- Re: Dr John Campbell: Viral Vaccine paper Archived Message
Posted by Ian M
on July 19, 2023, 7:14 pm, in reply to "Re: Dr John Campbell: Viral Vaccine paper"
|
I think this is basically correct: 'The inference that there is a connection between the vaccines and excess deaths may be wrong. But it is not a hypothesis they wish to test. The consequences are far too serious for them. They would rather enforce general ignorance, or perpetrate a deception on the public, than risk undermining their own authority – and the crucial levers they control both to sustain their privileges and to further concentrate their wealth. There are some uncomfortable lessons here for us all. The truth is Western governments – all of them – dare not test the evidentiary basis for their insistence on lockdowns and experimental vaccines as the only way out of the pandemic. They dare not do so in the full glare of public scrutiny for fear that the truth will not serve them, and more likely will damage them. So they cultivate public ignorance. The truth is that the medical regulatory authorities were long ago captured by Big Pharma, and the revolving door it offers, leading to prestigious jobs and lucrative salaries in the industry. So they favour public ignorance too. The truth is that the media will not hold the feet of governments or the medical establishment to the fire because, whatever the media claim, they are not in the business of enforcing real, systemic accountability. The billionaire-owned media corporations are embedded in the same model of corporate profit as Big Pharma. Indeed, the media’s own corporate profits depend on the advertising and sponsorship of drugs companies – fellow corporations – like Pfizer. So they benefit from public ignorance as well.' Elites have been dishonest and manipulative throughout the pandemic. Shocker, I know. The confusing part (for me anyway) has been how the various camps have been dishonest and manipulative in different ways, whether over the coercive vaccine mandates and the insistence on lockdowns, or on the other side the laissez faire denial approach that was only interested in protecting the 'freedoms' of big business. As a nonspecialist like myself Cook doesn't have any criticisms of Campbell's methods or question his claims. I wonder how many of these would stand up to scrutiny, for example: ***** the mishandling and lack of oversight of Pfizer’s research into its vaccine; the astounding admission that Pfizer never actually tested whether its vaccine stopped transmission; continuing efforts to obscure evidence demonstrating that natural infection confers superior immunity to the vaccine; the troubling discovery that mRNA can remain in the blood for at least a month after vaccination, with no understanding of what it might be doing in that time to our immune systems; high variation in adverse reactions caused by different batches of mRNA vaccine, with some off the scale; the involvement of US researchers and Pfizer in engineering Frankenstein’s monster-type coronaviruses of the very kind that, it increasingly seems, led to the Covid pandemic in the first place; new research demonstrating the lack of evidence for reduction in virus transmission from masking; the failure of policymakers to weigh the serious financial, social and possibly medical costs of lockdowns; and a causal connection, confirmed by the WHO, between vaccination and the development of autoimmune disease like multiple sclerosis. ***** ... It's a problem with having an expert class in the first place IMO - past a certain point it goes beyond the ability of ordinary people to understand so there has to be a degree of trust. When that trust has been broken then anybody can step into that void with a plausible, comforting or bias-confirming claim and be believed. Campbell doesn't appear to be trustworthy to me any more, but I would be lying if I said I entirely understood the reasons why, and at this point in my life I don't have the time or inclination to become an expert in the peer review process so in a real sense I don't think I really can understand why such-and-such claim is to be believed or not. Which is frustrating! Anyway, unless I've missed some lengthy in-depth discussion in the msm, it's true that the excess death phenomenon has been swept under the carpet, probably for the reasons Cook suggests. That leaves the field open to those who are willing to talk about it, indulging all their pet biases along the way. Is there a problem with that from a scientific point of view? Hypotheses get proposed and rejected in time based on the strength of the supporting evidence, and the chaff gets sifted away. The problem is social and political, over which hypotheses get the most attention in the meantime and how that affects policy and the overall atmosphere in society. All Narrative, no Truth. How very postmodern... cheers, I |