Dr John Campbell: A case of “Wood for the trees”
You may wonder why I bother watching or listening to this man because it is excruciatingly irritating, but I do so because, with 3M subscribers on his YouTube channel, I keep wondering when he will, if ever, have the penny finally drop. He talks as if he is stunned by what he is learning while he expounds his “qualitative and quantitative” views based on “authoritative” statistics and then also speaking with “authority figures” (which they are) within the medical field, while he ignores those of us who will simply ‘remove’ the ‘trees’ and show him the ‘wood’.
Here he is speaking with Neil Oliver about the Scottish Covid inquiry and how: 1. “it makes you wonder if there is some common stimulus of these (DNR) phone calls” etc 2. He also wonders if this practice of calling or listing people for DNR was just Scotland or UK wide and 3. He calls for a “qualitative and quantitative analysis” by academics to ‘generate themes’ and try and find out if it was something which was an actual policy from ‘on high’ or not.
Well John, once more, you blether on and on and speak so ‘authoritatively’ while you STILL miss the ball while calling for studies that are entirely unnecessary!!
As I am won’t to do, during the fake Covid “pandemic”, I made copious downloads and bookmarks of a vast variety of documents and articles. Listening to this and the Scottish Covid inquiry itself, I vaguely remembered reading something @2020 regarding a POLICY of the NHS toward Do Not Resuscitate orders so there is NO NEED for a ‘study’ to be carried out! It was, in fact, a UK wide, NHS policy! However, John, you (and all your medical colleagues it seems) tend to stick to reading medical journals whereas I tend to read political ones! You regret taking the vaccine, I don’t because I didn’t take it! Not because I read medical journals but because, for the last 20 years, I’ve been reading political material of all sorts. Does that tell you anything, John? Anything at all?
So anyhow, here is the document which lays it all out clearly for you…
“NHS is being ‘protected’ from those who need protecting most by rationing treatment based on eugenic ‘guidelines“
Read it again, John! Yes it says “eugenics”, which you and so many would consider an old, out of date, dismissed political and philosophical belief which no longer applies or is practiced in our world of today, and that, my medically qualified friend, is where you all miss the ball!
Is the following spelled out clearly enough for you?…
Rationing treatment for covid-19 (from April 2020)
Rationing healthcare increased over the last few years, it has become the norm. Now, it has become very clear that treatment for covid-19 is going to be rationed. We have moved a long way from universal health care.
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) have already introduced guidelines for establishing treatment ‘ceilings’, based on who they think is likeliest to survive covid-19. However, we have no way of knowing in advance of treatment if someone actually will survive.
Formal guidance says GPs should “proactively complete DNAR (do not resuscitate) forms, in advance of a worsening spread of coronavirus.”
People over 80 years old and ‘high risk’ groups are now being contacted about signing the “do not attempt to resuscitate” forms. This approach is firmly embedded in coronavirus planning and provision amid concerns over a lack of intensive care beds during the worsening coronavirus crisis.
Multiple GPs have said they are talking to patients who are older or in very high risk groups about signing “do not attempt to resuscitate” forms in case these patients were to go on to contract the virus. Some practices have also sent out letters to patients requesting they complete the forms, it is understood.
One leader of a primary care network, who asked not to be named, said: “Those in the severe at-risk group and those over 80 are being told they won’t necessarily be admitted to hospital if they catch coronavirus.”
Guidance issued by the Royal College of General Practitioners last week also touched on the issue, saying: “Proactively complete ReSPECT/ DNAR forms and prescribe anticipatory medications in advance of a worsening spread of disease.”
End of life conversations cover prescribing palliative pain relief, so patients aren’t left without the ‘appropriate’ medicines.
It’s understood these conversations are also being had with people living in nursing and care homes.
Jonathan Leach, a practising GP who helped draft the guidance, told Health Service Journal (HSJ) “We have a huge role as a college [on this] as we see the volume and type of patients we should be sending into hospital and those we shouldn’t be.”
Type of patient? I wonder if I will be the type of patient that doctors will decide to treat? Or will I simply be left to die at home, because I have ‘underlying’ and comorbid conditions?
Leach continued: “If covid-19 gets into a care home because residents are mostly vulnerable, we will see a significantly greater number over a shorter period who need this type of [palliative] care. So, part of coping with that is thinking ahead [about having these conversations].”
I always thought that covid-19 gets into any place simply because of its contagion quality, not because of a particular demographic – it doesn’t have any special preferences towards care home residents because they are vulnerable. Vulnerability doesn’t invite more coronavirus infections. That’s why the prime minister, the health and social care secretary and other non-vulnerable ‘clever’ people among the government have also been infected recently.
Dr Leach called discussing DNARs with people who are not at the end of life but are older or in a high-risk group a “grey area”. He added these decisions “need to be done on a case-by-case basis” but it was “more humane” to do it in advance.
