New Japan study does not prove that vaccines cause cancer
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 тра 2024
- Patreon: / drwilsondebunks
I rarely read UA-cam comments these days, so if you want me to see your comment, here is how you can contact me directly and I will be glad to respond to you when I can:
Email: dr.wilson.debunk@gmail.com
Facebook (direct message): / docwilsondebunks
Cancer basics:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NB...
www.nature.com/scitable/topic...
www.who.int/news-room/fact-sh...
Cancer statistics:
seer.cancer.gov/statistics-ne...
ourworldindata.org/covid-cases
ourworldindata.org/grapher/ex...
ourworldindata.org/grapher/ex...
www.researchsquare.com/articl...
Missed cancer diagnoses:
health.ucdavis.edu/news/headl... - Наука та технологія
Especially when it is well known that MANY various viral infections increase the risk of death of cancer patients. Colds, flu, chicken pox, even herpes virus. It is why cancer patients are supposed to be extremely careful. This study is not even inherently stating that these individuals were more likely to end up with cancer, just more likely to die from cancer. Big difference there.
Chicken pox is a herpes virus, one of nine. The herpes virus responsible for glandular fever/infectious mononucleosis, Epstein Barr, is recognised by the WHO as being carcinogenic, Human Herpes 8 likewise.
@@skellycat9 how is that not logical? If you are already sick with Cancer, another infection or illness could be fatal.
Lung cancer is much more common in households with ashtrays, so get rid of the ashtrays !
Cancer is the leading cause of death in Japan, according to this same study, accounting for 25% of all deaths.
I never knew that. I can't verify it, but I believe we should stay away from respiratory physicians because they have so many people with lung cancer visiting their clinics. It may be the water fountain.
Funny enough, to those who say correlation is not causation in regards to the potential dangers of The CoVax Initiative, we know that smoking is carcinogenic precisely because of correlation studies. LOL!
@@robdoe8694
You may have missed the point because you have not included a statistical variable. In fact, your Campbellian innuendo is spurious.
The potential danger is readers becoming sucked in by uninformed throwaway lines by armchair epidemiologists.
No just those jabs dropping like flies.
One good thing about debunking other peoples videos is that you will never run out of content.
One thing about debunking John Campbell videos is that you will never run out of content.
Example: Dr. Susan Oliver on her "Back to the Science" channel has a playlist of 51 videos debunking what John Campbell got wrong over the past few years and she has covered less than 10% of the total.
@@williamverhoef4349
The depFunkering Bumkum pFraudylizer guy team that also said.
... *_∆ "If the entire world's population had excellent Vit D status before 2020 it would have made no difference to the claimed pananadenik." ∆_*
No evidence supplied of course as usual, perhaps they had secret access to the stats from an almost identical planet eh & forgot to mention it?
de-pFunkering's now associated with
*$£ EUROFINS £$* it seems.
And of course we are still waiting for the long term safety data for the pfHARMaSueticalz pFrawed medykal devices as configured & utilised.
😂😂👍
. ... ............. ..
xcvxicvcxcvcx
Watching John Campbell’s descent into madness has been fascinating. Week after week, from fine analysis, to his obsession with ivermectin, to full vaccines cause excess mortality. All the while his show becoming more popular and lucrative. It will be an amazing case study someday. If real, why? And perhaps more interesting why didn’t others, like my father, go down the same rabbit hole. If fake, what made him do it? Give up a lifetime of service for fame and money. Thank you for your continuing work debunking!
You wrote that with 5 boosters in your sleeve, didn’t ya. Gotta defend it until the very end and all the others are just ”insane” and ”conspiracy theorists”
@@ik1437 quotation marks? Interesting that angus didn't actually use any of those words
@@ik1437 You seem so close to self-awareness.
His latest on midazolam being responsible for excess deaths due to it being used to euthanise older people is a step too far, even for him.
@@silversun119When has a booster Bozo ever had any regard for the truth?
John Campbell has fallen so far. Makes me sad.
excellent presentation of what is clearly a crap paper
I need you people to correct the comment sections of the Dr John Campbell video called DNA. They are running rampant with no fact checking. Time to speak the truth.
Nurse Campbell misinterpreting data from studies published from a field he has no background in? Never saw that one coming.
Professor Dalgliesh knows. Try saying he doesn't know what he's talking about. People like you are part of the problem.
A somewhat patronising and demeaning view of the role of nurses in today's health service. Times have moved on from bed stripping and bed baths.
@@andyl147 I'm sure he's a great nurse, but he's not qualified to interpret biology literature, especially given his long history of failed attempts at doing so.
@@billyballsup2685 The mountain of research which disagree with Professor Dalgliesh was peer reviewed by experts in a field Professor Dalgliesh has no background in, and published in the highest class of journals... such as Plos Biology.
@@hanzohasashi4534 Why is it that a person cant research and make deductions themselves, perhaps having listened to leading lights in the field on both sides of the argument. I am not qualified in the history and politics of Russia and Ukraine but with research I can develop an understanding and form an opinion. I'm not a climate scientist but with my degree in astro-physics and having taught mathematics for thirty years I am well able to analyse the science behind the climate debate, but apparently I must cow tow to some so-called climate scientist who frequently show they do not have a grasp of the fundamental physics and maths at play. I sick to death of everyone saying they are not experts so like a robot they accept the considered consensus without question. Why not go and dig a bit yourself and figure things out. So what qualification does Campbell need to have to qualify to express opinions. I would agree with you if you say he has made some errors in his analysis, but that is not the point you made.
Reminds me of that meme concluding sharks like people who eat ice cream, because the graphs of ice cream sales are shark attacks mirror each other so well (the actual reason of course being that warm sunny days lead to more ice cream sales and more people going to the beach)
Excellent example of correlation not being causation 🦈🍦
There is a very clear correlation with the number of people waiting at a bus stop and time of bus arriving. That's why when I'm in a hurry, I always bring ten or more people with me to the bus stop. Ensures the bus arrives immediately, Eh!
Going by that you can literally turn that on its head against the video.
Just cause infections went up in line with cancer doesn't mean there's a link.
But the study addressed both as outlined in it's conclusion
@@JetfireQuasar The Gibo paper has more holes in it than Swiss cheese 🧀
ua-cam.com/video/rCVmCZMMSto/v-deo.htmlsi=vWOgrI9-53cK5avF
@@JetfireQuasar lol Dr Wilson sited that as an example of co relation , the cases went up as well when siting why did they not pick that up. He then debunks it at 3:45 . Watch the video again .
I don't know about Japan, but in most countries there is a correlation between age and vaccination status. Meaning elderly people were more likely to opt for vaccination as well as for booster shots.. So I'd say that correlation is to be expected, and very easy explained as well.
How do you explain young people getting Stage 4 cancers? Those stupid enough to get jabbed!!
@@ChristineLawtie My cousin had stage 4 cancer at 28 and passed 😢 He was fit and healthy and was a soccer coach in the uk
@@ChristineLawtie I knew quite a few young people who got stage 4 cancer years before covid and covid vaccines were around.
@@ChristineLawtie Where is your scientific evidence?
@@ChristineLawtie
"How do you explain young people getting Stage 4 cancers?"
Nobody gets stage 4 cancer. People get cancer which progresses. And some cancers progress to stage 4. This can and has happen in all age groups, long before the mRNA vaccinations arrived.
"Those stupid enough to get jabbed!!"
Those stupid enough NOT to get jabbed, are more likely to die of COVID-19 and therefore won't live long enough to get cancer.
Excellent explainer of how to do science: questions to ask, evidence needed, circumstances to be considered.
And: what is known from other studies.
Nice to see that you are active on this channel again, we missed you.
@@christopherrobinson7541 It was (still is) painful for me to watch Campbell's videos; so much fluff.
