We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Catastrophic care protocols

If you have not seen this, discussing catastrophic care protocols, it beggars belief. If anyone with more germane technical knowledge can pick holes in this, please do so in the comments because if this is entirely correct, we should be looking at a Nuremburg level response.

Related 1: from Chris Littlewood
Related 2: from Norman Fenton and Martin Neil

54 comments to Catastrophic care protocols

  • bobby b

    My cynical take:

    Hospitals and nursing homes received significant financial payouts from the government (in the US) when a “Covid patient” was admitted.

    The vid speaks of the end-of-life drugs for which prescriptions were elevated during this time.

    For those very old, already-frail people who contracted Covid, chances of survival were rated to be poor.

    Why keep treating them? Those Covid payouts were a one-time thing, and you could either keep treating those patients until you had spent the money (or more), or . . . .

    Notice how quickly the guidelines said, see who has an Advance Directive forbidding heroic care. Makes it all easier. I wonder how many of those people survived?

  • Paul Marks

    John Campbell (PhD) has had a life time of experience of nursing care – when he started out he worked with men and women who had served in World War II. They did not learn their trade in universities – they learned desperately trying to keep people alive, or working on mental health wards with people who had been driven into mental illness. As for bureaucratic rules, if anyone had said to them “you must do this” or “you must not do that” when it came to patient care, against-the-interests-of-the-patient, the person who spoke in such a way would, at best, have been ignored – and might well have got a punch in the face as well.

    He has witnessed a massive growth of bureaucracy and establishment thinking – and, it must be said, a moral collapse.

  • Paul Marks

    As for the specific health treatment “NICE” (I wonder if the name was inspired by the Satanic organisation in “That Hideous Strength” by C.S. Lewis) laid down – it is the same basic combination of drugs that was recommended in the old “Liverpool Health Pathway” (now a banned name – one is not allowed to call it that any more).

    Imagine you had a patient like me – someone with compromised lungs, but is still a rather large man. I would be a lot of trouble – thrashing about, coughing, desperately fighting for breath. I would be a real problem for the staff – and my suffering might be distressing for them.

    Give me this combination of drugs and I will become quiet – the ward will be a much more orderly place. And soon I will be very quiet – because I will be dead. But then my suffering will be over.

    It is no longer called the Liverpool Health Pathway (indeed that name is banned) – but the same combination of drugs is pushed – and for the same reasons.

    People like me will become quiet – and will be “helped over to the other side” as it were.

    “But many such people would have lived had they not been given the drugs” – true, but the idea was to make the ward a more orderly place (the individual survival of the patient is not the objective).

    “But most of these people would not have been in this condition in the first place, had they received Early Treatment for Covid”.

    Also true – but again, not relevant from the point of view of NICE and so on.

    By the way, I appear to be recovering from my latest chest infection – although it must have been unpleasant for the neighbours (thin walls – endless coughing and so on), and I am sorry about that.

    Perry, when you had your bout of Covid, I seem to remember you almost telephoned the medical services for help.

    Perhaps, perhaps, it is just as well for you that you did not. After all I suspect (forgive me for a personal comment) you are over 50 years of age?

    Under the Quality of Life units developed at the University of York which led to the Liverpool Health Pathway (although, I must stress, that name has been banned) your medical treatment would have designed to reduce your suffering and to make you less of a nuisance for other people (sorry that is a bit unfair – what I mean is, make you less distressing for them), by making you quiet.

    Very quiet.

  • GlenDorran

    The midazolam claims were comprehensively refuted last year by many doctors. I don’t know why Campbell has chosen to resurrect them now, other than he needs some content for his channel.

    His PhD is in education, not nursing or science. He hasn’t treated a patient in years – certainly not during Covid. His misinterpretation of statistics and misrepresentation of data have been corrected by many, yet he has found a profitable seam to mine and continues to play to his audience.

    It’s disappointing, as he is a gifted communicator.

    I haven’t read this site for several years, nor commented here for some time before that. It’s sad to see such obvious scammers and charlatans being promoted. “Early treatment” is just a rebrand by snake-oil salesmen for interventions which have been shown to have no effect.

  • Steven R

    bobby b asked: “Why keep treating them?”

