Bible Education Ethics Health Jesus Christ Music Politics Technology

Quantum 249 – AI, Humanity and Slavery

In this week’s Quantum we look at the world of AI and what it has to say about being human.  Are we moving towards being slaves of the machine?  With Kraftwerk; Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk and Geoffrey Hinton; The Terminator; Rage Against the Machine; Hate Speech Law in Ireland; Twitter changes Rules;  Education;  Does the Bible Advocate Slavery?  Tucker Carlson; Dr Aseem Malhotra and Joe Rogan on the Vaccines; Ed Sheeran v. Marvin Gaye; Dutch Farmers v. the Greens; Brecon Beacons no more; Gordon Lightfoot; Jerry Springer; King Charles; Alice Cooper; The Matrix; Wilberforce;  Amazing Grace with Chris Tomlin.

Catch up on last week here – Quantum 248 – Hate Speech and Misinformation

Support Quantum here –

Listen to the music on the new Quantum May Spotify Playlist 


  1. Please make sure of the facts before you air opinions – and support those opinions. I refer to Dr Malhotra’s claims about the COVID vaccines. His views are not those of the vast majority of the medical profession (including myself and my husband) and he has allowed the death of his father, tragic as it was for him on a personal level, to cloud his judgement. To quote the critique of his attempt to discredit the vaccines (see article below): ‘Malhotra’s article provides insufficient evidence for informing public health decisions’. The other individuals he mentions are well known vaccine sceptics.
    Do you imagine that the vast majority of doctors are part of a world-wide conspiracy to murder?
    Have you forgotten that around 20 million lives were saved in the first year after the roll-out of the vaccines?

    1. Thanks Ruth and Roger….I appreciate your comments and that this is a difficult subject. Just a few points.

      1) I do try to make sure of my facts before I air opinions. I have read a great deal on this and would suggest you watch the Malhotra interview I link to.
      2) There are many in medical profession who do not share your views. I have several medical friends- some share your point of view – others Dr Malhotra’s – and others in between. Only yesterday I spoke to a friend who had gone for their fifth vaccine and been persuaded by their doctor that it was not the right thing to do – on the grounds that the risks from the vaccine (small as they are) are greater than the risks from Covid.
      3) There is a reason that governments banned people from suing vaccine companies. There is a reason that Switzerland has stopped the vaccine – that the UK no longer offers it to under 50’s – that Astra Zeneca (the vaccine I received) has now been banned in Australia.
      4) Do you dispute the one in 800 adverse effects numbers (these are government figures)? 1 in 800 is a massive number for a vaccine!
      5) When we were told (and we were) that vaccines would prevent us getting covid and passing it on – we were lied to. The vaccine does nothing of the sort. It helps in many cases alleviate serious illness but it is a vaccine that does not prevent nor stop the spreading of the disease. I have had three dozes of the vaccine – and have had covid twice. The second time (after being triple vaccinated) was far more serious. It was only anti-virals that saved me. If governments concentrated on anti-virals for seriously ill patients a lot more lives would be saved.
      6) There is no evidence that highly vaccinated populations have had a lower excess death rate.
      7) Please don’t use the argument that anyone who disagrees with you can be dismissed as a vaccine sceptic. Thats a circular argument.
      8) And please don’t make up arguments to argue against. There was nothing in the podcast – nor in Dr Malhotra – which states the vast majority of doctors were part of a vast conspiracy to murder. Doubtless there are some eccentric and unbalanced people who believe that – but don’t automatically label everyone who questions the effects of the vaccine as being a conspiracy theorist who thinks that its all a plot to kill people! Ir might just be that doctors, like the rest of us, didn’t know and we were all doing the best with the little we knew. I suggest you watch Dr John Campbell’s videos – he was a strong supporter of lockdowns, vaccines etc and would have argued as you do. But following the evidence based approach and now knowing a whole lot more he has come to the position of being a lot more questioning of the effectiveness and the side effects of the vaccines. I would suggest that we all follow the evidence and don’t just name call those who disagree with us, or Google for articles that follow our position…..I know that that is a temptation for me – which is why I try to read different points of view _ so thanks for the link you provided.

      1. Below is copied from the UK Gov. website 2023
        ‘Over the course of the pandemic over 178,407 people across the UK have died within 28 days of a positive test for coronavirus (COVID-19). Vaccination is the single most effective way to reduce deaths and severe illness from COVID-19. A national immunisation campaign has been underway since early December 2020.

