Dr John Campbell calls it ‘scandalous’ that we were assured that the Pfizer vaccine went through all the normal testing stages before it was put on the market but discuver now that this was not the case. A Pfizer executive has stated that the vaccine was not tested to see whether it halted or reduced transmission. It appears that Pfizer never claimed that transmission would be reduced but I recall that this was claimed by spokespersons for governments and was used to justify their insistance that everyone should be vaccinated – even children who had an extreamely low probability of being harmed by the Covid-19 virus.
Dr Campbell was an early enthusiastic advocate for vaccination but over the course of the past three years he has found it necessary to raise concerns about various aspects of narrative around Covid and the vaccines.
I find this interesting not only for what Campbell reports but for for the circumspection with which he feels he needs to report it because of the YouTube restrictions around contradicting the official narrative.
The following articles provide a framework for examining the scientific rationale behind advocating for vaccination particularly for advocating the vaccination of children and particularly for advocating coercive measures to promote their widespread use.
Government Guidance for Parents on Vaccination for Children aged 5 to 11:
“What is COVID-19 or coronavirus?COVID-19 is a very infectious respiratory disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus.Most children who get COVID-19 have no symptoms. Those that do, have mild symptoms like a bad cold. A few children and young people will get very poorly and have to go to hospital.”
From this information put out by the government itself I struggle to see any justification for offering covid vaccines to anyone under 18.
Evaluating Vaccination Risks to Children:
This article examines issues related to COVID-19 inoculations for children. The bulk of the official COVID-19-attributed deaths per capita occur in the elderly with high comorbidities, and the COVID-19 attributed deaths per capita are negligible in children. The bulk of the normalized post-inoculation deaths also occur in the elderly with high comorbidities, while the normalized post-inoculation deaths are small, but not negligible, in children. Clinical trials for these inoculations were very short-term (a few months), had samples not representative of the total population, and for adolescents/children, had poor predictive power because of their small size. Further, the clinical trials did not address changes in biomarkers that could serve as early warning indicators of elevated predisposition to serious diseases. Most importantly, the clinical trials did not address long-term effects that, if serious, would be borne by children/adolescents for potentially decades.
A novel best-case scenario cost-benefit analysis showed very conservatively that there are five times the number of deaths attributable to each inoculation vs those attributable to COVID-19 in the most vulnerable 65+ demographic. The risk of death from COVID-19 decreases drastically as age decreases, and the longer-term effects of the inoculations on lower age groups will increase their risk-benefit ratio, perhaps substantially.“
JCVI Assessment of Benefits and Risks of Vaccination:
“The benefits and risks from COVID-19 vaccination in children [5-11] and young people[12 -17] are finely balanced largely because the risks associated with SARS-CoV2 infection are very low. “
“At the current time, JCVI considers the balance of potential benefits and harms is in favour of offering vaccination to children aged 5 to 11 years who are in a clinical risk group. Children aged 5 to 11 year old who are not in a clinical risk group but are household contacts of a immunosuppressed individual (of any age) should also be offered COVID-19 vaccination on the understanding that the main indication for vaccination is to indirectly increase protection of the person who is immunosuppressed.”
How many parents who are having their children and teenagers vaccinated know that their risks of serious harm from covid are known to be negligible? Why is the UK government promoting vaccination including boosters to children over 12 when they admit that they are awaiting data for futher advice?
From an open letter to the MHRA regarding child death data:
“The JCVI previously declined to recommend that the Covid-19 vaccines be administered to healthy 12-15 year olds as the balance of benefit to risk was only marginal at best in the face of the very low risk to children of serious illness or death from Covid-19 disease, the considerable uncertainty of the potential harms of the Covid-19 vaccines, the known signals of harms from the vaccines already identified and the absence of complete and long term safety data in circumstances where the vaccines have been rapidly brought to market, long before the normal phase III clinical trials used to assess safety have been completed. On 3 September 2021 the JCVI said:
“Overall, the committee is of the opinion that the benefits from vaccination are marginally greater than the potential known harms (tables 1 to 4) but acknowledges that there is considerable uncertainty regarding the magnitude of the potential harms. The margin of benefit, based primarily on a health perspective, is considered too small to support advice on a universal programme of vaccination of otherwise healthy 12 to 15-year-old children at this time. As longer-term data on potential adverse reactions accrue, greater certainty may allow for a reconsideration of the benefits and harms. Such data may not be available for several months.”
