Dr. John Campbell discusses immunology with Prof. Robert Clancy

If you have a spare hour today and I hope you do, the video below is highly recommended viewing.

11 thoughts on “Dr. John Campbell discusses immunology with Prof. Robert Clancy”

  1. Excellent information! Robert Clancy deserves much wider recognition and appreciation. The interviewer John Campbell is good at raising questions to elicit very informative answers, and is streets ahead of the likes of ABCs Norman Swan. Comments under the YouTube page are highly supportive. Download , share widely etc, don’t let this get memory -holed.


    Report comment

    3
  2. I’ve watched it. Very good. Many questions I would like to ask. I wish Clancy had provided some references to support his argument(I don’t trust theoretical biomed arguments). I like Clancy’s idea of a synergistic strategy: using vaccines and other interventions.


    Report comment

    1
  3. That would have to be THE most informative session on covid info I have seen in this whole 2+ year shemozzle!
    We’ll done that man – both of them!
    moderated

  4. I thought you might like it, JohnH. I’ve been quite harsh re the vaccines but this is really only because of the blanket approach to them, the uncritical approval and suppression of criticism by media/ academic/ research institutions, sidelining of complementary efforts like early treatment, and so on.

    I like these types of interview because the interviewer is genuinely interested in the interviewee and what they have to say, and the interviewee is actually knowledgeable in their field of study, and the topic is interesting.


    Report comment

    5
  5. dover0beachsays:
    January 27, 2022 at 11:07 am
    I thought you might like it, JohnH. I’ve been quite harsh re the vaccines but this is really only because of the blanket approach to them, the uncritical approval and suppression of criticism by media/ academic/ research institutions, sidelining of complementary efforts like early treatment, and so on.

    I like these types of interview because the interviewer is genuinely interested in the interviewee and what they have to say, and the interviewee is actually knowledgeable in their field of study, and the topic is interesting.

    Thanks Dover Beach. The blanket approach to vaccines has been shocking. I mentioned Clancy’s preference for a synergistic approach because it reflected my belief that war against ivermectin was atrocious and in a certain sense sociopathic because it denied a possible life saving treatment. I am disappointed by the medical profession’s kowtowing to CHO’s but also know that medicine is very pecking order dominated profession so don’t question the superiors. Clancy makes a subtle reference to this issue. It is immunologists like Clancy that should have been in front of the media. Most CHO’s don’t know diddly swat about immunology.

    My biggest concern with the vaccines has been the single protein target. Clancy also mentions this and states that a traditional vaccine offers a number of potential protein targets for the immune responses. I was holding out for a vaccine currently in development which provides 3 protein targets but have not being confident about its approval so tomorrow I have my second jab.


    Report comment

    2
  6. Just watched it all and thanks for putting it up Dover; it provides measured rationality in a debate that as you note can sometimes veer into emotion and confusion. A very good discussion and especially important in covering the issue of mucosal immunity vs systemic immunity. The gut is a significant player in a lot of endocrine and immunological activity and the gut-brain relay connection is now being further examined. A gut presentation of Covid including Omricon is also being seen clinically. Emergency tested me for it when I presented recently with gastric pain and suspected heart attack.

    Vaccine development needs to take more account of the polyclonal response, and no-one is particularly happy with the limitations of the genetic messenger RNA approach, including me, partly because it is hard to specify the amount of spike protein that will emerge and where it may end up. The discussion on vaccine intervals was very important too, and long overdue. Putting only 3 weeks between the two Pfizer jabs was almost criminal, imo (my son developed a serious auto-immune sinovitis in his wrists after a 21 day second jab of Pfizer).

    I am five months out from my second AZ jab and intend to wait the full six months before I take a ‘booster’ required to fulfil my travel vax requirements but also because a booster might be sensible at that stage. I’d like a Novavax for that as the spike protein is at least limited in that vaxx. Or preferably, an even new vaxx/preventative – say the nasal spray or an Omricon-tailored booster. Only a month to go now though so I may, like John H, have to bite the bullet and take the existing Pfizer as a booster due to no alternative. Having regular boosters of the same thing seems rather a bad idea to me and the three months now recommended in Australia is far too short an interval for any booster in my book.


    Report comment

    1
  7. I was very agreeably surprised to come across that discussion yesterday, as I had not heard anything about it, and had been looking for more from Professor Clancy after his earlier Quadrant articles – and it was excellent. But probably will not be seen by the many who need to hear what was said, though John Campbell has quite a big following now. Not a chance our utterly hopeless media will touch it, of course.

    I too am nearly 6 months out from second dose of Astra Zeneca and wondering what to do. I too have been waiting for Novavax, but I’m still not sure about it because it is still based on the spike protein and will have been formulated for the old variants anyway. And most of all, I am wondering if any vaccine is a good idea rather than just let nature take its course, with Omicron: it is now clear that natural immunity is better than the vaccines (see another of John Campbell’s recent contributions). The problem is that I am in the at-risk age group and while my health is OK, I would be at great risk if the thing got into my lungs – against expectations, I know, but not impossible. And it is likely that the damned governments are going to make life difficult for those who don’t get a booster in the foreseeable future, unless sanity prevails – but experience suggests that is a remote possibility.


    Report comment

    1
  8. Very similar to my problems and how I feel about the booster jab, Miksa.

    I am 80 years young in July and while I have tricks a-plenty to convince others into thinking I might be more in my 60’s, Covid isn’t likely to take me on appearances sake alone. Those 80 summers will show up in the normal scheme of things immunological. I may do well, but as you say, Miksa, how can you tell?


    Report comment

  9. I was somewhat perplexed at Professor Clancy’s apparent relaxed attitude to the routine failure to aspirate when injecting, which is one of Dr Campbell’s major concerns. He seemed to think it was okay to consider this impractical, despite one in two or three thousand shots ending up in the blood stream as a consequence. What of the evidence for sizable vaccine injury versus the debatable benefits?
    moderated

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.