        Three COVID-19 vaccines – the monovalent COVID-19 Vaccine Pfizer/BioNTech, COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca and monovalent COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna – were used in the primary and booster vaccination campaigns up to the end of August 2022. Up to 23 August 2022, 53 million people received a first dose of COVID-19 vaccine, 50 million received a second dose and 40 million received a third or booster dose. Safety monitoring throughout the deployment showed that the most common adverse reactions for all the COVID-19 vaccines were mild and self-limiting ‘reactogenicity’-type events such as fever, fatigue and injection site pain. View our existing record for a summary of information received via the Yellow Card scheme on these three vaccines as well as safety investigations carried out by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) on these products.

        On 15 August and 3 September 2022 respectively, the Moderna bivalent vaccine (Spikevax bivalent Original/Omicron BA.1) and the Pfizer/BioNTech bivalent vaccine (Comirnaty Original/Omicron BA.1) were approved by the MHRA as booster vaccines in those aged 12 years and above. Both bivalent vaccines are active against the original strain of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the Omicron BA.1 variant. COVID-19 vaccine Novavax (Nuvaxovid), approved by the MHRA on 3 February 2022, and indicated for use in those aged 12 years and above is also being used as a booster dose in the small proportion of patients who are unable to receive mRNA vaccines.

        All COVID-19 vaccines used in the autumn 2022 UK booster programme have been authorised for supply by the MHRA following a thorough review of quality and immunogenicity data in line with international regulatory standards. In trials, these vaccines elicited strong antibody responses to the SARS-CoV-2 virus and to variants of concern, sufficient to protect against COVID-19. Data are available on the impact of the vaccination campaign in reducing infections, illness and mortality in the UK.

        On 3 September 2022 the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) issued a statement describing which COVID-19 vaccines would be used for those eligible to receive an autumn COVID-19 vaccine booster.

        All vaccines and medicines have some side effects although not everybody gets them. These side effects need to be continuously balanced against the expected benefits in preventing illness. As part of the MHRA’s responsibility to ensure that the benefits of the COVID-19 vaccines used in the UK continue to outweigh the risks, the MHRA is closely monitoring the bivalent mRNA vaccines and COVID-19 vaccine Novavax using the proactive pharmacovigilance surveillance strategy in place for the initial vaccine rollout. We also work closely with our public health partners in reviewing the effectiveness and impact of the vaccines to ensure the benefits continue to outweigh any possible side effects. Our ongoing review of suspected adverse events following the launch of the National Autumn 2022 booster campaign has not revealed any new safety concerns.

        Part of our monitoring role includes reviewing reports of suspected side effects. Any member of the public or health professional can submit suspected side effects through the Yellow Card scheme. The nature of Yellow Card reporting means that reported events are not always proven side effects. Some events may have happened anyway, regardless of vaccination. This is particularly the case when millions of people are vaccinated, and especially when vaccines are being given to the most elderly people and people who have underlying illness.

        As of 22 February 2023, for the UK, 4,096 Yellow Cards have been reported for the bivalent COVID-19 Vaccine Pfizer/BioNTech, 5,108 for the bivalent COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna, 57 for the COVID-19 Vaccine Novavax and 2,319 have been reported where the brand of the vaccine was not specified (please note this may also include vaccines which were used in the primary and initial booster campaign where the brand was not reported).

        For both the bivalent COVID-19 Vaccine Pfizer/BioNTech, and bivalent COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna the overall reporting rate is around 0.5 Yellow Cards per 1,000 doses administered. There is insufficient experience with COVID-19 Vaccine Novavax to be able to make similar estimates of reporting rates.

        It is important to note that Yellow Card data cannot be used to derive side-effect rates or compare the safety profile of different COVID-19 vaccines as many factors can influence ADR reporting. Additionally, it is important to consider that a Yellow Card report can include reference to more than one vaccine associated with a suspected reaction where different vaccines have been used as third or booster doses.

        For all COVID-19 vaccines, the overwhelming majority of reports relate to injection-site reactions (sore arm for example) and generalised symptoms such as ‘flu-like’ illness, headache, chills, fatigue (tiredness), nausea (feeling sick), fever, dizziness, weakness, aching muscles, and rapid heartbeat. Generally, these happen shortly after the vaccination and are not associated with more serious or lasting illness.

        These types of reactions reflect the normal immune response triggered by the body to the vaccines. They are typically seen with most types of vaccine and tend to resolve within a day or two. The nature of reported suspected side effects is broadly similar across age groups, although, as was seen in clinical trials and as is usually seen with other vaccines, they may be reported more frequently in younger adults.’

        That figure of 800 serious side effects from the vaccines has been thoroughly discredited by the paper which was quoted at the end of our original comment.

        By the way, it was never claimed by the developers of the vaccines that they could prevent the spread of the virus – the original trials didn’t test for that. However, the vaccines did reduce the probability of serious disease and saved many lives.

        We have watched John Campbell and are not impressed.