@@theopeterbroers819So many dangerous lies.
Edit:
Good to see you back 😊
@@theopeterbroers819 realnotrare
Look it up.
Painful to watch, indeed... right there.
One of the problems these days is that anyone can start up a scientific journal at almost no cost. All you need is a computer. And some of these journals will accept any scientific-looking paper in their purported field, for a fee of course.
Talented researchers then have to spend time and money debunking the garbage results these predatory journals pump out.
If it turned out that ChatGPT had a list of "most used words and phrases"... A person might notice a an anomaly in the strange spike in papers since GBT hit the commercial market..
An anti-vaxer bias seeks out channels like John Campbell's, and JC seeks out studies and guests that support his bias. You never see him with guests or studies that don't support what he has already decided is true.
Likewise for you vaccine evangelists, don't pretend as if y'all have some moral high ground.
Y'all are full of hubris and VERY rank.
I'm not convinced that he believes all the 💩 he spews
What he does know is true is that spewing 💩 to his scientifically illiterate followers brings in 💰
@@WaterfordGeneral You mean that annoying 90% of the population?
Audience capture.
@@WaterfordGeneral
Apparently there's a really high correlation between breathing and dying‽ 😱
Yes 100%!😂
Thanks for pointing that one out 😳
There’s also a high correlation between ice cream consumption and shark attacks in Australia. Therefore eating an ice cream increases your chances of being attacked by a shark, hence stop eating ice cream!
@@MRCAGR1 To say nothing of the drop bears!! *1,000 yard stare*
The blood, the blood!!!
@@LimeyRedneck
If you catch one, they make a fabulous eucalyptus flavoured marsoupial.
I remember watching john campbells videos in nursing school. Only thing he teaches now is how to grift
Lets pretend for a second that your life's on the line, and everything we've been told from day one turned out to be wrong... (1 shot is 100% safe and effective ) (2wks to flatten the curve) (Stays at the injection site) (No side-fx)(The wet market) ... Why would you keep trusting the same voices with such a poor track record for accuracy? The problem with H.C. people is, they've been programmed to absorb information and puke it back up... You must never think or question the High Priests of $cience.
But you watch and believe a grifter (Dr. Funk) now?
@@wilsonsall yes
@@thezeddy realnotrare
Look it up.
@@thezeddy While you're here...
By definition, a vaccine renders one immune/resistant to certain disease(s).
So what disease are you now immune from that those without the covid jabs remain susceptible to?
The study commits a logical fallacy known as a "base rate fallacy". It would be analogous to giving everybody in the country a free red shirt, and then pointing out that car accidents involving people wearing red shirts has gone up, thus proving the red shirts cause car accidents.
Post hoc fallacy too,
@@razerginn I was going to say that.
Well, we could replace red shirt with mRNA based Covid Vaccine and boy o' boy look at that, all negative health markers shoot right up with the vaccinated. That is to say, compared to the Purebloods. Take a look at that "base rate fallacy"! Or just line up for another booster. What number are you on now?
Not really, we have the data of cancer cases before the juice.
In the case of your red shirt, it wouldn't mean the shirt is causing it if the rate is the same.
@@youtubehatesfreespeech2555 We have increasing cancer cases from before any COVID vaccination, and this is really poorly taken into account in this paper. Add to that another factor that they only mention in passing: delayed healthcare/screening. then there's the fact that there are several cancer types that show a clear reduction (oh dear, this must mean the COVID vaccines REDUCE these cancers, no?), and the fact that their age-adjusted mortality actually REDUCES in 2022 compared to 2021 and 2020, but because of some questionable extrapolation from some prior years they calculate this means an excess anyway.
Retired Nurse John is not mistaken: he is a liar
Hes not a liar..hes probably an opportunistic psychopath or malignant narcissist..being paid well by his employer pfizer...look him up.
what has he lied about...r
@@wasdwasdedsfjust about anything he discusses. One example - He misrepresented a study, so the study author send him information. Did he take the video down? No he left it exactly as is.
Go and look at just about any video by Dr Susan Oliver, and she outlines DOZENS of lies and misrepresentations by Campbell. Also Dr Greg Tucker-Kellog, and Dr Yan Yu. (Dr O,Iver has also done a video about Campbell on the same study)
@@tonyclif1yes very true- however Dr Oliver thinks 6 month babies should be vaxed against COVID, and every heathly person for that!!!
The only lier on here is paid third party fact checker wilson.
Campbell's latest youtube offering is a paper by WIlson Sy (an investment manager) in the journal Medical & Clinical Research.
Campbell claims the journal is peer reviewed, and the journal does claim that on its web site. But papers are typically accepted 5 to 10 days after submission, so no, it's not peer reviewed.
Your comment appears to be truncated.
"the journal Medical & Clinical Research."
This is an excellent example of a predatory journal. For example, it claims "With an impressive impact factor of 2.93,", but it does not appear in Clarivate's list of journals, and hence its "impact factor" is from some unrecognized source. It also claims numerous places where it is "indexed", but that's a significant devaluation of the term "indexed".
But the most obvious example of how bad it is: on the Editorial Board is one Alireza Heidari, who is claimed to be Professor Academic Tenure of Chemistry California South University USA. CSU? Ah, yes, the fake university, that uses pictures of various people with fake names as their "notable academics" - one of those is the picture of Jeb Bush, another is the long-deceased James Van Allan. If you want to read some fun stuff, google "Down the Rabbit Hole With Alireza Heidari" or equally funny "The University of Alberta, Southern California".
Nurse John, phd educator, now educating nurses not to get vaccinated. how is the UK allowing these videos....???
@@robbomax1143 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 .....Nope
@@robbomax1143
Nope - as in: Nope, I can't be arsed with refuting that shit - I'm laughing too much
@@robbomax1143 no, John is lying and he knows he's lying. I am a biochemist and he cant even read a science paper correctly. He just doesn't have the level of education to be talking about it. He should have real top level scientists to interview and they could explain it to him
@@fifthoarsmanoftheacropolis4173 realnotrare
Look it up.
I do not now what present stats say but Japan has a notoriously high rate of smokers.
The rate in Japan is high ,but it is falling steadily over time. Many countries in Eastern Europe have higher rates than Japan.
Have you seen Dr Susan Oliver's video on the Japan paper?
@@christopherrobinson7541 it's declining in young people but still on the rise in older people and in the working women population.
There is also a growing social inequality in Japan which leads to things like drinking, smoking and drug use.
One assumes they may be thinking the immune system is being suppressed, after the third dose and this allows cryptic cancers progress to detection ‘suddenly’. This is possible if the cancers were in equilibrium with an immune response keeping the cancer ‘in check’ ie mutations already present just a change in tumour microenvironment, for example.
Having stated this possibility, there is absolutely no data in this paper that supports this. Nor is there in any other paper I have read so far!
Also the age group profile to incidence in this paper makes little to no sense. They even show a statistical significant increase cancers in one age group in 2020, which is before they state vaccination was underway! How on earth the authors ‘missed’ that, and why the reviewers also missed it, indicates poor/biased/sloppy/narrative pushing/not evidence-based, science and/or peer review
@@MrKrekkie Hi
I assume you mean the paper 10.1136/jitc-2020-000661 It is an interesting paper. However, in my analysis it does not prove an IgG4 increase in concentration, or an increase in IgG4/IgG1 ratio PROMOTES cancer. There is evidence in the paper that PERHAPS in SOME cases, IgG4 correlates with increased tumour size, but the paper does not convince me that IgG4 is cause of increase in tumour size, it could still be a consequence of the size increase.
