"Big Pharma" is subjected to legal regulation and oversight. YouTubers much less so. Of course, examining what happened and exposing any corruption is essential. For both!

Just so long as people are aware that people like Campbell are getting extremely wealthy off the back of making videos I am content. They can then decide for themselves their value and whether they have been influenced by money, or a genuine concern.

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've been ill from Long COVID for a while. Hasn't been serious, but I'm one of over 1000 who attend the clinic. The clinic doesn't ask anything about vaccination status - which is quite interesting.
As a teacher and lecturer really felt I had to be vaccinated, but got bad complications from the vaccine. Still had it. Got every wave of COVID more than the rest of my household who were unvaccinated - due to potential allergies.
I still remember the vaccination doctors not giving a sh1t when I told them about my tongue swelling after the vaccine. Had chest pains ever since - had that myocarditis or whatever it's called. Subsided now thankfully.
So I've been ill from COVID and ill from the vaccine. A crap couple of years - but I've never actually been too bad - not dying or anything. I know one person who died from covid personally and one who was in a coma and requires lifelong care from the vaccine. I think worst I had was two months of brain fog. Although chest pains aren't fun.
These are just personal observations. I expect people can see something of their own viewpoints in this.

Red and Blue Army!

Weren't "Big Pharma" given carte blanche with these vaccines with the 'no liability' clauses when they were released whilst still under clinical trial?

Don't "Big Pharma" actually make more money than even Dr Campbell from selling their stuff?

A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers

As people like Brand have shown and many before him, the US pharmaceutical industry partly fund the very regulation of their products. The people sitting on regulation boards often get jobs within those very companies and hence the obvious conflicts of interest aspects in regulating companies who you later could be rewarded by is stark.

You of course either can't be bothered to see the obvious or just don't care.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Whenever I read arguments of this kind I give thanks that the kind of people who hold them have never held power in our country and almost certainly never will. In fact, their brief period of even minor influence now seems to be waning fast.

That there were a few dissenting voices is hardly surprising, as within any group of professionals you will find every kind of political opinion, but to describe them as "experts" is ridiculous. They might be experts in their specialist field but not in how to respond to Covid 19. They did not exist then, which is why the consensus view prevailed. This was just as well, as experience showed that the emergence of variants with the power to re-infect meant that "herd immunity" was always only a theoretical possibility.

The lockdown approach has not been discredited at all. It has been validated. We got through it. The economic consequences hurt, but that was inevitable. Economies can recover. Dead people cannot. There was never going to be a winner in this. It was always what was the least bad outcome, and we chose the right one. We have learned lessons, and will learn more during the enquiry, and should it happen again would doubtless modify the approach, but it we need to lockdown again we will, of that I am certain.

That you still reference what Sweden did as justification for your argument only serves to confirm how wedded to dogma you are. Sweden is not the UK. It has totally different demographics which allowed it to attempt a different approach. This though was quickly modified and eventually resembled the same type of response found elsewhere. Their government has been criticised for being slow and not protecting the elderly. In summary, the Swedish experience adds weight to the universal criticism of the Great Barrington Declaration.

Yes, we have seen excess deaths, averaging an increase of around 10% higher than in the previous 5 years. Why is this? Whilst I believe there is not yet an official explanation I think common sense suggests several probable explanations, which indicate it's only to be expected in the circumstances. Firstly we still have the after-effects of the pandemic itself and the impact of long_Covid, which is only now beginning to be recognised. Secondly, ONS data suggests that around 10% of the UK population remains unvaccinated. Whilst an infection will confer some protection, vaccination and an infection confers a greater level of protection. ONS data also suggests that the death rate in the vaccinated has remained stable, whilst in the unvaccinated has risen. Thirdly, there has undoubtedly been a knock-on impact on our health service with consequential delays both to referrals and treatment. Whilst obviously very regrettable it is disingenuous to suggest not locking down would have avoided this. It seems clear that in fact, it would have made it a great deal worse.

Whilst airborne viruses may well not be controllable, the behaviour of people and their exposure to high levels is. Viruses are not uniformly present everywhere. Take people out of high-risk environments and you lower the risk of serious infections.

So I give thanks for those you dismiss as "bed-wetters", who are more correctly described as pragmatists, and also for the fact that people like you are not in control of our government. If all you do is bleat about how you think you know best, in places like this, then no harm can be done. I would happily build you a wall for you to bang your head on! Maybe, thinking about it, that's the real reason GB News exists.

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.

And the effects on young people?

[Link]