The JCVI’s decision was overturned by the four chief medical officers of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, not because they found there was a health benefit to children in respect of the Covid-19 vaccines but because, based on modelling analyses, they concluded that the Covid-19 vaccines were likely to reduce school absences. Notwithstanding that theoretically preventing a few days of absence for mild, cold-like symptoms could never reasonably be regarded as justification for administering vaccines with unknown long-term effects, this was the justification given for the vaccination of school-age children. Since then, data must have been obtainable and should have been collected and reviewed to determine whether vaccinations have in fact reduced school absences, and the extent to which absences have occurred by reason of (a) administration of the vaccination program and (b) adverse reactions to the vaccines.”
“In light of the increase in deaths in young males and the known safety concerns, an investigation must be conducted. It is not suggested that the observed increase in mortality proves that the Covid-19 vaccines are causing death, whether via myocarditis or some other mechanism, but a connection cannot be excluded. The potential signal is strong enough that urgent investigations should commence immediately to rule out that possibility. Each recipient of this letter has a duty to investigate. It would be a grave dereliction of duty not to do so.”
On Immune Suppression Caused by Covid Vaccination:
“In this paper, we present the evidence that vaccination, unlike naturalinfection, induces a profound impairment in type I interferon signaling, which has diverse adverse consequences to humanhealth. We explain the mechanism by which immune cells release into the circulation large quantities of exosomes containingspike protein along with critical microRNAs that induce a signaling response in recipient cells at distant sites. We also identify potential profound disturbances in regulatory control of protein synthesis and cancer surveillance. These disturbances are shownto have a potentially direct causal link to neurodegenerative disease, myocarditis, immune thrombocytopenia, Bell’s palsy, liverdisease, impaired adaptive immunity, increased tumorigenesis, and DNA damage. We show evidence from adverse event reportsin the VAERS database supporting our hypothesis. We believe a comprehensive risk/benefit assessment of the mRNA vaccines excludes them as positive contributors to public health, even in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic.”
Why is Data From Vaccine Trials Unavailable to Independent Scientists/Researchers?
“Today, despite the global rollout of covid-19 vaccines and treatments, the anonymised participant level data underlying the trials for these new products remain inaccessible to doctors, researchers, and the public—and are likely to remain that way for years to come. This is morally indefensible for all trials, but especially for those involving major public health interventions.”
“The BMJ supports vaccination policies based on sound evidence. As the global vaccine rollout continues, it cannot be justifiable or in the best interests of patients and the public that we are left to just trust “in the system,” with the distant hope that the underlying data may become available for independent scrutiny at some point in the future. The same applies to treatments for covid-19. Transparency is the key to building trust and an important route to answering people’s legitimate questions about the efficacy and safety of vaccines and treatments and the clinical and public health policies established for their use.”
If data from scientific trials is not available to independent scientists and researchers then ‘the science’ cannot be known and it seems fraudulent for governments to claim that they are ‘following the science’.
Natural vs Vaccine Induced Immunity:
“Conclusions: This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity. Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant.”
“Many decision makers assumethat the vaccinated can be excluded as a source of transmission. Itappears to be grossly negligent to ignore the vaccinated populationas a possible and relevant source of transmission when deciding about public health control measures”
I would say that this is a minimal interpretation of the data that Kampf presents. It appears that the susceptibility of the vaccinated to covid infection is increasing and has increased over time to a point where it is not equivalent to that of the unvaccinated. The article says nothing about severity of illness but it seems that there is no justification, on grounds of infectiousness, for treating the unvaccinated differently from the vaccinated.
Yes. The government and Prime Minister that imposed cruel and unnecessary (and they must have believed the restrictions were unnecessary) restrictions on citizens, and then ignored these same restrictions, are reprehensible.But so is the ‘opposition’ and their leader who supported these restrictions and only complained that they were not strict enough.
And ‘Jenny’ is reprehensible also. The good little soldier just obeying orders for ‘the greater good’. There are ‘Jennies’ everywhere, female and male. I hope never to be at their mercy, for, clearly, they have none.
