Covid: Dr John Campbell: the horrible danger of mrna vaccination

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Asmodeus3

I have been reading what you and others post here and either the people/doctors are anti-vaxx to begin with and most of the time they aren't even researchers in the fields of immunology, virology or microbiology. Where are the peer-reviewed papers from those that are expert in these fields?

I invite you to do the same, read some pro-vaccine literature and especially the risk/reward stats with evidence to back up the stats.

Posting of unique tragic death events without a certificate of death which would prove cause of death just isn't proof of anything.

The anti-vaxx is used by those who have nothing to do with science. It's a political term. I have already commented above and toy don't seem to get it at all.

The literature emanating by the Pfizer or other pharmaceuticals cannot be trusted as they gave been convicted for fraud several times. You need independent sources and there are many such that don't propagate the narrative and the propaganda.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Asmodeus3

I have been reading what you and others post here and either the people/doctors are anti-vaxx to begin with and most of the time they aren't even researchers in the fields of immunology, virology or microbiology. Where are the peer-reviewed papers from those that are expert in these fields?

I invite you to do the same, read some pro-vaccine literature and especially the risk/reward stats with evidence to back up the stats.

Posting of unique tragic death events without a certificate of death which would prove cause of death just isn't proof of anything.

The anti-vaxx is used by those who have nothing to do with science. It's a political term. I have already commented above and toy don't seem to get it at all.

The literature emanating by the Pfizer or other pharmaceuticals cannot be trusted as they gave been convicted for fraud several times. You need independent sources and there are many such that don't propagate the narrative and the propaganda.

Please post the sources where Pfizer has been convicted for fraud.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Asmodeus3

I have been reading what you and others post here and either the people/doctors are anti-vaxx to begin with and most of the time they aren't even researchers in the fields of immunology, virology or microbiology. Where are the peer-reviewed papers from those that are expert in these fields?

I invite you to do the same, read some pro-vaccine literature and especially the risk/reward stats with evidence to back up the stats.

Posting of unique tragic death events without a certificate of death which would prove cause of death just isn't proof of anything.

The anti-vaxx is used by those who have nothing to do with science. It's a political term. I have already commented above and toy don't seem to get it at all.

The literature emanating by the Pfizer or other pharmaceuticals cannot be trusted as they gave been convicted for fraud several times. You need independent sources and there are many such that don't propagate the narrative and the propaganda.

Please post the sources where Pfizer has been convicted for fraud.

I an not going to but will refer you to one of my threads: Pfizer: Six scandals to remember.

In addition you should start reading as you have made claims about herd immunity that are not correct. Same about natural immunity and still they are not correct. And a range of conversations which show complete lack of understanding of the basic principles in biology. Instead of asking to be spoonfed why don't you find for yourself??
Are you surprised they are involved in scandals?!

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Asmodeus3

I have been reading what you and others post here and either the people/doctors are anti-vaxx to begin with and most of the time they aren't even researchers in the fields of immunology, virology or microbiology. Where are the peer-reviewed papers from those that are expert in these fields?

I invite you to do the same, read some pro-vaccine literature and especially the risk/reward stats with evidence to back up the stats.

Posting of unique tragic death events without a certificate of death which would prove cause of death just isn't proof of anything.

The anti-vaxx is used by those who have nothing to do with science. It's a political term. I have already commented above and toy don't seem to get it at all.

The literature emanating by the Pfizer or other pharmaceuticals cannot be trusted as they gave been convicted for fraud several times. You need independent sources and there are many such that don't propagate the narrative and the propaganda.

Please post the sources where Pfizer has been convicted for fraud.

I an not going to but will refer you to one of my threads: Pfizer: Six scandals to remember.

I'm addition you should start reading as you have made claims about herd immunity that are not correct. Same about natural immunity and still they are not correct. And a range of conversations which show complete lack of understanding of the basic principles in biology. Instead of asking to be spoonfed why don't you find for yourself??

I expected that would be your response. You lack credibility.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Asmodeus3

I have been reading what you and others post here and either the people/doctors are anti-vaxx to begin with and most of the time they aren't even researchers in the fields of immunology, virology or microbiology. Where are the peer-reviewed papers from those that are expert in these fields?

I invite you to do the same, read some pro-vaccine literature and especially the risk/reward stats with evidence to back up the stats.

Posting of unique tragic death events without a certificate of death which would prove cause of death just isn't proof of anything.

The anti-vaxx is used by those who have nothing to do with science. It's a political term. I have already commented above and toy don't seem to get it at all.

The literature emanating by the Pfizer or other pharmaceuticals cannot be trusted as they gave been convicted for fraud several times. You need independent sources and there are many such that don't propagate the narrative and the propaganda.

Please post the sources where Pfizer has been convicted for fraud.