        There are several people who have made a name for themselves by being vaccine sceptics who would otherwise have remained in obscurity.

      2. The figure is one in 800 – not 800 – which means there are many millions who have been affected. That is the figure from the UK government – and is backed up by most other government statistics (when they make them available). I note you don’t deal with most of the points I raised.

        I should also point out that it was the politicians (and commentators) and the social media corporations who told us that ‘the science’ said that the vaccine would both stop us getting covid and passing it on. ‘Save your Granny – get vaccinated’! They either lied – or ‘the science’ was wrong.

        I’ve noticed (on all ‘sides’) that there are people who seem to be emotionally invested in one ‘side’ or another and thus find it really difficult to countenance anything that might be contrary to their view. That is why I find Dr John Campbell so fascinating. He has changed his mind. on the basis of the evidence. Rather than just curtly dismissing him – why not deal with the evidence that he provides? (and by ‘deal with’ – I don’t mean Google some ‘fact checker’ which will provide the evidence you want!)….

      3. Sorry for the mistake. We realised after sending the comment that we should have inserted the ‘one in’ before 800. We would love to know where that figure comes from. If it is from the yellow card data, many people misunderstand how that system works. You say that we don’t address many of your points. The same could be said of you! For example, you have completely ignored the fact that around 20 million lives were saved world-wide from the COVID vaccines. Another point we would like to make is that because of vaccine sceptics’ blindness to the enormous benefits that the original rollout brought apart from the health aspects – the prospect of things returning to normal and some freedom of movement – a climate of uncertainty has been created around vaccination in general. This has resulted in parents being reluctant to take their children for vaccinations against diseases such as measles which can have serious and even fatal consequences for the child. We suggest you stick to what you know and don’t try to argue from behind the shelter of such people as John Campbell whose ‘science’ does not stand up to scrutiny.

      4. The figure of one in 800 comes from the UK government and others – its not really in dispute and the BMJ. “British Medical Journal Editor Dr. Peter Doshi along with Dr. Joseph Fraiman and colleagues examined the data from the vaccine clinical trials and found that, compared to controls, the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were associated with an increased risk of serious adverse events of 10.1 events per 10,000 vaccinated for Pfizer and 15.1 events per 10,000 vaccinated for Moderna. When combined, the mRNA vaccines were associated with an increased risk of serious adverse events of 12.5 per 10,000 vaccinated, or 1 in 800. Note that the adverse events they looked at included those from COVID-19 itself, meaning the findings imply that among trial participants the vaccines were doing more harm than good.”

        Yes – I am thankful that 20 million lives were probably saved by the vaccines. But I also want to know how many lives were lost because of the vaccines. And how many because of lockdowns etc. Why are there so many excess deaths in countries where

        The climate of uncertainly has now been created around vaccines in general – but if you insist that questioning one vaccine means you are questionning all then you will create that atmosphere. I have just had my flu vaccine. I won’t have my fourth or fifth or 25th covid vaccine – because the evidence for its effectiveness is very limited.

        And please don’t patronise. I could just as easily suggest that you should stick to what you know and don’t try to hide behind whatever you can Google or play the ‘expert’ card. Being a GP does not make you an expert on epidemiology. You too have to go by the information you recieve…and there are thousands of your fellow GP’s who come to a different conclusion from you.

      5. ‘ British Medical Journal Editor Dr. Peter Doshi along with Dr. Joseph Fraiman and colleagues examined the data from the vaccine clinical trials and found that, compared to controls, the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were associated with an increased risk of serious adverse events of 10.1 events per 10,000 vaccinated for Pfizer and 15.1 events per 10,000 vaccinated for Moderna. When combined, the mRNA vaccines were associated with an increased risk of serious adverse events of 12.5 per 10,000 vaccinated, or 1 in 800. Note that the adverse events they looked at included those from COVID-19 itself, meaning the findings imply that among trial participants the vaccines were doing more harm than good.’
        British Medical Journal Editor Dr. Peter Doshi along with Dr. Joseph Fraiman and colleagues examined the data from the vaccine clinical trials and found that, compared to controls, the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were associated with an increased risk of serious adverse events of 10.1 events per 10,000 vaccinated for Pfizer and 15.1 events per 10,000 vaccinated for Moderna. When combined, the mRNA vaccines were associated with an increased risk of serious adverse events of 12.5 per 10,000 vaccinated, or 1 in 800. Note that the adverse events they looked at included those from COVID-19 itself, meaning the findings imply that among trial participants the vaccines were doing more harm than good.‘
        British Medical Journal Editor Dr. Peter Doshi along with Dr. Joseph Fraiman and colleagues examined the data from the vaccine clinical trials and found that, compared to controls, the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were associated with an increased risk of serious adverse events of 10.1 events per 10,000 vaccinated for Pfizer and 15.1 events per 10,000 vaccinated for Moderna. When combined, the mRNA vaccines were associated with an increased risk of serious adverse events of 12.5 per 10,000 vaccinated, or 1 in 800. Note that the adverse events they looked at included those from COVID-19 itself, meaning the findings imply that among trial participants the vaccines were doing more harm than good.‘
        Those figures come from a paper which has been thoroughly reviewed and thoroughly discredited (as we previously pointed out)
        We have both undertaken medical research – Roger has an MD – and we can usually detect when something doesn’t ring true.
        It is regrettable that misinformation gets wider publicity than the truth.
        We too are Christians and love the truth which is why we believe this is worth contesting.
        To quote Dorothy Sayers, ‘All truth is God’s truth’.

