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.

Um, yeah, I do. I'm not missing anything with that at all.I think maybe you are missing something because you are not making sense.

Ok so surely you understand that if a total number doesn't include people who die from common secondary complications of COVID, it's a gross underestimate of total deaths? @SantaClawsServiette

@leafyygreens

The OP is wondering about what's going on with Campbell, and I think the discussion kind of shows what the problem is, fundamentally - people have put this huge moral element on people talking about the subject in ways they don't like or think are looking at the wrong things.

It has been discussed to death.

The issue with John Campbell is not how he discusses things or whether he's doing it in ways people don't like, it's that he uses cherry picked data out of context, makes very basic errors, and has no relevant qualifications to back up what he is saying.

Actual qualified people have explained the issues with his videos.

Ah, no, no it really hasn't. Public discussions around covid policies have continually been stymied by people who alternately claim that anyone who disagrees with what they say doesn't care about people or that they are simple "following the science."

You cannot vilify people who take different viewpoints, deligitimize the discussion of both data, policy, and democratic priniples, and expect that it will not have this kind of effect. It's completely self-inflicted.

If the mainstream political culture cannot host that discussion, it will go elsewhere.

@leafyygreens

Um, yeah, I do. I'm not missing anything with that at all.I think maybe you are missing something because you are not making sense.

Ok so surely you understand that if a total number doesn't include people who die from common secondary complications of COVID, it's a gross underestimate of total deaths? @SantaClawsServiette

Of total deaths caused directly by covid? It could be, sure.

I don't put a lot of store in what is written down as cause of death being terrible accurate anyway, so I'm not inclined to give the numbers great weight in any case.

I don't entirely think it's even the most important question in terms of policy response. It affects health care management which is quite useful to know about. But in a sense the idea of excess deaths is based on an arbitrary comparison. It doesn't make it an acceptable or non-acceptable amount of death. If we thought that way, the acceptable amount of death would be 0.

You cannot vilify people who take different viewpoints, deligitimize the discussion of both data, policy, and democratic priniples, and expect that it will not have this kind of effect. It's completely self-inflicted.If the mainstream political culture cannot host that discussion, it will go elsewhere.

I'm sensing it's a lost cause @SantaClawsServiette, but the issue with John Campbell, and others who push misinformation isn't that their viewpoint is "different to the mainstream".

There are plenty of credible scientists who have evidence backed views that oppose various government policies - this was abundantly clear back in March 2020. John Campbell is not one of them.

I also think pointing out that his claims are untrue, and that he is not qualified to be making them is hardly "vilifying"

But as I said, this thread just goes round and round and I'm sure you'll be back with another one of his videos tomorrow.

I don't think you understand the concept of excess deaths. In any given year there is a normal range of expected deaths, based on demographics, projections based on previous years and many other factors. It is not arbitrary, it is about population statistics. That concept isn't about 'acceptable' levels of death, it's about what is normal and accepted for a population at a given time.

When the level of deaths in a particular year exceeds that normal range, there's cause for concern. That cause can be a bad flu year, a bad winter or a global pandemic of a novel virus - but when the normal range is exceeded, it is time to look at mitigation.

One of the problems with living in a time when there are excess deaths is the impact on services. I still remember project managing the creation of emergency post-COVID wards in the NHS Trust where I work. Nothing emotive about that, it's about raw practicalities.

I think everyone understands the concept of excess deaths.
It's the granular breakdown if these excess deaths that's being questioned here. It is absolutely right and proper for the Man On The Clapham Omnibus to seek answers, and then to question those answers. It should be expected, indeed.
If govt won't/can't answer, someone else will. Give out all you want, but it's human nature and we are not putting the social media back in the box.

It's a totally natural reaction, another side effect of a massive upheaval. So must be dealt with on that basis

I think everyone understands the concept of excess deaths.

Clearly John Campbell does not.