I an not going to but will refer you to one of my threads: Pfizer: Six scandals to remember.

I'm addition you should start reading as you have made claims about herd immunity that are not correct. Same about natural immunity and still they are not correct. And a range of conversations which show complete lack of understanding of the basic principles in biology. Instead of asking to be spoonfed why don't you find for yourself??

I expected that would be your response. You lack credibility.

My response is read my thread: Pfizer: Six scandals to remember

That's a very good thread with plenty of credible and useful information.

Speaking of credibility. How credible is one who insists that herd immunity can be achieved through vaccination? When the evidence is clear that it won't happen.

Or when claims are made that natural immunity lasts for six months... I mean you really need to try hard to come up with such claims.

You are going from one refuted claim to another and accusing other of having no credibility?! That's extraordinary.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Asmodeus3

I have been reading what you and others post here and either the people/doctors are anti-vaxx to begin with and most of the time they aren't even researchers in the fields of immunology, virology or microbiology. Where are the peer-reviewed papers from those that are expert in these fields?

I invite you to do the same, read some pro-vaccine literature and especially the risk/reward stats with evidence to back up the stats.

Posting of unique tragic death events without a certificate of death which would prove cause of death just isn't proof of anything.

The anti-vaxx is used by those who have nothing to do with science. It's a political term. I have already commented above and toy don't seem to get it at all.

The literature emanating by the Pfizer or other pharmaceuticals cannot be trusted as they gave been convicted for fraud several times. You need independent sources and there are many such that don't propagate the narrative and the propaganda.

Please post the sources where Pfizer has been convicted for fraud.

I an not going to but will refer you to one of my threads: Pfizer: Six scandals to remember.

I'm addition you should start reading as you have made claims about herd immunity that are not correct. Same about natural immunity and still they are not correct. And a range of conversations which show complete lack of understanding of the basic principles in biology. Instead of asking to be spoonfed why don't you find for yourself??

I expected that would be your response. You lack credibility.

My response is read my thread: Pfizer: Six scandals to remember

That's a very good thread with plenty of credible and useful information.

Speaking of credibility. How credible is one who insists that herd immunity can be achieved through vaccination? When the evidence is clear that it won't happen.

Or when claims are made that natural immunity lasts for six months... I mean you really need to try hard to come up with such claims.

How credible are CT opinions vs. expert results from studies? Anti-vax is as anti-vax does. No credibility.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Asmodeus3

I have been reading what you and others post here and either the people/doctors are anti-vaxx to begin with and most of the time they aren't even researchers in the fields of immunology, virology or microbiology. Where are the peer-reviewed papers from those that are expert in these fields?

I invite you to do the same, read some pro-vaccine literature and especially the risk/reward stats with evidence to back up the stats.

Posting of unique tragic death events without a certificate of death which would prove cause of death just isn't proof of anything.

The anti-vaxx is used by those who have nothing to do with science. It's a political term. I have already commented above and toy don't seem to get it at all.

The literature emanating by the Pfizer or other pharmaceuticals cannot be trusted as they gave been convicted for fraud several times. You need independent sources and there are many such that don't propagate the narrative and the propaganda.

Please post the sources where Pfizer has been convicted for fraud.

I an not going to but will refer you to one of my threads: Pfizer: Six scandals to remember.

I'm addition you should start reading as you have made claims about herd immunity that are not correct. Same about natural immunity and still they are not correct. And a range of conversations which show complete lack of understanding of the basic principles in biology. Instead of asking to be spoonfed why don't you find for yourself??

I expected that would be your response. You lack credibility.

My response is read my thread: Pfizer: Six scandals to remember

That's a very good thread with plenty of credible and useful information.

Speaking of credibility. How credible is one who insists that herd immunity can be achieved through vaccination? When the evidence is clear that it won't happen.

Or when claims are made that natural immunity lasts for six months... I mean you really need to try hard to come up with such claims.

How credible are CT opinions vs. expert results from studies? Anti-vax is as anti-vax does. No credibility.

I know you are trying to change the conversation to who is credible and who isn't but it is your claims and arguments that are not credible and have been repeatedly refuted. Herd immunity, natural immunity, benefit to risk ratio.

You are trying hard but there is no easy way I am afraid. Are you surprised that the pharmaceuticals are involved in scandals?! I don't think so.

Read my thread then: Pfizer: Six scandals to remember.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Asmodeus3

I have been reading what you and others post here and either the people/doctors are anti-vaxx to begin with and most of the time they aren't even researchers in the fields of immunology, virology or microbiology. Where are the peer-reviewed papers from those that are expert in these fields?

I invite you to do the same, read some pro-vaccine literature and especially the risk/reward stats with evidence to back up the stats.

Posting of unique tragic death events without a certificate of death which would prove cause of death just isn't proof of anything.

