Dipping into the video by Professor Tucker Kellogg won’t give you sufficient insight to make an accurate judgement on the authenticity of Dr John Campbell. You need to devote some time and watch it all. Only then will the true picture emerge.

This isn’t academic nit picking. This is a really serious analysis of deliberate deception, distortion and the spreading of misinformation.

The only conclusion to be drawn is he cannot be trusted. Here it is again:-

[Link]

One of the things Campbell is frequently complimented on is his use of WHO statistics on excess deaths and his questioning of the reason for these, often raising an eyebrow when dropping a large hint that it might be the responsibility of the vaccines.

Dr Tucker Kellogg interviewed at length Ariel Karlinsky, who is the guy who produced the statistics used by the WHO. If anyone understands what they are, and what they reveal, it ought to be him! This is another extremely interesting and informative interview, although again very long. Here it is:-

[Link]

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Those who consume conspiracy theories as readily as you do are destined to suffer the effects of regurgitating bs. I hope you feel OK because you seem to be suffering a lot. We have regulations and oversight to control corruption which is delivered by the politicians we choose.

So yes, if there is any significant corruption, which I doubt, it’s our fault.

That you are another who see the WEF and the great reset as a conspiracy theory doesn’t surprise me. It fits well with all the other ideas you have. The WEF are a very necessary body in today’s complicated interconnected world.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

As I have already tried to tell you several times the way the data was recorded was to try to establish a consistent method that enabled trends and patterns to be determined. How they were reported, especially in the early days, is another debate. More recently it has been the number of excess deaths over a comparable period, after making do allowances for known variables, that has been used. This permits a much more accurate global picture to been seen, given the huge differences in the way data was collected or, as in many instances, either not collected at all or misrepresented by some governments. Those excess deaths are still being seen.

We will all die. If we die earlier than we would have done without catching Covid does that not matter? That the most affected were the elderly is inevitable. They are the most vulnerable, but they weren’t alone. Would you just not bother because they are going to go sometime soon anyway? Maybe you favour compulsory euthanasia after 10 years of retirement!

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

I have no need to discredit Campbell. He does that himself. All I do is post links to people better qualified and better able to explain how he is doing it than I am myself.

If other people are doing the same, then they too risk being discredited, although the possibility of genuine misunderstandings exist. Some may follow Campbell.

I am only interested in the facts. Campbell as a man has little or no interest for me, other than in the way it impacts the way he operates.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

I didn’t suggest everything is a conspiracy theory. It was known that lockdowns would incur heavy costs, some of which could not have accurately predicted as no one knew how long they would be needed or when the vaccines would be available. The judgement was what seemed the least bad option, and we made a decision. We don’t know if another way would have been better, because we didn’t do it. It’s all hypothetical posturing.

I regard the endless claims of those who opposed the way we did things that their way would been better as a pointless waste of time. Let the arguments be put to the enquiry and any lessons for the future be learned from that.

Questioning the wisdom over and over again in echo chambers might confirm the prejudices of the know it all, but doesn’t actually achieve anything.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Nor does trying to shut down any discussion and expecting everyone to blindly accept what they're told all the time by people you freely admit aren't always truthful. That's a curious take on democracy.