everyone will be able to see what's going on"....... 59,344 "corrected" to 344????
NOBODY could possibly believe that an "error" of 59,000 is an.......error. The statisticians are warning us about the sinister intent behind their revisions.
And - since the data published went back as far as 2018 - has the data for 18, 19, 20 been SO wrong , for so long AND the error has gone unnoticed all this time?
What a crude attempt to fool the public.
The application for a "freedom of information request" seems to be nothing other than an alarm
bell for somebody to be pressured, to start fudging the figures again.
Is there ANYTHING "official", that can be trusted anymore?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The point is, that you were refusing, on your own terms and against the advice that people were trusting and following, at that time.
The advice was to be vaccinated and so, protect your health - AND THAT OF OTHERS.
People, therefore, quite reasonably, saw you as a risk to the general health of the population.
You had no evidence, to contradict the "official evidence", so you were acting out of ignorance (at the time!).
The fact that the generally available advice now appears to have been badly flawed, does not make your refusal (at the time) any more valid - because you did not have that information, then.
Nobody had that information -except for Pfizer - so you WERE, in people's mind's posing a deliberate health risk, to them.
You won't receive an apology because - as you had no evidence to justify your actions - you were not right to refuse.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Lunacy on the part of the government and the unethical "scientists" brought in to develop these, now, proven toxins.
Medical ethics? Ha!!!!!! Aesculapius must be turning in his tomb!
An utterly immoral development - and 10 years of it and all the associated backhanders.
There must be so many shareholders amongst the MPs and politicians that this kind of dangerous experiment can be not only allowed to take place but is also being incentivized?
Was it coincidence that so many Tory MPs left "the chamber", when Andrew Bridgen stood up and presented parliament with FACTS????
If they weren't there, they couldn't hear it and could still receive their shareholder dividends with a clear conscience?????
WHY, other than for financial reward are the government deliberately sticking their heads, in the sand?
Clearly Keir Starmer genuinely hates the British people , that much, he makes very clear - but do lots of other politicians also share his hatred and want a Britain populated only by the elite and illegal immigrants?
Conspiracy theorists are, in general, fantasizing lunatics but in this case, is the suggestion of "population control" i.e. reduction in the general population, too far out to believe in???
Otherwise HOW can the, government's enthusiasm for, the already proven to be contaminated and therefore risky, mRNA pathway to vaccination, be explained???
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1