Comments by "Primmakin Sofis" (@primmakinsofis614) on "Dr. John Campbell" channel.

@Eliza Coleman There are several instances of doctors in Ontario facing an inquiry from CSPO for writing COVID vaccine exemptions or challenging the narrative about usage of those vaccines. Yet a doctor who was giving COVID vaccinations to children under the age of 5, a group for whom the vaccine is NOT approved by Health Canada, faced no repercussions whatsoever from CSPO for violating the rules and improperly giving out vaccinations. That should tell you that something is wrong.
35
what were at the time, perceived to be good health practices in a time of uncertainty Except they weren't. The early data out of Italy in April of 2020 clearly showed who was most at risk from the virus -- but this was ignored to sell the idea that the entire population was at about equal risk. Then the measures which were pushed were completely the opposite of the measures which were recommended in long-standing pandemic response plans. Those long-established response were summarily thrown out. Those two items together should have made everyone highly suspicious.
22
@frontendzen4852 Just to play devils advocate. Many from my office didn't feel comfortable with an unvaccinated person next to them in the office so we mandated it Notice the key words in your sentence: "feel comfortable" That people FELT safer was more important than if they were ACTUALLY safer.
15
@frontendzen4852 just curious where do you do your 'research' I get my data from official government sources: Public Health Agency of Canada, Public Health Ontario, etc. I also closely follow Italy's ISS extended reports, which are a great source of data, as these reports have been published once a week since April of 2020. For a time I was also tracking the official government data out of Iceland, Israel, and the U.K. What I noticed from early on is that the what the data in those official government sources showed was rather different from what the "news" media, politicians, and public "health" experts said the data showed. But you wouldn't know that unless you looked up the source data for yourself.
15
Even without any negative side effects, there was scant real-world data indicating the efficacy of the doses in preventing infection and hospitalization. Since then, the real-world data has accumulated to the point that it is unequivocal that the doses are of little to no benefit for the large majority of the population.
13
I find it most interesting that the Public Health Agency of Canada has apparently stopped publishing data concerning COVID cases and deaths by vaccination status. It had been publishing that data for quite some time. Fortunately, Italy is still publishing such data in its weekly ISS extended reports, although it did muddy its data by recently combing partially and fully vaccinated (two doses) into one category when previously they had been separated.
12
@frontendzen4852 well you can do whatever you wish but your life options as far as jobs, travel, etc will be impacted. Not much you can do about it. In my country they are all jobless now isolated. Change "unvaccinated" to Jewish. Is the treatment still morally acceptable? Change "unvaccinated" to black. Is the treatment still morally acceptable?
12
@shadowbanned15 its good you guys can't catch it or pass it onto each other now That's some dry satire right there.
11
@brockreynolds870 I had the vaccine a year and a half ago, so did my best friend, my brother, my mother, and all 17 of my landscaping clients... and were are all still fine. no problems at all. That's good. But the official data shows quite clearly the vaccines are of marginal benefit for most, and the booster doses are of no value at all. According to the most recent Public Health Agency of Canada's data, a person with three or four doses who becomes infected has a HIGHER chance of being hospitalized than those with zero doses (5.64% and 6.70% versus 5.55%). The same is true for losing one's life: those with booster doses have a HIGHER chance of dying if infected than those with zero doses (1.13% and 2.10% versus 1.08%).
11
I do not understand how our government, media, can ignore this elephant in the room. There are two possibilities: (1) They have been bought off. (2) They are afraid to admit the reality for fear of the inevitable harsh retribution.
11
They're not vaccines, they're therapeutics. The Chief Medical Officer of Health for Ontario stated that during a press conference.
10
@macmcleod1188 You don't need to worry. Yes, because being coerced into taking vaccination doses that are demonstrably of little to no benefit to the people taking them to combat a virus that is of nearly zero risk to them is perfectly acceptable and sensible public policy.
9
Approximate yearly fatality rates in Italy according to Italy's ISS extended report data: Feb. 20, 2020, through Dec. 29, 2020 = 3.45% (70,799 deaths out of 2,049,934 cases) Dec. 30, 2020, through Dec. 28, 2021 = 1.77% (65,300 deaths out of 3,680,106 cases) Dec. 29, 2021, through Nov. 9, 2022 = 0.23% (41,188 deaths out of 18,260,930 cases)
2
@ArtisChronicles I'm sure the military's new emphasis on diversity, inclusion, and equity will overcome any problems!
2
@oldschool8292 Even if one does not accept the idea that the doses themselves are causing health issues, there is no doubt in the ample real-world data that the doses are, at best, of marginal benefit to the large majority of the population in terms of preventing infection and preventing bad outcomes from the virus.
2
Medicine has become thoroughly corrupt. And it's only going to get worse when the crop of doctors and nurses in medical school finish their 'equity medicine'-based training.
