Comments by "Theodore Shulman" (@ColonelFredPuntridge) on "Dr. John Campbell" channel.

  1. It was already thoroughly corrupt in the 1970s.
    15
  2. But he's not telling the truth.
    11
  3. You should read the history of why the vaccine-makers were protected from lawsuits.
    9
  4. You need to learn more about this subject, immediately
    9
  5. Keep in mind that in the UK, women are having babies later and later in life. OF COURSE there are more complications! Don't worry about the jab - it won't hurt you. Have your babies when you are in your early 20s. Don't wait for your early 30s.
    8
  6. The important thing is not to confuse scabies with rabies. If you're a doctor, and a patient comes in complaining of scabies, and you treat him for rabies, you're done, your career is finished.
    6
  7. Brand new report in WSJ by Sarah Toy Friday March 18 2022 7AM Ivermectin Didn’t Reduce Covid-19 Hospitalizations in Largest Trial to Date Patients who got the antiparasitic drug didn’t fare better than those who received a placebo MY SUMMARY: The study looked at patients who had COVID symptoms and a positive rapid-test, and a co-morbidity like diabetes, cardiovascular problems, lung disease, or high blood pressure. It divided the patients randomly into two groups and gave one Ivermectin and the other placebo. Then tracked admission rates, length of hospitalization, ventilator use, death rates, how fast they got better, and how fast they cleared the virus. They did several analyses, including one which only included patients who said they followed the prescribed instructions carefully. RESULT: No observable clinical benefit.
    5
  8. Joseph Ladapo? He's an unscrupulous for-profit cultist.
    4
  9. The trend of women becoming mothers later and later in life in UK has continued steadily since the 1980s. In 2022 the average age of new mothers in UK passed 31. THAT is why the complication rates are increasing, and it's not at all surprising! It has nothing to do with vaccination or COVID. Dr. Campbell is an obvious charlatan.
    4
  10. But John Campbell does lie about what the numbers mean.
    4
  11.  @sjetong  I got terrible headaches from taking the vaccine, but the headaches began one week before I took the first dose. The doctors at my local hospital said cases like mine - temporal retroactivity in vaccination - do sometimes happen, although it's quite a rare thing.
    4
  12.  @letmeexplain1816  Severe migraines are not a very bad reaction; they tend to go away after one or two episodes if they are a reaction to a one-time or two-time stimulus, and, getting the disease can give you migraines as well as the vaccine.
    4
  13. That's a stupid lie. The doctor wouldn't rely on the patient thinking that she had worms or did not have worms. Obviously, if the doctor suspected she had worms, he would test her for worms. They're not that hard to diagnose. (Doioioioi!)
    4
  14. Hey, Dr. JC, are you going to post anything about the study from Brazil described in the March 18 issue of the Wall Street Journal, the largest randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial of Ivermectin in patients who had symptoms and a positive rapid-test and pre-morbidities like diabetes, lung-diseases, chronic cardiovascular problems, or high blood-pressure? Or have you already posted something which I missed? Unlike the very large study also in Brazil which you posted about a week or so ago, this one did not offer the test subjects any choice whether to take the drug or be part of the control-group (ie this one was randomized). And this one found no statistically-significiant benefit from the Ivermectin.
    4
  15. No you’re not. And no it didn’t.
    3
  16. Right you are, so long as you are willing to stay away from others so they don't get the pathogen you are refusing to vaccinate against. Be un-vaxxed, in the privacy of your own home.
    3
  17. My doctor diagnosed a vitamin-D deficiency.
    3
  18. Yeah, it was as warp-speed.
    3
  19. Maybe the doctors and nurses are right, and the meatheads were wrong!
    3
  20.  @penelopebirnstingl7837  Always remember to wash your mouth out and gargle three times after you vomit. Protect your teeth from the acid!
    3
  21. 1. Florida's surgeon general is a well-known cultist anti-vax for-profit quack. 2. And VAERS own web site warns readers that it does not even try to confirm all the reports. 3. In 2020, Fox News and social media started publishing VAERS web-site, so that any hempen-homespun lack-brain could report anything. Dr. Campbell cannot be unaware of these three points. The fact that he doesn't say anything about them shows that he's a liar.
    3
  22. FDA has always allowed off-label prescriptions of all approved drug-regimens in at least the past 35 years and maybe longer than that. Something like 35% or more of all prescriptions written in USA are off-label (which means the drug is being prescribed for some indication other than the one it is approved for). As long as you don’t exceed the allowed dosage, no problem!
    3
  23. Why isn’t this a command? Because it’s a piece of advice.
    3
  24. FDA can advise whatever the hell it wants. What FDA cannot do is punish you for declining to take its advice, and FDA has never claimed the authority to punish doctors for off label prescriptions. So I don’t understand what this doctor is yapping about here. The FDA advised that ivermectin is not a proven cure or treatment or preventative for COVID-19. Some doctors prescribed it anyway. Now FDA has reminded everybody that these kinds of off label uses are perfectly legal. Why is this news? What’s the fuss all about?
    3
  25. The problem is not that ivermectin is a horse medicine or a cow medicine. The problem is that ivermectin is only proven effective against parasitical worms not against viruses.
    3
  26.  @micixduda  Nonsense. The technology is too prone to error and self-sabotage for anyone to implement 1984. The now-past futurist who most accurately predicted our time was not George Orwell; it was Stanislaw Lem.
    2
  27. Are you sure that the ones who deleted your posts are the government, not wealthy owners of personally owned media platforms like Twitter?
    2
  28. RE: "My 37-year-old daughter is currently 19 weeks pregnant with her second child." That's why the complication rates are going up. More and more women are having babies later and later in life.
    2
  29. The argument that we should test the Paxlovid on patients who have been immunized (either by vaccination or by infection and natural immune-response), is good. By all means, test it on them! BUT it's reasonable to assume, until large tests are complete, that Paxlovid will benefit immunized patients in the same way it benefits those who have not been immunized. I'll explain why: Paxlovid is a combination of two medications. One of the two is Ritonovir, which doesn't do much by itself, but is useful for prolonging the lifetime of other protease-inhibitors. You can think of Ritonovir as like the linemen on a football team whose purpose is blocking the other team, to protect the guy who has the ball from being tackled by them. The other drug in Paxlovid is Nirmatrelvir, which is like the guy who has the ball. It inhibits the virus' protease enzymes which are essential to make the proteins it needs in order to control the host cell. Without those protease enzymes, the virus can't do its bad viral thing to you. The point here is, both these effects - the Nirmatrelvir inhibiting the virus' essential protease enzymes, plus the Ritonovir preventing the host from removing the Nirmatrelvir - both these effects are completely separate from antibodies and what antibodies do. In fact, as far as anyone knows, they are separate from the entire immune system. They inhibit the viral protease enzymes in the presence of antibodies, and they inhibit the viral protease enzymes in the absence of antibodies. Given what we know about how well they work for patients who have not been immunized, and given that their mechanisms of action have nothing to do with immunity or antibodies, it's reasonable to predict that they will also work well to protect patients who HAVE been immunized. This is not proof - of course, only big tests on previously-immunized patients would prove the benefit in those patients. But it IS a good reason to provide the Paxlovid unless and until large studies or surveys prove that it DOESN'T help those patients. The fact that Paxlovid has such great results on patients who have not been immunized, plus the fact that the mechanism of action is independent of antibodies, shifts the burden of proof to the skeptics, at least largely.
