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