There is no humane way of telling some people that they are going to be left to die.
How can leaving someone to die because of deliberately inflicted government funding cuts, based on an artificially constructed ‘type’, be “more humane”? Leach should have met my grandmother, who, in her 90s was probably fitter and more active than he is. Yet she would have conformed to his ‘type’ of patient to be considered for a eugenics by laissez faire approach, based on just her age alone.
Recent guidance issued to hospitals said palliative care conversations with a patient’s family may have to take place remotely, and skilled palliative care teams may not have the capacity to undertake all conversations themselves.
A spokeswoman for the British Medical Association, which also co-drafted the GP work prioritisation document, said: “Considering, and where possible making, specific anticipatory decisions about whether or not to attempt CPR is part of high-quality care for any person who might be approaching the end of life or who might be at risk of cardiorespiratory arrest.”
That decision – choosing who is and who is not going to be given CPR- isn’t ‘care’, high quality or otherwise.
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence’s (NICE) role more generally is to improve outcomes for people using the NHS and other public health and social care services.
Yet the NICE guidelines concerning treatment provision for covid-19 are founded on a distinctly eugenic rationale: ensuring the ‘survival of the fittest’ only.
A GP practice in Wales sent out a letter which recommended patients with serious illnesses complete “do not resuscitate” forms in case their health deteriorated after contracting coronavirus. Llynfi surgery, in Maesteg near Port Talbot, wrote to a “small number” of patients on Friday to ask them to complete a “DNACPR” – do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation – form to ensure that emergency services would not be called if they contracted covid-19 and their health deteriorated.
Also see: https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/do-not-resuscitate/93223/
So what’s with the questioning, guessing and raised eyebrows as if it is all a revelation to you? Too busy reading statistics?
Meanwhile, your thinking that eugenics is an 1800s/early 1900s discarded philosophy, is based on your political ignorance while you continue to try and ‘resolve’ what “Covid” and the vaccines were all about. It is that ignorance which causes my continuing exasperation.
Dirty little secrets (Guardian 1997)
They will be searching their souls in Stockholm tonight. And in Oslo, Helsinki and Copenhagen, too. All over Scandinavia, people are facing up to the stain now spreading across their snow-white self -image, as they discover that their governments spent decades executing a chilling plan to purify the Nordic race, nurturing the strong and eradicating the weak. Each day victims of forced sterilisation, now deep in middle age, have stepped forward to tell how they were ordered to have “the chop”, to prevent them having children deemed as racially defective as themselves.
Branded low class, or mentally slow, they were rounded up behind secure fences, in Institutes for Misled and Morally Neglected Children, where they were eventually led off for “treatment”. One man has told how he and his fellow teenage boys planned to run away rather than undergo the dreaded “cut in the crotch”. Maria Nordin, now seeking compensation from the Swedish government, remembers sobbing as she was pressed to sign away her rights to have a baby. Told that she would stay locked up forever if she did not cooperate, she relented – spending the rest of her life childless and in regret.
In Sweden the self-examination has already begun. A government minister has admitted that “what went on is barbaric and a national disgrace”, with more than 60,000 Swedish women sterilised from 1935 until as late as 1976. What has shocked most observers is that all this was committed not by some vile fascistic regime, but by a string of welfare-minded, Social Democratic governments. Indeed, the few voices of opposition came from Swedish conservatives.
Read the rest….
The even dirtier secret is that they haven’t stopped and “Covid” was just another aspect of it. You simply can’t grasp the fact there is a global elite who want you dead. Not just you but your entire future lineage. You simply refuse to accept it and that is why they will achieve it because, before you can stop it, you have to acknowledge it. You CANNOT fight an enemy you don’t even know exists!
Bertrand Russell:
In private, when writing to his fiancée Alys in 1894, Russell speculated about granting marriage certificates to those prospective couples who would make good parents. And in 1907, in his first published paper on eugenics, he advocated that the state should pay “desirable” parents by awarding scholarships for their children’s education. In an article of 1928 he even proposed that if scientists knew more about heredity “we could improve the breed indefinitely” in successive generations by having 25% of the women mate with the best 1% of men — conjectural figures which he amended in the 1950s to 30% of women and 5% of men. Perhaps, too, Russell predicted, mankind may one day be transformed by genetic engineering:
“If science continues to advance as fast as it has done recently, we may hope, before the end of the present century, to discover ways of beneficially influencing the human embryo, not only as regards those acquired characters which cannot be inherited because they do not affect the chromosomes, but also as regards the chromosomes themselves. It is likely that this result will only be achieved after a number of unsuccessful experiments leading to the birth of idiots or monstrosities. But would this be too high a price to pay for the discovery of a method by which, within one generation, the whole human race could be rendered intelligent?”
