Dr. John Campbell Has Been Red-Pilled
By Steve Kirsch
In his latest video, Dr. Campbell looks through the Pfizer documents and concludes, “This has just destroyed trust in authority.” Yup John. You’re right. It was obvious to some of us 10 months ago.
This is an important post. This may be one of the most important posts I’ve made so far.
It shows that the tide is turning our way: a former advocate of the vaccine, trusted by millions of people, has now realized he’s been deceived and he’s not happy about it at all.
- This is a very important milestone: a prominent respected figure who has been supporting the vaccine has finally realized he’s been misled.
- Dr. John Campbell has been a source of trusted medical information for millions of people throughout the pandemic.
- Campbell has been doing YouTube videos since before the pandemic, but rose to fame during the pandemic for his thoughtful videos.
- His videos have been viewed over 400 million times and he has over 2 million subscribers.
- Historically, he’s been a reliable supporter of the safe and effective vaccine story.
- In November of 2021, Campbell took a closer look at ivermectin and was impressed by the evidence. This led Wikipedia to label him a spreader of misinformation.
- On March 9, 2022, Campbell published a video entitled “The Pfizer documents” where he goes through one of the released documents in detail: the ADVERSE EVENTS OF SPECIAL INTEREST (AESI) document (aka the “5.3.6 document”).
- As of March 11, that video now has 1.4M views.
- In the video, Campbell clearly shows that he is not happy with the lack of transparency. He is not happy with the safety signals disclosed in this document. Not happy at all. He concludes “This has just destroyed trust in authority” (watch @21:55). Bingo!
- This means that, in the minds of the mainstream media, Dr. Campbell has transitioned from being a “respected health expert” to a “misinformation spreader” that should be ignored.
- Paradoxically, YouTube didn’t remove the video or ban Dr. Campbell for life like they would normally do. I am mystified by this.
- Fact checking organization Health Feedback called Campbell’s video misinformation claims that correlation isn’t causation. However, the same fact checkers did not explain why the event rates were elevated over normal, a fact most easily observed in the much more extensive VAERS reports. If the vaccine is as safe as is claimed, then what caused all these events? And why were these events dose related? How do you explain that? No fact checker can answer any of these very basic questions because their job is simply to create doubt through hand waving arguments that are not backed by any evidence.
- Campbell of course was absolutely right to be appalled. The Pfizer report does destroy trust in the government authorities who are supposed to be protecting us and disclosing adverse events. But if he was really paying attention (which many people haven’t done due to the blind trust they put in the institutions), he would have noted that the safety signals associated with the COVID vaccines have been flashing “red alert” since January 2021 when the vaccinations began. In my case, I figured this out 10 months ago in May 2021 and people thought I was crazy at the time. It is nice that Dr. Campbell has finally realized that we were right all along. This puts Dr. Campbell on the right side of history. A bit late to discover the truth, but it still puts him years ahead of most all his peers.
- Hopefully, this will be a turning point and other critical thinkers will also realize they’ve been fooled and will follow his lead and speak out publicly just as Dr. Campbell has courageously done.
A short history of how I became an “anti-vaxxer” and “misinformation spreader”
Back in early May 2021, I realized that the anecdotal reports of adverse events that I heard from my friends weren’t consistent with the government claims of a “safe and effective vaccine.”
In order to resolve the conflicting data, I dug into the VAERS system and it was instantly clear to me that the government was lying; there was no doubt. There was no other explanation that could have caused the enormous numbers of events in VAERS. When I reached out to over a dozen academic experts to explain what I saw, they all refused to look at the data and told me never to contact them again. They would not explain to me how I got it wrong.
I have to admit, I didn’t find this very convincing. If you are trying to persuade someone to change their mind, telling them they are wrong and never to speak to you again just doesn’t work for me. This is apparently how it works in science nowadays.
I confirmed the VAERS data with individual reports from physicians who also had never seen as many (and as varied) a list of adverse events from any previous vaccine.
And then, on May 26, I was on a CCCA call where Dr. Byram Bridle presented, for the very first time in a public forum, the Pfizer COVID vaccine biodistribution data he obtained from the Japanese government.
At the time, it was instantly clear to me that we now had the key missing piece: a plausible mechanism of action that could explain the huge number and huge variety of adverse event reports. A plausible mechanism of action is a key criteria needed to establish causality using the Bradford-Hill criteria.
