I remain a huge fan John - you've been brave in your reporting and were brave to have this conversation. I applaud you for your work and for embracing this moment of accountability. But it did feel like a bit of a cop-out to me.
In my opinion no medical professional should have supported mass distribution of a vaccine that hadn’t gone through the standard long-term testing. Especially with a pathogen with a low IFR.
IMO the novelty of the method, with years of failed attempts at coronavirus vaccines, and with years of failures in developing safe mRNA technologies, all miraculously ‘overcome’ in a very short timeline should have made healthcare workers very suspicious.
IMO it should have been a tremendous red flag when the EUA was based on a lack of alternative treatments and those other treatments were prematurely dismissed in anti-scientific ways.
IMO the trial data itself, with more all-cause mortality in the treatment group, the poorly chosen endpoints, the sloppy testing protocols and the very suspicious and asymmetrical exclusions, should have given all healthcare professionals pause.
IMO the rush to vaccinate children was not only a red flag given the terrible risk-benefit analysis, but was incredibly suspicious given the fact that getting the vaccines approved on the US childhood vaccine schedule gives the Pharma companies much broader protection against liability.
IMO many, many, people, including Jessica and Norman, weren’t merely making lucky guesses in the dark - they were providing real evidence early on based on real data, and deserve credit for seeing the truth much earlier than others.
And I say all this not with hindsight, but as a layperson who knew these things before you reported on them.
I could go on, but I do feel an opportunity was missed in this conversation, even given the limitations of YouTube. The world is watching - and that includes a lot of medical professionals who are wrestling with the dissonance of what they have done. Modelling a more complete picture of truth and reconciliation could have done us all a world of good.
"IMO the trial data itself, with more all-cause mortality in the treatment group, the poorly chosen endpoints, the sloppy testing protocols and the very suspicious and asymmetrical exclusions, should have given all healthcare professionals pause."
And the unblinding of the trial participants so that both placebo AND vaccinated groups were vaccinated, rendering any conclusions utterly worthless.
Margot, the rush to vaccinate children was diabolical.
It was known that children were at little or no risk with Covid, how on earth did the medical profession go along with this plan to press unnecessary medical interventions on children and others?!
I registered my alarm at the plan to vaccinate children in my BMJ rapid response published in August 2020, after I read in The Guardian they were planning to vaccinate children to purportedly protect the elderly…
In his rapid response, Dr Anand says "Are drugs, including vaccines and blood products, monitored conscientiously by the good doctors? I believe not."[1]
I also have my doubts in regards to doctors conscientiously monitoring the growing number of vaccine products being pressed upon the community.
There are many vaccine products on the burgeoning vaccination schedule for children, including annual flu vaccination, and now fast-tracked coronavirus vaccination is looming.
Do any doctors wonder about the extraordinary number of vaccinations and revaccinations given to children nowadays? We have no idea of the long-term cumulative effects of this ever-increasing vaccine load.
I was astonished recently to read in The Guardian that children in the UK are given the nasal spray flu vaccine to protect their grandparents, even though children do not often get severe flu.[2]
This was acknowledged by Professor Peter Openshaw, from Imperial College London, one of the members of the UK's Sage scientific advisory sub-group Nervtag, during a House of Lords science and technology committee meeting in June to discuss COVID-19 vaccine development.
And now there are plans afoot to vaccinate children against SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 to protect the elderly.
According to The Guardian article "A vaccine against Covid-19 may not work well in older people who are most at risk of becoming seriously ill and dying from the disease..." and this "may mean immunising others around them, such as children".
It's been reported that most paediatric cases with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection are mild and severe COVID-19 disease in children is rare. (See comment published in The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health[3])
How can it be ethical to vaccinate mass populations of children against SARS-CoV-2 to protect the elderly if most SARS-CoV-2 infections in children are mild, and severe COVID-19 disease in children is rare?
How can it be ethical to vaccinate mass populations of children against flu if children do not often get severe flu?
Vaccinations are medical interventions which have risks. It seems to me unethical to vaccinate someone against a disease which is not a significant threat to them to protect others, e.g. the elderly. This is a particularly serious matter to consider in countries which have coercive vaccination policies, e.g. Australia and the United States.
And now Reuters reports "AstraZeneca has been granted protection from future product liability claims related to its COVID-19 vaccine hopeful by most of the countries with which it has struck supply agreements..."
According to Reuters, Ruud Dobber, a member of Astra's senior executive team, said "This is a unique situation where we as a company simply cannot take the risk if in...four years the vaccine is showing side effects".[4]
So AstraZeneca has been granted protection from future product liability, and children around the world will be left with the risk of side effects in order to supposedly protect the elderly.
In my opinion this is not ethical.
What do doctors think about this, about vaccinating children with flu vaccines and future coronavirus vaccines to supposedly protect the elderly?
This is not to negate the risks of flu and SARS-CoV-2 for the elderly, but efforts should be concentrated on finding medications to help them directly, children’s right to their own natural defences should not be sacrificed in this regard.
Can Fiona Godlee and Rapid Recommendations editors please urgently consider this matter?
References:
1. on Fiona Godlee. We can change practice - can we also change culture? BMJ 2019;364:l108
2. Covid-19 vaccine may not work for at risk older people, say scientists. The Guardian, 24 June 2020.
Since these are not sterilizing vaccines,it is not at all clear how vaccinating kids would protect the elderly. Vaccinated prople still get and transmit the virus.
Mary, it's atrocious that children have been vaccinated against flu and Covid, purportedly to protect the elderly.
How has this been allowed to happen, children being given medical interventions that are unnecessary for them to purportedly protect other people, potentially compromising their own natural immune response.
The scientific and medical establishment is an ethical desert, which has apparently been colonised by the vaccine industry, with a view to exploiting the global population with an ever-increasing number of vaccine products, given over and over again, reaching the apex of insanity with Covid jabs being given every few months.
What lies ahead for children and young people? Already they're being set up to have flu vaccines every year, on top of the rest of the schedule, and it looks like Covid jabs are similarly on the cards.
We must call a halt on this and demand an investigation of the ever-increasing vaccine load.
Margot, further to the rush to vaccinate children...
FYI, please see below the email I sent to professors Peter Openshaw and Arne Akbar challenging children being vaccinated against flu and Covid to purportedly protect the elderly, sent in September 2022:
Peter Openshaw and Arne Akbar, in June 2020 it was reported a House of Lords committee considering the science of COVID-19 was told "children may have to be immunised to protect their grandparents", see this article by Sarah Boseley, then Health editor with The Guardian: Covid-19 vaccine may not work for at risk older people, say scientists. (Copy attached.)
Really?! Did this plan go before an ethics committee? I'd be very interested to read the outcome of careful ethical deliberation on this matter, which amounts to gross over-vaccination of children, against a disease which is of little or no threat to them.
Sarah Boseley's article notes Covid-19 'vaccines' "may not work well in older people who are most at risk of becoming seriously ill and dying from the disease".
So why was a vaccine solution ever proposed if it was unlikely to be successful in the vulnerable group?
The Lords committee meeting transcript records Arne Akbar saying: "I hate to keep bringing up flies in the ointment. To have a good vaccine is very important, but vaccines do not work very well in older people. This has been shown with many other vaccines in the past-" Arne Akbar says: "The vaccine alone will help the younger people, which will be good, because if the younger people are not infected they will not spread it to the older people. But it will not directly help the older group very much, and they are the people with the most severe disease right now." (Transcript attached.)
But would a vaccine "help the younger people"? It was already known that younger people were not at risk of Covid-19, is it ethical to interfere with their natural immune response? See for example my BMJ rapid response published in March 2020: Is it ethical to impede access to natural immunity? The case of SARS-CoV2, which cites this alarming statement from Heidi Larson, Director of The Vaccine Confidence Project: "We've shifted the human population...to dependency on vaccine-induced immunity...We're in a very fragile state now. We've developed a world that is dependent on vaccinations."
Peter Openshaw, in the Lords committee meeting you said: "Sometimes it is possible to protect a vulnerable group by targeting another group. This is being done with influenza, for example. Over the past few years, the UK has been at the forefront of rolling out the live attenuated vaccine for children, because children amplify the distribution of the virus in the community. It is possible to see that grandparents are being protected by the vaccination of children that are in school using this very benign, nasally delivered vaccine that causes good protection in the nose and respiratory tract. Even though children themselves do not always suffer from severe flu, that is a very simple non-injectable form of vaccine that causes wider protection in the community. So you can get indirect protection using that type of community-based approach to limit the spread." (My emphasis.)