I’ve posted the image here (it clicks through to the tweet) because if the Labour Party had a sense of decency or an understanding of irony they would delete this tweet pdq but I suspect that they will not.And ‘Jenny’, there is no greater good than compassion.
I’m sure I have high blood pressure and high cholesterol. I was on bp meds and statins for a few years until about 12 or 13 years ago when I needed more tablets to control the water retention presumably cause by these medications. I stopped everything around then and the water retention went .. I still had high bp when last tested about three years ago but I will be 69 this year and am still here.
I practice tai chi and qigong irregularly and jog a mile or two from time to time ignoring the advice that it’s bad for people my age. The only pills I take are vitamins. I don’t get myself tested for anything if I can help it. I know that good health is a matter of luck as much as good judgement so my attitude is one of gratitude rather than arrogant self belief. I refuse to be scared because death is inevitable not because I am invulnerable and I understand both death and vulnerability as essential parts of my humanity.
I’ve never taken flu shots and have not sent my poo to be analysed as over 60s are advised to. I deeply resent being instructed how to manage my own body and refuse to take vaccines that I don’t trust, even under the threat of societal exclusion. I will live and die as a free human and as part of a natural world that I do not believe is out to kill me.
I’m not against vaccines or any other medical intervention. I know for sure that many people have been saved by and had their lives made livable by medical science but I see no reason for me to get onto what I see as a medical conveyer belt when every instinct screams at me that I shouldn’t. If other people’s insights and instinct and intellect (I love my alliteration) lead them to different choices that’s well and good – and I wish them well but don’t fucking try to force your choices on me.
That’s all I can say.Actually I can say more and probably will .. but not right now.
Although I would not take or advise taking the covid vaccines I have, I think, a nuanced view of their efficacy and utility. I have never denied that they do reduce the severity of symptoms and the likelihood of death from covid for the vaccinated by about three times (see chart). Nor has this been denied by scientists I have cited, notably, Doctors Peter McCullough, Robert Malone.
This Christmas several unvaccinated members of my family had a bad time with covid and two, with significant other health problems, were hospitalised. Other family members who have been vaccinated have not had the disease. One triple vaccinated member currently has the covid – after each injection he was ill for a couple of weeks now he says the covid is making him feel just as he did after have taken the vaccines.
Everyone has a different personal experience but from both experience and from following the debate it’s difficult to deny that the vaccines have been effective in ameliorating syptomatic disease and therefore reducing deaths. However it’s also difficult to deny that there have been adverse reactions in some people, that conversation about these has been suppressed and that the overall effects of the vaccines (based on a new technology) on the immune system has not been assessed.
Even doctors, like John Campbell, who have been very pro-vaccination, have questioned things like the administration of injections intended to be intra muscular without aspiration, the lack of treatment protocols/advice before presentation at hospital and the failure to promote vitamin D and other vitimins that might reduce succeptibility to harm from covid.
It is also becoming increasing clear that the relative benefits of the vaccines diminish and become harms as the recipients become younger – so that we know that children are more likely to be seriously harmed by the vaccines than by the virus.
There is clearly a continuum of harm .. The majority of people will suffer no or little (immediate) harm but some suffer significant harm and there may be cumulative and long term harms. We are told that significant harms are rare but really have no idea.
Beyond this however there are certain principles that should be held sacrosanct such as the inviolability of our bodies. That states are, to different degrees, effectively coercing their citizens to be vaccinated should concern us all because we can be sure that this will not end with the covid vaccinations. I think that the nations of the world are sliding towards totalitarianism and that this is reflected not just in covid measures but also, in the UK, measures such as those in the Nationality Bill and the Police Bill.
This is an important, contextualising, discussion. I don’t know how to best describe it but there is the suggestion that acceptance of dominant narrative is a consequence of a sense of anomie or emptiness of meaning and then of induced focus on a singular object or threat that unites and gives purpose. I’m not going to use the v or the c words but this is an important part of understanding what is happening in relation to these.
Mattias Desmet’s recommendations at the end of the discussion are spot on.
Continue to speak out
Connect in the real world with people who have the feeling that something is wrong
Don’t try to get people to go back to the the old normal but think about an alternative to the transhumanist technocratic new normal
Non violent resistance in our actions and how we speak.