Right after I got off the CCCA call, I warned some friends who were over at our house at that time that the vaccines weren’t as safe as the government was saying and we shouldn’t trust their assurances. I said they are lying to us.
I later learned that when I left the room, all of them asked my wife, “Is Steve OK?” They were all certain that I had completely lost it mentally and needed professional help.
I quickly incorporated the biodistribution data into the 285-page TrialSiteNews article I had published the day before entitled “Should you get vaccinated?” which went into great detail what I had learned.
Fast forward to the present
Yesterday, on March 9, 2022, Dr. John Campbell published a video entitled “The Pfizer documents” where he steps through just one of the 150 released Pfizer documents in detail: the ADVERSE EVENTS OF SPECIAL INTEREST (AESI) document (aka the “5.3.6 document”).
One of the most disturbing findings was that the number of doses shipped was redacted from the safety document. The (b) (4) designation in the video snip below is a FOIA redaction code that means “Trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential.”). Wow. The number of doses shipped is a secret?! Dr. Campbell was justifiable upset by this redaction, as he should be.
But even if we knew the number shipped, we still wouldn’t know the number of doses actually administered which we’d need to calculate the safety profile of the drug.
Dr. Campbell correctly points out that there is no way to assess safety if you don’t know what the denominator is.
He wonders out loud, why on earth would they redact that? It can’t be proprietary.
Indeed, I believe that the only reason you’d redact such a number is if you are trying to hide something.
The underreporting factor
More troubling is that nobody has talked about the underreporting factor, including Dr. Campbell. This is the factor that you multiply the reports by in order to get the number of events that actually occurred. Voluntary reporting systems often have an underreporting factor of 10 to 100 or even more depending on the severity of the symptom.
There was no attempt whatsoever to calculate the underreporting factor (URF) by Pfizer in the report. Are you surprised?
I guarantee you, all of these event reports are unreported. But Pfizer is silent on this and of course the CDC is never going to calculate this number because they don’t want anyone to know it either. If you ask them for it, they stonewall you and never provide it. So nobody can do a proper risk benefit analysis, including the CDC. This is not a problem for them since they are not required to produce such a document. Have you ever seen it? What URF did they use? Answer: they assume that VAERS and everything else is fully reported and never bother to calculate the URF. They know this is wrong. This is intentional. Their job is to push the vaccine and ignore all the safety signals.
Because our health authorities, mainstream academia, mainstream press, and members of Congress don’t want to know the underreporting factor (since if people knew that, they’d realize the vaccines are unsafe and it would create vaccine hesitancy), it’s up to the so-called “misinformation spreaders” such as myself to calculate this number.
I’ll do that three different ways, just to show you how large the number is. The smallest URF is 89 (for serious events). The largest URF is over 163 (for less serious events).
To make this article shorter, I’ve moved the three URF derivations to my Pfizer article.
Overall safety data
Dr. Campbell never even considered the underreporting factor at all in his analysis. He assumed everything was fully reported and even with that he was appalled. The absolute numbers are way too high for a safe vaccine.
He concludes “This has just destroyed trust in authority” (watch @21:55).
I couldn’t agree more. I’ve been saying that for almost a year now, since I first blew the whistle on the vaccine safety story on May 25, 2021.
Now, can you imagine how he’s going to feel when he realizes it is nearly 100X worse than he thought??
The FDA wanted to hide all of these documents from us for over 75 years
Dr. Campbell never mentioned the fact that the FDA, who knew all of this, believed it should be kept hidden from the public for over 75 years.
Doesn’t that erode trust in the authorities as well, Dr. Campbell?
YouTube reaction to Dr. Campbell’s video
YouTube has worked hard to shelter people from any information that goes against the government narrative and make sure that people only hear one side of the story. This is important because the US Constitution doesn’t allow the government to censor us directly: they must do it indirectly by compelling private companies to censor dissent.
AFAIK, and to my great surprise, YouTube did not take action on Dr. Campbell for the usual YouTube crime of “spreading misinformation” on ivermectin or questioning government authorities.
How can some of the most respected health authorities on the planet (the anonymous YouTube censors of course!) not censor Dr. Campbell for violating the YouTube Community Guidelines on COVID-19? How could Dr. Campbell not be banned for life for his egregious transgressions?
To find out the answer to these questions, I emailed Garth Graham, Director and Global Head of Healthcare and Public Health at Google/YouTube, but I don’t expect to hear back. Ever.
Facebook’s reaction to the video
Facebook will put a notice on your post if you try to refer to the URL:
We added a notice to your post. This post includes information that independent fact checkers said was partly false.