Brief overview of the paper below -
The main findings are in Oesophageal cancer. I would agree that authors show that in stage IV Oesophageal cancer there is an increase in IgG4 concentration compared to 'normal healthy controls' and a possible increase in IgG4/IgG1 ratio. Suggesting IgG4 B-cell infiltration in cancer tissue is positively correlated to disease state, is not really supported by the data presented. The authors only present one set of slides. We are not told what cancer stage this tissue is from. Nor if the tissue was from a patient with high IgG4 and/or high IgG4/IgG1 ratio. This information is needed to make a more informed conclusion.
The authors found that IgG4 present in serum from some other cancers, breast cancer for example, was unable to 'bind' to cancer antigens in breast cancer tissue, whereas IgG1 from the patients, was able to bind antigens. They then determined that IgG4 appeared able to bind to the anti-cancer IgG1, in the cancer tissue. However, the form of detection used in this experiment indicates that IgG1was still able to bind to the cancer antigens. The authors suggested that, due to IgG4 binding to the Fc region of IgG1, IgG1 may be less available for anti-cancer effects, such activation of ADCC and/or complement. These observations do NOT prove IgG4 'blocks' IgG1 binding in cancer tissue, nor do they prove that binding of IgG4 to IgG1 has a detrimental effect on IgG1 'cancer killing'. These interactions are interesting though.
The authors then used in vitro experiments using monocytes (the U973 - a cancer cell line) to demonstrated that at 'high concentrations' IgG4 could 'block' IgG1 binding to an Fc receptor - CD64. ADCC can be directed to kill cancer cells via antibody Fc binding to CD64. CD64 interactions have been found to positively correlate with overall survival in some cancers. However, CD64 was the only Fc receptor blocked, others were 'still available'. And are 'high concentrations' of IgG4 needed to block CD64, in these in vitro experiments, relevant in actual cancers/tumours?
The rest of the paper goes on to demonstrate IgG4 may inhibit one type monoclonal antibody therapy, that inhibits a protein called PD1. PD1 is an immune-checkpoint protein that when activated can inhibit T-cell activity. They chose this antibody as it is an IgG4 isotype. These results are in stark contrast to the use of the therapy in cancer patients, where its use is highly associated with reductions in cancer. The authors argue, however, instances of hyperprogressive disease (HPD) - which do occur but are rare in PD1 therapy - may be due to the IgG4 subtype of the antibody. However, the protein the antibody targets, PD1 has roles in T-cell development as well as direct roles in cancer tissue. Hence, HPD could be a consequence of PD1 inhibition in T-cell generation and have nothing to do with IgG4 isotype, or any direct role of this isotype, in cancer tissue.
@@MrKrekkie Hi. I assume you mean the paper 10.1136/jitc-2020-000661 It is an interesting paper. However, in my analysis it does not prove an IgG4 increase in concentration, or an increase in IgG4/IgG1 ratio PROMOTES cancer. There is evidence in the paper that PERHAPS in SOME cases, IgG4 correlates with increased tumour size, but the paper does not convince me that IgG4 is cause of increase in tumour size, it could still be a consequence of the size increase.
Brief overview of the paper below -
The main findings are in Oesophageal cancer. I would agree that authors show that in stage IV Oesophageal cancer there is an increase in IgG4 concentration compared to 'normal healthy controls' and a possible increase in IgG4/IgG1 ratio. Suggesting IgG4 B-cell infiltration in cancer tissue is positively correlated to disease state, is not really supported by the data presented. The authors only present one set of slides. We are not told what cancer stage this tissue is from. Nor if the tissue was from a patient with high IgG4 and/or high IgG4/IgG1 ratio. This information is needed to make a more informed conclusion.
The authors found that IgG4 present in serum from some other cancers, breast cancer for example, was unable to 'bind' to cancer antigens in breast cancer tissue, whereas IgG1 from the patients, was able to bind antigens. They then determined that IgG4 appeared able to bind to the anti-cancer IgG1, in the cancer tissue. However, the form of detection used in this experiment indicates that IgG1was still able to bind to the cancer antigens. The authors suggested that, due to IgG4 binding to the Fc region of IgG1, IgG1 may be less available for anti-cancer effects, such activation of ADCC and/or complement. These observations do NOT prove IgG4 'blocks' IgG1 binding in cancer tissue, nor do they prove that binding of IgG4 to IgG1 has a detrimental effect on IgG1 'cancer killing'. These interactions are interesting though.
The authors then used in vitro experiments using monocytes (the U973 - a cancer cell line) to demonstrated that at 'high concentrations' IgG4 could 'block' IgG1 binding to an Fc receptor - CD64. ADCC can be directed to kill cancer cells via antibody Fc binding to CD64. CD64 interactions have been found to positively correlate with overall survival in some cancers. However, CD64 was the only Fc receptor blocked, others were 'still available'. And are 'high concentrations' of IgG4 needed to block CD64, in these in vitro experiments, relevant in actual cancers/tumours?
The rest of the paper goes on to demonstrate IgG4 may inhibit one type monoclonal antibody therapy, that inhibits a protein called PD1. PD1 is an immune-checkpoint protein that when activated can inhibit T-cell activity. They chose this antibody as it is an IgG4 isotype. These results are in stark contrast to the use of the therapy in cancer patients, where its use is highly associated with reductions in cancer. The authors argue, however, instances of hyperprogressive disease (HPD) - which do occur but are rare in PD1 therapy - may be due to the IgG4 subtype of the antibody. However, the protein the antibody targets, PD1 has roles in T-cell development as well as direct roles in cancer tissue. Hence, HPD could be a consequence of PD1 inhibition in T-cell generation and have nothing to do with IgG4 isotype, or any direct role of this isotype, in cancer tissue.
I need you people to correct the comment sections of the Dr John Campbell video called DNA. They are running rampant with no fact checking. Time to speak the truth.
John vlog yesterday with the lawyer was yet another bunch of mRNA baloney.
I chuckled when the lawyer said: 1. The mRNA vaccines are GMOs (would anyone really think a bunch of chemicals are an organism?) 2. Assuming the vaccine is a GMO (in the lawyer's mind), you cannot also call it a vaccine. Clearly,, the lawyer is not aware of the two criteria that need to be met for something to be a vaccine (which the mRNA vaccines meet).
Julian Gillespie is a former barrister who gives legal advice to the Australian Vaccination-risks Network (they were legally required to add the word "risks" so as not to mislead people), Australia's most active anti-vaccine lobby group. He previously claimed that more Australians had died from COVID-19 vaccines than from the virus. So, it appears he is a victim of "crank magnetism" - once you've fallen prey to one crank idea, you become susceptible to them all.
@@Memphis2010GFC "Assuming the vaccine is a GMO (in the lawyer's mind), you cannot also call it a vaccine. "
Funnily enough, influenza vaccines are GMOs in the definition used in Australia.
@Memphis2010GFC have you read his blog. The comment section is a hoot, too
@Marco-it2mr it is, so of course you can.
Thanks for your explanations, you really have a knack at breaking down complex things. Hope new fatherhood treating you well!
LOL, that about sums it up. I've actually downloaded it, and ya, internally it connects. But you look deeper and thing like it observational, it's extremely local, it actually doesn't actually present anything causal. There's no mechanism being tested to link things. It all points to it being a pretty poor example of proof. Good work as always dr Wilson.
I need you people to correct the comment sections of the Dr John Campbell video called DNA. They are running rampant with no fact checking. Time to speak the truth.
I've watched Campbell for some time now. I'm not sure if he sincerely thinks he's doing good, or whether he knows damn well he's pushing dodgy theories for money.
I suspect the former.
I suspect the latter.
Thanks for this! I was one of the requesters!
You’re not just a national treasure, you’re a global, maybe galactical hero!