At the other end of the scale Russell also wanted undesirable people to be prevented from becoming parents, as he explained in an article for the progressive Jewish Daily Forward in 1927:
“By sterilizing the feeble-minded of two generations, feeble- mindedness and idiocy could be almost stamped out; but here religious scruples intervene, and even humanitarian feelings which lead to the opinion that one man must not be made to suffer for the good of others except as a punishment for sin. Scientifically-minded people naturally grow impatient of these restrictions upon their activities.”
Later that year, when an Indian magazine interviewed Russell, he reiterated the need for sterilization:
“Our only hope now lies in America, which has already started artificial sterilization of the feeble-minded in the States. That is already a great step forward in the right direction.”
Writing in 1928, however, Russell saw any prospects for wide-ranging eugenic reform in America and Europe hindered by political and religious prejudices:
“In America and Great Britain, the fetish of democracy stands in the way; in Russia, the Marxian disbelief in biology. Wherever the Catholic Church is strong, mere quantity tends to be thought alone important. In France, the economic system that has grown up around the Code Napoléon makes any eugenic reform impossible. Probably the best chance is in Germany, but even there it is small.”
Russell had to face the inevitable problem of what a eugenic state might achieve in practice. In the 1930s he regretted that the study of heredity was still in its infancy, and so any application of eugenic ideas would be unscientific:
“Among men of science there is a natural tendency for heredity to be emphasized by geneticists, while environment is emphasized by psychologists. There is, however, another line of cleavage on this question, not scientific, but political. Conservatives and imperialists lay stress on heredity because they belong to the white race but are rather uneducated. Radicals lay stress on education because it is potentially democratic, and because it gives a reason for ignoring difference of colour.”
After the Second World War, Russell was increasingly convinced that the solution to many eugenic problems lay in a world government. Only then could sperm banks be created, enabling a significant proportion of women to bear the offspring of geniuses, and only then could politicians tackle the problem of global overpopulation:
“The population of the world is increasing, and its capacity for food production is diminishing. Such a state of affairs obviously cannot continue very long without producing a cataclysm. To deal with this problem it will be necessary to find ways of preventing an increase in world population. If this is to be done otherwise than by wars, pestilence, and famines, it will demand a powerful international authority. This authority should deal out the world’s food to the various nations in proportion to their population at the time of the establishment of the authority. If any nation subsequently increased its population it should not on that account receive any more food. The motive for not increasing population would therefore be very compelling.”
Russell died in 1970.
The New Statesman 2022:
The sinister return of eugenics
Eugenicist thinking was rejected after the Holocaust, but in the era of Big Tech, the idea that humans can be “engineered” has resurfaced in a new guise.
In July 1912 800 delegates met at the Hotel Cecil on the Strand in London for the First International Eugenics Congress. Some of the foremost figures of the day – including the former and future British prime ministers Arthur Balfour and Winston Churchill – were there. The delegates represented a wide spectrum of opinion. Not only right-wing racists but also liberals and socialists believed eugenic policies should be used to raise what they regarded as the low quality of sections of the population.
The Liberal founder of the welfare state, William Beveridge, wrote in 1906 that men “who through general defects” are unemployable should suffer “complete and permanent loss of all citizen rights – including not only the franchise but civil freedom and fatherhood”. In Marriage and Morals (1929), Bertrand Russell, while criticising American states that had implemented involuntary sterilisation too broadly, defended enforcing it on people who were “mentally defective”. In 1931 an editorial in this magazine endorsed “the legitimate claims of eugenics”, stating they were opposed only by those “who cling to individualistic views of parenthood and family economics”…………
There is a direct line connecting early 20th-century eugenics with 21st-century transhumanism. The link is clearest in the eugenicist and “scientific humanist” Julian Huxley (1887-1975). In 1924 Huxley wrote a series of articles for the Spectator, in which he stated that “the negro mind is as different from the white mind as the negro from the white body”. By the mid-Thirties, Huxley had decided that racial theories were pseudoscience and was a committed anti-fascist.
He had not abandoned eugenics. In a lecture entitled “Eugenics in an Evolutionary Perspective”, delivered in 1962, Huxley reasserted the value of eugenic ideas and policies. Earlier, in 1951, in a lecture that appeared as a chapter in his book New Bottles for New Wine (1957), he had coined the term “transhumanism” to describe “the idea of humanity attempting to overcome its limitations and to arrive at fuller fruition”.