Independent fact checker Health Feedback claims that Dr. Campbell is misleading people
Here’s the fact check from Health Feedback, a site trusted by none of us.
The fact check basically argues that correlation isn’t causation.
This is easily countered.
First, this drug isn’t approved so the precautionary principle of medicine (something the fact checkers simply “forgot” to cite) tells us that we should assume that the drug caused it unless it has been shown otherwise.
But even if you don’t believe in the precautionary principle at all, there is something much more troubling: The rates of these events that are reported in the report (once you apply the underreporting factor) are far higher than what would be expected normally in the population. So if these excess events in the report were not caused by the vaccine, then what caused them?
Well, the fact check is completely silent on that one. Can you believe that?
Here’s the table from the VAERS data which shows an apples-to-apples comparison of adverse events reporting rates from prior years to this year. Why are the rates this year so high for these adverse events?
The fact checkers would immediately do a hand waving argument saying “This is because people are more aware of VAERS and are reporting like they are supposed to.”
This hand waving argument isn’t backed up by any evidence.
The simplest way to show this is to talk to lots of doctors. Individual physicians observe a dramatic increase themselves in adverse event rates.
For example, a neurologist I know with a 20,000 patient practice (there are multiple doctors in the practice) has never needed to make a VAERS report in the last 11 years. This year, after these vaccines rolled out, the practice needs to make 1,000 reports. That’s over a 10,000X increase in the rates observed (technically, it’s infinite so we assume 1 event happened that they missed).
Health Feedback doesn’t explain this at all. The doctors I talked to all say it was the vaccine. So if it wasn’t the vaccine, what was it??? Enlighten us. Make my day.
I will update this article if I hear back from them, but this has never happened before from any fact checker, so I’m not optimistic they are going to explain this.
The fact is, the fact checkers cannot explain this. The silence is deafening for anyone who is a critical thinker.
Surely, The New York Times should do a fact check on the Health Feedback fact check to set the story straight, right?
No. Not a chance. You’re dreaming if you think that is ever going to happen.
One reader wrote:
I have watched him every night for the past couple of months. I knew Dr. Campbell would eventually get there and finally two nights ago, he did. He looked stunned. He is obviously a conscientious reporter of health facts. I enjoy how he summarizes and puts out the data. I wondered why he hadn’t heard more about all the problems but he seemed truly convinced in the effective and safe line we’ve all been sold. I was sad watching it happen though. He basically promoted a very bad shot and for a man with a conscience the repercussions of his advice will haunt him for the rest of his life. I sincerely feel terrible for this poor man.
Another reader wrote:
That video, in my mind, is one of the landmark moments of the (still unfolding) Era of Covid/Vax Disaster. In it, you see an overall believer in the vaxxes, and in the basic trustworthiness of the companies and top institutions–though Campbell has been excellent from early on in tearing apart MSM mischaracterization of scientific data and papers–being forced by the same official information his reporting/analysis has always relied on to the conclusion that the bastards lied to us all. He’s never at a loss for words, and his politeness to all sides is second to none, but here for the first time, he is stumbling, seems dazed, and yet stoutly continues to walk through to the unavoidable conclusion. Science betrayed him, turned into anti-Science. It led him to falsely reassure hundreds of thousands.
How did this happen in the first place?
This happened because people are trained to trust the experts. No verification is needed. You trust your doctor, your doctor trusts other experts, those experts trust the NIH, CDC, and FDA. When those organizations get compromised, it’s hard for anyone to believe it. They immediately focus all their efforts on defense rather than on confronting the reality that they made a mistake in trusting the authorities. Nobody likes to admit they were wrong. So they double-down.
Others were paid to look the other way.
And reporters who attempted to blow the whistle found themselves out of a job.
More is yet to come
Dr. Naomi Wolf is organizing a team to analyze the Pfizer documents as they are released. They’re already working on the first release, which I believe is 50,000 pages long.
As of now she has 1,277 people – including 174 lawyers – signed up to help, but with this many pages even more help is needed.
This is a very significant milestone: Dr. John Campbell has now been red-pilled.
It wasn’t due to any of our efforts. He did it all himself by looking objectively at Pfizer’s own data.
He did that without even realizing that the events he saw were underreported by a factor of 100 or more.
The data to red-pill others is hiding in plain sight.
All people have to do is look and open their minds to the possibility that the government hasn’t been telling the truth.