    2
  30. What this nurse didn’t tell you is: the cells which get mRNA will indeed express the antigen, but only for a very short time! Not long enough for the body to mount any significant auto immune response against the cells expressing the antigen. By the time the immune system processes the antigen and responds to it, the cells have cleared out the mRNA and have stopped making antigen on their surfaces. Also, as a general thing, only a very small fraction of the cells distant from the injection site express antigen at all. Sure if you want to be superstitious and squeamish about new medication’s and new classes of medication, that’s up to you. But this kind of knee-jerk anti-vax alarmism-for-profit is not persuasive. (I suppose I should put this in for full disclosure: I am a retired small-pharma antibody-chemist. I retired many years before COVID, and no longer have any financial skin in the immunology game.)
    2
  31. That's very nice, but this video seems to be about vaccination and natural immunity.
    2
  32. Adverse events reported by whom? To whom?
    2
  33. I ask because in USA we have VAERS which anti-Vax loop-a-dupes cite all the time even though it’s self reported and almost entirely unconfirmed and it warns readers that it doesn’t prove anything at all and should not be cited as evidence for anything.
    2
  34. Your plumber has a lot of power over you. If he doesn't know his job, you're in deep trouble.
    2
  35. The nearly-final question was why don't we waive the vaccination-mandates for people who already have natural immunity. One obvious problem is that testing for natural immunity is expensive! Even testing for antibody-titers would cost non-trivial amounts of money, and that is a very easy test to run. (Even I can run it.). Add in the cost of counting patients' memory B-cells, memory T-4s, and memory T-8s, and remember: you're not just counting total memory B, T4, and T8 cells; you have to count the number of memory B-cells which target the virus, and the number of memory T4 cells which target the virus, and the number of T8 cells which target the virus. (It's nice for a patient if he has a large number of memory T8 cells which "remember" that he once was exposed to, say, rabies, or Yersinia Pestis, but those cells will not also protect him from SARS-CoV-2, so you need to count only the cells which "remember" his previous exposure to SARS-CoV--2 which gave him the natural immunity.) Counting these cells is much more expensive than antibody-titering (which is why so many scientists rely on antibody-titering even though it doesn't always correlate with total immunity.) I suppose we could have a policy of waiving vaccination requirements for people who have natural immunity to SARS-CoV-2, but, if you want to apply for the waiver, then you have to pony up the money for the tests. Which will certainly cost more - A LOT more - than just taking the damm vaccine!
    2
  36. First of all, no, it's still an hypothesis, not "a bit more". Secondly, Dr. Campbell is speaking as if it went without saying that the only possible reason to redact information about the virus were something embarrassing in it. But there might well be something dangerous in it. Everyone is quite sure that this virus SARS-CoV-2 was not purposely engineered or released as a bio-weapon, but the next one, or the one after that, could well be. It's getting easier and easier to engineer new variants (if anyone wanted to do that) and there could be some information which the Brits don't want to release, for very good reason. The fact that the virus stores its genetic information in the form of viral RNA rather than DNA, and the unusually large size of the RNA (30 kilobases), were obstacles for a while, but we seem to have overcome them (see the work of Volker Thiel in Switzerland) and it is getting uncomfortably easy to mess with the viral genome. We can make, for instance, variants of the virus which cause infected cells to glow in the dark (by cloning in a gene for a jellyfish protein which glows, called Green Fluorescent Protein, "GFP"). That means we can likely also make variants which would do other, less harmless things. If we release all the information, quite soon some apocalypse-minded guy with a bit of knowledge and too much of money (think Osama bin Laden if he had taken a PhD in virology and worked in biotech for a few years) could produce something very nasty indeed (imagine a variant virus which made 20% of patients go permanently blind). So don't be so quick that every redaction is for the sake of avoiding embarrassment! It could be something to protect you. Go review Isaac Asimov's short story "The Dead Past". Money quote: "Nobody knew anything," said Araman bitterly, "but you all just took it for granted that the government was stupidly bureaucratic, vicious, tyrannical, given to suppressing research for the hell of it. It never occurred to any of you that we were trying to protect mankind as best we could."
    2
  37. But sometimes doing nothing is even more harmful. There was a doctor who saw a guy with his foot caught in a railroad track. The doctor could have freed the guy but he didn’t; he just stood by until a train arrived, and watched him get killed by the train. When asked why he did nothing he said “if I had tried to help, I might have injured the guy‘s foot and violated my oath to do no harm!”
    2
  38.  @bobbobertson6249  No. People get migraines for many different reasons, some of which are very poorly understood. It's basically unpredictable (well, there are circumstances which one can reasonably expect will cause a migraine, especially if you know the patient well, but there's no way to be sure someone is not about to get one. The fact that a given person has not had one before does not guarantee that he won't get one tomorrow or later today, and we often don't know what the cause is.)
    2
  39. From VAERS own web site: Anyone, including Healthcare providers, vaccine manufacturers, and the public [including ideologically-driven loop-a-dupe anti-vax cultists and their for-profit enablers] can submit reports to the system [including fake reports, which don't usually get checked or exposed]. While very important in monitoring vaccine safety, VAERS reports alone cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event or illness. Vaccine providers are encouraged to report any clinically significant health problem following vaccination to VAERS even if they are not sure if the vaccine was the cause. In some situations, reporting to VAERS is required of healthcare providers and vaccine manufacturers. VAERS reports may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable. Reports to VAERS can also be biased. As a result, there are limitations on how the data can be used scientifically. Data from VAERS reports should always be interpreted with these limitations in mind. […] The number of reports alone cannot be interpreted as evidence of a causal association between a vaccine and an adverse event, or as evidence about the existence, severity, frequency, or rates of problems associated with vaccines. Reports may include incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental and unverified information.