It's astonishing that children are being regularly administered nasal sprays against flu to purportedly protect their grandparents!
And now children are being injected with Covid-19 'leaky vaccines', again purportedly for the benefit of the elderly.
How can this medical interference with entire populations of children, who themselves are not at serious risk with Covid-19 or flu, be ethically justifiable?
I raised this matter in my BMJ rapid response, published in August 2020, see: Is it ethical to vaccinate children to protect the elderly?
This is very important to consider now, as children are being injected with the Covid-19 'leaky vaccines', that don't prevent infection nor transmission - we have no idea of the long-term cumulative consequences of these medical interventions they did not need! This is a global experiment in progress, which contravenes ethical principles of the Helsinki Declaration.
Peter Openshaw, you've recently been copied on my email to Peter Doherty on this matter, see: Peter Doherty - why did you call for children to be jabbed with defective COVID-19 'leaky vaccines'? 29 August 2022.
Again, Peter Openshaw and Arne Akbar, were these plans to inject the young to purportedly protect the old ever put before an ethics committee? Are the deliberations on this important ethical matter openly accessible?
Children are now being hooked onto Covid-19 'leaky vaccines' that do not prevent infection nor transmission, against a disease it was known from the beginning wasn't a serious threat to most people.
Is it ethical to deny children, young people and others their opportunity for a natural immune response, to plan to make them dependent on 'vaccine-induced immunity' - to in effect capture them for the vaccine industry?
The Covid jabs are now being pressed upon the community every few months - who gave their voluntary informed consent for repeated jabs at the beginning of the Covid jab rollout? And what is this going to mean for children - is the plan to jab them every few months, to keep them 'up to date', against a disease that was of little or no threat to them?
This is an insane situation that should never have happened because it was known from the beginning these injections weren't going to work for the elderly, and weren't needed for the young and other interim generations. As for the suggestion "sometimes it is possible to protect a vulnerable group by targeting another group" - this has to be tracked back now, what was the ethical approval process that allowed this disaster to happen?
Peter Openshaw and Arne Akbar, I request your early response on this matter of international importance.
Elizabeth Hart
Independent researcher investigating the over-use of vaccine products and conflicts of interest in vaccination policy
For instance see this one published on 25 February 2021, in which you extol the effectiveness/efficacy of the vaccines: Vaccines, excellent real world data: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-ApgJMVkM0
Looking at the video now, do you think you were qualified to discuss novel vaccine products that had barely seen the light of day at that stage?
For instance, what about this statement of yours in the video:
- "Vaccine effectively prevents both symptomatic and asymptomatic infection in working age adults."
Asymptomatic infection? Working age adults?
Working age adults weren’t at serious risk of Covid, why were they in vaccine trials?
Why didn’t you question this, i.e. people not at serious risk of Covid being included in Covid vaccine trials?
My biggest problem with the warp speed rollout was just that, the warp speed rollout. A few googles about showed that those who had researched coronavirus vaccines for SARS & MERS fifteen to twenty years previously had had great problems & their work often made their subject animals even more unwell & often worse than unwell, dead. These researchers warned that future work on coronavirus vaccines should be moved into humans only with the utmost caution.
Another google showed that vaccines usually spend at least five, often ten & sometimes even fifteen or twenty years in R&D, making the warp speed efforts marketed at least twenty times & as much as one hundred times faster than usual.
Not only that, but these new vaccines are entirely novel, nothing like them has ever been used in humans before now, & they have been produced using an equally entirely novel technique.
So despite previous researchers warning against rushing coronavirus research in humans, despite the risks of novel vaccine's produced using novel techniques, these new drugs were presented to the world in record time &, as we're all now seeing only too clearly, this was an immense mistake.
Given how easy it was for me to show that there were risks to the rollout that were not being advertised & in fact were being actively obfuscated & censored in favour of big pharma vaccine propaganda, I could not understand how ANY genuine medical professional could be promoting them.
I for one am extremely grateful for Doc Campbells fall from the narrative & I personally believe that those still promoting it are far more worthy of our interest. But I am interested in how easily he was foxed when I, a DJ, was not. It only took me a few minutes on google to throw massive shade over the rollout.
And I was never convinced the virus was dangerous in the first place anyway!
AlternativeNarrative, you say “My biggest problem with the warp speed rollout was just that, the warp speed rollout.”
Exactly… Why was there a warp speed ‘vaccine solution’ against a disease it was known from the beginning wasn’t a serious threat to most people.
You know, ‘a virus’ that kills old people with comorbidities, with little or no impact on the young. You couldn’t make it up…
And dodgy PCR tests being used to drum up ‘cases’, and throwing everything they could at the death numbers, and even doing that they were only able to cobble together 1.6 million deaths attributed to Covid in the 11 months to December 2020, just before the vaccine rollout started, led I believe by the UK.
No way does 1.6 million deaths in a world population around 7.9 billion at the time, with 59 million deaths expected in a year, justify a global mass population vaccine response. (See my BMJ rapid response: Liberal democracies being turned upside down to ‘protect health services’, 18 December 2020: https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4847/rr-16)
What is astonishing is that people in the medical and scientific establishment weren’t equipped to challenge the vaccine solution, they went along with it without a critical thought.
Yet someone outside the establishment, such as myself, took the stance of the child with the Emperor’s new clothes, and called out the bleedin’ obvious, see my BMJ rapid response published in March 2020: Is it ethical to impede access to natural immunity? The case of SARS-CoV2: https://www.bmj.com/content/368/bmj.m1089/rr-6
Dear Editor
If children, young adults and others can mount their own effective immune response to SARS-CoV2, is it ethical to impede their ability to access natural immunity by interfering with the natural progression of the virus?
According to the WHO, "Illness due to COVID-19 infection is generally mild, especially for children and young adults."[1]
Is the focus on future fast-tracked vaccine products blocking full consideration of the opportunity for natural herd immunity? Who is Neil Ferguson to say "The only exit strategy [in the] long term for this is really vaccination or other forms of innovative technology that allows us to control transmission".[2]
In regards to young people's and others' right to natural immunity, it's also vital to consider the startling admission by Heidi Larson, Director of The Vaccine Confidence Project, during the recent WHO Global Vaccine Safety Summit, i.e. "...We've shifted the human population...to dependency on vaccine-induced immunity...We're in a very fragile state now. We have developed a world that is dependent on vaccinations".[3]
This is a very alarming statement by Professor Larson, particularly with the prospect of other epidemics emerging in the future. We have to learn to deal with epidemics and illnesses as they emerge, it's not feasible to vaccinate the global population against every threat.
In a recent article raising concern about making decisions about this pandemic without reliable data, John Ioannidis notes that "School closures may also diminish the chances of developing herd immunity in an age group that is spared serious disease".[4] The UK's chief scientific adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, raised the prospect of developing natural herd immunity[5], but this idea was subsequently howled down by Matt Hancock, the UK secretary of state for health and social care[6], and others such as Willem van Schaik, a professor of microbiology and infection, as reported by the Science Media Centre.[7]
Again, is it ethical to deny children, young people and others their opportunity for natural immunity, and to plan to make them dependent on vaccine-induce immunity, to in effect make them dependent on the vaccine industry?
This is even more serious to consider in light of emerging vaccine product failures, e.g. pertussis and mumps.
The international community must be assured that independent and objective thinkers are carefully considering the way ahead on this matter.
References:
1. WHO Q&A on coronaviruses (COVID-19) - Should I worry about COVID-19. 9 March 2020.
2. Elisabeth Mahase. Covid-19: UK starts social distancing after new model points to 260 000 potential deaths. BMJ2020;368:m1089
3. Heidi Larson. Vaccine safety in the next decade. Why we need new modes of trust building? WHO Global Vaccine Safety Summit, 2-3 December 2019.
4. John P.A. Ioannidis. A fiasco in the making? As the coronavirus pandemic takes hold, we are making decisions without reliable data. STAT, 17 March 2020.
5. Coronavirus: 60% of UK population need to become infected so country can build 'herd immunity', government's chief scientist says. Independent, 13 March 2020.