    Because in the US, mortality statistics matter. That number effects a facility’s reputation, and thus new paying patients, accreditation, and how much money they can charge to insurance companies. It’s why pretty much every nursing home will call for an ambulance and ship the “we know they are already dead and there is nothing we can do but still not declared legally dead yet” types to the nearest ER. It’s better the hospital takes the M&R hit than the nursing home.

    Obviously, someone who is terminal already and dies in the facility just dies there and it does count against the facility, but c’est la mort.

    There are a lot of problems with the way life and death statistics are counted in healthcare in the US.

  • Ferox

    Vaccines, masks, and the absolute belief in COVID mortality stats have become so intertwined with political team sports that there seems to be very little hope of ever convincing anyone on the Blue (or Progressive for those not familiar with American team colors) team to even consider an alternative to the True™ narrative.

    My uncle and I were driving to the casino the other day and we saw a guy sitting next to us at a light, alone in his car, with a mask on. His bumper had one of those “Coexist” bumper stickers on it. You think he will ever accept that there might have been something fishy with the vaccines or the COVID mortality numbers, no matter what evidence you placed in front of him?

    It’s a religion, and matters of faith are rarely susceptible to reason or evidence.

    Which means that ultimately the bastards are going to get away with it all.

  • bobby b

    Steve R: A sib runs several nursing homes. I think that what you said is correct most of the time, but I’m told that mortality figures during the Covid peak aren’t getting that same sort of scrutiny. As in, nobody is surprised or dismayed when mortality figures bump up exponentially for that period.

    Sib was told, by the owner large corp board, not to sweat the (horrifying to her) mort stats at that time, so long as Covid positive tests were recorded. “Can’t help this, no one is surprised” was the tone.

  • John

    Comprehensively refuted
    Snake-oil salesman

    Terms far more fitting to the likes of Dr Anthony Fauci and Professor Neil Ferguson than John Campbell.

  • Paul Marks

    Yes John. Sadly it is the name of the Liverpool Healthcare Path that was banned – not realy the practice, although how widespread such practices are is hotly debated.

    As for people who deny there was effective Early Treatment (indeed treatments – for there was more than one) for Covid 19.

    Well GlenDorran – if you had written what you just have in 2020 or even 2021 it might have been understandable, as the endless falsehoods of the official narrative still had a stranglehold over most people, but to write it in 2023 is not acceptable.

    To write what you have GlenDorran is very bad behaviour indeed – and, at this point, with this number of people who have died who could have been saved, some future apology you might give, is not sufficient.

    The dead can not forgive you Sir, because they are dead. And they are dead because of people like yourself.

  • Bell Curve

    The midazolam claims were comprehensively refuted last year by many doctors.

    No doubt the same doctors, the same self-serving arse coverers telling people to wear masks that do jack shit & get jabs that sent VAERS off the chart.

    Sorry mate, no sale.

  • Paul Marks

    Bell Curve – someone who says, in 2023, that there was no generally effective Early Treatment for Covid 19 (ignoring all the evidence from so many countries) has, essentially, ruled themselves out of further discussion on this subject.

    And, Bell Curve, if GlenDorran objects to the harsh language you have used – as John has already pointed out, GlenDorran used very harsh language himself.

    Medical doctors who, by Early Treatment, saved thousands of lives, were showered with vile abuse by GlenDorran.

  • GlenDorran

    Paul Marks: I am quite comfortable with what I have said and I have the evidence to back it up. You, however, have fallen for the worst of the liars, frauds and grifters. That you can’t even see through such an obvious manipulator like Campbell is testimony to that.

    “Medical doctors who, by Early Treatment, saved thousands of lives, were showered with vile abuse by GlenDorran.” Name these doctors. The “Early treatment” quacks certainly didn’t save thousands. They almost certainly cost lives.

    Bell Curve: it’s depressing that after more than two years people still haven’t understood VAERS.

  • Paul Marks

    However, upon reflection (with my disease ridden old head), we have something to thank (yes THANK) GlenDorran for.

    The international establishment are not apologetic – if they are ashamed of the terrible things they have done they are certainly not showing any shame. And, most importantly of all, it is clear they would do the same things (or worse) again. Their “eyes are on the prize” as it were – the prize being the new society (new “system”) that they wish to create – and disease (even diseases they create – this one was enhanced in the labs in Wuhan and spread to most of the world via the international airport) and anything-else, will be used as a excuse to concentrate power into their hands – in order to build a “better world”.