One of the things I hate the most about John Campbell is he has a poster behind him that says something to the effect of ”go where the evidence leads you”
I watched his channel before he went for the right wing extremist conspiracy dollars. I remember the first time I noticed he was shifting away from science towards fasc money.
He misrepresented the findings he was presenting so much that I commented that that is not at all what he had just read means. I realized it wasn’t a simple error because so much of his conclusions were wrong. It was intentional, and he counted on his fan base to not understand that he was lying.
The next time I saw him he was singling out women with long covid as being lazy pretenders.
Tyler Vigen has a book and a website where he gives great examples of spurious correlations. Well worth a look.
Ta . I'd actually received a notification linking to a news (scare?) story about this and had glanced at the paper it was based on but....I'm not a scientist and do struggle when reading academic papers so a quick look isn't really enough for me. And I've wasted so much time trying to plough through nonsense papers in the past that I am grateful for help in seeing the problems with any piece of research. Normally it takes me days , and I'm never totally convinced that I'm right. I do it because, as someone involved in environmental protests I'm well aware of how badly even "good" science can be misrepresented . Sometimes,sadly, even by those who would claim to be on "my" side. It's difficult for non scientifically trained people to work out what's really being said , so channels such as this are greatly appreciated, even if terribly undersubscribed. Thanks.
Dr Susan Oliver has also made a video about the Gibo 🚽🧻
ua-cam.com/video/rCVmCZMMSto/v-deo.htmlsi=73n2Hx539L1qo2MU
I'd like to give you some positive feedback. Well done for taking the time and effort. And don't feel in any way discouraged by the difficulty of what you're doing. Like anything, you will improve with practice.
And just by improving your understanding, you are making the world a better place.
@@Muritaipet Thanks for taking the time to send your encouragement. I'll try to remember it next time I'm getting ready to pull my hair out in frustration 😄
@@tamjammy4461 lol. Goof luck
I need you people to correct the comment sections of the Dr John Campbell video called DNA. They are running rampant with no fact checking. Time to speak the truth.
Hey - Susan Oliver just did this one. John Campbell ain't havin' a good day 😁
She made a video about the Japan study a few days ago. check it out!
I don't think Cambell does care, not will his followers.
Thanks, I referred to her video here after referring to his video there, but my comment seems to have disappeared.
He if fine he just laughs at them both and their tiny follwing.😂
Tiny following sorry 😂
It's never ending 🐎 💩
Yes, it does smell quite Funky!
Thank you for producing these videos, the truth is real!!
I need you people to correct the comment sections of the Dr John Campbell video called DNA. They are running rampant with no fact checking. Time to speak the truth.
His PhD is on communicating on the internet. He makes great use of it spreading disinformation.
Disinfo? Faux-chi = egregious disinfo...regarding cloth masks, 6 ft rule, changing the def of "vaccine" and GOF, denial of lab origin...."safe and effective"...ignorance of natural immunity and ivermectin, ...irresponsibly recommending healthy children and young adults get the clot shot....on and on. WAKE UP and GROW UP!
@backtothescience covers this as well if your interested in another source covering this subject
Thanks
Japan also one of the leaders in cigarette and cigar smoking and also alcohol consumption and I'm almost positive I heard that Japan has a large percentage of the working population who use methamphetamine.
But but but it could never be any of those things just the big bad vax
Japan on meth? Your vaxx fried your brain
You missed this: there is no increase in population and age adjusted cancer rates in Japan.
The paper notes that oncologic surgery decreased in 2021-22 in Japan, and the authors just toss off the observation that this 20+% drop in cancer surgery probably did not result in an increase in cancer death...?????...
Thank you for your criticism. Dr. Oliver also critiqued it. You guys are both right, and both helping to save lives!!!!
Brian Dingle BSc, MSc, MD, FRCPC, (retired Assoc. Professor of Oncology)
A/Prof Dingle
Thanks for pointing out that oncologic surgery decreased by 20+% in Japan during 2021-22.
@@lindaward realnotrare
Look it up.
I need you people to correct the comment sections of the Dr John Campbell video called DNA. They are running rampant with no fact checking. Time to speak the truth.
Terrible that the reviewers of that paper recommended publication. - Thanks for your proper review on it, Dr Wilson 😊
Cureus's Author Guide:
"Credible Peer Review Required
Cureus publishes all credible medical science applicable to the global healthcare community. Article
credibility is determined by favorable commentary from trusted peer reviewers that includes substantial
critical feedback confirming the absence of fatal scientific and methodological flaws.
All *authors should invite unbiased and expert reviewers* who will provide critical feedback. Please note
that medical students may not be invited to peer review. Positive reviews lacking in substantial
constructive feedback will be closely scrutinized by our editors and may be rejected. Think of it this way -
your peer reviewers will be reviewed, therefore inviting credible reviewers is of paramount importance.
Two completed reviews are required in order to proceed, one of which must be from a reviewer invited by
Cureus. This requirement will be waived after 21 days if two author-invited reviews have been submitted.
The depFunkering Bumkum pFraudylizer guy team that also said.
... *_∆ "If the entire world's population had excellent Vit D status before 2020 it would have made no difference to the pananadenik." ∆_*
No evidence supplied of course, perhaps they had secret access to the stats from an almost identical planet eh?
de-pFunkering's now associated with
*$£ EUROFINS £$* it seems.
😂😂👍
. ... . ..... .... .
xcvxiixxcxci
@@theopeterbroers819 Cureus has published very few peer reviewed papers.
I need you people to correct the comment sections of the Dr John Campbell video called DNA. They are running rampant with no fact checking. Time to speak the truth.
Fantastic post. Thanks!
People don't understand what correlation is.
In this case Dr Susan Oliver in her video at Back to the Science, has shown that the paper on Japan does not even show correlation.
@@christopherrobinson7541 Here's some correlation for you to think about.
realnotrare
Look it up.
Great work as usual. Your videos deserve so much more exposure.
Surely even the antivax crowd must be bored of John Campbell by now
Their brains are too small to be bored.
He has to be more and more crazy as time goes on to see any growth
No - he provides their daily two-minutes-of-hate.
We aren’t anti vax. That’s just your ignorance and laziness. Would you call someone who doesn’t want to eat at McDonald’s an anti-eater?
Sheep.
@@Marco-it2mr Very well put. I think Orwell was prescient in this as with so much else. The two minute hate ritual provides a catharsis for emotions of frustration, stress and fear etc and at the same time gives people a sense of shared identity (albeit very contingent on accepting Big Brother's line).
So why is there there not symmetry here ? ie why is this channel not simply another outlet for propaganda? I think that's a good question to which we should have persuasive answers. For me, Dr Campbell's use of questionable papers, his proven misrepresentation of data and above all his refusal to engage with critics is sufficient but clearly this is not enough for some people.
comment for the algorithm
Scientist, Dr. Susan Oliver, on her UA-cam channel "Back to the Science" goes in depth into the same dreadful paper with the same issues with John Campbell's incompetent analysis. The Video is titled: "Japan CANCER study: Has Dr John Campbell been proven RIGHT?"
I think vaccine skeptics are going to consider that the Covid 19 disease can also increase cancer. Your graph for cancer adjusted mortality in other countries appears to stop around 2021/2022. Do you have a more recent graph for 2023?
honestly I just want to keep thanking you for doing these breakdowns! thank you thank you.
Great video, do you ever debunk any of the numerous parasite, such as all natural cleansers and such? I'd love to share that with some relevant communities
People are even selling "covid vaccine spike toxin detox tea".
I'd almost admire their inventiveness if it weren't for the fact that they are hurtful vulnerable people.
As to debunking this nonsense: it's like trying to dig a hole in the sea.
Did anyone else notice that Campbells video titles are getting shorter and shorter?
His latest is mida.