6. The UK backs away from "herd immunity" coronavirus proposal amid blowback. Vox, 15 March 2020.
7. Expert comments about herd immunity. Science Media Centre, 13 March 2020.
Competing interests: No competing interests
25 March 2020
Elizabeth M Hart
Independent citizen investigating the over-use of vaccine products and conflicts of interest in vaccination policy
One of my triggers was the defamation of natural immunity. We had Covid (probably) in December 2020. After that, one would assume to have acquired natural immunity. I looked it up. Even back then Nature mentioned that natural immunity (the phrase itself says it all) protects at least as good as the 'vaccines'. Still, we were coerced by our governments to take the jabs...
I called them and asked them to provide an explanation how a jab would help someone who went through an infection. They did not get any further than stating "that is was just better to take it". By then I had learned enough.
The weird thing is that John admits as much in this interview.
14m32s: "The whole point of the adaptive immune system is that it adapts to new potential antigens in the environment. I knew from basic theory that the immune system could recognise up to 8 or 9 billion different environmental antigens. I thought well why should this virus be any different? Surely this natural immunity is going to be there, we're not dependent on the vaccine, we're not dependent on the intervention."
And that was correct. Obviously the natural immunity was there. So why is statement not aligned with what he was saying in videos? All very strange.
Here's something else that's strange, an article by Robert Clancy (who has often been interviewed by John Campbell), published in Quadrant in January 2021.
If you've got time to have a read, I'd be very interested to hear what you think about this article, what strikes you about it...
See: COVID-19: A realistic approach to community management:
"Why was there a warp speed ‘vaccine solution’ against a disease it was known from the beginning wasn’t a serious threat to most people."
Search me. Your guess is as good as mine. If it was not for the kaching then I am afraid it's probably worse. Population control.
"What is astonishing is that people in the medical and scientific establishment weren’t equipped to challenge the vaccine solution, they went along with it without a critical thought."
No argument with this or anything else you wrote. The power of propaganda! If that's not a sufficient explanation perhaps there are less savoury ones. The kaching again...
'But I am interested in how easily he was foxed when I, a DJ, was not. It only took me a few minutes on google to throw massive shade over the rollout.'
Yes, I puzzle about this too! I too was not foxed by the narrative. The Diamond Princess told us so much about this virus and the Government too when it downgraded it from a high consequences infectious disease in March 2020.
'In the UK, a high consequence infectious disease (HCID) is defined according to the following criteria:
– acute infectious disease
– typically has a high case-fatality rate
– may not have effective prophylaxis or treatment
– often difficult to recognise and detect rapidly
– ability to spread in the community and within healthcare settings
– requires an enhanced individual, population and system response to ensure it is managed effectively, efficiently and safely.'
As regards the Covid injections... Peter Doshi of the BMJ expressed concerns about the trials in December 2020 and followed up with a detailed critique in February 2021 ( the spurious 95% efficacy claim for example)
If I, as a retired jobbing accountant, with no medical expertise can see that the Covid narrative had major issues from day one, then why could a professor with medical expertise not do the same? But there again I was never one to accept the current orthodoxy without question.
My own fall from the narrative began decades ago, in the 80's. Perhaps this is the crux here. It's folk who were already doubters who struggled less to note the propaganda, & those who have never been doubters who have struggled to break free of the propaganda matrix.
Those of us already primed for authoritarian & media deceit were best placed to bust the paradigm, perhaps...
For those of us, for example, who finger the US authorities & Mossad for the acts of 9/11, perhaps the idea that the masses can be offed for the narrators is less shocking, surprising & less hard to dismiss. Folks who are happy enough to fly airliners into buildings full of innocents & then deceive the public about it for twenty years+ probably don't have the kind of moral base the rest of us occupy.
So those of us already aware of the narrators capabilities & of their moral disfunction were perhaps more able to spot that those pushing the scary virus narrative & the resultant dodgy vaccines had an ulterior motive, even if we at the time didn't know what it was...
... And actually, still don't... Was this plandemic about profit at any cost, population reduction & control, or both?
When covid hit in March 20 we were locked down in spain, lost, confused and scared with no Spanish. UK and Irish news didn't help only adding misery as fuel to the fire. Found you on netflix and you became our beacon with calm informed updates. Thank you for this.
I find it difficult to look at John Campbell’s face, never mind listen to him. He did so much damage in going along with the government’s narrative when any fool could see it was all propaganda and lies. I have no medical qualifications but I knew without a doubt that the ‘vaccines’ should have been avoided at all costs. How many people took the vaccine because they were reassured by ‘Dr’ Campbell? And now he’s paraded around with the great and the good as if he did no harm. Maybe if he apologised I would feel differently but he hasn’t, so I don’t. 😡
Well for a start he bloody well has apologised, more than once actually and very emotionally, so back off.
Secondly, he didn't tell anyone to do anything, he's always been very careful to say that he never gives advice, only information and remember he jabbed himself 3 times too and regrets that.
Thirdly, anyone who took anything he said as a thumbs up, was already being fooled by the govt narrative and to transfer that disappointment to responsibility in John's part is weak and dishonest. All he ever said was 'individualised care' and 'risk benefit analysis'. He told us about commorbidities and risk factors, he told us about vitamins D and K and eating healthily. What about any of that suggests he was towing any govt line.
Could he have queried earlier the lack of ability for informed consent, sure but he's conceded that many times before as well.
He's not perfect and he's not your Mum so sit down.
I’m glad to hear that he has apologised could you by any chance send me a link to just one.
I obviously didn’t listen to many of John’s videos - far too frustrating - but in the few that I saw he definitely backed the experimental gene therapy, as you said, he took it himself and a lot of people will have felt reassured by that. Of course he was just a misguided fool, but he set himself up as an educator, an authority figure when people were fearful and beaten down by the government.
I don’t recall how i actually “found” your YouTube channel but want you to know I agree wholeheartedly with mags Dowling re being a “beacon”.
I watched....gratefully... as you began... and now continue...to question, research, analyze and share with us the blatant “discrepancies” we were /are being fed.
You are brave, Professor Campbell and have my utmost respect...so much so that you are one of my personal...and recommended to others....trusted “go to” sources.
Thank you for your willingness to think independently and the guts to publicly share what your evolution.
I have an additional question. It was sort of touched by Norman (I think), but not really discussed.
I struggle with this myself, and I am targeting it at both John and Norman. Its obvious that we see the madness of it all. Personally I have been critical from day one and did not take a single shot. I have some absurd personal experiences. One is in May 2020. My wife and me had actually planned a trip to the US in 2020, but due to the Covid craziness this was cancelled. Instead I thought of taking a camper trip to Sweden/Norway (escape!). I envisioned playing Queens 'I want to break free' very loud in the car when crossing the German border. Unfortunately on the day we picked up the camper van (or RV as they would say in the US), the agent told us that due to Covid the car insurance was not valid abroad. Puzzled ? yes, Upset? also. We live in the Netherlands and did not particularly like the idea of cruising tiny Netherlands for 4 weeks. So we settled for a 1 week trip, further shrinking our ambitions. One of our destinations was in the South of Holland, the province of Limburg. We had the pleasure of seeing the ROADBLOCKS with Belgium.... I did take some pictures of that warzone. There is one point where the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany share their boarders, the 3 country point. The dreaded virus apparently was unable to access Germany, but was capable of attacking Belgium. Never was de insanity of the measures more clear then at that point in time.
Oh, yes ,and our business came to a grinding hold as well.
I am drifting off. My question is: what can possibly be the background of the utter madness that was initiated? Does big pharma really have that much power? Has it been going on for longer? Were our politicians not capable of drawing their own conclusions? Were they genuinely scared? Is it WHO pressure? I am just trying to understand how on earth we ended up in this situation. I am honestly confused and baffled, and would appreciate your view on this.
As far as I am concerned it is not over. We are still being lied to. Its Animal Farm come true.
My view on the world including MSM (would never have guessed I would use that phrase 3 years ago) has entirely changed.
He followed the evidence presented. Second sight and Damascene moments are peculiar to the individual as medical intervention should be.
Love 'Understandable Jessica' always... And her contribution to the 3rd International Covid Summit in Brussel Sprouts which is currently on YouTube... Which everyone needs to watch.