    In the end there may be serious trouble – they will not just go away. They really do insist on their “functionalist” approach to world “governance”. Liberty, either the liberty of individuals or of nations, is something they just will not tolerate.

    Still at least things are now out in the open – one is either for the international establishment, the WEF, WHO, the Central Banks (NONE of which are “owned by the Rothschilds” in case there are any fools out there), the “Woke” Corporations, and so on – or one is against them.

    There is no middle ground. They will not let us have a middle ground – they will not leave us alone, the Lockdowns and Net Zero show that with tragic clearness.

  • Paul Marks

    GlenDorren – I have read your latest comment (registered at 9PM).

    It has sadly confirmed my opinion of you Sir.

  • CanSco

    GlenDorran’s comments remind me of Monty Python’s the Argument https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpAvcGcEc0k

  • GlenDorran

    Going back to the original post:

    ” If anyone with more germane technical knowledge can pick holes in this, please do so in the comments”

    Well, here’s a very quick explanation from a critical care practitioner.


    He also explained why the same claims made previously by Maajid Nawaz were also wrong:


    I’ve linked to these because they are straight to the point, sourced and evidenced.

    I could provide other more detailed links from other sources, but I feel it would be a waste of time.

  • Snorri Godhi

    At first sight, it seems to me that one should avoid both extremes.
    John Campbell’s claims seem plausible (but i am not an MD), enough to deserve an investigation, but certainly not a Nuremberg-style trial.
    (But the early dismissal of ‘early treatment’ does deserve a Nuremberg-style trial!)

    Let me look at this again tomorrow, but it seems to me, from JC’s own graphs, that the introduction of the guidelines that JC complains about, did not change the trajectory of the excess deaths.
    How, then, can we blame those guidelines for the excess deaths? (But please note that JC does not explicitly blame the guidelines.)

    — Of course, i disagree with GlenDorran’s dismissal of early treatment; in fact, in the absence of links to evidence, his comments can only be described as bullshitting.

    However, this is more intriguing:

    It’s disappointing, as he is a gifted communicator.

    He (JC) is most definitely not a gifted communicator in this video!

  • Snorri Godhi

    Oh, i see that GlenDorran has just provided a couple of links.

    I’ll look at them tomorrow.

  • GlenDorran

    ” i disagree with GlenDorran’s dismissal of early treatment; in fact, in the absence of links to evidence, his comments can only be described as bullshitting”

    I am assuming that “Early Treatment” refers to ivermectin/HCQ/Vitamin D etc (and various combinations thereof). If, by this stage, it isn’t clear that there is absolutely no evidence for effectiveness of any of these things (and indeed, that some studies claiming positive results for them were faked) then no evidence I can provide is going to convince.

    And the fact that those pushing “Early Treatment”, like Peter McCullough, are also selling their own branded sugar pills justifies me calling them snake-oil salesmen.

    And once again, Campbell has been repeatedly shown to lie, misrepresent statistics and omit relevant information. He isn’t even very good at doing it.

    I’m a statistician and my work concerns mortality and morbidity analysis. It gets tiresome to be told repeatedly that I am a liar or that I am a victim of government manipulation. Especially when the people making these claims are unable to spot elementary mistakes and distortions.

  • Subotai Bahadur

    Your concept of a “Nuremburg level response” carries with it some assumptions. First, to get such a response, those responsible have to be removed from power. There is no practical means to do so. The National Health Service and the government and culture that created them still rule and there is no way to remove them.

    Just as the American people have no more recourse to laws, courts, or elections to influence our government; the British people have no way of influencing theirs. No matter what atrocities are committed by the State.

    Subotai Bahadur

  • CanSco

    It took some prodding but it is nice to see GD move beyond the Monty Python “automatic gainsaying” mode of argument.

    From reading through the James Lynch tweets, it seems the crux is whether those people were actually in the last days of life. How could they tell for anyone with Covid, the unknown novel disease? Were the complete guidelines followed in practice? These were not normal times.

    Given the panic atmosphere and the seeming complete lack of any possible treatment for the terrifying new disease, especially early on, it is an open question, to which I for one would like a verifyably honest answer, whether medical personnel were in fact too quick to declare impending end of life. Family members were not permitted anywhere near sick people to offer any opinion that might differ from the medical system’s. Once in medical care, was there a tendency, to need to do something, anything? And drugs are an easy answer these days. Doctors are humans too, subject to panic and groupthink. “Trust us” doesn’t cut it. Let’s have an audit.