His latest is utterly idiotic and infuriating. Check it out. @waynesitarz424
With alzheimer's, its the short term memory that goes first.
John Campbell gives nurses a bad name.
Yes, and he's clearly doing this on purpose. I remember the exact video when he turned to the darkside - he got up and tore down the poster advocating for distancing, contact tracing and testing, and after that, he got the "follow the evidence" poster and he was suddenly all about antivax propaganda. Before that, he was falling fore some bad ivermectin ideas, but that was at least probably an honest mistake.
@@Simon-fg8iz you can see when he pivoted, if you look at socialblade. He platformed a few cranks and his view/subs blew up.
@@Simon-fg8izYes, it seems that his inability to assess scientific literature started him down the 🐇🕳️
Once he saw the 💰 that brought, he has followed it relentlessly.
@@Simon-fg8iz My Campbell moment, was when he put up a video titled "Ivermectin disappoints in India"
There was howl of protest from the comments, and 3 hours later the title changed. Very informative.
@@Simon-fg8iz "that was at least probably an honest mistake"
You are too kind. It was the result of gross incompetency and a deliberate decision to ignore the advice offered by a number of scientists who tried to educate him about his misunderstanding of the science behind his misunderstandings. He preferred to continue raking in the money he was making with his daily unresearched videos in which he just continued to babble on about stuff on which he was clearly ignorant.
But he has a green pen! A green pen!
Uranium.
Thanks!
Thank you
I shared a link to this video on that video you debunked.
Nice work 👍
It will be interesting to see how long your link survives Scambe££'s censors.
That was 50 minutes ago. Is it still there?
Retired 'Nurse' Campbell has got a nice little earner going on over there telling his disciples what they want to hear.
I need you people to correct the comment sections of the Dr John Campbell video called DNA. They are running rampant with no fact checking. Time to speak the truth.
Thank Wilson.
Thank you Da Funk for the short sharp De Bunk. 👍
I need you people to correct the comment sections of the Dr John Campbell video called DNA. They are running rampant with no fact checking. Time to speak the truth.
To clear this debate once and for all why not show us any study comparing the death rates of the vaccinated verses the unvaccinated?
The ONS do this already and their data shows all cause mortality rates are higher amongst the unvaccinated
Multiple studies have shown the unvaccinated die at rates far higher than the vaccinated, starting at over 20x higher and going down as immunity was gained, if the unvaccinated lived.
@@SynthiaAaron-bv3fdThe ONS hasn’t changed anything when it comes to calculating the death rate vaccinated vs unvaccinated. Those figures are based on raw data.
What you are referring to is the change to the excess death calculation. They released an 8 page explanation of this change that you haven’t read a word of. So no point me repeating information you’ve deliberately chosen to ignore 😂
@@SynthiaAaron-bv3fd It looks like your reading compression skills are as poor as your grasp of science.
Re-read my reply
Reading his own notes… check☑️
Remember to always leave a thank you 'Nurse Campbell' on his videos like I do. I know he reads the comments so it's extra pleasing.😁
Dear Johnny,
The anti-vaccine network thanks you for your valued role in helping the virus to end the lives of 20 million of your fellow human beings.
Well it proves that Campbell is a nurse.
Thanks. Good old "Dr John" aint going away, regardless of how idiotic his videos are. Hes just done a crazy interview with someone who looks like the Doc in Deadwood who is saying that the mrna vaccines are GMOs. I hope it isn't the Deadwood Doc. He was great. Unlike "Dr John."
Someone was telling me about the high quality experts Campbell gets, so I checked the video. The guys name is Julian Gillespie.
He is a former lawyer, a barrister to be precise. So not actually an expert on GMO or law.
@Muritaipet Campbells videos are getting worse. He's just done another called " midaz".
@@Mock_Turtle_1805 Yeah, I don't watch them. It's just depressing how he can be so disingenuous.
Brad Dourif (actor that plays Doc Cochran in Deadwood) just announced recently he's retiring from acting, maybe he's doing one last performance on John's channel?
Truth hurts 😂
What about the study that shows the increase in iGg4 levels with MRNA? Something to be concerned about?
No, little to be worried about in any way. See Shiv Pillai's "Is it bad, is it good, or is IgG4 just misunderstood?".
There may be a need - in an abundance of caution - to slightly alter vaccine strategies (e.g. frequency, or mix different types, or even just reduce the dose), but that's about it.
@@Marco-it2mr
😅😂😅
@@fireflyflyhighSpatzenhirn.
@@lindaward
😁
I would be curious what the doctor in this video thinks about it though.
good one thanks
Why is the threat of violence ("you will swing") allowed to stay up? It's clearly a violent threat just like what Jasper has issued in the past.
Finally someone combating this fake bs
Hi Dr Watson nice to meet you and your community. I enjoyed the video and found it informative thank you.. I have watched the video by John Campbell and my take from it was that he was using the the paper to highlight a possible coilishion between the 2. And where as we know that coilishion and causation don’t always go to together it does hint that additional research could connect or disconnect the 2 items.
The statement by C.Hitchens you used could also be used on many fronts including the introduction of the vaccine. For which I do believe that science is being hampered by politics and that additional research in to the use/long term effects does need to be done. As it has been for every other vaccine in history.
I know that the whole Covid and vaccine debates are something that everyone feels so strongly about as it honestly has affected everyone. Which I hope are all well. Science is based on conflicting view points and interpretations to a degree it’s good and healthy, but I do feel that we all need to stop taking things so personally. Just because someone see something and thinks it should be debated doesn’t make them a monster or silly, lord knows if that was the case no one would ever love are kids lol..
keep up the great work doctor. Be well be happy
"Science is based on conflicting view points and interpretations to a degree it’s good and healthy, but I do feel that we all need to stop taking things so personally"
Anti-vaxxers are anti-social, they harm society. There is no reason to not take that at it's face value.
Stop trying to defend the indefensible.
Dr Susan Oliver has done a more in-depth appraisal of the Gibo paper ua-cam.com/video/rCVmCZMMSto/v-deo.htmlsi=CcBk2eRODkLZKuDD
You say that cancer is a disease that increases in incidence as we age (which I totally accept and agree on), but have we looked at how cancer incidence has changed in a young population? I am not saying you are wrong, but it would be good to have a look into this to check for any changes in this typical trend that we see. If there were a change, then why is this change occurring would be a good question to address.
There is an increase in the younger population, too, but that has been going on for decades already.
@@Marco-it2mr I know about this, I was more so addressing it to the maker of this video so that he maybe considers this as apart of his conclusion.
We need to look at number of cases rather than deaths too, and track from that past decade up and till now to see if there has been any change. Deaths are a useful measure but this would indicate more so how good we are at treating cancer rather than how many people are getting cancer. I mean, you could use deaths as a indirect measure of total cancer cases, because as cancer deaths go up there is probably a positive association with number of cases. But we should ideally be looking at cases (incidence) when investigating the question “Does the vaccination increase risk of cancer?”.
@@Marco-it2mr
The depFunkering Bumkum pFraudylizer guy team - not a virologist - not an epidemiologist - that also said categorically ....
... *_∆ "If it had been the case that the entire world's population had excellent Vit D status before 2020 it would have made no difference to the claimed pananadenik." ∆_*
No evidence supplied of course as usual, perhaps they had secret access to the stats from an almost identical planet & forgot to mention it?
de-pFunkering's now associated with
*$£ EUROFINS £$* it seems.
And of course we are still waiting for the long term safety data for the pfHARMaSueticalz pFrawed medykal devices as configured & mass utilised.
As far as the Japan cancer study is concerned it's clear the authors eliminated the cancer incidence age correlation question.