      6. They are not helpful at all….anyone can Google things from the web which confirms their own bias. I have been incredibly sceptical about self appointed ‘fact checkers’ – on every side. Whatever else you say about Dr John Campbell he is someone who is not afraid to go where the evidence leads – he is meticulous in doing that. It’s why he has changed his mind. Of course he may be wrong – but provide the evidence. He is also a Christian brother (a fact I did not know until last week!), which makes me inclined to trust him even more.

        If you are willing to look at different perspectives I would suggest you have a look at this –

        Should Dr Jay Bhattacharva just be dismissed as not knowing what he is talking about? He is Professor of Medicine and Professor (by Courtesy) of Economics at Stanford University, and one of the world’s leading experts on public health policy. Dr. Bhattacharya’s research focuses on the economics of health care around the world with a particular emphasis on the health and well-being of vulnerable populations. He has published 135 articles in top peer-reviewed scientific journals in medicine, economics, health policy, epidemiology, statistics, law, and public health among other fields.

      7. The interview with Dr Bhattacharia on Australian TV mentioned COVID vaccines right at the end. Sadly Dr Bhattacharia quoted that figure of one in 800 of severe adverse effects which, as we have already said, has been shown to be false. Another false statement he made was his figure of the rate of myocarditis in young men after vaccination. He said it was one in 1000, 2000 or 3000 depending on the source. If you take the trouble to look at the literature you will find that the true figure is around 30 in 100,000. Also, the condition is usually mild and resolves spontaneously. Another wildly false claim was made by the woman who was being interviewed. She declared that there were no data on pregnant women having had the vaccine and that all sorts of foetal abnormalities would appear in the future. This is utter nonsense! Many studies have been done to show that the vaccine affords protection for pregnant women and their unborn babies, and that the disease itself is far more of a risk to them. For example a study published in the Lancet in November 2022. Dr Bhattacharia’s view that only vulnerable people should be vaccinated completely ignores the whole concept of herd immunity. He also conveniently forgets that the original strains of the virus were much more virulent and more likely to cause severe illness than later strains. If this programme was designed to plan for future strategies, perhaps such issues should be taken into account.

      8. You may have said it – but you havn’t shown that the one in 800 figure is false? You have just stated it is. I prefer to go with what the article in the BMJ said (and numerous others). And 30 in 100,000 is around one in 3,000 – so he was not wrong. I find it strange that you think someone whose job is dealing with these figures would make demonstrably false claims. Herd immunity (which the Swedes were castigated for by ‘experts’) is not obtained by vaccination – because the vaccine does not stop the spread of covid. Herd immunity occurs when a significant proportion of the population have had covid and become more immune. As for the original strains much more virulent? Where did you get that information? We were warned here in Australia that Omicron and other variants were more virulent.

  2. Hi David, thanks for another interesting episode. I am not an expert on AI (I studied it briefly at university 20 years ago) but I don’t think we are even close to machines being able to genuinely think for themselves. I’ve been testing ChatGPT for some time now and although its language processing engine is very impressive, it is nothing even approaching genuine intelligence.

    I expect the best we will ever be able to do is program machines to very closely mimic humans based on analysis of huge amounts of data of past human communications and interactions, which as I understand is what ChatGPT does. I don’t think machines will ever be able to think creatively or invent things they haven’t seen humans do.

  3. With regards to AI, I think we need to be very suspicious and wonder what is actually going on.

    He has left his job at google and is “scared of the potential of AI ChatBots” – or is he? The biggest AI chat it currently is ChatGPT, which was developed by OpenAI, which Microsoft (who owns Bing) invested $11bn in. Hmmm… there is a lot of Big Tech money at stake. So what do you think the “godfather of AI” has to benefit from creating outrage or fear.

    In this situation, I think he is trying to spread fear to slow down the widespread adoption of AI tools so that the company he left has time to catch up.

