This post relates to an interview with Prof Niall Ferguson, which came up non my Youtube feed and which I took to be more or less contemporary. I penned and posted a riposte in the comments, before realising it was probably in fact a couple of years old. On reflection, though, it’s a pretty good illustration of the way Covid mania afflicted the cleverest among us no less than the ordinary man in the street – perhaps even more so. I would be surprised if Ferguson would express the same views if interviewed today, and it’s perhaps cruel to remind him of his earlier folly. Still, here’s what I wrote:

I have admired Ferguson’s thinking and writing for many years, so it pains me to hear him trot out strawman arguments about those who were hesitant to receive the hastily-concocted ‘vaccines’ against Covid. Does he really think that scepticism was fairly characterised by the microchip conspiracy theory? Maybe in the US, but in the world at large, certainly not. Like all strawman arguments, this was an attempt to avoid confronting the very real arguments against these treatments. Because ‘treatments’ they are, Niall – and not very good ones, either. Calling them ‘vaccines’ was a ruse to get round the usual requirement for therapies’ long-term effects to be studied before receiving approval.

Can  it really be that a historian of Ferguson’s stature is ignorant of the Nuremburg protocols, with their insistence upon ‘informed consent’ when administering medical treatment? And can he really believe that such consent is even possible, where the treatment has been smuggled into use without a proper study of its possible long-term side-effects?

I suppose it’s possible – although rather shocking – that he may be ignorant of the extensive body of respectable epidemiological opinion to the effect that immunity acquired through infection and recovery confers far superior protection than any of the so-called vaccines. I suppose it’s also possible that he could have remained  ignorant of the mounting toll of vaccine injury.

But if he is so ignorant, he could profitably look up the podcasts of Dr John Campbell, who began as a cautious pro-vaxer, but has since seen the light. I defy him  to dismiss Campbell as a foil-hatted, slack-jawed conspiracy-theorist. And if he is tempted to sneer at Campbell for being a mere nurse (albeit with a doctorate in nursing education), let him watch Campbell’s interview with UNSW’s Professor of Infection and immunity, Robert Clancy, July 2022.

When Covid spread in early 2020, one of the few things that was known about it was that its lethality was sharply age-discriminatory, but that anyone in reasonable health under the age of three score years and ten stood little chance of dying from it. I reasoned (by using common-sense – I have no medical training) that it was probably already endemic, so that the chief consequence of any attempt to eradicate it would be to ensure that when, as I thought was inevitable, we all got it, we’d be as old – and therefore as vulnerable – as we possibly could be. How smart was that, Niall?

Just as the aged have the most  to fear from Covid, children have almost nothing at all to fear. Indeed, as Niall will learn if he takes my advice to look up Campbell’s work, children’s immune systems will arguably benefit from the invigorating challenge of an infection they are likely to experience, at worst, as a nasty cold, and at best as an infection only revealed by testing. Giving them so-called ‘vaccines’ is outright abuse.