John, re. question 12. You kind of ducked out of it by claiming it was 'above your pay grade' to question those other narratives. Personally, I feel that it is our duty to be intensely sceptical of these narratives put out by governments and 'experts'. It shouldn't be above anyone's pay grade to question them, especially when policies formed in order to supposedly address these issues have so much impact on all our lives - Covid lockdowns and vaccines and Net Zero being the two prime examples. I made this point on Norman's blog here:
Watched. Yes, intense but good. The 3 of you are some of my favorites. Well done. I have been in this covid clown world game since day one. Have clocked over 10,000 hour of scientific and medical covid research to date as well as maintained and graduated with a naturally immune 4.00 gpa RN degree. I do appreciate your work Dr Cambell and have been an astute observer of your awakening ; ) Happy you have brought so many along with you for Team Humanity. Congatulations on maintaining your You Tube channel and following as well. Excellent articulation, excellent. Just brillant! Love it : )
These weren't tough questions and your answers were frequently unconvincing. I take particular exception to the way you so casually dismissed those censored scientists and medical professionals who were shouting loudly about the insanity of what was going on, as not being evidence-led and somehow 'getting lucky' with their assessments that turned out to be correct. Really quite disgusting and disrespectful to do that.
An obvious question which I've never seen you asked:
As an experienced medical professional, why didn't it ever occur to you that carrying out the largest human medical experiment on billions of people was a spectacularly reckless and dangerous thing to do?
The "above my pay grade" answer near the end of the interview was rather strange. I thought that you were now all about following the evidence and not simply accepting what is fed us?
Exactly Martin! “…carrying out the largest human medical experiment on billions of people was a spectacularly reckless and dangerous thing to do”!
It’s mind-boggling isn’t it, that John Campbell and other ‘voices of authority’ couldn’t see this…
Meanwhile, here’s the email I sent to UK Government advisers Patrick Vallance and Chris Whitty on 6 April 2021:
Sir Patrick Vallance and Professor Whitty
The reaction to the SARS-CoV-2 virus is the most reckless and grossly irresponsible 'public health' response in history.
There must be independent and objective retrospective critical analysis of what has taken place over the past year, particularly considering Neil Ferguson et al's Imperial College Report 9, which has impacted upon lockdowns all around the world, and the influence of SAGE.
From the beginning it was recognised the virus wasn't a serious threat to most people. So who decided on a global vaccination response?
This is important to consider now because the entire global population is being set up to be vaccinated with fast-tracked experimental Covid-19 vaccine products, with three doses already in the pipeline this year, and with at least annual revaccination planned in future, i.e. Covid revaccination for life. And this is for a virus which isn't a serious threat to most people.
Obviously the Covid-19 vaccine products do not provide sterilising immunity. The Covid-19 vaccine products apparently do not prevent infection or transmission.
With most people not at serious risk with the virus, it's diabolical to interfere with people's effective natural defences against the virus, with the aim of making them dependent upon Covid vaccine products, i.e. making them dependent upon the vaccine industry, and those who control it, for life.
It's staggering that already more than 30 million people have had a first dose of Covid-19 vaccine in the UK, and are facing a second dose, plus a third dose/booster in the autumn. Do these people realise they are guinea pigs in a massive vaccine trial? Did they give their informed consent to participate in this experiment? Do they know the vaccine manufacturers have been protected from liability?
And now children and young people are in the frame, they are being lined up for lifelong Covid vaccination, even though Covid-19 poses little risk to them. The plan is to start vaccinating babies, lining up people to be repeatedly revaccinated from cradle to grave. How on earth has this been allowed to happen? How could ethics committees approve protocols for vaccine trials including participants who are not at serious risk of the virus?
This is an unprecedented medical intervention on a global scale, why has it not been open to public consultation? Mass populations are being vaccinated with fast-tracked experimental vaccine products, when we have no idea of the long-term cumulative consequences, on top of the ever-increasing vaccine load already on vaccination schedules, including annual flu vaccines.
This has to be stopped. The Covid-19 vaccine products must not be pressed upon people who are not at serious risk of the virus. People must be allowed to freely make their own evaluation of risks and benefits.
SARS-CoV-2 is a virus which isn't a serious threat to most people - mass global vaccination with repeated Covid- 19 vaccination throughout life is not justifiable. Why was there not more effort put into finding effective treatments, and promoting promising preventatives such as vitamin D to counter deficiency?
The current push for coercive Covid-19 vaccination is wrong, and has been facilitated by the vaccine industry which has colonised public health policy, along with other very influential parties such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and the BMGF-founded Gavi Alliance. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Gavi, and vaccine producing countries such as the UK, US and Germany, are the major financial contributors to the World Health Organisation. The WHO appears to be operating as a front for the vaccine industry, i.e. wielding its influence for the benefit of vested interests.
Again, the reaction to SARS-CoV-2 is the most reckless and grossly irresponsible 'public health' response in history.
There must be an urgent review of the current Covid-19 vaccine rollout. People not at serious risk of the virus must be warned about the danger they face in being coerced to having Covid vaccination for life, in effect stealing their own effective natural response to the virus, and making them reliant upon the vaccine industry and those who control it.
I request your response on this matter. The grossly disproportionate and ill-targeted actions undertaken in the UK in response to SARS-CoV-2 are having repercussions around the world.
Sincerely
Elizabeth Hart
Independent person investigating the over-use of vaccine products and conflicts of interest in vaccination policy
To begin your re-evaluation of the safety and efficacy of conventional vaccines, I recommend beginning with the book "Turtles All the Way Down". It will be quite eye-opening.
Then, if you want to dig deeper, I've provided a considerable collection of resources for further review:
So many brilliant doctors and scientists were kicked to the curb over the past 3 years that, imho, we are left with government and industrial “yes men”. What a great and thoughtful hour of conversation.
i always have my doubts abt people who make big changes late in their careers when they have little to lose. hmm. got to wonder abt john boy and so we should wonder abt everyone who presents as some sort of influencer. my question is this: is he a phd or is he a physician. in this other interview he says he is a phd so how then does he have "patients"? i need clarification.
John, I followed you from February 2020. Not sure how I found you, however initially it was as a balance to the two sides of the debate, the official govt narrative Vs the 'conspiracy theorists'.
I had a long distrust of our Govts and globalism generally but adult enough to know there are some genuine loonies out there too. You never disappointed me on that front and your personal journey confirmed my gut feeling to put my faith in your work.
Anyone stupid enough to suggest you are a 'Controlled Opposition' doesn't understand how that works LoL
A controlled opposition BEGINS with someone trusted by the sceptics who then gradually move the narrative toward the establishment position. The other way round simply doesn't make sense, to the point that I'd suggest it's the establishment saying that in order to cast shade because there's nothing else they can do to you sort of murder or imprisonment. You have shown you cannot be bought so they are powerless against you, same as Rogan.
I agree. I also find parrots credible- in their squawking, they never lie. They only repeat what they hear. I must admit, I was very upset with John's early squawks.
7. Joking aside, there was plenty of evidence VERY early on. Probably at least 50 doctors worldwide going over the studies, VAERS, raw data, therapeutics like IVM/HCQ, etc.... And even if there were none, my common sense would have told me to abstain from this experiment. Why would I start experimenting on my body when I didn't even participate in drug trial experiments in college when I was dirt broke? Recode my DNA just so I can eat at a restaurant or travel? Wow. I suppose parrots can go mad if they are locked up all the time.
I remain a huge fan John - you've been brave in your reporting and were brave to have this conversation. I applaud you for your work and for embracing this moment of accountability. But it did feel like a bit of a cop-out to me.
In my opinion no medical professional should have supported mass distribution of a vaccine that hadn’t gone through the standard long-term testing. Especially with a pathogen with a low IFR.
IMO the novelty of the method, with years of failed attempts at coronavirus vaccines, and with years of failures in developing safe mRNA technologies, all miraculously ‘overcome’ in a very short timeline should have made healthcare workers very suspicious.
IMO it should have been a tremendous red flag when the EUA was based on a lack of alternative treatments and those other treatments were prematurely dismissed in anti-scientific ways.
IMO the trial data itself, with more all-cause mortality in the treatment group, the poorly chosen endpoints, the sloppy testing protocols and the very suspicious and asymmetrical exclusions, should have given all healthcare professionals pause.
IMO the rush to vaccinate children was not only a red flag given the terrible risk-benefit analysis, but was incredibly suspicious given the fact that getting the vaccines approved on the US childhood vaccine schedule gives the Pharma companies much broader protection against liability.
IMO many, many, people, including Jessica and Norman, weren’t merely making lucky guesses in the dark - they were providing real evidence early on based on real data, and deserve credit for seeing the truth much earlier than others.
And I say all this not with hindsight, but as a layperson who knew these things before you reported on them.