  • Your concept of a “Nuremburg level response” carries with it some assumptions. First, to get such a response, those responsible have to be removed from power.

    My assumption is a Nuremburg level response will happen fifteen to twenty years from now when a critical mass of the guilty parties are retired or dead.

  • Lee Moore

    I confess that I did not understand James Lynch’s refutation (courtesy of GlenDorran) of John Campbell’s complaint. And my puzzlement is nicely summed up by this couple of sentences from James Lynch :

    “It will as [Campbell] says “depress respiration” but then it is being used to treat mod/sev BREATHLESSNESS with distress. So that’s kind of the point.”

    My understanding of what Campbell was saying is that breathlessness is sometimes a GOOD thing, not a bad thing, and so suppressing it can be a mistake. Thus if your lungs are not working too well, such that you do not absorb much oxygen with each suck, then your body may respond to the lack of oxygen by sucking faster, so that you compensate for a low oxygen absorbed per suck score, by upping the breathing rate. Obviously upping the breathing rate will exhibit the symptom of breathlessness. But in these circumstances the problem is insufficient oxygen intake. The breathlessness, ie high breathing rate, is the body’s solution to that problem.

    Therefore, I understood Campbell to be saying – suppressing the symptom – breathlessness – is suppressing the body’s own solution to the problem of insufficient oxygen. If you administer a potion to treat the breathlessness, ie to slow down the rate of breathing, then you exacerbate the underlying problem of lack of oxygen.

    So what kind of an answer is “that’s kind of the point.” Surely it’s missing the point. The patient is suffering from lack of oxygen, breathlessness – ie speeding up the breathing rate – is the symptom of the body’s response to that problem. Suppress the response and you get……back to the original problem. All you’ve done is nix the body’s remedy. The point is that “depressing respiration” is the wrong thing to be doing for a patient short of oxygen.

    Campbell may be right or he may be wrong, but I can’t see that Lynch has answered his argument.

  • bobby b

    I think part of his point is that rapid breathing – panting, basically – doesn’t result in great gas exchange. O2 delivery may be strengthened by slower deeper breathing.

    So by partially paralyzing the panicked panting, the patient gets more O2. (Peter Piper picked a peck . . . )

    But note that he emphasizes several times that these people are “at the end of life.” What could this mean aside from, by implication, if it instead simply ends breathing, no harm no foul.

    My nursing home contacts tell me it more frequently seemed to end breathing. No studies, all anecdotal, but anecdotes from people in that situation daily, seeing multiple daily deaths. Esp with patients with DNRs.

  • Lee Moore

    I think part of his point is that rapid breathing – panting, basically – doesn’t result in great gas exchange. O2 delivery may be strengthened by slower deeper breathing.

    Interesting. Seems odd though that panting when out of breath is the natural, unlearned, response. How could evolution be working on the problem for so many millions of years, and yet come up with the wrong answer?

  • David Roberts

    Except for the purblind, today’s presentation by John Campbell would appear to remove all doubt.

  • llamas

    I’m not qualified to pass judgement on the validity of the medical/scientific arguments being put forward.

    However, when I see the discussion laced with terms like “scammer”, “charlatan”, “liar”, “fraud”, “grifter”, “manipulator” and so forth, I sense that what we are seeing is no longer a debate about medical/scientific matters, but something else entirely, and not something particularly-useful in helping lay persons (like me) to the truth.



  • GlenDorran


    What word would you use to describe someone who tells untruths for money?

    What word would you use to describe someone who claims to have expertise when they don’t?

    What word would you use to describe someone who sells sugar pills and claims they can cure a non-existent condition?

    Campbell and has ilk are not interested in scientific or medical debate. That has been obvious for some time.

  • Snorri Godhi

    OK, i looked again at the beginning of the video.

    The guidelines came into effect on April 3, 2020. For a week, deaths followed the same trajectory that they had been following in previous weeks, and then they started to decline. It is possible that the decline would have been faster with different guidelines; but, frankly, i am not interested in looking into that.

  • Dishman

    What word would you use to describe someone who tells untruths for money?

