The difference between a sceptic and a mere contrarian is that a sceptic questions his own beliefs as fastidiously as he does other people’s. As this interview by Dr John Campbell of a sceptical doctor and former consultant pathologist reveals, however, it’s possible for even the most sceptical of us to underestimate the degree to which, when mass panic sets in, so-called experts can spout dangerous nonsense.

From the very start of the Covid pan(dem)ic I was suspicious of the consensus of hysteria that seemed to blow up out of nowhere. I expected that, in time, some of my key grounds for doubt would be vindicated, but I tried to keep an open mind.  A lot of what I found suspicious seemed to be entirely credible to people with far better credentials in the relevant fields than my own, and I fully expected that at least some of the Covidista’s eschatological claims would be validated, in time, by experiment and observation.

What I never imagined, in those early, crazy days, was that not only would every single one of my doubts be vindicated, but that elements of the confected catastrophe which I had never even questioned should turn out to be codswallop.

I mean, I knew Neil Ferguson and his crew of sociopathic arithromancers were hopeless at modelling contagion, and were guilty of a string of eye-wateringly costly scares, going back to the dawn of mass personal computing, which all turned out to be unfounded. If you watch the video, however, you will see the doctor explain that these charlatans are motivated to produce scary results because a/ while there are reputational risks to underestimating a danger to society, there has never been any penalty for exaggerating risk, and b/ their entire careers depend on their producing scare stories, coupled to a ‘this is what we can do about it’ narrative. The real fault, I suppose, lies with the politicians who keep on believing their fairy-tales, and funding their ‘work’.

It was clear to me, right from the start, that Covid was pretty life-threatening for anyone who, like, me, had reached the three score years and ten that used to be considered a normal lifespan, but that its case-fatality rate dropped like stone as the subject cohort got younger, and that it posed almost no risk to children. I always doubted the validity of comparing it to the 1919 ‘Spanish’ flu pandemic. But as you will see if you watch the video, it seems there may be grounds for believing that even that virus’ lethality may have been greatly exaggerated, with may deaths attributable not to the virus, but to the consumption in vast quantities of aspirin, then a novel and ‘wonder’ drug, and widely believed to be an effective treatment for the flu. As most of us now know, aspirin is a blood thinner, and dangerous in large quantities.

I always had serious doubts about the theoretical underpinnings of lockdown protocols. To take just one particular element, it seemed to me that they rested on claims to understanding the transmission of viruses that enjoyed unjustified confidence. My own experience reinforced those doubts. Both my wife and I had the Astra-Zeneca two-shot treatment. In my case I did so purely to obtain the vaccine certificate that, to its eternal shame, society then demanded of me to allow me to travel, and participate in group activities. She subsequently had a Pfizer jab, but I declined, resisting the blandishments of the health authorities and my doctor. We both caught the Omicron variety of Covid, and after an uncomfortable couple of weeks recovered. So much for ‘safe and effective’. Since then, she has had Covid again, yet, despite continuing to live and sleep together, on occasion with her breathing, unmasked, in my face, I remained unaffected. Clearly the simplistic narrative of contagion we were fed is, at best, incomplete. However, the interview I urge you to watch goes into far greater detail – and with far greater authority – than I could muster.

She also discusses the strange phenomenon whereby the vaccinated seem, like my wife, to be more, not less, susceptible to repeat infection. I have seen other clinicians dilate upon the damage done to our native immune systems by repeated exposure to mRNA pseudo-vaccines, but none has done so in terms so admirably accessible to lay-folk.

I had been well aware of the evidence suggesting that cheap, abundant drugs like HCQ and Ivermectin were effective when repurposed as treatments for, and even prophylactics against Covid, and had confidently ascribed their official demonisation to a combination of Trump Derangement Syndrome, and its gleeful exploitation of Big Pharma, which was damned if it was going to see a good epidemic ruined for it by out-of-patent drugs available from India at a cost of as few cents per dose. What I never suspected, however, was that evidence was available, but carefully ignored, that the MMR vaccine, which has many years and billions of doses to its credit, confers significant protection as well against Covid. Given that  the mRNA ‘pseudo-vaccines appear to confer precious little protection, and are proving, with the benefit of the time that has elapsed since their ill-advised ’emergency’ roll-out, to be far from safe either, it seems to me that we’d all have been a lot better off taking Ivermectin and updating our mumps protection, than juicing ourselves up with experimental treatments that progressively impair, rather  than reinforcing, our immune systems. One has to wonder how many lives this atrocious scam has cost.

Do have a look at the interview – she covers a lot more of the follies of the Covidista (mask mandates, anyone?) and in clear, simple terms that we lay folk can readily understand.

Tom Forrester-Paton