I could go on, but I do feel an opportunity was missed in this conversation, even given the limitations of YouTube. The world is watching - and that includes a lot of medical professionals who are wrestling with the dissonance of what they have done. Modelling a more complete picture of truth and reconciliation could have done us all a world of good.
"IMO the trial data itself, with more all-cause mortality in the treatment group, the poorly chosen endpoints, the sloppy testing protocols and the very suspicious and asymmetrical exclusions, should have given all healthcare professionals pause."
And the unblinding of the trial participants so that both placebo AND vaccinated groups were vaccinated, rendering any conclusions utterly worthless.
Great post.
Margot, the rush to vaccinate children was diabolical.
It was known that children were at little or no risk with Covid, how on earth did the medical profession go along with this plan to press unnecessary medical interventions on children and others?!
I registered my alarm at the plan to vaccinate children in my BMJ rapid response published in August 2020, after I read in The Guardian they were planning to vaccinate children to purportedly protect the elderly…
See: Is it ethical to vaccinate children to protect the elderly https://www.bmj.com/content/364/bmj.l108/rr-4
Dear Editor
In his rapid response, Dr Anand says "Are drugs, including vaccines and blood products, monitored conscientiously by the good doctors? I believe not."[1]
I also have my doubts in regards to doctors conscientiously monitoring the growing number of vaccine products being pressed upon the community.
There are many vaccine products on the burgeoning vaccination schedule for children, including annual flu vaccination, and now fast-tracked coronavirus vaccination is looming.
Do any doctors wonder about the extraordinary number of vaccinations and revaccinations given to children nowadays? We have no idea of the long-term cumulative effects of this ever-increasing vaccine load.
I was astonished recently to read in The Guardian that children in the UK are given the nasal spray flu vaccine to protect their grandparents, even though children do not often get severe flu.[2]
This was acknowledged by Professor Peter Openshaw, from Imperial College London, one of the members of the UK's Sage scientific advisory sub-group Nervtag, during a House of Lords science and technology committee meeting in June to discuss COVID-19 vaccine development.
And now there are plans afoot to vaccinate children against SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 to protect the elderly.
According to The Guardian article "A vaccine against Covid-19 may not work well in older people who are most at risk of becoming seriously ill and dying from the disease..." and this "may mean immunising others around them, such as children".
It's been reported that most paediatric cases with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection are mild and severe COVID-19 disease in children is rare. (See comment published in The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health[3])
How can it be ethical to vaccinate mass populations of children against SARS-CoV-2 to protect the elderly if most SARS-CoV-2 infections in children are mild, and severe COVID-19 disease in children is rare?
How can it be ethical to vaccinate mass populations of children against flu if children do not often get severe flu?
Vaccinations are medical interventions which have risks. It seems to me unethical to vaccinate someone against a disease which is not a significant threat to them to protect others, e.g. the elderly. This is a particularly serious matter to consider in countries which have coercive vaccination policies, e.g. Australia and the United States.
And now Reuters reports "AstraZeneca has been granted protection from future product liability claims related to its COVID-19 vaccine hopeful by most of the countries with which it has struck supply agreements..."
According to Reuters, Ruud Dobber, a member of Astra's senior executive team, said "This is a unique situation where we as a company simply cannot take the risk if in...four years the vaccine is showing side effects".[4]
So AstraZeneca has been granted protection from future product liability, and children around the world will be left with the risk of side effects in order to supposedly protect the elderly.
In my opinion this is not ethical.
What do doctors think about this, about vaccinating children with flu vaccines and future coronavirus vaccines to supposedly protect the elderly?
This is not to negate the risks of flu and SARS-CoV-2 for the elderly, but efforts should be concentrated on finding medications to help them directly, children’s right to their own natural defences should not be sacrificed in this regard.
Can Fiona Godlee and Rapid Recommendations editors please urgently consider this matter?
References:
1. on Fiona Godlee. We can change practice - can we also change culture? BMJ 2019;364:l108
2. Covid-19 vaccine may not work for at risk older people, say scientists. The Guardian, 24 June 2020.
3. The immune system of children: the key to understanding SARS-CoV-2 susceptibility? https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanchi/article/PIIS2352-4642(20)30135-8/fulltext )
4. AstraZeneca to be exempted from coronavirus vaccine liability claims in most countries. Reuters, 30 July 2020.
Competing interests: No competing interests
05 August 2020
Elizabeth M Hart
Independent citizen investigating the over-use of vaccine products and conflicts of interest in vaccination policy
Adelaide, Australia
Risks of vaccination are nonzero.
No civilization worthy of the name sacrifices its young to protect its elderly.*
Therefore it is unacceptable to vaccinate young children to protect the old and infirm.
====
*We shall draw a curtain of charity over the practice of old generals sending young soldiers into harm's way.
They want to sacrifice both.
Since these are not sterilizing vaccines,it is not at all clear how vaccinating kids would protect the elderly. Vaccinated prople still get and transmit the virus.
Mary, it's atrocious that children have been vaccinated against flu and Covid, purportedly to protect the elderly.
How has this been allowed to happen, children being given medical interventions that are unnecessary for them to purportedly protect other people, potentially compromising their own natural immune response.
The scientific and medical establishment is an ethical desert, which has apparently been colonised by the vaccine industry, with a view to exploiting the global population with an ever-increasing number of vaccine products, given over and over again, reaching the apex of insanity with Covid jabs being given every few months.
What lies ahead for children and young people? Already they're being set up to have flu vaccines every year, on top of the rest of the schedule, and it looks like Covid jabs are similarly on the cards.
We must call a halt on this and demand an investigation of the ever-increasing vaccine load.
Margot, further to the rush to vaccinate children...
FYI, please see below the email I sent to professors Peter Openshaw and Arne Akbar challenging children being vaccinated against flu and Covid to purportedly protect the elderly, sent in September 2022:
Peter Openshaw and Arne Akbar, in June 2020 it was reported a House of Lords committee considering the science of COVID-19 was told "children may have to be immunised to protect their grandparents", see this article by Sarah Boseley, then Health editor with The Guardian: Covid-19 vaccine may not work for at risk older people, say scientists. (Copy attached.)
Really?! Did this plan go before an ethics committee? I'd be very interested to read the outcome of careful ethical deliberation on this matter, which amounts to gross over-vaccination of children, against a disease which is of little or no threat to them.
Sarah Boseley's article notes Covid-19 'vaccines' "may not work well in older people who are most at risk of becoming seriously ill and dying from the disease".
So why was a vaccine solution ever proposed if it was unlikely to be successful in the vulnerable group?
The Lords committee meeting transcript records Arne Akbar saying: "I hate to keep bringing up flies in the ointment. To have a good vaccine is very important, but vaccines do not work very well in older people. This has been shown with many other vaccines in the past-" Arne Akbar says: "The vaccine alone will help the younger people, which will be good, because if the younger people are not infected they will not spread it to the older people. But it will not directly help the older group very much, and they are the people with the most severe disease right now." (Transcript attached.)
But would a vaccine "help the younger people"? It was already known that younger people were not at risk of Covid-19, is it ethical to interfere with their natural immune response? See for example my BMJ rapid response published in March 2020: Is it ethical to impede access to natural immunity? The case of SARS-CoV2, which cites this alarming statement from Heidi Larson, Director of The Vaccine Confidence Project: "We've shifted the human population...to dependency on vaccine-induced immunity...We're in a very fragile state now. We've developed a world that is dependent on vaccinations."
Peter Openshaw, in the Lords committee meeting you said: "Sometimes it is possible to protect a vulnerable group by targeting another group. This is being done with influenza, for example. Over the past few years, the UK has been at the forefront of rolling out the live attenuated vaccine for children, because children amplify the distribution of the virus in the community. It is possible to see that grandparents are being protected by the vaccination of children that are in school using this very benign, nasally delivered vaccine that causes good protection in the nose and respiratory tract. Even though children themselves do not always suffer from severe flu, that is a very simple non-injectable form of vaccine that causes wider protection in the community. So you can get indirect protection using that type of community-based approach to limit the spread." (My emphasis.)
It's astonishing that children are being regularly administered nasal sprays against flu to purportedly protect their grandparents!
And now children are being injected with Covid-19 'leaky vaccines', again purportedly for the benefit of the elderly.
How can this medical interference with entire populations of children, who themselves are not at serious risk with Covid-19 or flu, be ethically justifiable?
I raised this matter in my BMJ rapid response, published in August 2020, see: Is it ethical to vaccinate children to protect the elderly?