    There’s seemingly always something going on in the background and when it comes to power and big tech, big pharma etc, we need to look behind what we’re being told. It’s unlikely to be the whole truth.

  4. David, the adverse effects from the COVID vaccines are not 1 in 800. In fact they’re nowhere near that, as these sources show:

    And these adverse effects are normally mild and self correcting or they respond well and quickly to medical attention.

    There are also numerous studies which show that every single adverse effect from the vaccines is also a symptom of COVID, with far greater frequency and severity. This is because the virus is not a respiratory virus, but one which attacks almost every organ in the body, causing damage that can be long term or permanent, and as we already know, in the case of the heart, fatal:

    And there is this link embedded in the text of that article which shows the extremely high prevalence of these heart issues:

    As for Malhotra and the study he cites, these will give you the reason why he and the study are not trustworthy:

    As for Dr John Campbell, there is a video in that “Science Based Medicine” article by immunologist at UNSW, Dr Susan Oliver, who has a number of YouTube videos where she reveals Campbell to be the grifter he is.

    As i know that you’re the last person to go off half cocked, and as most of this information is so easy to find, I wonder why you failed to do so, but I’ll put it down to a case of “Homer nods”

    1. Please don’t patronise. I have seen most of this information and it is remarkably easy to Google any info we want. My interest in this is not political and I have no axe to grind in it. There are numerous studies which show that the side effects are not slight. I remember having this same conversation with someone who argued that the Astra Zeneca vaccine (the one I got) was totally safe and that anyone who said anything else was spreading misinformation – now the Australian government has banned it! There are reasons that the Swiss and Scandinavians have stopped vaccinating – and the UK does not vaccinate under 50’s now. As for Dr John Campbell – of course you can Google several people who attack him – but I would want a little more than that. What I find intriguing is that he has changed his mind according to the data – and also that he is a committed Christian…that doesn’t mean he is right – but it does mean that you shouldn’t just dismiss him as a ‘grifter’ – especially given your lack of qualifications in this field! At the end of the day I think we are all trying to make sense of something that is really difficult.

      1. Why jump to the conclusion that it’s my intention to be patronising? Do you seriously imagine that I spent the time it took to research this to do that, David? Only to see that you didn’t even bother to examine even the information you haven’t seen? That in itself is a patronising remark, and unworthy of you!

        You say that it’s “remarkably easy to Google any info we want”, yet you only seem to be examining one side of the argument. For example, as the risk of fatality discovered in the Astra-Zeneca vaccine, which was quickly acted upon, was less than 1 in 1,000,000, and the risk of getting a blood clot was 1 in 100,000, then a description of “totally safe” is not “totally” accurate, but it is correct to say that it is as safe as can be, and in fact as safe as the majority of medications on the market, most of which have a certain risk factor.

        In fact, as tells us:

        “Women can have blood clots when they are not using oral contraceptives. For every 100,000 women aged 15-44 who are not taking the pill, approximately 5-10 will develop a blood clot in one year. Taking a combined oral contraceptive increases this very small risk of developing a clot by 3-4 times if you are on a second generation pill, 6-8 times if you are taking a third generation pill, and possibly over 8 times for those on pills containing cyproterone. Women using progestogen-only pills are at little or no increased risk of blood clots.”

        That’s many times higher than the majority of the adverse effects from the mRNA vaccines. And the statistics in relation to one of the most frequent, Myopericarditis, are very similar to other vaccines which have been in use for many years (

        As for the government banning the Astra-Zeneca, that’s not true. It was withdrawn by the company because it is a first generation vaccine which is no longer as effective as those boosters being developed by Pfizer and Moderna against the most recent variants of the virus. So why would you continue manufacturing a vaccine that nobody is going to use? And it is still approved the same as the others.

        And your claim that Switzerland and the Scandinavians have “stopped vaccinating” is also not true:

        Far be it from me to believe you are being untruthful yourself, but it appears that you have taken certain information from others at face value that turns out to be false.

        As is the case with Dr John Campbell, who you claim is being “attacked”. The more correct term would be “refuted”. And while I may not share his qualifications, that’s why I recommended that you watch the videos of Dr Susan Oliver, who IS a PhD immunologist, who does conclusively prove that he is a “grifter” (her term).

        But you won’t know if you don’t watch, which would be a shame for someone like you, especially when you put information out there to your readers and listeners that’s patently false and therefore misleading, especially on an issue which can have consequences for those people’s health.

        And it’s worth noting that though I do not have qualifications, nevertheless I have read a huge amount of material as well as studied hundreds of papers relating to clinical trials and data analyses on all aspects of this issue over the past two years. So, again, you in fact patronise me by assuming that a lack of qualifications disqualifies me from being able to provide relevant information. My late father-in-law gave me some of the best advice I ever heard. He said, “It’s not what you know that counts, it’s knowing where to look”.

