Comments by "Tony Wilson" (@tonywilson4713) on "Dr. John Campbell" channel.

  1. 6
  2. 6
  3. 5
  4. 5
  5. 4
  6. 4
  7. 3
  8. 3
  9. 3
  10. 3
  11. 2
  12. 2
  13. 2
  14. 2
  15. 2
  16. Dr. Michael Osterholm (the director of CIDRAP) addressed this exact concept a couple of weeks ago in his podcast (see below) giving plausible arguments both ways. He pointed out that Wuhan just like Atlanta (home of the CDC) is a major transportation hub. If an outbreak of something happened in Atlanta most people would look at the CDC just as quickly as people are looking at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. He then points out that the CDC has had a lot of incidents. He's quite open that there are people pushing research that's dangerous and its not being scrutinized or properly governed. Your analogy is quite right if there's a chocolate spill in Hershey Penn there's an obvious place to look. But what if there was a Cadbury truck passing through town on the day of the spill. Yes your suspicion is right, but then you have to investigate further to make sure. I did aerospace engineering and Boeing claimed there wasn't a problem with the Max-8 it was probably pilot error because every plane incident involves pilots AND THEN on further examination we found out there was problem with the plane. On the virology side there's a division starting to become more publicly known between those who like modifying viruses to see what they might become in future and those who are saying "No, that's dangerous and it doesn't produce results." There's a great short documentary by DW News on this subject (see below). It has some really good input from experts regarding what some researchers have been up to, including the Chinese. Going back to your analogy. It would be like after the Spill in Hershey Pen. the company says "Nothing to see here, there was a Mars Bars truck in town." AND THEN later we find out they were doing risky things in ways others have warned could lead to a spill. Is it conclusive? NO, but it should make us look closer at the evidence. AND as Dr. John points out here the Chinese aren't letting anyone investigate let alone see the evidence. Dr. Michael Osterholm -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYNfScnnDVU&t=2610s DW Documentary -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0nuyPQzU18
    2
  17. 2
  18. 2
  19. 2
  20. 2
  21. 2
  22. 2
  23. 2
  24. 2
  25. 2
  26. 1
  27. Did you not listen? Old people die, its called old aged. He's not claiming when old people die it means nothing. We've all lost parents and grandparents to various conditions. I lost one grandparent before I was born, another from old age, another from a heart condition exacerbated by surgery and the 4th from cancer. Its NORMAL that out of any population each month a number of people die. In fact if you take any age group each month a certain number are expected to die from any number of causes. What he is saying is that out of the vaccinated older group we are now seeing the NORMAL number of deaths. Medical people have to deal with death and they sometimes seem very cold about it. The oncologist who told me my mothers breast cancer had gotten into her bones and that she would die in 3 to 6 months said it as casually as describing the weather. My sister in laws father is a geriatric specialist all his patients die. He has years of practice at telling people their loved one is about to die or just died and he's got very good at it. I'm Australian but went to college in America. Last year I started equating the COVID toll to the size of US college football stadiums because I thought enough people had been to college and been to a game and had an idea what 50, 60, or 70,000 people looked like in one place. The largest football stadium in America is Michigan Stadium at 107,000. In the next week or 2 they will have gone past that number for the 5th time. How is anybody not meant to be a little numb at this point?
    1
  28. 1
  29. 1
  30. 1
  31. 1
  32. 1
  33. 1
  34. 1
  35. 1
  36. 1
  37. 1
  38. 1
  39. 1
  40. 1
  41. I'm an engineer so I look at this subject through an engineer's eyes. I have done a lot of problem solving over the years and problem solving always realise on being able to assess what we know for certain versus what we suspect. What we know beyond all doubt was that Peter Daszak who was one of the Authors of the Lancet letter that initially dismissed the claims of weapons development and a lab leak had a financial interest in the lab through his company EcoHealth Alliance. He used NIH funding via EcoHealth Alliance to help fund research in Wuhan. So when he was the only Westerner allowed to inspect the Lab that investigation was NOT impartial. People have been trying to point that out for over a year. Its not a matter of right or wrong its a matter of being impartial and therefore trustworthy. Further to that there are vested interests across the entire field of biological research. Researchers have to work hard to get their grants and if it was a lab leak then that risks their funding. DW did a great report on Gain of Function (July 2021) and that's worth seeing. They showed how people had found by looking through published papers what the lab in Wuhan was doing. The good news of that is it proved there was no weapons program because weapons programs don't publish their research for all the world to see. But DW also reported how the lab in Wuhan was making variants of bat corona viruses more transferable to humans. Here's that DW report: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0nuyPQzU18
    1
  42. 1
  43. 1
  44. 1
  45. 1
  46.  @tonl4738  Then you'd know not to make uneducated emotionally driven conclusions like so many are doing. I read your comment and I don't have any problem with people saying they will wait and see just to be sure. BUT I have no time for the fearmongering of many and the outright misinformation of others. I checked out Dr. John Campbell early on and his credentials are fine. You don't get a PhD like he has and not have the ability read through and sort through data better than most people. I have seen some incredibly stupid and ignorant comments made in respect of this video. Here's an example - right below this is a comment that I saw and remarked on by a person using the tag "Authentic Shift" the comment is "Having worked in patient record systems, I can attest that adverse reactions are massively underreported" What country or state or hospital does that apply too? How does anyone know that, that comment has any veracity? Yet it has 530 likes, which means there are 530 idiots who didn't stop and think and yet they are willing to risk their life on comments like that. Only yesterday on another channel about the release of vaccine in Australia (where I am) people started claiming that the Pfizer MRNA vaccine was "experimental gene therapy" which is total bullshit. One person claimed it was even registered in Australia as "gene therapy" and with the challenge to check it, I DID and there is NOTHING on the TGA website or in the documentation that says anything about "gene therapy." And yet by law they would have to publish that sort of information because the doctors have to be able to fully inform their patients. After I put up the TGA website link where EVERYONE could see what was and wasn't TRUE they stopped, yelling at me. https://www.tga.gov.au/covid-19-vaccine-pfizer-australia-comirnaty-bnt162b2-mrna FYI - I haven't had any vaccine yet, because they haven't yet rolled it out for my age group (45-65). In Australia it will take about 6 months to do the entire country and I am not in any of the high priority groups.
    1
  47. 1
  48. 1
  49. 1
  50. 1