This is very important to consider now, as children are being injected with the Covid-19 'leaky vaccines', that don't prevent infection nor transmission - we have no idea of the long-term cumulative consequences of these medical interventions they did not need! This is a global experiment in progress, which contravenes ethical principles of the Helsinki Declaration.
Peter Openshaw, you've recently been copied on my email to Peter Doherty on this matter, see: Peter Doherty - why did you call for children to be jabbed with defective COVID-19 'leaky vaccines'? 29 August 2022.
Again, Peter Openshaw and Arne Akbar, were these plans to inject the young to purportedly protect the old ever put before an ethics committee? Are the deliberations on this important ethical matter openly accessible?
Children are now being hooked onto Covid-19 'leaky vaccines' that do not prevent infection nor transmission, against a disease it was known from the beginning wasn't a serious threat to most people.
Is it ethical to deny children, young people and others their opportunity for a natural immune response, to plan to make them dependent on 'vaccine-induced immunity' - to in effect capture them for the vaccine industry?
The Covid jabs are now being pressed upon the community every few months - who gave their voluntary informed consent for repeated jabs at the beginning of the Covid jab rollout? And what is this going to mean for children - is the plan to jab them every few months, to keep them 'up to date', against a disease that was of little or no threat to them?
This is an insane situation that should never have happened because it was known from the beginning these injections weren't going to work for the elderly, and weren't needed for the young and other interim generations. As for the suggestion "sometimes it is possible to protect a vulnerable group by targeting another group" - this has to be tracked back now, what was the ethical approval process that allowed this disaster to happen?
Peter Openshaw and Arne Akbar, I request your early response on this matter of international importance.
Elizabeth Hart
Independent researcher investigating the over-use of vaccine products and conflicts of interest in vaccination policy
vaccinationispolitical.net
Original email accessible via this link: https://vaccinationispolitical.files.wordpress.com/2022/09/peter-openshaw-and-arne-akbar-is-it-ethical-to-vaccinate-the-young-to-purportedly-protect-the-old.pdf
God bless you, from the US.
John, I've looked back at your videos...
For instance see this one published on 25 February 2021, in which you extol the effectiveness/efficacy of the vaccines: Vaccines, excellent real world data: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-ApgJMVkM0
Looking at the video now, do you think you were qualified to discuss novel vaccine products that had barely seen the light of day at that stage?
For instance, what about this statement of yours in the video:
- "Vaccine effectively prevents both symptomatic and asymptomatic infection in working age adults."
Asymptomatic infection? Working age adults?
Working age adults weren’t at serious risk of Covid, why were they in vaccine trials?
Why didn’t you question this, i.e. people not at serious risk of Covid being included in Covid vaccine trials?
My biggest problem with the warp speed rollout was just that, the warp speed rollout. A few googles about showed that those who had researched coronavirus vaccines for SARS & MERS fifteen to twenty years previously had had great problems & their work often made their subject animals even more unwell & often worse than unwell, dead. These researchers warned that future work on coronavirus vaccines should be moved into humans only with the utmost caution.
Another google showed that vaccines usually spend at least five, often ten & sometimes even fifteen or twenty years in R&D, making the warp speed efforts marketed at least twenty times & as much as one hundred times faster than usual.
Not only that, but these new vaccines are entirely novel, nothing like them has ever been used in humans before now, & they have been produced using an equally entirely novel technique.
So despite previous researchers warning against rushing coronavirus research in humans, despite the risks of novel vaccine's produced using novel techniques, these new drugs were presented to the world in record time &, as we're all now seeing only too clearly, this was an immense mistake.
Given how easy it was for me to show that there were risks to the rollout that were not being advertised & in fact were being actively obfuscated & censored in favour of big pharma vaccine propaganda, I could not understand how ANY genuine medical professional could be promoting them.
I for one am extremely grateful for Doc Campbells fall from the narrative & I personally believe that those still promoting it are far more worthy of our interest. But I am interested in how easily he was foxed when I, a DJ, was not. It only took me a few minutes on google to throw massive shade over the rollout.
And I was never convinced the virus was dangerous in the first place anyway!
AlternativeNarrative, you say “My biggest problem with the warp speed rollout was just that, the warp speed rollout.”
Exactly… Why was there a warp speed ‘vaccine solution’ against a disease it was known from the beginning wasn’t a serious threat to most people.
You know, ‘a virus’ that kills old people with comorbidities, with little or no impact on the young. You couldn’t make it up…
And dodgy PCR tests being used to drum up ‘cases’, and throwing everything they could at the death numbers, and even doing that they were only able to cobble together 1.6 million deaths attributed to Covid in the 11 months to December 2020, just before the vaccine rollout started, led I believe by the UK.
No way does 1.6 million deaths in a world population around 7.9 billion at the time, with 59 million deaths expected in a year, justify a global mass population vaccine response. (See my BMJ rapid response: Liberal democracies being turned upside down to ‘protect health services’, 18 December 2020: https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4847/rr-16)
What is astonishing is that people in the medical and scientific establishment weren’t equipped to challenge the vaccine solution, they went along with it without a critical thought.
Yet someone outside the establishment, such as myself, took the stance of the child with the Emperor’s new clothes, and called out the bleedin’ obvious, see my BMJ rapid response published in March 2020: Is it ethical to impede access to natural immunity? The case of SARS-CoV2: https://www.bmj.com/content/368/bmj.m1089/rr-6
Dear Editor
If children, young adults and others can mount their own effective immune response to SARS-CoV2, is it ethical to impede their ability to access natural immunity by interfering with the natural progression of the virus?
According to the WHO, "Illness due to COVID-19 infection is generally mild, especially for children and young adults."[1]
Is the focus on future fast-tracked vaccine products blocking full consideration of the opportunity for natural herd immunity? Who is Neil Ferguson to say "The only exit strategy [in the] long term for this is really vaccination or other forms of innovative technology that allows us to control transmission".[2]
In regards to young people's and others' right to natural immunity, it's also vital to consider the startling admission by Heidi Larson, Director of The Vaccine Confidence Project, during the recent WHO Global Vaccine Safety Summit, i.e. "...We've shifted the human population...to dependency on vaccine-induced immunity...We're in a very fragile state now. We have developed a world that is dependent on vaccinations".[3]
This is a very alarming statement by Professor Larson, particularly with the prospect of other epidemics emerging in the future. We have to learn to deal with epidemics and illnesses as they emerge, it's not feasible to vaccinate the global population against every threat.
In a recent article raising concern about making decisions about this pandemic without reliable data, John Ioannidis notes that "School closures may also diminish the chances of developing herd immunity in an age group that is spared serious disease".[4] The UK's chief scientific adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, raised the prospect of developing natural herd immunity[5], but this idea was subsequently howled down by Matt Hancock, the UK secretary of state for health and social care[6], and others such as Willem van Schaik, a professor of microbiology and infection, as reported by the Science Media Centre.[7]
Again, is it ethical to deny children, young people and others their opportunity for natural immunity, and to plan to make them dependent on vaccine-induce immunity, to in effect make them dependent on the vaccine industry?
This is even more serious to consider in light of emerging vaccine product failures, e.g. pertussis and mumps.
The international community must be assured that independent and objective thinkers are carefully considering the way ahead on this matter.
References:
1. WHO Q&A on coronaviruses (COVID-19) - Should I worry about COVID-19. 9 March 2020.
2. Elisabeth Mahase. Covid-19: UK starts social distancing after new model points to 260 000 potential deaths. BMJ2020;368:m1089
3. Heidi Larson. Vaccine safety in the next decade. Why we need new modes of trust building? WHO Global Vaccine Safety Summit, 2-3 December 2019.
4. John P.A. Ioannidis. A fiasco in the making? As the coronavirus pandemic takes hold, we are making decisions without reliable data. STAT, 17 March 2020.
5. Coronavirus: 60% of UK population need to become infected so country can build 'herd immunity', government's chief scientist says. Independent, 13 March 2020.
6. The UK backs away from "herd immunity" coronavirus proposal amid blowback. Vox, 15 March 2020.
7. Expert comments about herd immunity. Science Media Centre, 13 March 2020.
Competing interests: No competing interests
25 March 2020
Elizabeth M Hart
Independent citizen investigating the over-use of vaccine products and conflicts of interest in vaccination policy
Adelaide, Australia
One of my triggers was the defamation of natural immunity. We had Covid (probably) in December 2020. After that, one would assume to have acquired natural immunity. I looked it up. Even back then Nature mentioned that natural immunity (the phrase itself says it all) protects at least as good as the 'vaccines'. Still, we were coerced by our governments to take the jabs...
