Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Dr. John Campbell" channel.

  1. And the politicians in Canada and Australia are still posturing and preening as if they are MORAL. The b****rds!!!!
    2
  2. ​​​ @miles6910 The social science of restrooms? Would the expressed preferences of birth women and girls count as empirical evidence? Or no?
    2
  3. Have you read about the long distance swimmer Sarah Thomas? She had that.
    2
  4. They got their money. They get to keep their money.
    2
  5.  @ryanthomas4069  The stated purpose of that study was to determine the incidence of myocarditis and pericarditis following mRNA vaccination against COVID. Here is the conclusion: "In this cohort study of 23.1 million Nordic residents aged 12 years or older, the risk of myocarditis was higher within 28 days of vaccination with both BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 compared with being unvaccinated, and higher after the second dose of vaccine than the first dose. The risk was more pronounced after the second dose of mRNA-1273 than after the second dose of BNT162b2, and the risk was highest among males aged 16 to 24 years." WHO ARE YOU TRYING TO SNOW?
    2
  6.  @miles6910  This quote, which you provide, strikes me as either speculative, or unnecessarily opaque. This appears to imply that it is the spike protein (introduced into the body by the mRNA vaccine) that causes myocarditis, at the same time as it has stimulated the body to generate the antibodies the vaccine is designed to generate. WHY would anyone assume that the spike protein is evading antibody recognition? Perhaps it is the presence of the spike protein circulating within organs of the body where it does not belong that is causing the (perfectly competent) antibodies to attack those very areas of the body. But that, again, is speculative. Campbell says that the study did not demonstrate that it is the spike protein that causes the myocarditis. In any event, the import of the sentence is not clear, and should be absolutely clear.
    2
  7.  @ryanthomas4069  Table 1: This table follows the clinical outcome of 530 patients with myocarditis following vaccination and 109 patients with myocarditis following COVID, hence nearly five times as many following vaccination. Why is that?
    2
  8.  @ryanthomas4069  You are just writing slogans and insults at this point. If something is extremely rare, then the clinical outcome is less important than for something that is significantly more common. It will literally affect fewer people. Insults don't change the math, or the risk assessment. And we haven't even addressed the ethical issue of iatrogenic illness. We can leave that aside for the purpose of the point made. Blocked as a time waster.
    2
  9.  @ryanthomas4069  What vastly different conclusion? If you are not more likely to come down with myocarditis following infection than you are following vaccination, but far less likely, then the (supposedly) more severe myocarditis from infection is NOT "more likely to harm you" than is the myocarditis from vaccination. (N.B. Infection with what variant?) This is why pancreatic cancer is not more likely to cause a person's death than is cardiovascular disease, despite the very large difference in clinical outcomes. Bayesian probability. Look it up. Why are you persisting? This is sad.
    2
  10. "How is this possible for the European Union?" This is what the EU was designed to do.
    2
  11. For a decade, I see parents with very young children staring into phones, not looking at the child.
    2
  12. They must have taken out huge mortgages and luxury car loans . . .
    2
  13. If only! At least that sounds like it might be fun.
    2
  14. Amen. ^1000000
    2
  15. I'm sure that is in the court record, and NO she should not try her case in the press.
    2
  16. @angeladibble  Dr. Campbell isn't an attorney or a witness. I'm on her side and want her to win, and be compensated. Be serious.
    2
  17.  @TheMansfieldlad  Also, the person said the fact they advanced concerning the law was "likely." What is their basis for that? Legal requirements are not opinions.
    2
  18. @BrokenGlass2024  Out of curiosity, do you know of any cases where you are sure CPS removed a child for this reason? I know of a custody dispute where the judge was going to take custody from the mother and give it to the father, but even the father's attorney said that they were not suing her on that basis. It caused quite a stir. The judge reversed himself over the weekend.
    2
  19.  @Dez083  "Just because?" There's no record here. 🤣 Nah, you aren't going to waste my time. Go find a new target.
    2
  20. 💯 And giving Fauci huge authority, then a commendation.
    2
  21. And for knowing in late 2019, and failing to warn or take any steps. He is lazy. But his buddies rearranged their portfolios.
    2
  22. Report on VAERS. It's hard. Have someone with you for support.
    2
  23. I'm reminded of the possible breast cancer cluster in the San Francisco area, which took a LONG time to analyze. It turned out that the number of cases, though higher than what may have been expected, was within the norms of the demographic affected, and the "cluster" was not statistically significant. Yet it was important to let women know to be vigilant, and do what little we could determine might lower risk (such as exercise, occasional fasting, more plant-based foods, vegan days, etc., and of course regular mammography). Similarly, we DO have a problem with vaccine injury, and we DO need to get to the bottom of it. Screaming at the victims is vile. Multivariate analysis is not easy, and takes a long time to complete because there are unavoidable judgment calls to be made. The report from Germany that Dr. Campbell highlighted in his previous video is a basis for starting a serious inquiry, never mind all of these other studies. I don't prejudge how it will end, but there is too much signal amidst the noise. Dismissing it is bad faith, and does nothing to reassure the public concerning the integrity of the medical system.
    2
  24. Could you let us know what you believed helped you? I understand that your experience is not a recommendation for anyone else. It's just information, so that people can approach their doctors with intelligent questions.
    2
  25. ​ @tiziacaia9090  Dr. Campbell had a spike in his blood pressure right after his booster dose, and is now on medication for life. He does not know whether his case is mostly/partly due to the vaccine, and will never know, but that is now an identified side effect. The sad part is that he did not need the booster.