The anti-vaxx is used by those who have nothing to do with science. It's a political term. I have already commented above and toy don't seem to get it at all.

The literature emanating by the Pfizer or other pharmaceuticals cannot be trusted as they gave been convicted for fraud several times. You need independent sources and there are many such that don't propagate the narrative and the propaganda.

Please post the sources where Pfizer has been convicted for fraud.

I an not going to but will refer you to one of my threads: Pfizer: Six scandals to remember.

I'm addition you should start reading as you have made claims about herd immunity that are not correct. Same about natural immunity and still they are not correct. And a range of conversations which show complete lack of understanding of the basic principles in biology. Instead of asking to be spoonfed why don't you find for yourself??

I expected that would be your response. You lack credibility.

Appeal to authority fallacy.

Also the authority that you claim has credibility is Pfizer.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Asmodeus3

I have been reading what you and others post here and either the people/doctors are anti-vaxx to begin with and most of the time they aren't even researchers in the fields of immunology, virology or microbiology. Where are the peer-reviewed papers from those that are expert in these fields?

I invite you to do the same, read some pro-vaccine literature and especially the risk/reward stats with evidence to back up the stats.

Posting of unique tragic death events without a certificate of death which would prove cause of death just isn't proof of anything.

The anti-vaxx is used by those who have nothing to do with science. It's a political term. I have already commented above and toy don't seem to get it at all.

The literature emanating by the Pfizer or other pharmaceuticals cannot be trusted as they gave been convicted for fraud several times. You need independent sources and there are many such that don't propagate the narrative and the propaganda.

Please post the sources where Pfizer has been convicted for fraud.

I an not going to but will refer you to one of my threads: Pfizer: Six scandals to remember.

I'm addition you should start reading as you have made claims about herd immunity that are not correct. Same about natural immunity and still they are not correct. And a range of conversations which show complete lack of understanding of the basic principles in biology. Instead of asking to be spoonfed why don't you find for yourself??

I expected that would be your response. You lack credibility.

My response is read my thread: Pfizer: Six scandals to remember

That's a very good thread with plenty of credible and useful information.

Speaking of credibility. How credible is one who insists that herd immunity can be achieved through vaccination? When the evidence is clear that it won't happen.

Or when claims are made that natural immunity lasts for six months... I mean you really need to try hard to come up with such claims.

How credible are CT opinions vs. expert results from studies? Anti-vax is as anti-vax does. No credibility.

"Anti-vax" is a made up thing that has no credibility. It was made up with one purpose in mind which is to defame.

Can you understand this? Do you also understand that most everyone here knows this is all it is?

"Anti-vax" is the direct response of THE politically affiliated and motivated crowd who have zero credentials themselves, (except for the journalist moniker some hide behind), to address any and all criticism of an inferior and faulty medical product being exposed by actual credentialed people just like Doctor John Campbell has done. A doctor with more credentials than most people have even thought of, or knew existed.

Hope this helped.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Asmodeus3

I have been reading what you and others post here and either the people/doctors are anti-vaxx to begin with and most of the time they aren't even researchers in the fields of immunology, virology or microbiology. Where are the peer-reviewed papers from those that are expert in these fields?

I invite you to do the same, read some pro-vaccine literature and especially the risk/reward stats with evidence to back up the stats.

Posting of unique tragic death events without a certificate of death which would prove cause of death just isn't proof of anything.

The anti-vaxx is used by those who have nothing to do with science. It's a political term. I have already commented above and toy don't seem to get it at all.

The literature emanating by the Pfizer or other pharmaceuticals cannot be trusted as they gave been convicted for fraud several times. You need independent sources and there are many such that don't propagate the narrative and the propaganda.

Please post the sources where Pfizer has been convicted for fraud.

I an not going to but will refer you to one of my threads: Pfizer: Six scandals to remember.

I'm addition you should start reading as you have made claims about herd immunity that are not correct. Same about natural immunity and still they are not correct. And a range of conversations which show complete lack of understanding of the basic principles in biology. Instead of asking to be spoonfed why don't you find for yourself??

I expected that would be your response. You lack credibility.

My response is read my thread: Pfizer: Six scandals to remember

That's a very good thread with plenty of credible and useful information.

Speaking of credibility. How credible is one who insists that herd immunity can be achieved through vaccination? When the evidence is clear that it won't happen.

Or when claims are made that natural immunity lasts for six months... I mean you really need to try hard to come up with such claims.

How credible are CT opinions vs. expert results from studies? Anti-vax is as anti-vax does. No credibility.

"Anti-vax" is a made up thing that has no credibility. It was made up with one purpose in mind which is to defame.

Can you understand this? Do you also understand that most everyone here knows this is all it is?