I called them and asked them to provide an explanation how a jab would help someone who went through an infection. They did not get any further than stating "that is was just better to take it". By then I had learned enough.
The weird thing is that John admits as much in this interview.
14m32s: "The whole point of the adaptive immune system is that it adapts to new potential antigens in the environment. I knew from basic theory that the immune system could recognise up to 8 or 9 billion different environmental antigens. I thought well why should this virus be any different? Surely this natural immunity is going to be there, we're not dependent on the vaccine, we're not dependent on the intervention."
And that was correct. Obviously the natural immunity was there. So why is statement not aligned with what he was saying in videos? All very strange.
It IS strange isn't it Martin...
Here's something else that's strange, an article by Robert Clancy (who has often been interviewed by John Campbell), published in Quadrant in January 2021.
If you've got time to have a read, I'd be very interested to hear what you think about this article, what strikes you about it...
See: COVID-19: A realistic approach to community management:
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2021/01/covid-19-a-realistic-approach-to-community-management/
He reinforces the pandemic and asymptomatic infection narratives and fails to call out the PCR fraud.
"Why was there a warp speed ‘vaccine solution’ against a disease it was known from the beginning wasn’t a serious threat to most people."
Search me. Your guess is as good as mine. If it was not for the kaching then I am afraid it's probably worse. Population control.
"What is astonishing is that people in the medical and scientific establishment weren’t equipped to challenge the vaccine solution, they went along with it without a critical thought."
No argument with this or anything else you wrote. The power of propaganda! If that's not a sufficient explanation perhaps there are less savoury ones. The kaching again...
'But I am interested in how easily he was foxed when I, a DJ, was not. It only took me a few minutes on google to throw massive shade over the rollout.'
Yes, I puzzle about this too! I too was not foxed by the narrative. The Diamond Princess told us so much about this virus and the Government too when it downgraded it from a high consequences infectious disease in March 2020.
'In the UK, a high consequence infectious disease (HCID) is defined according to the following criteria:
– acute infectious disease
– typically has a high case-fatality rate
– may not have effective prophylaxis or treatment
– often difficult to recognise and detect rapidly
– ability to spread in the community and within healthcare settings
– requires an enhanced individual, population and system response to ensure it is managed effectively, efficiently and safely.'
As regards the Covid injections... Peter Doshi of the BMJ expressed concerns about the trials in December 2020 and followed up with a detailed critique in February 2021 ( the spurious 95% efficacy claim for example)
https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/01/04/peter-doshi-pfizer-and-modernas-95-effective-vaccines-we-need-more-details-and-the-raw-data/
If I, as a retired jobbing accountant, with no medical expertise can see that the Covid narrative had major issues from day one, then why could a professor with medical expertise not do the same? But there again I was never one to accept the current orthodoxy without question.
But the Damascene conversion was indeed welcome and gratifying to witness.
My own fall from the narrative began decades ago, in the 80's. Perhaps this is the crux here. It's folk who were already doubters who struggled less to note the propaganda, & those who have never been doubters who have struggled to break free of the propaganda matrix.
Those of us already primed for authoritarian & media deceit were best placed to bust the paradigm, perhaps...
For those of us, for example, who finger the US authorities & Mossad for the acts of 9/11, perhaps the idea that the masses can be offed for the narrators is less shocking, surprising & less hard to dismiss. Folks who are happy enough to fly airliners into buildings full of innocents & then deceive the public about it for twenty years+ probably don't have the kind of moral base the rest of us occupy.
So those of us already aware of the narrators capabilities & of their moral disfunction were perhaps more able to spot that those pushing the scary virus narrative & the resultant dodgy vaccines had an ulterior motive, even if we at the time didn't know what it was...
... And actually, still don't... Was this plandemic about profit at any cost, population reduction & control, or both?
When covid hit in March 20 we were locked down in spain, lost, confused and scared with no Spanish. UK and Irish news didn't help only adding misery as fuel to the fire. Found you on netflix and you became our beacon with calm informed updates. Thank you for this.
I find it difficult to look at John Campbell’s face, never mind listen to him. He did so much damage in going along with the government’s narrative when any fool could see it was all propaganda and lies. I have no medical qualifications but I knew without a doubt that the ‘vaccines’ should have been avoided at all costs. How many people took the vaccine because they were reassured by ‘Dr’ Campbell? And now he’s paraded around with the great and the good as if he did no harm. Maybe if he apologised I would feel differently but he hasn’t, so I don’t. 😡
Well for a start he bloody well has apologised, more than once actually and very emotionally, so back off.
Secondly, he didn't tell anyone to do anything, he's always been very careful to say that he never gives advice, only information and remember he jabbed himself 3 times too and regrets that.
Thirdly, anyone who took anything he said as a thumbs up, was already being fooled by the govt narrative and to transfer that disappointment to responsibility in John's part is weak and dishonest. All he ever said was 'individualised care' and 'risk benefit analysis'. He told us about commorbidities and risk factors, he told us about vitamins D and K and eating healthily. What about any of that suggests he was towing any govt line.
Could he have queried earlier the lack of ability for informed consent, sure but he's conceded that many times before as well.
He's not perfect and he's not your Mum so sit down.
I’m glad to hear that he has apologised could you by any chance send me a link to just one.
I obviously didn’t listen to many of John’s videos - far too frustrating - but in the few that I saw he definitely backed the experimental gene therapy, as you said, he took it himself and a lot of people will have felt reassured by that. Of course he was just a misguided fool, but he set himself up as an educator, an authority figure when people were fearful and beaten down by the government.
I don’t recall how i actually “found” your YouTube channel but want you to know I agree wholeheartedly with mags Dowling re being a “beacon”.
I watched....gratefully... as you began... and now continue...to question, research, analyze and share with us the blatant “discrepancies” we were /are being fed.
You are brave, Professor Campbell and have my utmost respect...so much so that you are one of my personal...and recommended to others....trusted “go to” sources.
Thank you for your willingness to think independently and the guts to publicly share what your evolution.
I have an additional question. It was sort of touched by Norman (I think), but not really discussed.
I struggle with this myself, and I am targeting it at both John and Norman. Its obvious that we see the madness of it all. Personally I have been critical from day one and did not take a single shot. I have some absurd personal experiences. One is in May 2020. My wife and me had actually planned a trip to the US in 2020, but due to the Covid craziness this was cancelled. Instead I thought of taking a camper trip to Sweden/Norway (escape!). I envisioned playing Queens 'I want to break free' very loud in the car when crossing the German border. Unfortunately on the day we picked up the camper van (or RV as they would say in the US), the agent told us that due to Covid the car insurance was not valid abroad. Puzzled ? yes, Upset? also. We live in the Netherlands and did not particularly like the idea of cruising tiny Netherlands for 4 weeks. So we settled for a 1 week trip, further shrinking our ambitions. One of our destinations was in the South of Holland, the province of Limburg. We had the pleasure of seeing the ROADBLOCKS with Belgium.... I did take some pictures of that warzone. There is one point where the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany share their boarders, the 3 country point. The dreaded virus apparently was unable to access Germany, but was capable of attacking Belgium. Never was de insanity of the measures more clear then at that point in time.
Oh, yes ,and our business came to a grinding hold as well.
I am drifting off. My question is: what can possibly be the background of the utter madness that was initiated? Does big pharma really have that much power? Has it been going on for longer? Were our politicians not capable of drawing their own conclusions? Were they genuinely scared? Is it WHO pressure? I am just trying to understand how on earth we ended up in this situation. I am honestly confused and baffled, and would appreciate your view on this.
As far as I am concerned it is not over. We are still being lied to. Its Animal Farm come true.
My view on the world including MSM (would never have guessed I would use that phrase 3 years ago) has entirely changed.
He followed the evidence presented. Second sight and Damascene moments are peculiar to the individual as medical intervention should be.
Love 'Understandable Jessica' always... And her contribution to the 3rd International Covid Summit in Brussel Sprouts which is currently on YouTube... Which everyone needs to watch.
