Campbell is the embodiment of controlled opposition. Anyone in his right mind would look at the Yellow Card reports and/or EudraVigilance data, and come up with mea culpa. He should have done so a year ago. Campbell´s aspiration-or-not ploy was a perfect red herring, drawing attention away from the substance of the matter. He lacks integ…
Campbell is the embodiment of controlled opposition. Anyone in his right mind would look at the Yellow Card reports and/or EudraVigilance data, and come up with mea culpa. He should have done so a year ago. Campbell´s aspiration-or-not ploy was a perfect red herring, drawing attention away from the substance of the matter. He lacks integrity, unlike Dr. McCullough who, on the strength of medical evidence, has gone all the way from fairly naive to wide-awake as to the state of affairs.
Initially, I also thought he was myopic and biased (i.e., too pro-vax). But Campbell has been forthright on vaccine failure, waning immunity, loss of efficacy, early treatment (he's interviewed Pierre Kory on Ivermectin), and on vaccine adverse events. The aspiration issue is only one of many topics he's covered. I think he is one of the reasons why the UK turned a friendly eye to early treatment when the data were clear on loss of efficacy. You will enjoy his take-down of social media fact-checkers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMf-Zq7xJcY&feature=share
You have just put your finger on it: At best, Campbell is a reporter straddling the line. He can follow the lead, but he is no leader; for our times, he is inadequate. I could imagine him in the old days reporting for BBC from Rwanda, involved but unengaged at the same time - no editorializing, please, we are British! Being neither hot nor cold is a certified bad personal property - lukewarm is to be shunned assiduously.
I much prefer people with foresight and judgment who can go out on a limb and deliver a paper on pathogenic priming as a warning shot for all and sundry. I keep a copy at hand.
Campbell is the embodiment of controlled opposition. Anyone in his right mind would look at the Yellow Card reports and/or EudraVigilance data, and come up with mea culpa. He should have done so a year ago. Campbell´s aspiration-or-not ploy was a perfect red herring, drawing attention away from the substance of the matter. He lacks integrity, unlike Dr. McCullough who, on the strength of medical evidence, has gone all the way from fairly naive to wide-awake as to the state of affairs.
Initially, I also thought he was myopic and biased (i.e., too pro-vax). But Campbell has been forthright on vaccine failure, waning immunity, loss of efficacy, early treatment (he's interviewed Pierre Kory on Ivermectin), and on vaccine adverse events. The aspiration issue is only one of many topics he's covered. I think he is one of the reasons why the UK turned a friendly eye to early treatment when the data were clear on loss of efficacy. You will enjoy his take-down of social media fact-checkers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMf-Zq7xJcY&feature=share
He also recently accurately reported the 133X increased risk of myocarditis following vaccination compared to infection.
You have just put your finger on it: At best, Campbell is a reporter straddling the line. He can follow the lead, but he is no leader; for our times, he is inadequate. I could imagine him in the old days reporting for BBC from Rwanda, involved but unengaged at the same time - no editorializing, please, we are British! Being neither hot nor cold is a certified bad personal property - lukewarm is to be shunned assiduously.
I much prefer people with foresight and judgment who can go out on a limb and deliver a paper on pathogenic priming as a warning shot for all and sundry. I keep a copy at hand.