"Anti-vax" is the direct response of THE politically affiliated and motivated crowd who have zero credentials themselves, (except for the journalist moniker some hide behind), to address any and all criticism of an inferior and faulty medical product being exposed by actual credentialed people just like Doctor John Campbell has done. A doctor with more credentials than most people have even thought of, or knew existed.

Hope this helped.

Anti-vaxx is the most rediculous term. It's used as a pejorative like conspiracy theorist.

Someone doesn't take something that isn't even a vaccine and they are "anti vaxx".

And even if it was a vaccine that's like saying someone is anti car. Anti what car? Anti kia? IQ points are dropping quickly when people throw that term around.

a reply to: quintessentone

I see from the responses of others that everyone understands that anti-vax and pro-vax are political terms that have nothing to do with science.

However the term vaccine apologist just as religious apologist exists and they valid. Just as the terms denialism and denialist.

I will repeat that my thread

Pfizer: Six scandals to remember

shows why you shouldn't trust an institution that has been convicted several times and has paid billions of dollars in criminal fines.

In addition a bit of reading will help as there is a clear lack of understanding of the basic principles of biology and infectious diseases. From herd immunity to natural immunity to risk/benefit ratio from the vaccines.

All you are left are vaccine apologetics, denialism of reality, and accusations of others being 'anti-vaxxers'. These arguments based on the above have been repeatedly refuted.

"The Science"



"Meanwhile"

originally posted by: puzzled2
a reply to: quintessentone

So that's the non-expert anti-vaxx information being rebuffed by experts.
But what about the Expert anti-vaxx information, is that just swept under the rug or are they not Expert enough?

Who classifies Experts?

Some extremely well qualified experts in 2019 suddenly became fringe nobodies in 2020.

And the non experts being touted as super experts like bill gates, as glorified in song by that regarded kid begging for a vaccine!

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Asmodeus3

I have been reading what you and others post here and either the people/doctors are anti-vaxx to begin with and most of the time they aren't even researchers in the fields of immunology, virology or microbiology. Where are the peer-reviewed papers from those that are expert in these fields?

I invite you to do the same, read some pro-vaccine literature and especially the risk/reward stats with evidence to back up the stats.

Posting of unique tragic death events without a certificate of death which would prove cause of death just isn't proof of anything.

The anti-vaxx is used by those who have nothing to do with science. It's a political term. I have already commented above and toy don't seem to get it at all.

The literature emanating by the Pfizer or other pharmaceuticals cannot be trusted as they gave been convicted for fraud several times. You need independent sources and there are many such that don't propagate the narrative and the propaganda.

Please post the sources where Pfizer has been convicted for fraud.

Google it you crimp.

This is absurd. Dr Campbell did have to remove his video from yesterday. He doesn't say it in so many words, but Youtube has forced him to remove the video, I'm sure. Draw your own conclusions.

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: quintessentone

Rule #9 of the top 25 ways to disrupt discourse, and sustain disinformation.

Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

originally posted by: MaxxAction
a reply to: quintessentone

Rule #9 of the top 25 ways to disrupt discourse, and sustain disinformation.

Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

Obviously!
But his arguments have been refuted everywhere.
Vaccine apology and denialism don't have much effect in these threads.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0
But... it's working as intended.

So true. It is getting rid of useless eaters at a record pace, saving social security and medicare type programs world wide after a brief surge. In the long run TPTB have reached their goal with this clearly manufactured virus, genocide as many elderly and infirm as possible, accepting some collateral damage among the young, while looking compassionate and caring. Doing this to balance the books and to restore a balance to the global population of elderly to healthy workers to pay for the elderly left in society. Leaving more money for TPTB elite politicians to funnel to themselves, their relatives and friends (witness the Biden clan).

originally posted by: zandra
This is absurd. Dr Campbell did have to remove his video from yesterday. He doesn't say it in so many words, but Youtube has forced him to remove the video, I'm sure. Draw your own conclusions.
...
...

Nurse John Campbell (PhD) still has the video posted on his Rumble Channel.

The video is titled
"More vaccines causes more infections"


In summary


The risk of COVID-19 also varied by the number of COVID-19 vaccine doses previously received.

The higher the number of vaccines previously received,

the higher the risk of contracting COVID-19

Vaccine doses versus risk of covid during the 3-month study period

One dose, 1.7 times more likely to test positive for covid

Two doses, 2.63 times more likely to test positive for covid

Three doses, 3.1 times more likely to test positive for covid

More than three doses, 3.8 times more likely to test positive for covid

So compared to the unvaccinated

1, x 1.7

2, x 2.36

3, x 3.1

4, x 3.38

P = 0.001 means 999 out of 1,000 likely to be a genuine result

That 99.9% likely to be a genuine result




GP

a reply to: GrumpyPants

The cleveland study is also covered in