    2
  40. Three years ago we didn’t have enough evidence to justify the inference. We still don’t, you know. Hence the declaration “low confidence.” Most likely we never will. And whichever way it originated, sooner or later something similar will happen again, and we need to get ready. Saying as Dr Campbell does “we should stop working on this” is very unwise (IMHO). Either nature or some crazy apocalypse-minded bad-guy with too much money will create something worse. We need to learn what can happen, in order to be ready for what ever does happen.
    2
  41. No you haven't. If you had, then you'd know that one out of ten thousand changing to one point five out of ten thousand isn't worth worrying about.
    2
  42. My experiences with FDA (actually vicarious experiences - I didn't interact directly with them, but I worked alongside of some folks who did) was surprisingly good. Everyone at the company expected their (FDA's) people to be three-headed monsters but they turned out to be very smart, conscientious, energetic scientific bureaucrats, trying to do incredibly demanding jobs well. FDA isn't perfect, but they manage to avoid most of the obvious possible blunders, which is the best one can expect from an agency like that, charged with preventing and correcting scientific errors in a very esoteric, rapidly-evolving field. One other thing: it's a mistake to evaluate Dr. Fauci as an expert in HIV, COVID, FIKA, SARS, or vaccination, although he excels in all those areas. His central, nearly-unique expertise is in on how to deal with a much scarier, much more alarming pathogen: the terrifying scourge known as Pestis WeDon'tKnowWhatTheHellItIsYetOrWhatIt'sGonnaDoNext. Now that is a challenging specialty.
    2
  43. The first few sentences, about how we don't know what the next pandemic is gonna be, but we have to try to get ready for it even so, is the justification for so-called "gain of function" experiments. We have to learn which pathogens can "gain" the "functions" which will enable it to attack us and become a pandemic!
    2
  44. We are learning more about Chinese espionage hardware from the balloons we shot down than the Chinese will ever learn about our missiles from the balloons we didn't shoot down.
    1
  45. Did Shakespeare get the jab?
    1
  46.  @waimingdam1850  It's already true. What do you think a PIN number is? And a Social Security number?
    1
  47.  @anncarroll5580  He may be in control but He's a prankster.
    1
  48.  @37x73  Get serious. Figuring out how to manage a new pandemic is not easy, no matter how smart you are.
    1
  49.  @micixduda  If Orwell had been controlled by the powers that be, then he would not have been allowed to write Nineteen Eighty-Four. The Powers that Were were not stupid. They would have recognized themselves. The interesting thing is that he anticipated hidden cameras and universal surveillance, but he didn't anticipate computers or biotech.
    1
  50.  @micixduda  Yes, powers that be can so control everything. That is the point of the ending of Nineteen Eighty-Four. That is why he finally loves Big Brother.
    1
  51. We in USA were spared almost all the horror of Thalidomide, because of a hero (actually a heroine) Dr. Frances Oldham Kelsey, who worked for FDA and steadfastly refused to approve Thalidomide, demanding rigorous proof of safety for the fetuses, which of course could not be provided, because it's not safe. She resisted in the face of enormous lobbying and pressure. That is why countries like Germany had thousands of cases while USA had fewer than twenty.
    1
  52.  @brianjohnston2897  Where was your mother when she was advised to take Thalidomide?
    1
  53.  @kevreilly7  AZT was a very reasonable choice against HIV when Dr. Fauci recommended it. The problem is the side-effects when you take it for a long time, but, HIV also causes lots of harm in the long-term.
    1
  54.  @pammalone2572  No sir/ma'am. He's got credentials but he's sold out to right-wing loop-a-dupery, which is an easier way to get richer faster now than doing real science would be. I am a retired antibody chemist so I know a little bit about this.
    1
  55. But how many of the thousands had gotten the jab?
    1
  56.  @ricochet243  RE: "have people only started having babies later in life in 2022?" No! It's gradual. The trend to having first-births later in life began in the mid 1970s in UK. Go back to the internet and search for the average age at which women in UK had their first baby, charted year by year. You will see, the average in 1983 was women had their first baby at age 27.2 years old. In 2021, the average age is 30.9 years old, and the rise is pretty close to perfectly linear. That is, from 1983 through 2021, the average first-birthing-age in UK rose steadily at a rate of 0.1 year per year until 2021, and the pattern doesn't show any sign of changing. What's special about 2022 is that the average first-birth-age has passed age 31. Any obstetrician or midwife can tell you that that age - early 30s - is when the complication increases associated with a one year of delay start to accelerate. That's why delaying one year from age 25 to age 26 isn't very bad or risky, but delaying one year from age 30 until age 31 is much worse and increases your complication-risk more. So the increase in complications from 2021 to 2022 is larger than it was in earlier years.
    1
  57. It is a weapon. It was designed and unleashed in 2019 because at that time, the classical music world in Europe and USA and even South America had rediscovered Puccini’s last, unfinished opera Turandot. (If you have ever heard of an aria for tenor called ”Nessun dorma”, that’s from Turandot.) This opera is very offensive to Xi and the Chinese ruling party, because it depicts the Chinese people as brutal savages ruled by a sadistic tyrant. Opera houses all over the free world were planning, in 2019, to stage it in 2020. It's very challenging, for everyone - the soloists, the chorus, the orchestra, the costumers, the set-designers, everyone. La Scala, the Metropolitan, Lyric Opera of Chicago, Covent Garden, DeutscheOper Berlin, and even the little “petit-grand” opera companies like Regina Opera in Brooklyn and West Bay Opera in Palo Alto were going to take a crack at Turandot. The Chinese government released the virus in order to stop it. A telling detail: they seem to have succeeded. Now that the pandemic is (hopefully!) fading, the opera companies are doing plenty of Puccini, but not Turandot! They’re doing La Bohème, and Il Trittico, and a few of the earlier ones, but not Turandot. That's why they designed it to have such mild pathology, Dr Campbell. They weren't trying to kill a lot of people, just to make enough people sick enough to shut down the opera houses for a while so that the global classical music community could move on.
    1
  58. I stopped at the phrase "evidence in social media". There is no scientific evidence in social media!
    1
  59. Could the excess deaths be because of age?
    1
  60.  @christopherrobinson7541  Yes, but remember, the benefit of Paxlovid is NOT that it stops the virus from entering the cell. I don't think it does stop that. What it stops is this: the virus mostly doesn't have separate genes for its proteins; it has one long stretch of genetic information (RNA) which codes for all the proteins. The virus enters the cell, releases the viral RNA, and the cell produces one big proto-protein - one long chain of amino acids, whose sequence includes all the viral proteins, strung together in one long chain, and then that chain gets cleaved, or chopped up by a protease enzyme, into the specific proteins the virus needs. The nirmatrelvir in the Paxlovid stops the "chopping up" process. This happens after, and independently from, the virus entering the cell.