        Besides, I now notice that others who’ve commented here DO have the qualifications, yet you still do not accept that you got it wrong.

        And as you make the point that “we are all trying to make sense of something that is really difficult”, why would you be so dismissive of what I made the effort to find? And it’s true that “it is remarkably easy to Google any info we want”, but when the most significant cause of that difficulty is the sheer weight of misinformation from a host of bad faith actors masquerading as knights in shining armour and whistle blowers, then looking for “info we want” is not enough.

      2. I had seen the information. Switrzerland has stopped vaccinations. Astra Zeneca has been banned in Australia. Dr Susan Oliver is not an immunologist. I am not dismissive of what you say. And I won’t be getting a fourth vaccine. It is, at best, unproven and unreliable. Facts are facts.

      3. You also seem to be confused over whether or not specific expertise is required, as you accused Ruth and Roger of “playing the ‘expert’ card” and that “Being a GP does not make you an expert on epidemiology”. Yet you cited an unidentified “thousands of doctors” to support what you’ve written, including the GP of a friend who dissuaded him from getting his booster, none of whom are “an expert in epidemiology”! And neither is Dr Malhotra.

        It appears that you are using the opinion of doctors who are against the vaccines to try and refute those who aren’t, none of whom meet your own criteria of being epidemiologists!

        You also challenged my ability to be critical of Campbell because of my “lack of qualifications in this field”. But you don’t possess those qualifications either!

        And neither does Campbell. According to his own bio, he says, “I am a retired Nurse Teacher and A and E nurse”. So he’s not a medical doctor. He has a PhD from The University of Bolton on the subject of “Teaching bioscience in national and international nurse education”.

        And as for your repeated insistence that you trust him because he changed his mind, there’s plenty of videos he’s made for his YouTube channel professing that, but I have yet to find anywhere he was advocating the vaccines before his self professed epiphany.

        And it’s way too easy to just sit back and justify not examining the claims of those like Dr Oliver that he is a “grifter” on the false pretense that he’s being “attacked”. You cannot claim that ” it is remarkably easy to Google any info we want” and then dismiss with a wave of the hand info on Google that others recommend because it challenges your opinion.

        And here is a recent video with Dr Oliver where she shows where Campbell actually contradicts himself (between 3-5 minutes). The rest confirms the fact that he either has no understanding of the papers he’s commenting on or that he does and he’s cherry-picking to be dishonest. The second shows more generally the deceitful methods he uses in his videos, including those with Dr Malhotra.

      4. Dr Susan Oliver is not an epidemiologist. I started watching her video but gave up – it was laughable.

        I note that you are calling Dr Campbell dishonest or stupid – not helpful about a fellow Christian

        And yes Dr Campbell did change his mind – one reason I stopped watching him was that he was so pro-lockdown, vaccine, masks etc that I found it boring….he just seemed to parrot whatever the government health bodies were saying.

        I don’t claim any qualifications or expertise. But I can read. And I read widely. There is no doubt that the vaccines are limited in their effectiveness and that the side effects are substantial. I note you miss the major point as to why governments are now advising against vaccination for under 50’s.

        There is numerous data about the side effects – the only reason I mentioned Dr Campbell was that he was very good at collating and explaining the data. Here for example is some data from Israel –

        As for real epidemiologists maybe these guys don’t know what they are talking about and should listen to Dr Susan, the nano-technologist!

      5. “I had seen the information. Switrzerland has stopped vaccinations.”

        I don’t know what information you’ve seen, but this is from the link I provided you from the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health (which suggests that you did not even bother to check the link I took the trouble to find):

        “In principle, no COVID-19 vaccination is recommended for spring/summer 2023. Nearly everyone in Switzerland has been vaccinated and/or contracted and recovered from COVID-19. Their immune system has therefore been exposed to the coronavirus. In spring/summer 2023, the virus will likely circulate less. The current virus variants also cause rather mild illness. For autumn 2023, the vaccination recommendation will be evaluated again and adjusted accordingly…If a wave of infection were to emerge in spring/summer 2023, the vaccination recommendation would be adjusted.”

        The links to the several Scandinavian countries you cited all give similar advice of a “watch and wait” nature.

        “Astra Zeneca has been banned in Australia.”

        It has NOT been banned. It was withdrawn by the company for the reason I told you. And if you use a modicum of common sense it would be clear that unlike the Pfizer and Moderna it was not updated for the later variants of the virus.