    I would call them “Fauci” or “Bourla”. There are many other choice words as well.

  • Bell Curve

    Campbell and has ilk are not interested in scientific or medical debate. That has been obvious for some time.

    Nah, that would be you

  • GlenDorran

    You didn’t seriously link to an article by Joel Smalley? He is another one who fakes statistics.

    I was one (of many) who pointed out his crude manipulation of mortality statistics where he tried to blame vaccines for excess deaths. Two of the most informed and expert mortality specialist actuaries in the UK also pointed out exactly what he had done in his efforts to deceive, recreating exactly his falsification of numbers. It was an open-and-shut case of data dishonesty, and he was caught. His response was to block and run away.

  • Dishman: I was going to say “politician”.

  • GlenDorran

    Oh, my memory of the Smalley incident wasn’t quite right: it was actually three of the leading UK mortality actuaries who exposed his deceit. And the head of mortality analysis at the ONS also had to put him right in his use of statistics as well.

    Sadly he deleted a huge number of his tweets so the full exchanges can’t be seen now, but the message should be clear that he isn’t to be trusted.


  • Bulldog Drummond

    He is another one who fakes statistics.

    No doubt everyone you don’t agree with fakes statistics. Not only does your emperor have no clothes, he’s been turned inside out.

  • Paul Marks

    “What word would you use to describe someone who tells untruths for money?”


    As for the medical doctors who have saved lives with Early Treatment for Covid – many of them, especially in the United States, have been viciously persecuted.

    Someone who claims they “lied” for “money” is just about as low as it is possible to be.

    We are talking about Dr Matthew Sweet level low.

  • GlenDorran

    “As for the medical doctors who have saved lives with Early Treatment for Covid….”

    Can you please tell me who these doctors are?

    Can you please tell me what “Early Treatment” is?

  • Snorri Godhi

    GlenDorran’s comments remind me of Monty Python’s the Argument

    Except that the Argument skit is funny.

  • llamas

    @ GlenDorran – sorry, not interested in playing your game of Ad Hominem Bingo. Good luck finding someone to play it with you.

    To the larger point, I think there’s a valuable reminder here for us all. If the last three years has taught us anything, it is that we should cast a very jaundiced eye upon the absolutist pronouncements of ‘experts’ and those who claim an unquestionable monopoly over the truth. Whether it be masks, lockdowns, the vaccines, treatments, preventives, or a host of associated matters, the confident pronouncements and predictions of our self-appointed betters and guardians – On All Sides Of The Questions – have very-often turned out to be, with the passage of time, somewhat-less than accurate.

    Most things in life aren’t that easily-defined in terms of what’s absolutely-right or totally-wrong, yet that’s what these absolutatarians want us to think. Remember when masks, lockdowns and vaccines were going to ‘shut down’ the disease, stop it dead in its tracks? All other approaches were illegitimate, dangerous, and should be suppressed, by force if required, and anyone who questioned the received orthodoxy was a quack, a charlatan or a grifter? Remember that? Yeah, me too. Let’s not fall into that trap again, shall we?



  • TomJ

    No doubt everyone you don’t agree with fakes statistics

    I’d say that’s a pretty closed minded response when Glen Doran has posted evidence of him claiming his stats came from the ONS and the head of the relevant department of the ONS pointing out that they did not. If he can produce evidence of a fella making up statistics, it’s fair enough call him somne who fakes statistics…

  • @ GlenDorran – The simplest preventative treatment for the wuflu, known about since march 2020 was sufficient amounts of vitamin D. I have an email I sent to some people I know then that said to take more Vit D though I forget where I got that advice from. It isn’t a panacea or perfect but people with higher amounts of Vit D in their blood stream had (have) better chance of a good outcome than not.

    One of the key things about Vit D is that it is very hard to overdose on it, so if feeling threatened a large dose will not be harmful even if you already have a healthy amount in your bloodstreem

  • Paul Marks

    FrancisT – even saying just this, maintain high vitamin D levels, got David Davis MP (a former senior government minister – who always consulted medical doctors and academics before he spoke) put under the attention of Brigade 77 (a psyops unit) of the British Army – ironically the Colonel of that Brigade is another Member of Parliament (Tobias Ellwood MP).