    1
  61. All these numbers are so small they hardly count. If you have a one per ten thousand risk of dropping dead, and it doubles, "double your risk" sounds very very scary, but it's still only one out of five thousand. Don't worry about it!
    1
  62.  @Psykrom  You don't know what you're talking about. There's no point in talking to you.
    1
  63.  @Psykrom  If you are worried about nanolipids and an unnameable "something else", then why talk about the spike protein?
    1
  64.  @Psykrom  This video is about the spike protein. If you want to talk about nanolipids, you should comment on a video about nanolipids.
    1
  65.  @Psykrom  You made a typo. You wrote "a false flag information warrior/agent" but you should have written "a retired monoclonal-antibody chemist with experience in small-pharma immunology as well as general immunochemical expertise."
    1
  66. Ooh, myocarditis! Pericarditis! Tell me, Dr. Campbell, what are my risks of getting it by a crate full of live lobsters falling out of a window, if I walk down the street? How about my risk of being eaten by an angry hippopotamus? Do these risks increase (relative risk) by 100% (twofold) if I get vaxxed first? You're dealing with such small numbers that none of it matters at all.
    1
  67. The comic books are probably not directed specifically toward children. There are a lot of old timers in that picture captain America is probably the oldest he’s been around since World War II. I also see Thor who was of course the Nordic god of thunder but only became a comic book character in the early 1960s. I also think I’m seeing some of the X-Men there and while the original X-Men were first created in the early 1960s, some of the characters who joined later didn’t show up until the 1980s. So there may be some younger people, but the old timers dominate. oh Iron Man’s there too and he is another one who dates back to the early 1960s.
    1
  68. RE: Incidents of afib rising rapidly Hardly surprising considering how many old people there are in the UK.
    1
  69. Are the ones in their 20s having the increase in afib?
    1
  70. What proof is there that aspiration in intramuscular injections does any good? Are there any double-blind studies of aspiration vs no aspiration?
    1
  71.  @colleenlazoruk2897  Of course, there are blood vessels in muscle! Everybody knows that. But you see, I'm not asking for reasons why it might make sense for aspiration to be useful or beneficial. I once knew a surgeon/scientist, whose job included evaluating proposals for innovation. He used to say: you can make all the arguments you like, but in the end, if you can't show, with statistically-large, double-blind, properly-controlled studies that your medication, regimen, device, procedure, protocol, or strategy actually does save lives (or bring measurable benefit to patients), then you're just jerking yourself off with your arguments about why it ought to work or might save lives or bring benefit to patients. The proof of the pudding is in the eating of it (as the fellow said). So, once again: do you know of any ACTUAL STUDIES (double-blind, statistically large comparisons) which show that aspiration ACTUALLY DOES make patients safer than injection without aspiration?
    1
  72. It's because women are giving birth later and later in life. The average age of a new mother has increased steadily since the 1980s. #STUPID
    1
  73. Are these data corrected or controlled for the ages of the women giving birth?
    1
  74. Then the cause of your symptoms is obvious: some genetic disorder caused by too much inbreeding in your hamlet, or, by too much bestiality.
    1
  75.  @arnonabuurs7297  That's an anecdote, not evidence. Besides, he probably killed her himself!
    1
  76.  @Pieguts123  Humans are evolved to start giving birth in their early-to-mid 20s. Delaying gets more harmful as your age increases. A one-year delay from age 30 to age 31 causes much greater increase in complication rates than a one-year delay from age 24 to age 25. And there's also statistical noise. You're dealing with very small numbers - 2,000 stillbirths out of more than 760,000 births is 0.3 percent.
    1
  77.  @clifford4393  You need to go read up on the difference between "relative risk increase (or decrease)" vs "absolute risk increase (or decrease)".
    1
  78.  @kd4315  I do understand it. You don't. You are an innumerate loop-a-dupe.
    1
  79.  @gedofgont1006  No. I am well-informed. Unlike you.
    1
  80.  @Lindatiger71  2021 is when the average age broke past 31 years old. That is when pregnancies start getting much more complicated.
    1
  81.  @kd4315  RE: "I find myself almost amused at your attempt to use the English language. " What are you talking about? English is my native language. I grew up in New York City. (I can also get by in Russian, German, Polish, Italian, and French, and I have sung in Georgian, Latvian, Ukrainian, Church Slavonic, and Lezghin, although I can't really speak or write in those languages.)
    1
  82.  @gedofgont1006  I probably could. If you would like me to do that research for you, I charge $450.00 (USD) per hour or fraction of an hour. I accept PayPal and all major credit cards. (By the way, VAERS doesn't prove a dam' thing. VAERS own web-site warns that they are not equipped to confirm or investigate even a small fraction of the reports they get, and that anyone, even someone with no health-education at all, can report whatever they want as a "adverse event". If you get vaccinated and the next day your dog bites you, you can report that as an adverse event and most likely no one will ever check your report.)
    1
  83. Hmmm! My best friend got the jab, and his acne cleared up, and two weeks later he ran a marathon, and the day after that he won the lottery and got half a million dollars in prize-money. Anecdotes don't prove much, I guess.
    1
  84.  @vipeev  Prosecution for what?
    1
  85.  @lostintranslation1957  Then the commenter should be citing the thousands of other verified accounts (with links), not posting anecdotes.
    1
  86.  @annieo4442  How does your cardiologist know that the vaccine is the cause? How does he (or she) know the cause wasn't something else?
    1
  87.  @vipeev  In USA, all vaccine makers of any kind have the same exemption, which is that they have their cases decided by special courts rather than ordinary courts. The history of this policy is kind of interesting. The vaccine makers were getting hammered with junk lawsuits filed by people who suffered ordinary problems but found it convenient to blame the vaccines they took, often with coaching by corrupt ambulance-chasing lawyers. Juries made up of uneducated idiots who didn't know the difference between B-cells and B-movies, were deciding in favor of the plaintiffs, and the companies were going bankrupt paying huge damages in huge class-action lawsuits based on junk science and anti-vax loop-a-dupery. So the companies said to the lawmakers in the government in USA: if you don't fix this problem and protect us from these morons, we will have to stop selling vaccines altogether in USA. Ask your voters how they like the prospect of going back to worrying about polio, and measles, and mumps. And the legislators realized that their voters wouldn't like it at all! And created the special court-system for vaccine-makers.
    1
  88. How do you know - I mean, what makes you think you know - that she wouldn't have had the stroke anyway, even if she had not taken the vaccine? People get strokes for many different reasons, including, sometimes, no reason at all, just bad luck. How do you know that your wife isn't one of those who just happened, unluckily, to have a stroke which just happened to happen after she took the vaccine?