*Bumkum depFunkering & co has not actually provided any evidence at all that there is any good reason to not be alarmed by the study conclusions.*
😂😂👍
. ... . ... . ..... . .. .... . ......
xcvxcxcxcxciiixcxxcxcc
@@leigh5863 well, this is about a paper that suggests there is an increase in cancer mortality, so it is appropriate Dan focuses on this aspect.
'The proportion of obese people aged between 25 and 55 almost doubled between 2004 and 2020. It increased from 12.7% to 23.4%. Obesity in turn promotes diseases such as diabetes mellitus type 2, high blood pressure, heart attack, stroke and fatty liver.'
Ref: Younger generation gets sick earlier and more often than the older generation, researchers find
Jasper is now citing Neville Hodgkinson, an HIV denialist as a credible source.
And that's why his comments should all be deleted.
Campbell is a clown.
He is a dangerous, evil clown.
No just you.😂
@@RichBaker-hs4ot Says the creep with no MD/DO or lab experience of any kind research/med wise. Let me know when you at least get to Med school then talk to me.
Says the guy with the MD/DO or experience in medical research right? Let me know when youre at least in med school then talk to me.
@@rarzarbex9172 Learn to spell first just an idea jabbed up are you? Lol oops.
Hoo boy. Is Campbell still at it?
Campbell is sadly - just a victim of audience capture.
Beyond sad, disgusting.
I need you people to correct the comment sections of the Dr John Campbell video called DNA. They are running rampant with no fact checking. Time to speak the truth.
Where exactly is your evidence that it is not so?
You should be more open minded to the woke way of doing it! Study the methodology a tiny little bit closer, start by watching the video and then try again. At least know your enemy! How are you ever going to win this fight if that is not the case?
Also watch the video on Back to the Science by Dr Susan Oliver, where she explains in detail what is wrong with the paper on Japan.
The depFunkering Bumkum pFraudylizer guy team that also said.
... *_∆ "If the entire world's population had excellent Vit D status before 2020 it would have made no difference to the claimed pananadenik." ∆_*
No evidence supplied of course as usual, perhaps they had secret access to the stats from an almost identical planet eh & forgot to mention it?
de-pFunkering's now associated with
*$£ EUROFINS £$* it seems.
And of course we are still waiting for the long term safety data for the pfHARMaSueticalz pFrawed medykal devices as configured & utilised.
😂😂👍
. ... . ...... .. ... . .......
xcvxiix
xccxiii
@@christopherrobinson7541 🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@RichBaker-hs4ot *REPORTED FOR SPAM*
Great video.
Dr. Oliver, Stephen Oxborrow is the comment moderator of your channel Back to the Science, while Steve himself claims that he is not.
Rumour has it that he is not only the comment moderator there, but also shadowbans people. Most likely during your sleeping hours. People here say that Steve disingenuously removed many comments as a comment moderator. Like from:
- MayDay45
- MessiaHonest
- Julie Sharp
- Paolo Rossi
- Philip Proussier
- Winn Matthews
- Synthia Aaron
- Rex James
- CJones-99
- Ian Stephenson
- Barry
- Goodmorning1221
- Sally Brookner
- Robbomax
- TheTReed
- Gaze11
- Bumble Bee
- Diana X
- Dr. Quack
- Hans Anders
- Me
I have read a thread where Steve said to Winn Matthews that he has the Down Syndrome, because his mother used meth during her pregnacy... I also saw that he is rude and disrespectful to some people, which he gaslights or lies about to other people, mainly vaccine critics.
Clearly, this is not good for you and your channel. It would be nice to take away his moderating activities, for the people he mistreats and mistreated, and for yourself.
Thank you in advance.
I've recently heard that the spike protein (be it from infection or from vaccination) can bind to p53. This would be a de facto plausible carcinogenic mechanism, but I have been unable to find any evidence of such claim. Is there any?
Scholar is your friend, use it. Just put that question in, if you want. Editing of course, would get a better result.
@@MrKrekkie You had to bring a retracted MDPI article? MDPI is a predatory trash publisher, and even THEY had to retract that useless tripe.
@@MrKrekkie And since you're an anti-vaxxer you're more likely to put weight behind it that it doesn't deserve. You don't seem to know how to evaluate research publications.
@@MrKrekkie
"One can make up their mind about it"
The consensus isn't up to what you or anyone else subjectively think, buddy.
His PhD in nursing education hasn't made him any smarter. The education system has failed.
Lol 😆 🤣 😂 😹 😆 🤣
@@willem1642 This is a somewhat articulate response... not too articulate though... I can't tell if you are laughing with me or against me.
Go and tell professor Dalgliesh he doesn't know what he's talking about. Go and ask the injured. The dead you can't ask.
He's not trying to be smart. He's making money with gullible contrarians
last night on the beverly hillbillies jed received his doctorate degree because he donated a million dollars and granny was mad. she told jethro she would price a brain surgeon degree for him. i laughed and laughed
I liked John Campbell at first, but then as time and his grift increased I just shut him off in disgust.
Pffft hahahaHAHAHA 😂😂😂. Jaspy is now having conversations with his alt account Dr. Quack. Talking to yourself is the first sign of insanity.
He also doesn't seem to like my reply, about masochistically posting when only the regulars can read it. It seems every time I do it, he deletes within a few minutes.
Denial perhaps?
Yeah, it's a full on lesson on sockpuppetry. He's so mentally ill, and he really needs to go offline for a long time and get himself some help.
Oh. Shiiiiit. You cut da fro....have seen your channel in long minutes. Ill do the knowledge to what you presented.
Do VandenBossche next
Again??
You hum it, I’ll play it
@@Marco-it2mr Why not, there is alot more data and new research available now than two years ago. I think we could all appreciate some retrospection on Vandenbossche's theory.
@@Kaassap The guy has been wrong from the beginning, so why pay attention to what he says now? He doesn't have a theory, it is at best a hypothesis, and one that has already been falsified by the mere fact that many variants developed in UNvaccinated populations - he claimed they would develop in VACCINATED populations. We also still see a clear overrepresentation of the UNvaccinated in the mortality and hospitalization statistics, once again contradicting what VdB has been claiming would happen. None of the new data and research supports his hypothesis.
@@Marco-it2mr It is my understanding that the vaccine doesnt stop spread nor infection (or kill the virus), it does however reduce severity of disease. So I have read on Dutch government website. Im not sure wether this has impact on immune escape variants developing in vaccinated population. Perhaps Dr. Wilson could shed his light on the matter.
UA-cam needs to remove Campbell.
@perspectivist. Hi Jasper.
Narrow mind on display
"When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say."
- T. Lannister
We don't like what he says boo hoo..
The people who told you that you wouldn't get the virus if you got vaccinated, or couldn't pass the virus to anyone else, and that the vaccine stayed in the arm are the ones you should really be angry with, after all, you made your decision based on those lies as did millions or billions of other people. You were lied to from the start but can't bring yourselves to admit it..
If the paper showing correlation is not meant to imply the shots cause cancer, why would they publish it? What are they trying to say?
With all due respect to you, a PhD, I would trust the Japanese with their meticulous attention to detail and data collection over you and over Dr. Campbell. That's why I'm asking what they're trying to say with this paper. Are they not trying to say the shots caused a spike in cancer? Why else would they point out the correlation?
Oh sorry. I read the paper and I couldn’t find the part where they demonstrated causation. Could you maybe copy and paste that part for me?
🚽🧻 in a fake journal
ua-cam.com/video/rCVmCZMMSto/v-deo.htmlsi=fhQwi7wgks8fq8rE
Why did Wakefield publish his bullshit claims about Vaccines and Autism? For easy money. Also correlation =/= causation. This is elementary school science.
@@steveoxocube Was this meant to be a comment to me, the original poster of the comment? I never claimed they demonstrated causation. I just asked the question: if they didn't mean to imply there was causation, why would they publish the study? What were they trying to say, since you read it?