@1Week

I think everyone understands the concept of excess deaths. It's the granular breakdown if these excess deaths that's being questioned here. It is absolutely right and proper for the Man On The Clapham Omnibus to seek answers, and then to question those answers. It should be expected, indeed. If govt won't/can't answer, someone else will. Give out all you want, but it's human nature and we are not putting the social media back in the box.

It's a totally natural reaction, another side effect of a massive upheaval. So must be dealt with on that basis

to seek answers, and then to question those answers

yes - which is why many research groups have published various analyses using complementary and differing methods, which all converge around the idea the coronavirus has caused significant increases in mortality & disability.

This really isn't something that is being ignored or covered up. The claim that this specific data shared under the FOI was "buried" is laughable given that it's been publicly available the entire time.

If govt won't/can't answer, someone else will.
See above. What is happening is that various charaltans don't like these answers, and seek to minimise the impact of coronavirus by presenting cherry picked data out of context.

The real question is why does John Campbell ignore all these well-conducted studies examining deaths due to coronavirus, conducted by teams of actual epidemiologists, and instead decide to present raw data from a single FOI request from the UK completely out of context and without any analysis?

Couldn't be to further his agenda could it? Or to gain more clicks and more revenue on his lucrative youtube channel?

@leafyygreens

The real question is why does John Campbell ignore all these well-conducted studies examining deaths due to coronavirus, conducted by teams of actual epidemiologists, and instead decide to present raw data from a single FOI request from the UK completely out of context and without any analysis?

He's sensationalising, plus he knows that a good amount of the viewers won't take the time - and really it isn't quite fair to ask them to do so - to look further into the issue themselves. They'll take the keynote parts and run with those, and he knows it.

It shouldn't take FOI requests though.
It shouldn't take YouTube amateurs sensationalising.
It should be mainstream news outlets analysing.
17k
17k + n; where n = directly applicable side effects
17k + n + y, where y = common co morbidity.

Those are obvious follow on questions which should be extensively covered.

Agree with @1Week that it shouldn’t take fringe voices and digging for facts to examine these sweeping policies and demolition of basic rights.

It seems fringe views are becoming more mainstream though. A study from John Hopkins has found that the first lockdown only reduced mortality by 0.2%. It is US based but hopefully will be followed by studies looking at worldwide benefits and costs of restrictions.

@1Week

It shouldn't take FOI requests though. It shouldn't take YouTube amateurs sensationalising. It should be mainstream news outlets analysing. 17k 17k + n; where n = directly applicable side effects 17k + n + y, where y = common co morbidity.

Those are obvious follow on questions which should be extensively covered.

Did you read my reply @1Week?

It hasn't "taken FOI requests". As I explained, the FOI request data is publically available and has been included and explained in the regular ONS reports.

All that has happened here is a youtuber has cherry picked these numbers, ignoring everything else, to try and prove a point.

He completely glosses over the fact that we have heaps of proper epidemiological analysis conducted and published that unpicks the relationship between coronavirus infection and death. The numbers you are asking for exist and have been "extensively covered"

I think it needs to be explained on this thread that if you submit a FOI request for information that is actually freely accessible you won't get a response saying "all information can be found here and here".

Instead you will get a nice report written that gives the requested numbers, even though the person asking could have found it with a tiny bit of effort.

This doesn't stop people like John Campbell claiming this data has been "buried", "censored" etc

Extensively covered?
Where?
I could well have missed it, I don't read everything or watch everything.
It's a journalists job to read the report, condense and explain it for the lay reader and write it up. Have an in house medical expert and editor review it and publish it. Facts, where known, that we can trust.
That's how the system is supposed to work.

I don't even watch Campbells videos but I'm getting quite annoyed with the widespread attitude that thick plebs are somehow getting above their station for asking valid questions of their betters.
Which is a different thing to defending conspiracy theorists knowingly spreading lies, which is again a different thing to pointing out mistakes and contradictions.

@1Week

Extensively covered? Where? I could well have missed it, I don't read everything or watch everything. It's a journalists job to read the report, condense and explain it for the lay reader and write it up. Have an in house medical expert and editor review it and publish it. Facts, where known, that we can trust. That's how the system is supposed to work.