    1
  89.  @calluna5030  Thank you for the info!
    1
  90.  @ThePantygun  With anti-vaxers. Anti-vaxers are very dangerous. We could easily end up with polio as a thing everyone had to worry about again. Everyone, from FDR to the lowliest tramp, lived in terror of polio, back in the day.
    1
  91.  @ThePantygun  Yes, false vaccination can be a real problem. I had a friend who went in to get vaccinated against scabies, and the nurse vaccinated her against rabies. Horrible! Then she got scabies and had to take ivermectin in order to get rid of the scabies.
    1
  92.  @debravictoria7452  Protection is only partial.
    1
  93.  @dp3069  How strange! I got the jab, and later that week, I won ten million dollars in the lottery. Is there a web-site where I can report favorable events following vaccination?
    1
  94.  @debravictoria7452  Yes it does. Well, it reduces transmission by reducing infection. Less infection means less people who can transmit it.
    1
  95.  @GwladYrHaf  I don't think the scientific community qualifies as a cult.... We are evidence-based and self-correcting.
    1
  96. It’s obvious who is responsible for the fires in Canada. It’s Fauci!
    1
  97.  @Arvidje  You may recall that we were in a a hurry! We were afraid that we would find all our hospitals and doctors overwhelmed, like in much of Italy. Warp Speed, remember?
    1
  98. We have been engineering viruses for decades. Routinely.
    1
  99. "I don't know what that's indicating but it's not indicating that COVID is causing pericarditis." No. It's indicating something else: it's indicating that all the numbers in this study are too low to be worth bothering about. Statistical noise.
    1
  100.  @Khayyam-vg9fw  I'm sorry, but at this time you are not smart enough to understand immunology or epidemiology. Good luck in your future efforts to improve your intelligence, if you decide to try to do that.
    1
  101. Proud to be a Floridian? Look up: Dunning Kruger
    1
  102. How do you know that the vaccine was the cause? How do you know that Dr Wright would not have had the same problem even if he had not taken the jab??? Post hoc =/= propter hoc.
    1
  103. I've said it before and I'll say it again: the Chinese government unleashed the virus on us in order to prevent the opera houses in Europe and USA and South America from staging Puccini's last opera, Turandot (if you are familiar with the aria "Nessun dorma", that's from Turandot) because it is set in Peking ("Pekino") and depicts the Chinese people as brutal savages ruled by a sadistic tyrant. Turandot had become trendy again (the opera world is very faddish) and numerous opera houses, great (La Scala, the Met, Chicago Lyric Opera) and small (Regina Opera in Brooklyn) were getting ready to do it. The current government of China - Xi - couldn't stand for that. Now that the pandemic has more or less resolved (not just temporarily, we hope) the companies are doing operas by Puccini, but, notably, not Turandot. They're doing La bohème and Il Trittico. So the Chinese strategy seems to have worked. This is why the pathology of COVID is so harmless, relative to what it could have been. The Chinese government didn’t want to kill a lot of people, only to sicken us enough to shut down the opera houses and get the companies to choose a different repertoire.
    1
  104.  @edwardponder66  The Chinese government unleashed the virus on us in order to prevent the opera houses in Europe and USA and South America from staging Puccini's last opera, Turandot (if you are familiar with the aria "Nessun dorma", that's from Turandot) because it is set in Peking (Pekino) and depicts the Chinese people as brutal savages ruled by a sadistic tyrant. Turandot had become trendy again (the opera world is very faddish) and numerous opera houses, great (La Scala, the Met, Chicago Lyric Opera) and small (Regina Opera in Brooklyn) were getting ready to do it. The current government of China - Xi - couldn't stand for that. Now that the pandemic has more or less resolved (not just temporarily, we hope) the companies are doing operas by Puccini, but, notably, not Turandot. They're doing La bohème and Il Trittico. So the Chinese strategy seems to have worked. This is why the pathology of COVID is so harmless, relative to what it could have been. The Chinese government didn’t want to kill a lot of people, only to sicken us enough to shut down the opera houses and get the companies to choose a new repertoire.
    1
  105. Yeah, we should run whoever authorized “Operation Warp Speed” out of USA. And his family. (Trump, of course.)
    1
  106. Don't you believe it! Dr. Campbell is a swamp-stooge like everybody else. If you ask him, he'll be the first to say so. "A true revolutionary patriot cannot trust anyone or anything. Everything in this world - humanity, animals, plants, microbes, fungi, the entire pan-biome, the government, the government's enemies, the bankers and the communists, the Jews and the Clergy and the Freemasons and the Satanists and the atheists and the humanists, the professors and the drop-outs, the elite and the hoi-polloi, your doctors and your lawyers and your own family, all the angels and all the devils and all the demigods and djinni, and God Himself - are all your enemies, and all equally so."
    1
  107. The question is whether infection with the virus is any less likely to cause the autoimmune response.
    1
  108. My goodness! My brother took the jab, and his acne cleared up, and then he won the lottery and got five million US dollars. I’m getting the jab tomorrow and looking forward to winning even more!
    1
  109.  @Fiona86555  It probably was just a coincidence! People do get shingles, and it flares up unpredictably, for no apparent reason.
    1
  110. Maybe because it's not really very important.
    1
  111. Yes he is great at selling you the illusion that you are smarter than you really are. This is a high-growth industry!
    1
  112.  @2risquejunior538  Probably not. Quite a lot of nurses and phlebotomists don't learn to aspirate in the first place, because the benefits of aspirating have never been proved.
    1
  113. I think they use mRNA which codes for a soluble form of the antigenic protein. In that case, no, the antigenic protein wouldn't be expressed on the surface of the cell; it would be secreted into the bloodstream. Yes, this story Dr. Campbell tells is scary, but if the mRNA were causing the type of trouble he describes - inflammation of the heart and so on -- it would have been seen in the earlier tests of mRNA vaccination as a general technique, which was done before COVID and was the reason the scientists were willing to try mRNA vaccines in human patients when we needed to (for COVID).
    1
  114. You are forgetting the history. The scientists warned: to properly vet a new vaccine takes years. The people griped and moaned about that. And then we decided to go ahead and deploy the vaccine without taking the years, because the need was urgent.
    1
  115. "Oy wownt yew toe explayeen to mee woawyee tha vacceen cawozehs moiyocahddaytis!" I'm convinced! If taking the vaccine makes these people talk with this ridiculous accent, I'll never take another booster.