        As was reported at on the day of the announcement:

        “The federal Department of Health and Aged Care confirmed the news in a statement to, saying although the vaccine remains provisionally approved in the country, AstraZeneca has decided to “formally discontinue Vaxzevria in Australia”…

        …“The Government has entered into five separate agreements for the supply of Covid-19 vaccines and has secured sufficient doses to complete current and future booster requirements and any new or remaining primary course vaccinations,” the spokesperson said.

        “This diverse portfolio of vaccines provides Australian’s flexibility of choice and enables the government to address variants of concern in the future. The (Health) Department works closely with manufacturers to ensure access to the most updated vaccines.”

        The spokesperson wanted to emphasise the decision to phase out Vaxzevria was “not a decision based on safety as some people have misrepresented on social media”, but by the increased supply of alternative Covid vaccine options.

        “As expected, first generation vaccines have been superseded by newer vaccines targeting the strains of the virus now circulating.”

        So in reality it was a commercial decision. After all, what company is going to continue manufacturing a product which is going to go to waste? And why would they suddenly ban a vaccine that they’ve allowed to be injected into14 million Australians with (apart from the initial issue with Thrombocytopenia) no greater incidence of side effects than the mRNA vaccines, and from what I can find less actual side effects?

        “Dr Susan Oliver is not an immunologist.”

        She’s a microbiologist with a PhD in her relevant field of expertise, which is a hell of a lot more relevant than “Dr” Campbell or Dr Malhotra, and in every single video she gives PROOF of Campbell’s duplicity. But unfortunately, you let your bias give convenient precedence to her quirky style over her substance and wouldn’t watch. You said you turned it off, and as I told you that she exposes Campbell’s self incriminating lies in the first 3-5 minutes, then you obviously didn’t even watch for that long. As I spent time to respond to you, as well as hunting down information, if the boot were on the other foot I think you’d say that showed disrespect. And I didn’t say Campbell was dishonest or stupid from my own perspective. The video proves it.

        And now in return you refer me to an article referring to a “study” done in Israel, which the article admits is anonymous (never a good sign in clinical studies) and “Released long ago but not published in a medical journal” (an even worse sign), which it turns out is no more than a phone survey of 2,000 people. How is this comparable in any way to the mountain of data being collected from all around the world as part of the normal pharmacovigilance, which gives an incredibly consistent picture on adverse effects across the whole time span from the first approval onwards? I could provide a huge list of independent peer reviewed data and meta analysis studies, but it appears you are resistant to examining anything I offer you.

        Finally, you again mock Dr Oliver with “Dr Susan, the nano-technologist”, while offering up the writers of the highly criticised “Great Barrington Declaration” as “real epidemiologists”, which they undoubtedly are, as are the host of scientists who were highly critical at the time, with the third link below highlighting its ethical failings.

        “There is numerous data about the side effects”

        Yes, there is. And every single clinical study I’ve seen, on every single side effect, also stresses their rarity, coupled with the fact that the same side effect is a far more severe and far more frequent symptom of COVID. They also show, contrary to your claim, that their effectiveness is well proven and they are highly reliable. That’s because, as you rightly say, “Facts are facts”. And the hundreds of peer reviewed papers I’ve seen relating to this are the supreme example of that.

        “I can read. And I read widely.”

        Not widely enough, it appears. And if any of this creates a feeling of annoyance, then I would suggest that that is a sign that you’re not being as objective as you think you are. Especially if you can’t be bothered examining the links I provided. That’s just “sour grapes”, and not a little disrespectful.

      6. Hi Kim, I’m sorry but I don’t have the time to just trade articles with you – and I suspect it will do no good. You seem to be reading everything through the lens of ‘the vaccines must be good’ and seem unlikely to accept any criticism no matter what the source. Eg your spin on Astra Zeneca suggests that it has just been withdrawn by the company – it was withdrawn by the company because it is no longer recommended for use because of safety concerns –,with%20thrombocytopenia%20syndrome%20(TTS).

        You will forgive me being a little sceptical about you having read ‘hundreds of peer reviewed papers’…I certainly can’t match you on that!

        I’ve read your links and many others and don’t find them convincing…but of course I could be wrong. Nonetheless I suspect that in years to come the wholescale adoption of mRNA vaccines without adequate testing and research may well come to be regretted. I hope I am wrong. You probably won’t appreciate this because you have apparently determined that your Christian brother, Dr John Campbell, is a dishonest, ignorant liar – but this short clip does reflect my concerns – not least that any discussion is immediately shut down (wither by the law or ridicule and name calling) –

  5. First, when I load someone up with a raft of links, especially long involved technical ones, the last thing I expect is a swift response. I just hope that people will take however long it takes to treat them with the respect they deserve and the respect with which they’re offered.

    Second, I am not reading this through any lens, least of all the one you imply, as though I have somehow convinced myself of that and am hiding behind sceptical blinkers. Far from it! I’ll leave that mindset to our “rational sceptic” friends!