1
5-year-olds are at a nearly zero risk from COVID. The data was always absolutely clear on this. According to the data in Italy's ISS extended reports -- and Italy was a hard-hit country -- for the first year of the outbreak (Feb. 20 through Dec. 29, 2020) the numbers were: 0-9 years of age = 78,664 cases and 9 deaths That's a case fatality rate of 0.011% (1 in 8,740). Which means the survival rate was 99.989%. There were 5,090,482 people aged 0-9 years in Italy in 2019. That means on a per capita basis: 1 in 65 became a case 1 in 565,609 died Those aged 0-9 comprised 8.43% of the population, 3.84% of the cases, and just 0.013% of the lives lost. In contrast, those aged 70 or older comprised 17.05% of the population, 18.54% of the cases, and 85.88% of the deaths.
1
@mythtree6348 Why do you even trust tetanus shots anymore ? The tetanus vaccine goes back to the days when vaccines were extensively tested before being allowed into widespread use. It also has a long usage record one can check for efficacy and safety. None of those applied to the hastily concocted and used COVID vaccines
1
You can rest assured what WEF members and minions are quietly cheering every death, since the WEF lunatics view the world as overpopulated. And they are quite content to "decrease the surplus population".
1
As a 21 year old, I'm so glad that I didn't fall into the V trap. It was so clear that this whole story was complete f-ing BS since the beginning. I'm a good bit older than you, but I also never bought into the COVID hysteria from the start. It never added up. I never believed the doom and gloom prognostications. And when I started digging into the data for myself a few months later, that data -- the government's own data -- made it clear. That the politicians and "journalists" and public "health" officials were saying one thing while their own data was saying something else, made it abundantly clear incompetence and corruption were at work.
1
Medicine has become a corrupt field.
1
@daw162 The data was clear all the way back in April of 2020, with early numbers out of Italy, that the virus was NOT a meaningful threat to the large majority of the population. But this data was ignored in favour of the narrative that it was a threat to the population at large requiring drastic intervention. The question is why that data was ignored. Incompetence? Corruption?
1
The reason the mainstream media doesn’t report on excess deaths may be because everyone is embarrassed/ mortified how stupidly they obeyed the shepherds. That is a charitable view. The more likely view is that the "news" media is irredeemably corrupt, and has been bought off. It isn't isn't just COVID about which journalists refuse to investigate.
1
@ednewcombe8362 okay collect your evidence.take it to downing Street.. really is that simple. You seem to have forgotten that government is rife with corruption. It is of only a minor exaggeration to say the following: 99% of politicians are absolutely corrupt; the other 1% are probably corrupt.
1
But my main question was, almost every day, 52% of the "deaths with covid" were in the over 80 age group. This was BEFORE any vaccination, during the early stages, and in the mid stages. Italy's official data from April of 2020 clearly showed most of those succumbing to COVID were older. As of April 2, 2020, the data showed a total of 12,548 lives had been lost to the virus. The percentage distribution by age bracket: 0-9 years = 0.00% 10-19 years = 0.00% 20-29 years = 0.05% 30-39 years = 0.23% 40-49 years = 0.88% 50-59 years = 3.82% 60-69 years = 11.54% 70-79 years = 33.44% 80-89 years = 40.08% 90+ years = 9.97% 83.49% of the lives lost were aged 70 or older. It was abundantly clear even in April of 2020 it was the elderly who were most at risk, and that the majority of the population was at minimal risk. Thirty-two months later, as of Dec 6, 2022, a total of 180,534 lives had been lost to the virus. The percentage distribution by age bracket: 0-9 years = 0.03% 10-19 years = 0.02% 20-29 years = 0.08% 30-39 years = 0.26% 40-49 years = 0.94% 50-59 years = 3.55% 60-69 years = 9.88% 70-79 years = 24.13% 80-89 years = 40.43% 90+ years = 20.69% 85.25% of the lives lost were aged 70 or older. Most of the percentages, despite vaccinations, are little changed; the only ones which showed notable change were 90+ which went up, and 70-79, which went down.
1
@realnews7424 They actually said at the beginning that older people were not affected. This was unequivocally disproved with the early data out of Italy. On April 2, 2020, the third ISS extended report was published. At that point 12,550 lives lost had been recorded, of which 83.5% were aged 70 or older. In contrast, those under 50 years of age comprised 1.2% of the lives lost. Those aged 50-69 accounted for 15.4%. By the end of 2020, the lives lost totaled 70,799 but the distribution by age group was almost identical: 85.9% were aged 70 or older; 1.1% were under 50 years of age; and 13.0% were aged 50-69. I downloaded every one of Italy's ISS extended reports from March 12, 2020, through May 3 2023, and have them archived for posterity. As of 2019, the distribution of Italy's population was 17% were aged 70 or older, 55% were under 50 years of age, and 23% were aged 50-69.
1
@chrissiestevens1001 t is in his sure and steady research…following the science Except the science showed early on that the large majority of the public was at little risk from COVID -- the data out of Italy in April 2020 made this abundantly clear. But this data was ignored to push the narrative that the population as a whole was at about equal risk. Heck, even before that Italian data, the cruise ship data painted a clear picture of the actual risks. But this too was ignored by most public "health" people. The ones who were pointing to the cruise ship and early Italian data saying it indicated the threat from COVID was being exaggerated were shouted down and vilified.
1