    1
  116. Me too! I got atrial fibrillation, and then I got vaccinated. It's a very rare thing: a time-inverted side-effect. Usually the side effect happens after you get the causative stimulus, but this time the time-factor was inverted and I got the atrial fibrillation before the jab which caused the atrial fibrillation. My doctors said it only happens this way in around 0.05 percent of cases.
    1
  117.  @Mark_Meisho_Thompson  I had an EKG done at an urgent care center, and the results appeared normal. I didn't discuss them with the technician who took the data, but the results sent to my primary care physician showed normal ekg patterns. Then I got the jab, and two weeks later, the cardiologist's office reported to the primary care doctor that the first results of the EKG - the normal-appearing result - had been reported as result of a clerical error and that I had actually had atrial fibrillation at the time. A friend of mine had a similar event, but she missed her appointment for the jab and did not get one, and it turned out in her case that her cardiologist had made an error too, but his error was that he had erroneously thought his office had made an error and that her apparently-normal result was wrong. But after she missed her appointment and did not get the jab, the cardiologist sent a second notice to her primary care doctor, saying that his report of an error was itself erroneous (caused by a clerical worker who was addicted to prescription medications and had made a number of similar wrong diagnoses of clerical errors, which were very embarrassing for her employer the cardiologist) and that her original result - normal rhythm - was in fact correct. So I, who got the jab, had atrial fibrillation before getting it, and she who had only scheduled the jab but not gotten it, had had a normal rhythm before failing (and later declining) to get it. So we think now that my getting the jab was what caused me, retroactively, to have atrial fibrillation before I got it, and that if I had not gotten the jab, then I would not have had atrial fibrillation before not getting the jab. I know this seems unlikely - the idea that a vaccine could cause an adverse side-effect before the vaccine is administered, but this pandemic is so full of surprises that some suspension of disbelief seems to be warranted. (A good scientist must always be open to new possibilities which previously seemed impossible or at least very counterintuitive.) Also, similar cases have been reported in other parts of the world: Russia (Vologda) and one from Indonesia. There may also be additional cases which were never reported because the physicians involved simply could not accept the possibility of temporally retroactive side-effects. So my case may only be the tip of the iceberg.
    1
  118. RE: "If they don’t look for it they don’t have to deal with it!" Wrong! If you don't look for it someone else will. Hence, this article. The question is does it matter or not? mRNA itself is not a problem. The question is how much of the antigenic protein is being made, and when. That's what we should be measuring, and then study whether or not it does anything worse than getting the virus does.
    1
  119. What would have happened if you had given him chicken soup instead of HCQ and Ivermectin?
    1
  120. Wow, big numbers! Scary! Big numbers are scary!! Seriously a million particles or a billion, who cares? Are the particles bigger or smaller than the ordinary micro-clots everyone gets during ordinary daily activities? Why is this guy talking as if he knew the answers for certain? No one else seems to know for certain. “A bolus”? What do you get if you cross a bull and a walrus?
    1
  121.  @layersoftheonion8168  VAERS does not confirm or verify its reports in any systematic way. 99% of VAERS reports never get verified. That is why VAERS warns ON ITS OWN WEB SITE that it's numbers do NOT prove anything at all.
    1
  122.  @layersoftheonion8168  With VAERS??? No. You don't sign any pledge or oath when you file a report. Because you're not alleging that the event was caused by the vaccine, only that an event occurred after you got one, and you're not demanding any money or being rewarded in any way for filing the report. Maybe if you were a practicing physician and you filed a false report about yourself or a patient you could suffer some damage to your reputation, but for an ordinary person to file a false report, no, I'm quite sure that's not a crime or offense, since it's not signed under oath. Why do you ask about gene therapy? That has nothing to do with vaccines. The term "gene therapy" has changed its meaning in a pretty big way since I worked alongside people who were working on it, back in the early 2000s. I can explain the details - what it used to mean and what it means now - but neither meaning has anything to do with vaccination except in a very contrived and superficial way.
    1
  123. ​ @letmeexplain1816  My best friend has been experiencing severe migraine headaches for more than twelve years.
    1
  124.  @bobbobertson6249  More to the point, if you got sick after one dose, then why in the world did the doctor - why in the world would any doctor - tell you to take a second dose??? Of anything??? Doctors know that although complications are rare, they do, sometimes, happen to some patients, and they will advise you not to take a second dose if you react badly to the first one. At very least they will tell you to try a different vaccine, which has a different formulation from the one that caused the bad reaction. The whole line "I suffered a bad reaction to the first dose and my doctor said it was my imagination and pressured me to take a second dose!" is almost always a lie being told by a knee-jerk-ideological anti-vaxxer who thinks that vaccines are contrary to his god's plan or some such loop-a-dupery. In real life, any doctor to whom you report having had a bad reaction to anything (to a vaccine or to anything else) will tell you to stop whatever the thing you reacted to was, unless it's absolutely necessary to keep you alive. No doctor says, for instance, that if you break out in a rash after taking vitamin D, or feel too keyed up to sleep when drinking coffee, or have a bad response to Viagra, then you have to take more vitamin D, or coffee, or Viagra. What possible benefit could there be for the doctor or for the patient in making you repeat a stimulus which you had reacted badly to??? Doctors want their patients to get well and stay well. That's what it means for a doctor to be doing his job well.
    1
  125.  @lissyboo8878  If the doctor recommended that you take more vaccine after you reported experiencing an uncomfortable or alarming side-effect, that is medical malpractice. You can sue (and you should). And you don't need any anti-vaxers on the jury in order to win. Your argument is SOME people DO experience side-effects of EVERY treatment including vaccines, and to repeat the stimulus (whatever it may be - a vaccine, or a statin, or a particular antibiotic you are allergic to, or whatever) after the patient has experienced a bad reaction is rank malpractice. No one, absolutely no one, pretends to believe that there are ZERO bad reactions to any particular vaccine! If it's not the mRNA, it can be something else in the vaccine - an adjuvant compound in the vaccine, or a vector.
    1
  126.  @BonsuBigWhale  Adverse events are OVER-reported. For every patient who suffers in silence, there are ten or more non-patients who report fake adverse events because of anti-vax ideology or just because they want attention. And each one of them causes more damage to public health than the one who suffers without reporting. Anti-vax is bad for you. The anti-vax-for-profit ideology peddlers are much worse for you than any drug company or public advocate. If the anti-vax-for-profit-ideology peddlers get their way, we will go back to the 1930s and everyone from the next President of USA to the baby born yesterday to your humble next-door neighbor will be living in terror of polio again. These guys almost brought down the vaccine companies in USA. That is how the vaccine companies eventually got a special court system which excluded the know-nothing jurors who had been awarding crippling damages based on anti-vax junk science: they (the vaccine companies) started going bankrupt.
