Comments by "channel" (@channel1_channel) on "Brendan" video.

  1. Subbed to Dr. John Campbell's YT channel for at least 8 years. I can't thank John enough for doing the right thing, and featuring this important matter of jab injury.
    94
  2. The Kaiser Permanente data showed diagnosed myopericarditis for 1 in 1860 males aged 18-24 years old. This data does not include undiagnosed heart inflammations. The jabs should not be given to young healthy men IMO. No to any mandates BTW.
    30
  3. It is not staggering. Doctors have their hands tied behind their backs via Australia's APRAH (I got the email as I am a recent ex-RN). Medical Fascism is what it is. The general public does not know how deep the corruption and coercion goes within various aspects of medicine.
    25
  4. 11:50 Brendon was smart to get the classic "anxiety" excuse out of the road when visiting the Emergency Dept.
    9
  5.  @DrunkDelilahBrewery  Where are you getting your figures from to make assumptions about the scale of vaccine injury? Vaccine injury gets swept under the carpet. The true figures are NOT available.
    2
  6.  @teaves8251  As much as I don't like Bill Gates, and consider him to be evil, when someone interviews Gates, it does not mean that person agrees with Bill Gates. Beyond this, the west is falling and totalitarianism is growing. It is sad to watch. Decadence and complacency come with a huge price tag.
    2
  7. ​ @laurenmiller9482  Young men with no comorbidities will have a very low risk of dying from covid. It will be well into the tens of thousands. The Kaiser Permanente data does not even account for undiagnosed heart inflammation. We don't have great data. We should never mandate anything. We don't know the true risks.
    1
  8.  @laurenmiller9482  "larger cohorts are needed to truly determine an accurate rate" - We have to deal with what we have got. The Fog of Medicine. Pericarditis was not even part of the conversation until mid-2021 as younger people got jabbed en masse. The scale of undiagnosed heart inflammation is not known. This is a crime, considering the health authorities claimed "safe and effective"potentially without even knowing pericarditis and myocarditis were going to be an issue. We can't rely on health authorities to provide the truth.
    1
  9.  @laurenmiller9482  22:20 "It is almost as if that PDF has given doctors permission to diagnose" - Dr. John Campbell is surely correct. This said, there is so much brainwashing over anything called a vaccine, and doctors are not immune. Humans are not capable of finding the true risks of any vaccine.
    1
  10.  @laurenmiller9482  What is the risks of death from covid-19 for a young healthy 18- 30 year old man with no comorbidities? The risk will be up there as one in many tens of thousands of men. The general statistics include persons with comorbidities, which is not representative of the statistics for those with NO comorbidities. The Kaiser Permanente data for example does not even include undiagnosed heart inflammation, and other injuries. The Kaiser data also has quite strict qualifications for a heart inflammation diagnosis. Then we can consider that simply getting ones vitamin D levels (ranging from 50 - 100 ng/ml which when converted is 125 to 250 nmol/L) to a great level can dramatically drop ones chance of hospitalization. It is insane putting young healthy men at such risk of heart inflammation.
    1
  11. Put simply: Humans are not capable of finding out the true risk profiles of anything called a vaccine. (Brendan..read the list below. I am an Australian ex-RN). Humans are not capable of providing true risk profiles when it comes to anything identified as a vaccine. There is a long rich history to discover. The book 'Dissolving Illusions' by Dr. Suzanne Humphries provides some insight into the history. True accurate "vaccine" or vaccine risk is impossible to establish. Here are some of the reasons why (I keep building this list): 1. Big Pharma corrupts trials and reporting of trial data. They can't be trusted. (Maddie De Garay vs Pfizer example. Brianne Dressen vs Astrazeneca example). There are many ways to manipulate the data and explain the data in writing in a deceitful way.
 2. Doctor bias (years of brainwashing from many directions). Doctors can't be relied on. Potential outright dishonesty in favor of the holy jab water.
 3. Peer pressure within the clinical setting not to connect injury to vaccine (I've experienced this in the clinical setting vs an apparent flu vaccine injury in an ED, Sydney, Australia)
 4. Sheer plain lack of jab injury or 'jab related death' reporting by health professionals (this already happens in Australia with the regular broad IMMS reporting system vs doctors. Nurses are MUCH better at reporting in my experience).
 5. Acceptance of report or discarded by agency. VAERS for example decides on whether injury or death is connected to a vaccine.
 6. Reporting not getting done due to time issues, and dealing with terrible reporting software. Software times out thus erasing report for example. VAERS has a timeout function.
 7. Medical staff may not be aware of what is appropriate to report, and that their judgement should not decide whether reporting should be done nonetheless.
 8. Historically, many medical staff in America for example do not even know the VAERS exists!
 9. Many people many be jab injured but not present back to the medical system. For example, many younger people may be having a very light sensation of heart discomfort, and thus are simply not showing up to their doctor to get it checked out.
 10. Possible issues with reporting agencies manipulating the figures to suit the vaccine agenda.
 11. Lack of injury recognition and reporting of injures by those who received the jab. Social pressure may be a factor. A personal "pro-vaccine" bias may prevent reporting. A person could potentially lie about an injury.
 12. Doctors feeling that reporting jab injuries may turn a spotlight onto them from medical authorities who register doctors & nurses. In Australia this is AHPRA.
 13. Staff getting terminated from positions within the health sector for making jab injury submissions. See whistleblower Deborah Conrad's experience. Her hospital was not happy with her making so many jab injury submissions to VAERS.
 14. Inadequate software that can't cover all injuries. Some injuries can't be properly explained for example, or don't have a meaningful diagnosis.
 15. Lack of clarity regarding reported descriptions of injuries by both the lay public and health sector staff.
    1