Comments by "D. von N." (@D.von.N) on "Dr. John Campbell"
channel.
-
Oh my. I was soooo looking forward watching this and expecting you would put things into the right perspective after I have seen people using the Pfizer report as a conspiracy. How wrong I was!
Once again. Watching about 15 minutes and I am not happy with the lack of honesty in this video. You correctly said: AE ASSOCIATED with vaccines, not caused by vaccines. General folks don't know the difference. You should have explained it at the beginning because I know you know the difference. Why suddenly leaving it out??? And that is all. Even if a number of effects were clinically/medically proven, it means just that: clinically/medically proven vs self reported. Still not confirmed they happened as a direct result of the vaccine or they followed the vaccination and could have been coincidental. They explain it in the report you read from. Why didn't you say it at the beginning but present it as some conspiration to deprive public of relevant data? And this all while the covid was still rampant and many of those side effects were more likely from the infection itself than from the vaccine. And even if we don't know the numbers of overall vaccinated people for this number of AE the document also explains they cannot estimate the level of underreporting of AEs, so even these figures aren't a true reflection of AE post vaccinations. This report is just a parallel to the Yellow card scheme where people report anything they associate with the vaccine they received - with a specific focus to the Pfizer. I have seen enough antivaxxers presenting the numbers from Yellow card as true side effects from the vaccines. You are adding to them with this video.
You know too well that no medical intervention is without a risk and that there is no medication without side effects. The rate of side effects (proved ones, not associated) to the rate of administration is the key. There is a line where we consider something safe, with a low rate of side effects. Dozens thousands volunteers took part in safety trials. If there was some significant threat from the vaccine (a proved causal effect, not these associations) they wouldn't roll it out. Sometimes not disclosing irrelevant data for mainstream folks, who don't know what to do with the data (it is apparent here!) and freak out needlessly, is justified. You try to appear as bringing a balanced view, but from these first 15 minutes and the tone how you doubt the context (explained in the report but you leaving it out) only confuses people who don't know better, seeing you as a god, feeding them this biased view and confirming their unjustified fear from vaccines. How many of your followers will actually go to read the report and know how to interpret what is in front of them? You have some responsibility here, Doctor! And at the end, the long list of conditions... one of them was an Amniotic cavity infection... just another condition recorded after the vaccination but it is unlikely it was caused by the Pfizer vaccine, right? Ammonia abnormal; Ammonia increased... seriously? One in 5 (maybe more now) in the western world has excess fat in their liver, due to a lifestyle. Long list of conditions of special interest but again - not necessarily caused by the vaccine itself. But waaau, you are amazed by an impressively long list of conditions which were not necessarily caused by the vaccine itself. Did you actually look into them and see what they may mean in the real world? Apparently not, that would not give an ever growing list of confused followers.
From the same document (p5):
"Pfizer’s safety database contains cases of AEs reported spontaneously to Pfizer, cases
reported by the health authorities, cases published in the medical literature, cases from
Pfizer-sponsored marketing programs, non-interventional studies, and cases of serious AEs
reported from clinical studies regardless of causality assessment."
2
-
Dear Dr Campbell, I watched your previous video of you criticising the BBC article when it was freshly out. Some points were good, others less so in my view. I am not sure (don't remember) whether you did it but if not I would firstly contact the authors of that 'debunked' reporting and ask them where those 27 or so studies were instead of going on the air and saying I cannot find them. I didn't react then, but I am doing it now because to me it looks that it is becoming a worthless and ridiculous battle for nothing.
You treated the newspaper article as a medical journal with proper referencing, and, obviously, it didn't stand to that high standard. I read that article weeks/months ahead and I read it again then, and there was much more into it, in a context. And it wasn't the student who wrote that article on BBC, the student just spotted something and looked into it further from which this all evolved. Just because the person was a student (I heard a hint of dismissal in your voice then when you said it) that does not make him incapable of finding errors or challenging things. History showed us that some students are way smarter and capable of great discoveries. And finally: different people will take different things from any presentation and that has been happening with those 17k deaths, used as a red herring among covid deniers. For me it wasn't such a huge or great or big or significant story to publish, just meat stripped off a bone (waving with the bone around) and even you agree that looking at excess deaths is the best way to check the covid effect on the society. Now even BBC, with Omicron replacing Delta, added to their daily reporting of deaths within 28 days of positive testing, that some people may have died of different causes. They weren't saying it before. The modelling of deaths statistics designed for earlier and deadlier strains is no longer fit, but currently we don't have an updated method (not sure whether it will come at all). I find BBC pretty transparent overall and a great service for educating public (who want to be educated). Unless BBC, or anyone out there, reports a total nonsense I find this as nit-picking that might backfire many ways and a brief search shows it already did. Less is more sometimes, I mean, you don't need to come with something, anything, every day. Saying all that, I find you as a valuable source of information and opportunities for others to share their stories the official medicine does not seem to want to hear. Keep doing a good job and don't fall into a rabbit hole of pointless arguments over peanuts and cheap sensationalism. Once the covid as we know it will be over. Maybe slowing down is the right thing. Or switch to another topic. People will be listening.
1
-
1