To give a proper answer to your question, we don't really know. I suspect they are promoting an agenda. My evidence for this is .....
1 - They cite a paper by a naturopath
2 - They only use publicly available data, implying a lack of connection with Japanese health authorities.
3 - Their data and math is somewhere between sloppy, and deliberately leaving out information
4 - The discussion is solely about the subject which is their conclusion. They spend no time in the paper considering any other possible cause.
But - to be clear - I don't know if that was their intention. It could just be a really bad paper.
However, as with any paper, the author contact details are on it. You can ask them.
Damn why you cut the fro brother? You SHOULD have twisted it up let it lock and grow
Dr. Deborah Birx Says 'Long COVID' is Similar to HIV
"HIV quietly destroyed our immune system...We're learning now about mitochondria and viral impact and brain fog and the changes in our neurons and the cells that nourish our neurons that really allow us to think and move, and we're learning that because what long COVID has done."
Sigh, It's Long Vaccine. The vaxx wrecks your immune system much the same way HIV does. Ever heard of a Pureblood suffering from this "long covid"? But forget it, stick to your narratives and don't forget to line up for your next perfectly safe and effective booster! What number are you on now?
@@robdoe8694 Citations required.
"Ever heard of a Pureblood suffering from this "long covid"?" Yes, and the rates are far higher in the unvaccinated, and the severity far worse.
"Reduction in Long COVID Symptoms and Symptom Severity in Vaccinated Compared to Unvaccinated Adults", Maier, et al, 2024
Stupid anti-vaxxer.
@@robdoe8694
'long vaxx'
'pure blood '
'next booster '
Well that's half my anti vaxx bingo card filled in one go. Cheers!
So do you not believe Angus Dalgleish either? He’s the most experienced oncologist in the U.K. His qualifications around the causes of cancer appear to be more appropriate than your own, and he has a lot more experience. John interviewed him too.
Did you miss that Dalgleish has published no supporting research for his opinions? Or that he's trying to develop his own vaccines?
Neither John nor Dalgleish have presented any credible evidence for claims of increased incidence of cancer. That's because none exists.
So why do you accept Dalgleish as an expert when he's making claims that are devoid of evidence?
"the most experienced oncologist in the UK" according to whom, voices in your head?🤪
"So do you not believe Angus Dalgleish either?"
Angus Dalgleish has, so far, done everything he could to make sensible and rational people not believe him. Like not giving actual data when he claims increases in cancer rates after the vaccine roll-out. And when you see such data, you immediately see why Angus Dalgleish does not provide said data: it does not support his claims. Even this paper does not support his claims, as it shows *a decrease in age-adjusted cancer mortality rates in 2022 compared to 2021.* Weirdly, the authors appear to claim the exact opposite.
@@Marco-it2mr Can you justify that please Marco? I've glanced over the study a couple of times, but didn't pick that up.
@@Muritaipet Table 1.
Now what does table 1 show (they call it age adjusted number of deaths)?
2020: 345,248
2021: 345,625
2022: 344,114
Their excess calculation appears to come from a regression analysis that they do not describe very well (just refer to another publication). That is, AACM has actually DECREASED in 2022, but based on their regression analysis should have decreased even further.
There you go showing your anti-underlining bias lol
LOOOL! Dan who didn't grasped after 4 years why a Sanger sequence won't start with a 5'UTR for detecting primers is telling you why fucked up GPCRs, VEGFR, TGFR, EGFR and alterated membrane charge won't cause cancer....
FUNNYYYYYYYYYYYY!
Why is John Campbell the only person on the entire internet that Debunk criticizes??
It's suspect to acknowledge that Campbell is not an expert in certain fields, insult him because he's only a 'nurse' but Debunk doesn't seek out said experts to debate with.
Oh look, you're dishonest.
See Bret Weinstein.
You might want to check out Dan's playlist - of the last ten videos, only ONE mentions Campbell. This one. So, why do you lie so extremely obviously? Now, I suspect you are an anti-vaxxer, which means lying is second nature for you, but at some point you must be aware that we're not all as stupid as your fellow anti-vaxxers and check people's claims, no?
KatNip420. Joined Apr 28, 2009. But doesn't know where to click, to see every video a channel has done. Really?
That's not believable.
It seems you have just already made your mind up to never believe anything negative about those vaccines, despite new data coming in as time goes by.
There are negative things appearing about the vaccines, but they tend to be few, reflect rare events and have low level consequences.
There are some papers which report issues with the vaccines which are just wrong, as with the paper discussed in this video, the video from Campbell, which was also reviewed by Dr Susan Oliver. The main issue with Campbell is that he is misinterpreting information to deliberately mislead his viewers.
Science is not a matter of belief. You have to follow its methods, which the Japan article did not. As Dr. Wilson explained.
@@theopeterbroers819
@francessimmonds5784
The depFunkering Bumkum pFraudylizer guy team that also said.
... *_∆ "If the entire world's population had excellent Vit D status before 2020 it would have made no difference to the pananadenik." ∆_*
No evidence supplied of course as usual, perhaps they had secret access to the stats from an almost identical planet eh & forgot to mention it?
de-pFunkering's now associated with
*$£ EUROFINS £$* it seems.
And of course we are still waiting for the long term safety data for the pfHARMaSueticalz pFrawed medykal devices as configured & utilised.
😂😂👍
. ... . ...... ....
xcvxiixxcxiii
What a stupid comment. None of the "new data" shows that the vaccines are anything other than what we knew at the beginning. They are safe and effective.
The occasional rare side effect goes with ALL medical interventions. Nothing has remotely shown up that would cause any significant concern.
What your comment does is say a lot about you, anti-vaxxer. You're willing to believe anything negative, so it's a form of projection.
@@christopherrobinson7541 Campbell might at times misinterpret things, but thank goodness there's someone out there looking sincerely at this side of things. He's definitely not trying to mislead anyone, exactly the contrary.
Is it true that essentially a weakened immune system increases the odds that cancercells can spread and multiply faster. Since the mRna vaccinations trigger the immune system to produce spike protein (a billion lipid nano particle per injection) wheras there is no (sarscov2) viral infection it could cause the immune system to reduce in effectivity? Thats what i understood from an oncologist. In the meantime it appears most problems we experience are caused by politicians....I wish you all great health and wisdom, Erik the Netherlands
No.
Hi Christopher, can i ask how you know? As in, is this your field of expertise? It seems a likely hypothesis right? Erik
@@eriksnip1243 There is no evidence that the vaccines against COVID-19 reduces immunity. What is the name of the oncologist to which you refer?
Begging the Question logical fallacy.
@@christopherrobinson7541
Hi Christopher, this oncologist would be the australian dr , Dalgliesh i think. I also follow an austrian dr that mentions the microbiome (which plays a huge role with/in our immune system) gets influenced by the spike protein, both from the virus and the vax. Together with other factors like diet or age it could have an influence couldnt it? Erik
if you took it, then you ARE ‘the research’.
By your logic, if you didn't take it, you're also the research.
@@joeylafrond2472 am all good with that, ta.
@@joeylafrond2472 am all good with control group membership joie, ta.
@@lw1zfogNo, you're the experiment. In cognitive dissonance.
IgG4? Have you looked at the multiple instances of literature of high IgG4 found in boosted people but not in unvaccinated people? Also, high IgG4 correlating with cancer?
Race differences is a thing (Japanese people have certain profiles), and its why trials need to be done in the country in which it seeks approval.
"Also, high IgG4 correlating with cancer? "
There is no such correlation.
"the multiple instances of literature of high IgG4 found in boosted people but not in unvaccinated people? "
Ok so Japanese people across the world should be showing signs of cancer. Or is it geographical? Hold on a minute let me go ask my Japanese neighbor if they have cancer. Brb
What are study and first author names of some of the "multiple instances of literature"?