    People like Colonel Ellwood, or “GlenDorran” (whoever he really is), or Dr Matthew Sweet, could not care less how many medical doctors saved lives with Early Treatment for Covid – well actually they DO care, but only so they can destroy these medical doctors.

    Individual human life, the basic relationship between an individual healer and their individual patient, means nothing to these forces, whether government (Hello Brigade 77) or Corporate (“Sponsored by Pfizer”), only “building a better world” means anything to them – with a “better world” meaning an international Corporate State (U.N. “Sustainable Development Goals”. “Public Private Partnership” “Stakeholder Capitalism”, ESG, DEI, and all the rest of the tap dance).

    “But Early Treatment saved thousands of lives – and could have saved so many more lives” is true, but of no relevance to these powerful forces. No relevance to them at all.

    One can refer them to treatment protocols – but they will just seek to get these protocols made harder to find or exercise (they did that – knowing very well that by so doing they were increasing the number of people who died), and one can give them the names of medical doctors – but they will then seek to destroy these medical doctors.

    As they say themselves “we are professionals” and “it is not personal” (they say “it is not personal” as they destroy you) – it is “not personal”, because nothing is personal to them, nothing is about individual human beings.

    One is not person to them – one is a target.

  • Paul Marks

    One finds many of the same forces pushing “Net Zero” – by seeking to destroy anyone who opposes it.

    The objective is the same (international corporate state) – only the justification is different.

  • Pat

    One point.
    If covid had indeed been as bad as was predicted by the world’s experts then hospitals would have been unable to treat the vast numbers involved and would have been forced to abandon many. This protocol seems as humane a way of doing so as any.
    The problem comes from the inordinate length of time it took to realise that the original predictions were wrong and hence that the original predicted were not to be listened to.

  • David Roberts

    In May 2020. The Diamond Princess cruise liner, 3,800 on board, 800 infected, 7 died, 0.2% chance of death for a population weighted towards the elderly, 3,000 not infected. The USN ship Theodore Roosevelt 5000 on board 1271 infected, 1 died, 0.02% chance of death for a population weighted towards the young, 3,729 not infected. Well reported at the time, yet panic measures required?

  • It gets tiresome to be told repeatedly that I am a liar or that I am a victim of government manipulation.

    I’ll bet it gets tiresome… a victim you are not!

    You, Sir, are a wilful participant of government manipulation!

  • Rob Fisher

    I asked a hospital doctor about some tweets along the lines of what I think this video is about. (I’ll spend more time on it later).

    He made two points:
    – NICE is for determining whether to find treatments (strategy I guess) not for day to day decision making

    – protocols involving midazolam are for people on an end of life pathway who are going to die anyway. It would not me used without close monitoring. It’s effects of respiratory drive get picked up on very quickly.

    That’s what I was told; have not looked deeper yet.

  • Slartibartfarst

    @Bell Curve, where you wrote:
    [February 16, 2023 at 7:54 pm]
    “…Nah, that would be you” – the link going to an article which I recalled reading and which I made note of on 2021-10-29, because it ran contrary to the official US/CDC narrative on Covid-19 vaccination/treatment approach.

    An interesting thing about that article was that there was a link to what seems to be a blatant hit piece on Dr Ladapo, by The Boston Globe on 9/23/2021, by one Travis Andersen:
    Six things you should know about Dr. Joseph Ladapo, Florida’s new surgeon general, and his controversial views on vaccines and mandates

    I always enjoy reading about things that media hacks say I “should know” or “should think” about, because it usually helps me to understand better what it is they DON’T want me to know or think about – so it saves me time in the discovery stage.

    The hit piece is in the web archive here.

    In the hit piece, it mentioned disparagingly that Dr Ladapo was a signatory to the Great Barrington Declaration, and that “…Ladapo said he signed the declaration but said there were a couple things in the document he didn’t agree with, the Herald reported”. However, there’s no mention that Dr Ladapo ever revoked his signature to the Great Barrington Declaration.

    I had already independently studied what appeared to be the international and heavily politicised and threatening official CDC narrative/messaging and the subsequent Great Barrington Declaration, and I observed that pragmatism, prudence, reason and truth seemed to be heavily on the side of the Declaration. Of course, that’s even more strongly the case today.

    I personally have tried, but never so far been able to fault John Campbell (PhD) or his transparent and reasoned approach, but, more importantly, neither has anyone else it seems – so that at least is consistent.

