That it is considered necessary to try to defend the activities of Dr John Campbell is, of itself, revealing. Especially when many of the claims are not disputed at all.

It is accepted he had a respectable career in nursing where he learned the communication and teaching skills he is employing now. It is also accepted that at the start of the pandemic he was trying to genuinely help and inform people about a new and worrying disease, utilising his skills and avuncular manner to reassure. He himself was vaccinated. So far, so good. Having built up a following he realised that he had stumbled upon something that was beginning to make serious money. He also realised that it was the sceptics who were becoming the dominant users of his videos. The more critical he became, the more users he got. His videos went from being informative to being misinformative. You don’t need to take my word for that. There are enough debunking exposures by people with genuine qualifications in the field to make that an established fact. Remember John Campbell is a Doctor of Nursing Education. Not a specialist in virology or any other medical science. His skill is in presentation.

These days his very clever videos are inevitably full of things that hint at providing support for the ideas held by the anti-vax, anti-lockdown, anti-pharma bunch of sceptics who think the WHO and governments around the world are conspiring to keep information from us. Watch them if you must and you will indeed see the dog whistles on his face in the corner.

He cannot believe these things himself. He is clearly a clever man, as well as being a highly skilled presenter. That relaxed style is no accident. It’s designed to give you reassurance and confidence. He has though gone to the dark side as he realised his audience wanted a particular type of content. That’s where the money is. It’s no longer in providing reassurance. We all know much more now and have experience and the vaccines as our reassurance. It’s the sceptics who need their red meat.

I would love to see him being grilled over some of his videos by a panel of real experts and being forced to have to defend them and his motivations for making them.

Maybe then those who seem to think all of the above are lies will at long last themselves be forced to accept they are wrong.

And what should they do if they do admit they were wrong?

[Link]

And what should they do if they do admit they were wrong?

[Link]

I posted these comments below just now in the Sadiq Khan thread. But I thought it relevant here, as people might get an understanding of why critics of Coronovirus policy might not have garnered as much publicity as those promoting it. It's all about the funding.

"Sadiq Khan’s office tried to discredit and “silence” scientists who found that his ultra-low emissions zone (Ulez) policy had little impact on pollution, The Telegraph can disclose.

In private emails seen by The Telegraph, Shirley Rodrigues, the London Mayor’s deputy for environment and energy, told Prof Frank Kelly she was “really disappointed” that Imperial College had publicised findings questioning the effectiveness of Ulez.

Prof Kelly, a director of Imperial’s Environmental Research Group, which has been paid more than £800,000 by Mr Khan’s office since 2021, agreed to issue a statement – partly written by Ms Rodrigues – saying Ulez had helped to “dramatically reduce air pollution”.

London Conservatives said the correspondence revealed an “alarmingly cosy relationship” between the Mayor’s office and the scientists it was funding, as well as a desire to “silence scientists who question the effectiveness of Khan’s policies”."

Why do you think it doesn't? The vaccine is no longer available for the majority so even if the unvaccinated changed their mind there's nothing to be done. The authorities obviously don't think it's too vital either.
Maybe it's not obvious to those who had Covid and didn't find it any order than a cold.
What's the issue anyway when approximately 93% of the those eligible had it.

So why not just leave people alone instead of trying to shame them for a vaccination they didn't want to have when they might have had valid reasons.
Is it that important to assert moral superiority?