Ok so just got back from my Japanese friends house down the street Michael and Susan Sato who live in DT Toronto. Both vaccinated, both were just home from their 20k bike ride this morning with no signs of cancer.
I do agree that JC seems to have been somewhat influenced by various players, resulting in him being narrow minded on the subject. However there is a case to answer imo(not necessarily from this paper) about the possible increase in cancer amongst the vaccinated population. When a leading oncologist in the country, perhaps the world asserts that there is a causal link between increased cancers and vaccination status then who am I, or indeed you to claim that this is false or without foundation. There is evidence out there that suggests we should have concerns. Reading the comments on here just seems to be replacing one echo chamber on JC's channel with someone else's who takes the opposite view.
I'm interested in evidence. So who is the "leading oncologist in the country", and can you name the paper or article this person wrote?
There's not even a correlation between vaccination status and cancer rates. There can't be a causal link between two unrelated variables.
@@MuritaipetI imagine he’s talking about the oncologist that John Campbell has on his show, that John Campbell calls one of the worlds leading oncologists. So he’s assuming John Campbell is telling the truth around that.
@@stephenscannell1618 I'll always politely ask people for evidence. If that's not forthcoming, I assume they are just making things up.
If I get evidence, I'll check it out. I keep an open mind on these things, because it's possible there is a valid concern. And if it is valid, Scholar will find considerable discussion on it
@@Muritaipet Ok so let's look at the evidence for CO2 not being the driver for climate change so we can have the counter narrative to hand. Oh that's right there is hardly any peer reviewed papers contradicting the narrative because very few scientists currently employed want to risk their job, of those that will take the risk most can't get funding to do the research and the tiny minority that do struggle like hell to get them published. Seems very likely that in this upside down world of peer review the same sort of hurdles prevent dissenting voices about the accepted narrative. Yes please let's look at evidence, but not only one-sided!
I would like to see this Doctor's vaccine record, still taking the boosters..?
Booster Bozo.
Haha, I wonder as well. It's always funny to hear that a shill only has 3 doses in total. Like, if this stuff is legit, why aren't you on number 9 yet? What happened? Odd, that you just stopped so abruptly where you did. If 3 is good, then 9 would be three times better, right!? You do have faith in The CoVax initiative, no?
Why are all your questions still unanswered? What happens to IgG4 in the vaccinated?
Pretty much what happens to IgG4 in bee keepers. Do bee keepers live shorter lives than expected? No.
Cosimo is JAQing off.
Nothing to see here.
John has the earned trust of his audience as he was pro mrna and changed his view after certain things came to light. People respect that. If he got the Japanese study wrong according to you; there is much on his channel on why he changed his mind. Would you consider reviewing it. Institutional scientist consider him a traitor as he is contradicting the narrative.
There is no narrative, there is a massive consensus based in the peer-reviewed research. You're ignoring it because you're an anti-vaxxer.
Go away.
Campbell consistently and egregiously misrepresents studies he talks about ua-cam.com/play/PLV1WqH0isjRxTQUVyeZHBt-V35YeAknnW.html&si=oZxTUfETemHB8ikz
Campbell was liked by many. But then he started deliberately misrepresenting information. For example, dozens of random trials have concluded Ivermectin has no effect on covid. His audience will never hear that, he obviously fears losing them.
It's quite dishonest.
"Institutional scientist consider him a traitor as he is contradicting the narrative."
Don't know what you consider "institutional scientists", but I - as an active scientist - do not consider him a traitor, but a malicious disinformer whose PhD should be revoked for violating just about all the expectations one has of someone who has truly earned a PhD.
"Contradicting the narrative" is in his case outright lying. And you love it, because the lies fit your beliefs, appeal to your emotion and paranoid approach to life. In the meantime, he looks at his bank account and smiles: another few thousand pounds added because people like you are looking to get your beliefs confirmed.
@@Marco-it2mr fair. Most things you said are plausible for any scientist/human including you and me. I'm not sure he is motivated by money. I think people like John exist because of the corruption of science. Wonder if you have any thoughts on this? Dr Bossche predictions what you thought about that. He is a recognized immunologist before going "rogue".
Proving in science is a lot of work.
The work needed here though is to either disprove Physician John OR prove that the GMO aka C19 v*ccine is and was safe and effective.
Very hard...?
Yep.
Physician John?? Campbell is an ex nurse, with a Phd in education, especially online education. He is not a physician.
The vaccine against COVID-19 is not a GMO.
@@MrKrekkieNope. The FDA treats vaccines separately.
@@MrKrekkie The FDA definition follows. Feel free to explain yourself.
"Human gene therapy seeks to modify or manipulate the expression of a gene or to alter the biological properties of living cells for therapeutic use."
@@MrKrekkie *FALSE*
And what about the recent research coming from Kyriakopoulos et al stating a similar conclusion of oncogenisis from covid jabbies?
That "research" would be from two well-known anti-vax liars (Seneff and McCullough), and hence has zero credibility.
*Marco, you forgot about the fourth author - Greg Nigh.* "Dr. Nigh is a graduate of the National College of Natural Medicine (now the National University of Natural Medicine, NUNM), where he completed both the Naturopathic Doctor (ND) program and the Master of Science in Oriental Medicine (MSOM) programs."
@@Muritaipet Sigh. A ND.
@@Marco-it2mr But the big question is.......... Is Nigh the naturopath more qualified to discuss the subject, than Seneff the computer scientist?
@@Muritaipet I don't think any of them are qualified. Even the two MDs have zero clinical experience with cancer.
these numbers are rising all-over the world, not only Japan..
Oh look, another stupid comment devoid of any credible evidence.
Nope. You are repeating lies.
@@williamverhoef4349 it is a ticking time bomb, once it is in the human body it will never leave.. maybe soon next to cancer prion / protein disease like mad cow encephalitis/ parkinson.
@@gitmoholliday5764 Still no evidence. You just keep saying stupid things using science-sounding words, but it's so obvious you have no clue what you're talking about.
@@jaykanta4326 well the links to evidence is keeps going deleted.. they don't like discussion.. and prefer bias to stay mentally safe
Who is liking Jasper’s posts? 😂
Him and his 10,000 sock puppet accounts.
I disagree with joeylafrond. I think he only has 2-4 spare socks lying around. That's how many likes he gets, before each deletion.
Although, to start a separate discussion. Another odd thing about Jaspy, is waiting until the vids been up for a while. This means he is only targeting those filtering newest first e.g. the regular viewers of the comments.
It's really illogical. No one who has seen him do it 10 times before, and has been here for months, will believe him. At the risk of this being hidden, it seems obviously masochistic.
He hasn't deleted his last comment yet. I might ask him.
Update : Hans Anders replied: "Muritaipet Hi Sithwolf, do you think I deleted my own post 18 times?"
*Then deletes the comment within 10 minutes*
The cope is hard in the comment section 😂😂
Correlation does not = garbage though. It means it's just a red flag to research further. Wonder why he called early science garbage?
The obvious problem is that the authors could have highlighted numerous correlations. It is realy, really, really, really bad science to suggest a correlation (as they did with the title) without even considering all the other *obvious* correlations. The garbage is in the failure to consider other correlations.
@@Marco-it2mr
If Gibo et al. had not failed to correct for
the 63 hypothesis tests re cancer types, it is likely that they would have found that there were only statistically significant increases in 2 of them.
Ovarian - which was increasing in Japan well before 2021.
And pancreatic.
I downloaded the data used by Gibo et al., so I could apply the multiple hypothesis test adjustments, but have been unable to translate the Japanese into something intelligible to me 🙁