Comments by "childofthe60s100" (@childofthe60s100) on "Dr. John Campbell"
channel.
-
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