    1
  127.  @elpanekillo  Then cite those data, not numbers from VAERS.
    1
  128. What other program? Where (if anywhere other than in your imagination)?
    1
  129. I like your comment about changing with the times. That is what scientists do. It's a real shame that the Fauci-bashers, who object to him for "flip-flopping", don't understand this.
    1
  130.  @williamsnapp2605  Whether or not you should get vaccinated is an entirely separate question from how the virus originated.
    1
  131. OK. The definition of Serious Adverse Event seems to be: "An SAE was defined as an adverse event that results in any of the following conditions: death; life-threatening at the time of the event; inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization; persistent or significant disability/incapacity; a congenital anomaly/birth defect; medically important event, based on medical judgment." The thing is, all these events can result from getting the virus! It's all very well to say "ooh, look, the swine-flu vaccine had far fewer adverse events, and they stopped vaccinating!" But how likely were the un-vaccinated patients to get swine-flu, and what was it likely to do to them? In other words, what were the likely damages done by not vaccinating?? Yes, we need a cost/benefit analysis, but until we get one there's no reason to assume that vaccinating is any worse than not vaccinating. This is what happens when you try to produce, and deploy, a vaccine (or any other medical intervention) at "warp speed".
    1
  132.  @Tombombadillo999  There's no point in spreading obvious loop-a-dupery. Your comment is a great example of the reason no one takes your side seriously. RE: "The spread of very unclear 'science' by the media" Of course it's unclear, to people who haven't studied the subject! The solution to a problem with a broken Mac truck, or the strategy in a football game, would be "unclear" to me, because I don't know anything about football or about fixing trucks. To expect the news media to make it clear to me would be silly and unreasonable. Epidemiology, virology, and immunology are complicated subjects!
    1
  133. We should be using protein vaccines. That was the original plan; mRNA was supposed to be an emergency response. Warp speed, remember?
    1
  134. But are we getting the same increase in countries where the population isn't aging out, like, say, Mexico?
    1
  135.  @ninjah8088  It's more difficult to determine the origin of a very-contagious virus than it is to determine the origin of a less-contagious virus. By the time the very-contagious virus shows up at all, it's already all over the place. So many of the people commenting on this guy's videos think that they know enough to say what's going on, and they so obviously don't know the first things about virology or epidemiology. You are like someone who has never watched a boxing match trying to serve as a referee or a boxing sportscaster. You don't even know basic stuff like that a boxer is not allowed to hit the opponent in the back of the head. And Dr. Campbell is running rings around you.
    1
  136. Does the virus also cause brain and heart to express spike protein, or only the vaccine? It's not enough to show that the vaccine is worse than nothing at all. You have to show that the vaccine is worse - more patients AND worse symptoms - than getting COVID.
    1
  137. So would it be fair to describe you as anti-counter-disinformation? A triple negative! One doesn’t see that every day.
    1
  138. RE: "On the last part of 2020, my brother got Covid, but had hardly any symptoms. When the injections came out he took the AZ one. Months later, he started having fainting spells. After some studies he was diagnosed with AF, Brudaga Syndrome and was implanted a Fibrilator." Hmmm! How interesting. MY brother got the vaccine, and a few days later, his akin cleared up, he stopped having problems with erectile dysfunction, and he won $50,000,000.00 in the lottery.
    1
  139. Wrong
    1
  140.  @donman9154  They're also spiking the Ivermectin with microchips to control your mind.
    1
  141.  @sammywhite9906  Because I have read his history.
    1
  142.  @FJB8885  These are personal questions. But I'll tell you a few things: No, I'm not a physician; I didn't like med school. These days you hear a lot about doctors quitting; well, I quit trying to practice medicine after I finished my first clinical rotation. It's a challenging, honorable profession, but when you actually get on the wards and start trying to do it, it's way too much like being in the army; you have to be polite to everyone even when you want to punch them in the face. I am retired; when I worked, I was an antibody-chemist. I have immunized hundreds (literally) of animals, and bled them, and tested their blood for antibody-responses. I have designed methods for using antibodies for various purposes for many different scientists on many levels (including lowly start-up profs at minor schools. and big-shot winners of accolades such as the National Medal of Science, the and the Nobel prize, and everyone in between) and in many specialties, including plant biology, oncology, neurological embryology, environmental chemistry, and cardiology. (Antibodies are very versatile scientific tools.) I have validated vaccines against weapons pathogens for the Department of Defense. I don't teach medicine, but I have trained grad students and post-doctoral fellows and young professors to do antibody work, and also I had a side-hustle tutoring practice helping undergrads with pre-med sciences, for what was at the time considered a high-end fee. A few of my former pupils and trainees are successful scientists now, and some who are not scientists are, at least, scientifically-literate non-scientists. I am also a reasonably good science writer. I have successfully raised grant money from NIH (NIDA) with my writing, long ago. When I was still working, some of my co-workers consulted me from time to time for proofreading services and stylistic improvement. The trick to writing a good grant proposal is to make it sound technical and dry, but to tell a metaphorical story so the readers feel excited without quite knowing why. But all this was long ago. Now I spend my time trying to be an amateur classical vocalist (bass-baritone). And what do you do to make ends meet, and to occupy your spare time?
    1
  143.  @janineberry6318  What shows that he's a liar, in this particular video, is that he thinks that the fact that reports to VAERS spiked in 2021 means anything at all about the virus or about the pandemic. VAERS is worthless for proving anything and everybody knows it. VAERS says so on its own web-site!
    1
  144.  @wordwordful  There is no "whose truth". Facts are facts, and it doesn't matter who is talking about them. It's just a fact that VAERS numbers mean nothing and are not "alarming" no matter what they are. In this particular case, Dr. Campbell is lying - a terrible lie of omission - about VAERS. The fact is, the number of complaints VAERS receives in any given time period tells us nothing whatsoever about the virus, or about the vaccine, or about the pandemic. VAERS is basically worthless, because they don't check or verify or confirm more than a tiny fraction of the reports they get. (How do I know this? Because their very own web-site says so.)
    1
  145. ​ @alanjm1234  RE: "Are you saying the findings of the Florida Surgeon General are lies?" Yes, they are lies of omission. He announced that reports to VAERS increased suddenly, but he omitted the fact that VAERS reports are not evidence of any danger or problem with any vaccine.
    1
  146. Should we leave it to the Chinese, Russians, and Middle Easterners? We don’t control the whole world. We are not the only players.
