Dr John Campbell YouTube videos - what happened?

[SchnitzelVonCrummsTum]

Can anyone who's watched his videos more regularly than I have explain this to me? Seems to have gone from mainstream to pro-ivermectin in the space of a few months.

He has gone from skirting with conspiracy theories to full on misinformation.

His latest is ridiculous (apparently five fraudulent ivermectin studies isn't a problem) and has been promoting the nonsense ivnmeta website.

Apart from anything else, he isn't qualified to be commenting on the broad range of coronavirus areas he keeps releasing videos on.

As to why - I have no idea. He probably has closer links with FLCCC/BIRD/UsforThem/Mike Yeadon than was first thought and has only just let the mask slip.

@riveted1

As to why - I have no idea. He probably has closer links with FLCCC/BIRD/UsforThem/Mike Yeadon than was first thought and has only just let the mask slip.

I think that's unlikely. He was making videos right from the start, even before lockdown 1 and very much felt like that's what we needed to be doing.

He does make a decent amount of money from the advertising and it's not in his interest to record anything that YouTube might pull.

@Buzzinwithbez

That's fair point, in which case the only other argument is that he's been taken in by these groups as many other people have done.

I appreciate the effort he puts in but quite early on I worked out he wasn’t always as critical of certain sources as he perhaps ought to be.

That's a shame. He's blown a golden opportunity then.

At the beginning there were some genuinely useful opinions. But I am an author and reviewer of meta-analyses and other types of evidence synthesis as part of my job, and I don't think he necessarily has that experience to draw on in his critical appraisal of studies?

I haven’t looked him up for months but last year was incredibly grateful for his calm and careful insight. Disappointing if something has been lost!

@SchnitzelVonCrummsTum

At the beginning there were some genuinely useful opinions. But I am an author and reviewer of meta-analyses and other types of evidence synthesis as part of my job, and I don't think he necessarily has that experience to draw on in his critical appraisal of studies?

I agree, and the issue I have is that is he is disagreeing with epidemiologists who genuinely have expertise in this area regarding the ivermectin literature.

His claims about aspiration being needed for vaccination had similar issues - he was extrapolating from basic research & lab science to make statements about how the vaccine could effect the heart/blood vessels, when he is not qualified to assess this.

His PhD was in developing remote learning for nurse education - extremely useful and his early educational videos on how the immune system work etc were great, but I am frustrated he's using his large platform and dr title to promote videos now that are misinformation.

I didn't know this about his background - this time last year I would have massively benefited from his experience of designing remote learning (as we transitioned all of one of our degree programmes online)!

But yes - I think that he has experienced pressure to keep going with the impactful videos despite deviating from the area of experience. Which is a pity, because 'real' science constantly involves holding hands up and saying - not my area, but I know someone who knows more than me about that...

Omg just watched his latest programme and he’s totally changed . I thought he was a reasonable voice bug now I realise he’s not… 😰

I was a regular viewer until the end of Lockdown 1. I can’t be sure what it was exactly but something just turned me off him, I think it was his view that things looked promising when it was clear as day a second wave was on its way. Whatever it was made me unsubscribe.

Lots of his regular subs hang on every word he says and a few friends that are antivax watch him too which confuses me considering his pro vax stance, now I think perhaps it’s the ivermectin?

Shoot the messenger because you no longer like the message?

@IncredulousOne

Shoot the messenger because you no longer like the message?

Well no, shoot the messenger when they are talking nonsense to a large social medial following regarding health decisions in a pandemic.

His claims on ivermectin are incorrect (and don't actually make sense) - he has no relevant expertise on this specific area that means he can add anything that other epidemiologists have not.

It's strange isn't it - I watched every video for months (probably last autumn until this summer) and he was such a reassuring, sensible presence. He did used to talk about ivermectin but more as something to be investigated along with everything else.

I guess perhaps he's just got a bee in his bonnet about it and believes he's right. He's absolutely pro-vax, pro-lockdown when needed so I really don't think he's connected to the morons. I also think there's much less to say about Covid now, and so he needs something to talk about to get the views?

I was quite taken aback by his pro-Ivermectin stance that's surfaced recently, especially in the light of all the studies that were so obviously engineered. Very disappointing as I watched him without fail in the early days, then more sparsely later on. Only occasionally pop onto his channel now, but watched some of the Ivermectin one, shook my head and stopped.

We should remember though that no-one is perfect, no-one has everything right, and I do commend him for his very timely and educational videos from the early days.

I wish he would go back to doing the chats about the world graphs, but I guess the number of cases data and testing data gets a bit dull to talk about all the time. Talking about what drugs may or may not help I'm not interested in, so tend to skip over those videos. Things like how easy it is to get an O2 saturation monitor and to use it, that was helpful and I did get one, and when I have felt unwell I have kept a log, which may have been useful if I had been unwell enough to go to hospital (I wasn't).

@CrunchyCarrot

I was quite taken aback by his pro-Ivermectin stance that's surfaced recently, especially in the light of all the studies that were so obviously engineered. Very disappointing as I watched him without fail in the early days, then more sparsely later on. Only occasionally pop onto his channel now, but watched some of the Ivermectin one, shook my head and stopped.

We should remember though that no-one is perfect, no-one has everything right, and I do commend him for his very timely and educational videos from the early days.

"in the light of studies that were so obviously engineered"?

What do you mean by that? Are you suggesting that there are scientists around the world who would attempt to mislead or distort the scientific evidence to further a particular agenda?

That sounds like the sort of claim a conspiracy theorist would make...

No idea why you're being so prickly @IncredulousOne

There have been six ivermectin randomised trials that have been proven to be fraudulent - either the trial never happened and the dataset faked, or the data manipulated in order to give positive findings. There are several more which are under suspicion.

It's hardly a conspiracy theory - this kind of thing does happen although I haven't personally seen such a high level of fraud for one drug, conducted by multiple different groups, before.

For example, Elisabet Blik has become pretty well known for revealing faked data in scientific papers from basic science fields:

www.newyorker.com/science/elements/how-a-sharp-eyed-scientist-became-biologys-image-detective

But riveted1...

Why would people benefit from making fraudulent claims about the effectiveness of a drug that is out of patent, dirt cheap and has decades of pharmacovigilance data?

Riveted1

1. Which six randomised trials have been fraduluent - please post details rather than making vague assertions.

1. Interesting article on Bik, but it doesn't mention ivermectin at all - I don't know why you're attempting to muddy the waters in this way?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58170809.amp

I'd have thought someone as invested as you in, erm, alternative treatments to vaccines, would already be aware of all this. But, I expect you are.

@SchnitzelVonCrummsTum, it's weird, he was a calm voice of factual reason in the early days. He's now gone so off the rails info full blown anti-scientific-fact at times, I almost wonder if he's mentally ill. Especially because sometimes his videos are still great, and factual. It's very odd.

www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02081-w

@IncredulousOne

But riveted1...

Why would people benefit from making fraudulent claims about the effectiveness of a drug that is out of patent, dirt cheap and has decades of pharmacovigilance data?

I'm beginning to think you're not posting in the best faith. Posters spent what must have been days answering these questions on previous threads. There's pages and pages of answers to your questions here.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/coronavirus/4277155-Why-are-all-the-Covid-conspiracy-theory-s-coming-true

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/coronavirus/4337107-Ivermectin-bonkersness