    What is also interesting are the comments by “GlenDorran” in this discussion thread. He/she seems to ad hominem poor John Campbell for being a liar/”misinformer”, or whatever, yet unfortunately offers nothing to refute what Campbell says and demonstrates so clearly, so Campbell still seems to pass the ultimate test of irrefutability.

    Because of the sheer scale of money and power involved, the corporate-private-state establishment presumably has to systematically denigrate or traduce questioners/researchers like Dr Campbell and Dr Ladapo, but whenever they do that, it rather seems to backfire with a Streisand Effect.
    There does indeed seem to be something very rotten in the state of Denmark and it’s name does seem to be “Fauci” – but he’s probably just a main tool.

    Just as we now know that the Russia/Ukraine war resulting from the breach of the Minsk Agreement was being planned by the US (to Russia’s detriment) from at least 2014, my reading of the material in the Wuhan Virology Lab’s library (before it was belatedly shuttered) indicated that Covid-19 had been in the works for a least 5 years or longer, and whilst Fauci’s thumbprints seem to have been, all over it, his are not the only thumbprints. For example, under Obama, Covid continued gain-of-function research funding was apparently suspended, but then later reinstated by Trump – who apparently received US$1 million into his campaign funds from Pfizer.
    So many coincidences…

    Happy days.

  • Just as we now know that the Russia/Ukraine war resulting from the breach of the Minsk Agreement was being planned by the US (to Russia’s detriment) from at least 2014

    Oh dear god. The rest of your comment is great but this bit is utter nonsense.

  • Slartibartfarst

    Where you write:

    “Oh dear god. The rest of your comment is great but this bit is utter nonsense.”

    – Perry de Havilland (London), February 25, 2023 at 6:51 pm.

    Never mind sir, just focus on the positive – the “great” bits that might have made sense to you.
    I am not worthy and I am grateful if my mere scrapings of thought have seemed good, in parts at least, like the parson’s egg.
    Sadly, the probability would seem to be that, however hard one might wish, one can’t always be right all of the time.

    The God on whom you call would no doubt take this – our very human fallibility – into account on the day of reckoning. In God we trust, but all others must bring data – that is customarily what we need to use, after all, to adequately refute an argument.

    Happy days.

  • Snorri Godhi

    What is also interesting are the comments by “GlenDorran” in this discussion thread. He/she seems to ad hominem poor John Campbell for being a liar/”misinformer”, or whatever, yet unfortunately offers nothing to refute what Campbell says and demonstrates so clearly

    For the record, I do not believe that Dr Campbell is a liar: I believe that he is delusionally insane, brain-poisoned by British food.

    How else to explain his belief that the guidelines kill people, when deaths started to decline soon after they were introduced?

    And how else to explain that so many British people have not noticed and take him seriously?

  • In God we trust, but all others must bring data – that is customarily what we need to use, after all, to adequately refute an argument.

    Not much of an argument to refute, just an unsupported contention as it it was self-evident, a florid example of the Americocentric delusion.

  • Slartibartfarst

    Thanks for the response Perry.
    Very droll, “Americocentric Delusion” – sounds a lot more intellectual than “Fake News!” or “Conspiracy Theorist!”. Thankyou.
    Like. (Thumbs up.)
    Everybody’s a psychoanalyst now, it seems.

    To be serious though, I do think that’s a potentially good point that you make, though it doesn’t really apply in my case. I mean, I always regarded the US as a good, strong ally (I still do) and I don’t really have an “opinion” or strongly-held belief on the matter – as you seem to do – and I must admit I knew little about the Ukraine (and you probably know a lot more), but I honestly wasn’t making an unsupported contention, just merely summarising what I discovered (from some research into the background/history and following reports of current affairs) – some things that it seems everybody but me already knew about.

    To explain: I’ve been head-down working on some projects for the last several years and could afford to pay little attention to world affairs unrelated to my area of specialty (Operations Research).
    I couldn’t understand what the heck Putin was on about in 2021 when he suddenly declared the SMO (“Special Military Operation”) and his intention to “de-Nazify the Ukraine”, or something. I eventually dug up some old BBC documentaries/reports and (mostly UK) news items about the Ukraine and concerns about the growth of Nazi-badged fascism amongst the nationalists there. Not only that, but also the reports of a prevalence of Mafia-style criminality and corruption, with a peculiarly violent Russian/Ukrainian flavour – which had even become a common theme in some of the rather good Hollywood hit-man action movies.