A FB friend, Scott Mann wrote:
Following malones reference to mass psychosis, here is my psychological two pennies worth.. Everyone knows or fears that the vaccines could harm them. They know the vaccines are increasingly irrelevant in protecting from covid as their efficacy wanes and new strains appear. They are rightly angry that they have been forced to be vaccinated. But too many are directing this anger against the unvaccinated.This is an example of a sadly pervasive primitive and fundamental unconscious psychological defence mechanism called identification with the aggressor. Young children and other vulnerable people subjected to violent abuse, finding themselves physically and morally helpless against attacks by those upon whom they are completely dependent for love and care, surrender their will completely to the aggressor, and identify totally with the aggressor.They cannot acknowledge their complete helplessness. They cannot acknowledge that the person that is supposed to love them actually hates and abuses them. By identifying with this person they become magically safe and strong.It is simply insane to attack someone who has had covid and therefore has at least as much protection as any vaccinated person for not getting vaccinated. They are less likely to infect others and less likely to take up scarce hospital space than a vaccinated person. Thats not taking into account possible long term harm from the vaccine which could take up a lot of hospital space.When people behave in a completely irrational fashion, unconscious psychic defence mechanisms are typically involved.
Responding I wrote:
I’ll take your two pennies worth and add two of my own. Identification with the aggressor and mass formation psychosis are I think pathological expressions of tendencies more neutrally expressed as mass formation phenomena and identification with the powerful. Simply put most people find comfort and security in crowds and kings. Perhaps about ten percent feel out place talking with crowds and walking with Kings. Cognitive ‘normies’ and ‘queers’ both groups and tendencies are necessary in maintaining virtue and the sense of common humanity but right now it’s the queer consciousness that has to hold virtue and see us through.
The idea that the government is ‘guided by the science’ in it’s response to the pandemic is simply false. The notion that those supporting the use of masks, lockdowns, vaccines and vaccine passports are unquestionably supporting the public good is wrong and unhelpful.
“Despite being aware of alternative medical and scientific viewpoints you have failed to ensure an open and full discussion of the pros and cons of alternative ways of managing the pandemic.”
That there is real scientific debate over, and dissent from the ‘official narrative’ is highlighted by this open letter to Boris Johnson et al. by a group of doctors and scientists. Instead of encouraging discussion the government and media and, yes, community activists, have insisted on suppressing, denying and deriding any questioning of the narrative that we should be so afraid of the Covid virus that we show consider it a moral duty to sell our own feedoms and steal the freedoms of others.
All the data I’ve seen makes it clear that if you take a covid vaccine your chances of death or serious harm are very significantly reduced should you become infected with the virus. I accept this – but it is not the whole picture. These are the question that seem reasonable to ask:
1. What is the base probability (not compared with the vaccinated) of an unvaccinated person of my age and health profile becoming infected and seriously harmed by the virus?
This question matters because a reduction of risk from say 1% to 0.1% (for an older person) may feel substantial whereas a reduction of risk from 0.1% to 0.01% (for a younger person – figures only illustrative) feels less substantial.
We might add to this calculation the observation that a 70 year old has an optimistic 20 years of life to protect, while a 20 year old has an equally optimistic 70 years to look forward to.
If the vaccines were an unqualified good then of course no one would hesitate to take them whether they reduced risk from one in a hundred to one in a thousand or from one in a thousand to one in ten thousand. But they are not an unqualified good because these vaccines like any medical treatment carry with them some risk of harm. This leads to the second question:
2. What are the risks of these particular vaccines that should be weighed against their benefits? What efforts are being made to quantify such harms as are becoming evident?
3. What, particularly in the light of alleged toxcicities of vaccine induced spike proteins, can be said about the probabality of longer term harm from vaccines?I think that these questions are not only reasonable they are basic and they need to be address before people are advised, even compelled, to take the vaccine.
For some people there is no doubt whatsoever that everyone should take the covid vaccines. Even if they are personally harmed by ‘rare’ side effects they are still advocates. This is not bad. In a way I applaud this. If I am harmed by covid it will not stop me being sceptical … it will not stop me asking questions even as being harmed by an adverse effect has not stopped this Australian journalist giving answers.