    2
  26.  @akb811  Thank you so much for doing that. You helped us all in your time of sorrow. Very, very hard to do, even if the system were better. RESPECT!
    2
  27. This is ******* pathetic.
    2
  28.  @spinafex5729  Everything isn't about the individual anymore. It's about the individual investor and his portfolio. When our senators heard about the coming pandemic, they rearranged theirs. You know who the very first person I heard point out that firing medical workers for not getting the new vaccine was unfair and perverse, when they had worked to save our lives throughout the pandemic and often got sick themselves, and recovered? A French Senator, Communist Party. (His speech was not broadcast in English.) If this had been the emergency they claimed it was, patent protection would not have obtained. Information would have been shared with all countries. That's what Jonas Salk did. There is where you should focus, not on hating your neighbor.
    2
  29. @Spinafex  Believe what you want. Some didn't get vaccinated for good reasons, and some did out of fear.
    2
  30. @Spinafex  Actually, I have a more important question -- an actual one, no prejudging. What do you think about deliberately misleading people to appeal to their altruism? With or without making money off of them in the process? I think that using people's best qualities against them to gain advantage over them is one of the lowest things anyone can do.
    2
  31. ​ @madeinuk77 Wonderful. Now we know certain people not only cannot speak but cannot listen.
    2
  32. No one will admit that the vaccines approved in the West are a disappointment at best. We do not even know how Chinese, Russian, Cuban, etc., vaccines compare. Why isn't this simple data, such as it is, and so early after vaccine development, available? We should have all the available information. I read some suggestive data on Sputnik V being just as reactogenic as other vaccines using adenovirus as the vector, but not causing fatal blood clots. Well? What happened? Was that true or not? It was being tested in South America, and it was available in Mexico. What have they found out, if anything?
    2
  33. More than that: lethal blood clots
    2
  34. Standing ovation, huh?
    2
  35.  @ttbr7687  I already had COVID. I don't know whether I have natural immunity, my case was so mild. The studies on natural immunity have all been done on people who had moderate COVID or worse. There is a lot we don't know yet. "First do no harm." Just how much risk should a person take to acquire 6 to 9 months of immunity from a very new type of vaccine?
    2
  36.  @iggle6448  Can't disagree.
    2
  37.  @costaet  It's called statistical analysis. Dr. Campbell mentioned background rate, which is very, very tiny but more than zero.
    2
  38. I truly sympathize. I felt like a hunted animal. I never felt that way before in my life.
    2
  39.  @MadRiverReggie  Even the heterodox doctors like Dr. Malone and the signers of the Great Barrington Declaration all stated that people over 50 should consider the vaccine, and people over 70 should get it. Were they wrong? Of course it's possible. But this was their recommendation. Doctors arguing against taking any COVID vaccine, regardless of type, are rarities. Of course the doctors I mentioned are all strongly opposed to mandates, as is Dr. Campbell. None of them told you to go get vaccinated. Dr. Campbell shared his own decision with us, as was right.
    2
  40. So at best, these drugs only helped stockholders. Of course, it's quite likely worse than that.
    2
  41. Dr. Cohen is describing one case, where the patient was by no means in serious or critical condition (unlike many who have been). He is giving an accurate summary of a single case.
    2
  42.  @jooka24  Actually, even the HIV in current circulation is less deadly, even if left untreated, than the variety in circulation in the early 1980s.
    2
  43.  @chrism7969  The report does not state that Delta is more lethal than Alpha was. It suggests there is some evidence that it is, but not that it's sufficient to draw that conclusion.
    2
  44.  @hendrikbotha665  Mutations may possibly arise in both vaccinated and unvaccinated people. It's not exactly the same as antibiotic overuse, where the antibiotic itself can create the selection pressure for the bacteria it fails to kill, which then may overgrow and overwhelm the host. If vaccinated people fail to monitor their symptoms, get tested promptly, and quarantine if positive ("because I'm already vaccinated!!!"), they could cause new variants to spread, sure. Or spread the ones we've got.
    2
  45. He has a prestigious post at a private university. I kid you not.
    2
  46.  @deedaagenie  Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; genetics plays an important role, but so do other factors. Genes alone do not cause it.
    2
  47.  @deanog2577  Never jeer at an injured person, no matter what they did to you personally. There is always a small risk that the psychological stress could make them sicker. It's not poison.
    2
  48.  @peterszczepanski6903  He has been fully transparent about his vaccine status and possible side effects. After the booster, his blood pressure went up, never returned to earlier baseline, and he is now on blood pressure medication. He reported it to the yellow card system as a possible side effect. Sophisticated statistical analyses need to be made on tons of data to find out if the vaccine was a likely cause, and he will never know for certain.
    2
  49.  @garthdryland  First, these numbers are prelimiary -- I have read research papers with the opposite conclusion. Second, there is at least one glaring flaw in your reasoning: you are comparing known cases of COVID where young men were suspected of having myocarditis and tested for it (when we know that in young people, COVID can pass unnoticed), with reported cases following a vaccination. You know whether someone was vaccinated, and you know to watch for the side effect -- it was first reported two years ago. You may not know if a young person had COVID, because it is so often very mild. So that denominator in the COVID group could be much larger, and the myocarditis rate smaller, than you think it is. Then there is the problem that we don't always know who had COVID before being vaccinated. Vaccinating those people could turn out to have been unwise, especially if they are young and have robust immune responses. But just parrot one study. Whenever I finish a post like this, I pause to wonder why I care.
    2
  50.  @annierocks8620  Are you joking? The COVID vaccines do not prevent COVID. Wait, you're joking.
    2