I don't even watch Campbells videos but I'm getting quite annoyed with the widespread attitude that thick plebs are somehow getting above their station for asking valid questions of their betters.
Which is a different thing to defending conspiracy theorists knowingly spreading lies, which is again a different thing to pointing out mistakes and contradictions.

Have an in house medical expert and editor review it and publish it. Facts, where known, that we can trust.

It has been?!

Regarding the 170,000 claim it's been extensively covered by various people & media outlets. Here's just a sample of them:

blog.ons.gov.uk/2022/01/26/to-say-only-17000-people-have-died-from-covid-19-is-highly-misleading/
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ons-rejects-17-000-covid-deaths-claim-38wgqrp89
www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/28/ons-debunks-spurious-covid-deaths-claim-shared-by-david-davis
gidmk.medium.com/covid-19-deaths-are-not-over-counted-9bb3aaa4b9ec

thick plebs are somehow getting above their station for asking valid questions of their betters.
Again I'm not sure what you mean - this thread is about John Campbell who is making claims that are not true and spreading misinformation. No one has called him a "pleb" and it is relevant to point he doesn't have any relevant qualifications that would be mean he is informed enough to disagree with experts.

When I don't understand something that isn't in my field, I ask a sample colleagues who are experts. I don't assume that because it doesn't make sense to me I must have stumbled upon something all these experts have missed.

As been said so many times on MN, there is obviously a difference between asking questions/critiquing methodology/suggesting alternate theories and outrightedly claiming things that aren't true. It's baffling that people can't seem to tell the difference.

leafygreans there's the perception that all viewpoints must be given equal credence because if that does not happen, some are being 'censored'. This ignores the fact that not all viewpoints are deserving of equal credence. The same thing has happened with climate change.

@pointythings

leafygreans there's the perception that all viewpoints must be given equal credence because if that does not happen, some are being 'censored'. This ignores the fact that not all viewpoints are deserving of equal credence. The same thing has happened with climate change.

Yup

I think you also need to have a basic knowledge of something to be able to ask questions in the first place.

Oh, it's perfectly possible to ask questions without having knowledge. It isn't possible or reasonable to then complain when people point out that you don't have the knowledge, that you are misrepresenting the data and that your methodologies are suspect to say the least. Especially when you are claiming that publicly available data is 'being covered up'.

Anyone who wants to is allowed to talk about whatever they want, with very narrow sets of exceptions. Almost anyone is allowed to have a youtube channel and they can talk about whatever they like.

When you have FB putting warnings on the BMJ or Cochran reviews you might be in need of rethinking the idea that everything is just hunky dory. Telling people they aren't smart enough to ask questions might not be the best way to gain their confidence.

Telling people they aren't smart enough to ask questions might not be the best way to gain their confidence.

Defensive much @SantaClawsServiette?

I didn't say that - I pointed out you need to have a certain level of understand to be able to ask informed questions. So by reading the full FOI data request first, for example.

Anyone who wants to is allowed to talk about whatever they want, with very narrow sets of exceptions. Almost anyone is allowed to have a youtube channel and they can talk about whatever they like.

Yes, anyone can talk about whatever they want to talk about.

Promoting misinformation to a large following, which costs lives and causes preventable disability, whilst profiting from it, is something that I think most people take a stance against.

@1Week

It shouldn't take FOI requests though. It shouldn't take YouTube amateurs sensationalising. It should be mainstream news outlets analysing. 17k 17k + n; where n = directly applicable side effects 17k + n + y, where y = common co morbidity.

Those are obvious follow on questions which should be extensively covered.

I agree. It would have been transparent. To me, all the data says is that we should never have been bombarded with this sort of hideous message. (Image targeted at people at negligible risk, especially outdoors)

Returning to OPs question, what on earth is happening to John Campbell's channel? Is he trying to minimise covid and if so, why?

It is really strange. I haven't watched the Susan Oliver video above yet, but I know she was a regular guest on his podcasts in the early days. I imagine she must be quite concerned now!