    1
  147.  @StevenCashel  Absolutely. A lot of these anti-vax fictional stories are easy to spot because they attribute implausible behavior to doctors. The idea of a doctor who suspects worms or some other illness which is known to be treatable with Ivermectin, relying on the patient self-diagnosing the illness instead of testing the patient's stool (or whatever) is just silly. It would be rank malpractice. The medical board would ask him, under oath, "if you thought the patient might have worms (or any parasite), why didn't you test for them?" And if he can't give a good answer, then his career will be in danger. It's not difficult to test for parasites. You just dissolve a small sample of the patient's solid waste (or dead skin or hair or blood or whatever shedding part the suspected parasite is supposed to be occupying) in some water or saline, and use an inexpensive dipstick, like testing a woman's urine for pregnancy. Parasitic organisms make particular proteins which the human host does not make (just as pregnant women, and only pregnant women, make human chorionic gonadotropin (with a couple of exceptions like patients with certain cancers)), so the antibody-based dipstick can detect them. The idea of a doctor relying on a patient's word to determine whether the patient had or did not have worms (or some other parasite) is not plausible. Doctors are not generally careless, stupid, or self-destructive. Those who are get weeded out. Exceptions tend to be few, far-between, and visible, like rogue professionals who murder their patients, or gross serial-malpractitioners.
    1
  148.  @StevenCashel  Safe? That is not disputed. But is it effective against COVID? That IS disputed. And where is there legislation saying what a doctor may prescribe any given drug for? Not in USA.
    1
  149.  @KJ-lb4tj  Doctors in the industrialized world don't usually test for worms, because most people here don't get them. That's the point. That's why we don't usually take Ivermectin here.
    1
  150.  @adrianjohnson7920  Worms, and parasites generally, come in different sizes. Some are observable with the naked eye; others not so much.
    1
  151.  @jamescollins3647  Which other stuff do you mean?
    1
  152.  @recumbentrocks2929  She didn't need Ivermectin, though, since she didn't have worms.
    1
  153. @Steve Sheldon What do you mean "control for age"? The two groups - the test group (who got ivermectin) and the control group (who got placebo) were chosen at random. I mean in the new study described today (Friday March 18) in the WSJ, not in the one discussed in the video.
    1
  154. Nobody, absolutely no serious health professional anywhere in the world has ever denied that natural immunity exists!
    1
  155. What would have happened if you had just drunk some chicken soup?
    1
  156.  @bajajoes1  How do you know that?
    1
  157.  @stephenarling1667  Of course! But if that were a reason not to trust this one, then it would also be a reason not to trust any study on any controversial subject. Sure, we'll have to wait and see the actual paper, when it gets printed. But Dr. JC doesn't seem to have any problem talking about studies before that happens.
    1
  158.  @christopherrobinson7541  But what about the other endpoints? The measured parameters were: hospital admittance (yes/no), length of stay, ventilation (yes/no), time on ventilator, time until clearance of virus (I assume by rapid test but that's only a guess), and time until resolution of symptoms. But as you say, let's wait for the final paper. (It drives me crazy when people let themselves become emotionally invested in this as if it were a sporting event or a political contest.)
    1
  159. Suppose it were. How would YOU know???
    1
  160. OK, the virus causes spike protein in the brain, and that damages the brain. But the virus does too!! So it seems that the only thing worse than getting vaccinated is not getting vaccinated. The only really safe thing to do is go live alone in a hut somewhere, and hope there aren't any bats.
    1
  161. It's because women are giving birth later and later in life. The average age of childbirth in UK has risen steadily from mid 20s in 1980 to very-early 30s in 2022. THAT is why the complication rates keep rising, not because of vaccination or COVID!
    1
  162. It's not, strictly speaking, a warfare agent, but it is a weapon. The timing of its release makes this obvious to anyone who follows the current trends in classical music. That sounds nutty, but bear with me. The virus was unleashed in 2019 in order to prevent the opera houses in Europe and USA and South America from staging Puccini's last opera, Turandot (if you are familiar with the aria "Nessun dorma", that's from Turandot) because it is set in Peking ("Pekino") and depicts the Chinese people as brutal savages ruled by a sadistic tyrant. Turandot had become trendy again (the opera world is very faddish; all the opera companies watch all the other companies and try to do what they are doing) and numerous opera houses, great (La Scala, the Met, Chicago Lyric Opera) and small (Regina Opera in Brooklyn) were getting ready to do it. The current government of China - Xi - couldn't stand for that. And look at how well their plan worked! Now that the pandemic has more or less resolved (not just temporarily, we hope) the companies are doing operas by Puccini, but, notably, not Turandot. They're doing La bohème and Il Trittico. So the Chinese strategy seems to have worked. This is why the pathology of COVID is so harmless, relative to what it could have been. The Chinese government didn’t want to kill a lot of people, only to sicken us enough to shut down the opera houses and get the companies to choose a new repertoire.
    1
  163. Even after you watch the video, you still don't know. Everything Dr John says could be wrong, and you wouldn't know!
    1
  164.  @UniversallyEnergetic  The question remains: do you know enough to understand the papers he links to? To an untrained reader they might as well be written in secret code. The idea that you can "check for yourself" is, for most people, an illusion. For instance, suppose there were an important confounding factor the authors were overlooking. Would you be able to spot it?
    1
  165. So now that the hempen-homespun lack-brain public has gotten used to the term "gain-of-function experiments" (without knowing anything at all about what it means, and how its meaning varies in different contexts), the anti-vax loop-a-dupes have come up with a new bugaboo-term to try to scare you with, and that term is: "Directed Evolution". Shiver and shake, kiddies. Quake in your boots, soldiers! Big, scary directed evolution is coming for you and your families!
    1
  166. Oh, so now the new sca-a-a-a-art freak-out buzz-phrase the right-wingers are gonna use to frighten the loop-a-duped into sending more money is “directed evolution”. Be afraid of “directed evolution”! It’s even more dangerous than “gain of function”!!! Remember: anything you don’t know about or understand is very very very bad.
    1
  167. I said at the beginning, mRNA should be a rapid-response, temporary measure. We should switch to protein-vaccines, so we can be quite sure how much protein the patients are getting. Maybe warp-speed was too fast. On the other hand, it's not clear that there's a problem. So the mRNA lasts longer in the patient than we expected before. Who cares? With most immunizations, longer is better. What matters in the end is not how long or how much mRNA there is. What matters is how much protein there is. That's what we need to know next.
    1
  168. Does anyone dispute the benefits of natural immunity? I don't think even Fauci denies it. The problem with natural immunity is you only get it if you get infected. So it's not a strategy. It's just something that happens.
    1
  169. The solution is obvious. Have the doctors amputate your head. No brain, no pain, right?
    1
  170. The RA symptoms probably would have started even without the jab.
    1
  171. VAERS is worthless, that's probably why.
    1