John, re. question 12. You kind of ducked out of it by claiming it was 'above your pay grade' to question those other narratives. Personally, I feel that it is our duty to be intensely sceptical of these narratives put out by governments and 'experts'. It shouldn't be above anyone's pay grade to question them, especially when policies formed in order to supposedly address these issues have so much impact on all our lives - Covid lockdowns and vaccines and Net Zero being the two prime examples. I made this point on Norman's blog here:
https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/we-interview-john-campbell/comment/16632865
Watched. Yes, intense but good. The 3 of you are some of my favorites. Well done. I have been in this covid clown world game since day one. Have clocked over 10,000 hour of scientific and medical covid research to date as well as maintained and graduated with a naturally immune 4.00 gpa RN degree. I do appreciate your work Dr Cambell and have been an astute observer of your awakening ; ) Happy you have brought so many along with you for Team Humanity. Congatulations on maintaining your You Tube channel and following as well. Excellent articulation, excellent. Just brillant! Love it : )
These weren't tough questions and your answers were frequently unconvincing. I take particular exception to the way you so casually dismissed those censored scientists and medical professionals who were shouting loudly about the insanity of what was going on, as not being evidence-led and somehow 'getting lucky' with their assessments that turned out to be correct. Really quite disgusting and disrespectful to do that.
An obvious question which I've never seen you asked:
As an experienced medical professional, why didn't it ever occur to you that carrying out the largest human medical experiment on billions of people was a spectacularly reckless and dangerous thing to do?
The "above my pay grade" answer near the end of the interview was rather strange. I thought that you were now all about following the evidence and not simply accepting what is fed us?
Exactly Martin! “…carrying out the largest human medical experiment on billions of people was a spectacularly reckless and dangerous thing to do”!
It’s mind-boggling isn’t it, that John Campbell and other ‘voices of authority’ couldn’t see this…
Meanwhile, here’s the email I sent to UK Government advisers Patrick Vallance and Chris Whitty on 6 April 2021:
Sir Patrick Vallance and Professor Whitty
The reaction to the SARS-CoV-2 virus is the most reckless and grossly irresponsible 'public health' response in history.
There must be independent and objective retrospective critical analysis of what has taken place over the past year, particularly considering Neil Ferguson et al's Imperial College Report 9, which has impacted upon lockdowns all around the world, and the influence of SAGE.
From the beginning it was recognised the virus wasn't a serious threat to most people. So who decided on a global vaccination response?
This is important to consider now because the entire global population is being set up to be vaccinated with fast-tracked experimental Covid-19 vaccine products, with three doses already in the pipeline this year, and with at least annual revaccination planned in future, i.e. Covid revaccination for life. And this is for a virus which isn't a serious threat to most people.
Obviously the Covid-19 vaccine products do not provide sterilising immunity. The Covid-19 vaccine products apparently do not prevent infection or transmission.
With most people not at serious risk with the virus, it's diabolical to interfere with people's effective natural defences against the virus, with the aim of making them dependent upon Covid vaccine products, i.e. making them dependent upon the vaccine industry, and those who control it, for life.
It's staggering that already more than 30 million people have had a first dose of Covid-19 vaccine in the UK, and are facing a second dose, plus a third dose/booster in the autumn. Do these people realise they are guinea pigs in a massive vaccine trial? Did they give their informed consent to participate in this experiment? Do they know the vaccine manufacturers have been protected from liability?
And now children and young people are in the frame, they are being lined up for lifelong Covid vaccination, even though Covid-19 poses little risk to them. The plan is to start vaccinating babies, lining up people to be repeatedly revaccinated from cradle to grave. How on earth has this been allowed to happen? How could ethics committees approve protocols for vaccine trials including participants who are not at serious risk of the virus?
This is an unprecedented medical intervention on a global scale, why has it not been open to public consultation? Mass populations are being vaccinated with fast-tracked experimental vaccine products, when we have no idea of the long-term cumulative consequences, on top of the ever-increasing vaccine load already on vaccination schedules, including annual flu vaccines.
This has to be stopped. The Covid-19 vaccine products must not be pressed upon people who are not at serious risk of the virus. People must be allowed to freely make their own evaluation of risks and benefits.
SARS-CoV-2 is a virus which isn't a serious threat to most people - mass global vaccination with repeated Covid- 19 vaccination throughout life is not justifiable. Why was there not more effort put into finding effective treatments, and promoting promising preventatives such as vitamin D to counter deficiency?
The current push for coercive Covid-19 vaccination is wrong, and has been facilitated by the vaccine industry which has colonised public health policy, along with other very influential parties such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and the BMGF-founded Gavi Alliance. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Gavi, and vaccine producing countries such as the UK, US and Germany, are the major financial contributors to the World Health Organisation. The WHO appears to be operating as a front for the vaccine industry, i.e. wielding its influence for the benefit of vested interests.
Again, the reaction to SARS-CoV-2 is the most reckless and grossly irresponsible 'public health' response in history.
There must be an urgent review of the current Covid-19 vaccine rollout. People not at serious risk of the virus must be warned about the danger they face in being coerced to having Covid vaccination for life, in effect stealing their own effective natural response to the virus, and making them reliant upon the vaccine industry and those who control it.
I request your response on this matter. The grossly disproportionate and ill-targeted actions undertaken in the UK in response to SARS-CoV-2 are having repercussions around the world.
Sincerely
Elizabeth Hart
Independent person investigating the over-use of vaccine products and conflicts of interest in vaccination policy
Original email accessible via this link: https://vaccinationispolitical.files.wordpress.com/2021/04/sars-cov-2-virus-the-most-reckless-and-grossly-irresponsible-response.pdf
To begin your re-evaluation of the safety and efficacy of conventional vaccines, I recommend beginning with the book "Turtles All the Way Down". It will be quite eye-opening.
Then, if you want to dig deeper, I've provided a considerable collection of resources for further review:
> Vaccine Legacy: https://workflowy.com/s/beyond-covid-19/SoQPdY75WJteLUYx#/538b4798ca4f
Of particular interest may be the resources on childhood vaccines and the childhood vaccine schedule:
> https://workflowy.com/s/beyond-covid-19/SoQPdY75WJteLUYx#/974844c48d7c
> https://workflowy.com/s/beyond-covid-19/SoQPdY75WJteLUYx#/c512c07caac8
> https://workflowy.com/s/beyond-covid-19/SoQPdY75WJteLUYx#/c6568ebed766
So many brilliant doctors and scientists were kicked to the curb over the past 3 years that, imho, we are left with government and industrial “yes men”. What a great and thoughtful hour of conversation.
i always have my doubts abt people who make big changes late in their careers when they have little to lose. hmm. got to wonder abt john boy and so we should wonder abt everyone who presents as some sort of influencer. my question is this: is he a phd or is he a physician. in this other interview he says he is a phd so how then does he have "patients"? i need clarification.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDaBwFFuIYE
thank you Norman, for asking those tough questions and persevering in such a forceful yet decent way.
He’s a PhD who worked for many years as a nurse.
John, I followed you from February 2020. Not sure how I found you, however initially it was as a balance to the two sides of the debate, the official govt narrative Vs the 'conspiracy theorists'.
I had a long distrust of our Govts and globalism generally but adult enough to know there are some genuine loonies out there too. You never disappointed me on that front and your personal journey confirmed my gut feeling to put my faith in your work.
Anyone stupid enough to suggest you are a 'Controlled Opposition' doesn't understand how that works LoL
A controlled opposition BEGINS with someone trusted by the sceptics who then gradually move the narrative toward the establishment position. The other way round simply doesn't make sense, to the point that I'd suggest it's the establishment saying that in order to cast shade because there's nothing else they can do to you sort of murder or imprisonment. You have shown you cannot be bought so they are powerless against you, same as Rogan.
Great job, take care, keep well and thank you 👍
Mr. Campbell's evolution, from true believer to well informed and rational skeptic, is precisely why I find him a credible figure.
I agree. I also find parrots credible- in their squawking, they never lie. They only repeat what they hear. I must admit, I was very upset with John's early squawks.
But you knew The Truth right away, and all without any evidence, experience or studies. Amazing!
What number am I thinking of?
7. Joking aside, there was plenty of evidence VERY early on. Probably at least 50 doctors worldwide going over the studies, VAERS, raw data, therapeutics like IVM/HCQ, etc.... And even if there were none, my common sense would have told me to abstain from this experiment. Why would I start experimenting on my body when I didn't even participate in drug trial experiments in college when I was dirt broke? Recode my DNA just so I can eat at a restaurant or travel? Wow. I suppose parrots can go mad if they are locked up all the time.