Huxley is a pivotal figure because he links eugenics with its successor ideology. Rutherford devotes only a sentence to him, noting that he advised his friend Wells on the 1932 film adaptation of The Island of Dr Moreau. But Huxley merits more extensive and deeper examination, for he illustrates a fundamental difficulty in both eugenics and transhumanism. Who decides what counts as a better kind of human being, and on what basis is the evaluation made?………
This is where transhumanism comes in. It is not normally racist, and typically involves no collective coercion, only the voluntary actions of people seeking self enhancement. But like eugenicists, transhumanists understand human betterment to be the production of superior people like themselves. True, the scientific knowledge and technology required to create these people are not yet available; but as Rutherford acknowledges, someday they may be.
The likely upshot of transhumanism in practice – a world divided between a rich, smart, beautified few whose lifespans can be indefinitely extended, and a mass of unlovely, disposable, dying deplorables – seems to me a vision of hell. But it may well be what is in store for us, if the current progressive consensus turns out to be as transient as the one that preceded it.
https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/books/2022/02/the-sinister-return-of-eugenics
Your mistake is in thinking that this eugenics issue only relates to the late 1800s/early 1900s. Oh you are so wrong!
So for God’s sakes man! Broaden your reading!! You might get some concrete answers without calling for unnecessary “qualitative and quantitative studies” by academics!
The odd thing is, John, is that you seem to suffer from the very same ‘disease’ as the people who call for and implement the very policies you are calling out. You tend to listen to nobody unless you deem them ‘worthy’ and academically/medically qualified. THAT, John, is the very definition of ELITISM!
I just happen to be qualified in Physics and Business. That’s not medical though is it? But again, who took the vaccine and regretted it, John? Not me!
One final thing to chew on John: The Hippocratic oath.
What happens when the elite decide to apply the Hippocratic oath to the Earth itself? Ever thought about that?
I’ll give you your answer:
World Economic Forum
First do no harm. Why healthcare needs to change
Sep 16, 2019
“If I’ve learned one thing working in the healthcare sector, it’s the earlier you can diagnose a disease, the better chance you have of curing it – or at least mitigating its impact on the patient. When it comes to the health of the planet – on which all human health ultimately relies – the symptoms and the scientific evidence already point to a clear diagnosis: anthropogenic global warming.”
Ok, now really digest the above. “Anthropogenic global warming”. What does that suggest, John? It’s obvious isn’t it? Anthropogenic = Human caused. Yes I know you know this but it appears you haven’t let it fully sink in. If humans are the cause of the earth’s problems then, like a disease, it is humans (carbon) which require significant reduction.
Now, read the following…
“Hospitals, health services and medical supply chains across the world’s major economies currently generate around 4% of global CO2 emissions. They are also a significant emitter of short-lived yet potent climate pollutants such as black carbon, methane, hydrofluorocarbons and anaesthetic gases. For an industry based on the principle of “first do no harm,” it’s therefore imperative the healthcare industry acts quickly, collectively and globally to mitigate its own climate impact.
We cannot wait for national policies, which will inevitably develop at different rates with different agendas, to set the pace of change. We need to globally unite, quickly, and lead by example, developing best-practice international guidelines and standards for sustainable, climate-resilient healthcare development in the same way our healthcare professionals develop best-practice guidelines for treating patients. It’s going to require technology innovation, outside-the-box thinking and multi-disciplinary multi-sector collaboration, the like of which has not been seen before in the industry.”
It’s all written in a fashion which suggests it’s all for the good of the many (“Public Health” is not about individual patients by the way. It’s synonymous with the “Public good” or the “National Interest”) however, the “first do no harm” principle they call on (the Hippocratic oath) is now being applied to the care ‘we’ and the health professionals specifically, should give the earth. Now digest that for a moment.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/09/health-climate-change-sustainability/
Hopefully you’ve now digested it.
So to “first do no harm” applied to the earth means make every effort to remove what is ailing it. What/Who (according to these people) is doing harm to the earth?
Too many people using too many resources!
What do “Do Not Resuscitate” orders achieve? What do still ensuring access to abortions while stopping people from accessing much needed cancer and heart etc operations and care?
“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” — Club of Rome, premier environmental think-tank, consultants to the United Nations.
“Ah love! Could thou and I with fate conspire, to grasp this sorry scheme of things entire, would not we shatter it to bits and then, remould it nearer to the heart’s desire.” Omar Khayyam
Shatter it to bits before BUILDING BACK BETTER!
But unfortunately, John, you dismiss what is staring you in the face because you cannot (or refuse to) grasp the full enormity of the evil we are faced with. The same evil which attacks farmers, increases fuel and food bills, undertakes geoengineering, develops mRNA “vaccines”, wishes to remove meat and dairy (protein) from our diets while substituting other proteins in fake meat and “vaccines”, wants total control of movement with 15 minute cities and increasing the cost of air travel enormously while also reducing space in the cabin and food/drink to make it so we don’t wish to travel by air anymore. I could go on and on.
Smell the bloody coffee man!
Earthling 
leave a comment