    Being ignorant, I was very surprised by this, but it didn’t make any sense to me – until, that is, whilst looking for a different perspective, I came across a YouTube video of a lecture at Yale. It was the third in a set of 3 lectures by Prof. John J. Mearsheimer: “The Case for Restraint”.

    The lectures were:
    1. “The Roots of Liberal Hegemony,” November 13, 2017 • John J. Mearsheimer.
    2. “The False Promise of Liberal Hegemony,” November 15, 2017 • John J. Mearsheimer
    3. “The Case for Restraint,” on November 16, 2017 • John J. Mearsheimer

    I watched all 3 eventually, but in the 3rd, Prof. Mearsheimer gives an absolutely lucid and (I reckon) brilliantly simple theoretical overview as to what is going on and why it (“US liberal hegemony”) will likely fail big time, because Russia simply can’t allow such interference in its bulwark – the Ukraine.

    This – the terminology – everything – was all new to me, but by paying attention to what Mearsheimer put together in those lectures. everything seemed to make sense.

    So it wasn’t a divisive “US BAD, Russia GOOD” thing, it was (in 2017) a PREDICTION of what was almost inevitably likely to happen (and which indeed started to happen by Feb. 2022), stemming from the breaching by the US/NATO of the “Minsk Agreement” – the Minsk Protocol being first drafted in 2014.

    So there was nothing “sudden” about it. Presumably Putin and his strategists had been sitting watching this situation unfold over the prior 8-10 years like a chess game, and had worked out appropriate countermoves/responses, and now the game is on.

    Oh dear, what a pity, never mind. At least it’s potentially good for the GDP figures.

    This “game” has effectively been confirmed by bald statements of fact by Angela Merkel and others, that the main purpose of the Minsk Agreement was to give the Ukraine an 8 year “breathing space” in which to arm itself and prepare for the war to come and now started. And let’s not forget the Nord Stream pipeline “mishap” – after all, the US President and other government officials had proclaimed that that baby was toast.

    All the concerned documentaries/reports about Swastika-bearing fascists and torch marches in Ukraine, people being deliberately burned alive in state offices – and all organised and televised – and the organised agitprop and sickening brown-shirting of the young in schools. the children obediently giving their Nazi salutes and hate-filled chants, and the attacking of Russian culture and Russian supporters (citizens) in Ukraine – it all seemed to make perfect sense. It was all contributing to – winding up to – the necessary strategy to achieve the apparent (declared) objective – weaken/destroy Russia.

    And it just might do that, but one can’t be sure.
    I presume (but I don’t have much faith) that our leaders in the still largely democratic West are working in my/our best interests and knew/know what they were/are doing here and that the Russians had it coming.
    I don’t profess to take sides, but I do pity the Ukrainians who have had to die and will continue to have to die in the meatgrinder for something that – even if it WASN’T planned – was predictable and WAS predicted in 2017, if not 2014. Maybe its planned culling – who knows?

    At any rate, it’s apparently just another long game in a “sandbox” – a controlled theatre of operation – the sort of game which, in a “former life”, I used to play in the Middle East. I felt sorry for those people too. The last thing we need is to have that kind of game leak into our lands though, but that would seem to be a potential risk in the Ukraine. I hope we haven’t bitten off more than we can chew. Me and my family are now safely away from there, but I have many friends and relatives in Europe.

    “What, me worry?”
    ~ Alfred E. Neuman.

  • Mearsheimer is probably the second worst source I know for analysis of Russia for reasons I mentioned in an earlier blog post. At times it’s as if he has never read RIA Novosti or any of the copious actual Russkiy Mir stuff that has been unambiguous about Russian geopolitical objectives in Ukraine. This is why I keep hammering the whole Americocentric delusion stuff (which to be fair many Russian sources are incapable of getting thier head around actual mainstream Ukrainian political & social dynamics, assuming it MUST be Langley because no way could the average Ukrainian genuinely loath everything Russia stands for).

    And as for the Ukrainian far-right (Right Sector)… They got inordinate media coverage but got about 3% of the vote, making them less or a serious political force in Ukraine than France or Belgium.