    From the start I have seen far too many Christians sucked down the conspiracy theory rabbit hole, reactively doubting any and every decision and pronouncement by any official, politician, representative of “Big Pharma”, “Big Tech”, “Mainstream Media”, as though they are all part of a global conspiracy.

    In doing so they took on the worst attributes of the “rational sceptic” atheists and dialled it up to 11!

    So, having learned over many years of online debates with atheists, from which I learned how to cross check their claims, that’s what I did for the past three years. I educated myself on every single claim that came my way. Thankfully I normally have the time to do that, although finding the truth usually only requires a quick Google search.

    I also learned that, as those people had extrapolated the fact that fact checkers have a political bias, that they weren’t reliable on any issue. So that’s when I began hunting down the source material from peer reviews, clinical trials, and data & meta analysis (which is not as time consuming as you’d think when you know what to look for). And now, after over two years of the vaccines being used, the data from billions of vaccinations is enormous. And especially in relation to adverse effects this global data collection ALL points with incredible consistency to the fact that the occurrences are extremely rare, and that every single adverse effect mirrors a far more severe and far more frequent symptom of the disease.

    And that’s without even considering the now better understood and incredible impact of ‘Long COVID’.

    So, just because you can’t match me on that, why be sceptical of my claim that I have done all of that, and sceptical in a way that reflects the way the atheists and the conspiracy theorists are?

    Third, you repeat the claim regarding Astra Zeneca and post the very same link I did, yet miss the direct quote from the department spokesperson in the article, who said, “This was not a decision based on safety as some people have misrepresented on social media. As expected, first generation vaccines have been superseded by newer vaccines targeting the strains of the virus now circulating.”

    It simply defies logic that they would, after putting it into 14 million arms over a two year period, suddenly decide that it’s dangerous and ban it. That then requires you to assume that the spokesperson is lying. I know I don’t need to explain “Occam’s Razor” to you.

    Fourth, and finally, you rightly say that “Facts are facts”. But they are not necessarily true. It’s like a jigsaw puzzle. Every puzzle piece is like a fact, and all the facts fit together to give a true picture. But the problem is when people take random “facts” out of the “bigger picture”. They then present their “facts” as though they are the “bigger picture”. They do this by things like cherry-picking information from official documents or studies. By doing so they turn a “fact” into a lie.

    And this is how people like Dr Campbell operate. And if you take the time to watch the short videos of Dr Oliver I provided you will see for yourself how it works. Don’t judge her by her manner, judge her by what she actually says. To do otherwise is to doubt my judgement or my honesty as well.

    And whether or not Campbell is a Christian or only claims to be is irrelevant to the fact that he does not tell the truth in his videos, a fact noted by so many other than Dr Oliver. I have simply found that she explains things better, and goes deeper, than others.

    So, I’m pleased that you allow yourself the room to be wrong. And on that point I’ll finish by noting that your claim that these vaccines were adopted “without adequate testing and research” is another false claim by anti-vaxxers. Without weighing you down with more technical data, the development of the mRNA vaccine has a four decade history, with the first clinical trials on humans being performed in 2013, and another was developed, and I believe used, against Ebola in West Africa a few years before the pandemic, but because of its extremely specific usage it is not commercially viable.

    And in relation to “adequate testing”, nothing could be further from the truth. As Phase 3 human trials are normally restricted by finances to a few thousand participants, the fact that the three main vaccines, Pfizer (43,000), Moderna (30,000) and Astra Zeneca (20,000) had so many participants was the primary reason, along with the fact that the genome of the virus was so quickly analysed and able to be replicated, why the trial time was much quicker than is normally the case.

    To sum up, as I have read far more, far wider and far deeper than you, I believe I have cause to say that I have found more pieces of the “fact” puzzle which points beyond bare facts, which can be and are manipulated to an astonishing level by a host of bad faith operators, Campbell and Malhotra being just two of many, and have enough of the puzzle in place to see the “truth”, which I find is confirmed to me time and time again on so many of these issues.

    After all, as Christians, that’s what we’re after, isn’t it, what Schaeffer described as “true Truth”?

  6. As a quick addendum, I found this in response to an article by Dr Julie Sladden (another doctor pushing misinformation) at “Canberra Declaration” on an upcoming Australian lecture tour by Dr Malhotra beginning next week. It is a summary of a similar lecture he gave a few months ago, which is likely to be on the same territory as that one. It is a fair and reasonable, and not wholly critical assessment, and it has numerous other links embedded in the text.

    Take your time.

    And while cross checking links to Malhotra I found this on the false claim that the Swiss stopped the vaccines.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *