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.

I used to follow him because I liked his presentation style and he uploaded quite frequently. But he has gone way, way off course and is now spreading dangerous misinformation while denying he's doing so (and making lots of money from it). I don't think this is at all appropriate for a registered nurse.

@MichaelTsung

He must have started reading the randomised controlled trials (RCTs), which clearly show that ivermectin is highly effective for preventing and/or treating Covid. Naturally, this is terrible for vaccine companies, who can afford to pay "anything for money" scientists big money to publish endless articles trying to suppress the truth. When money controls science, science ceases to be science. Ivermectin works for Covid, plain and simple.

You may be interested in this review, then.

Ivermectin and the Integrity of Healthcare Evidence During COVID-19

www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2022.788972/full

(March, 2022)

Perhaps you’d be interested in this then;

and this And this Perhaps this And this

There is just so much information out there now from real, objective scientists, explaining in detail why Ivermectin is one of the biggest covid frauds perpetrated on people, how can you possibly still believe this shit? The only pro-Ivermectin data comes from sources that have serious conflicts of interest and from incredibly flawed trials. Be objective, look at their data and if, like many, you’ve not got the educational background to understand the data, at least try to use some rational critical thinking rather than crazy conspiratorial fantasies to draw your conclusions.

Not having read the whole thread, I'm curious and replying to the first post, what's so terrible about ivermectin? (OK I know I should read the thread and maybe I will, but I'm just surprised since for me it's pretty clear that ivermectin could have been a life saver here.)
Don't bother to reply to this; -- I'm sure I'll find your answers in the thread and I will read some of it. I just wanted to declare myself as very much and unashamedly pro-ivermectin! Who else here?

@Malahaha

Not having read the whole thread, I'm curious and replying to the first post, what's so terrible about ivermectin? (OK I know I should read the thread and maybe I will, but I'm just surprised since for me it's pretty clear that ivermectin could have been a life saver here.) Don't bother to reply to this; -- I'm sure I'll find your answers in the thread and I will read some of it. I just wanted to declare myself as very much and unashamedly pro-ivermectin! Who else here?

I'm "pro" ivermectin for the diseases it has proven efficacy to treat - for various parasitic diseases it's life saving.

For preventing or treating coronavirus, there is no robust evidence it effective. We now have replicated data from well powered RCTs demonstrating null findings. All of the highly cited RCTs showing a protective effect have been retracted due to fraud (i.e., in most cases it was obvious the data had been made up and the study never actually conducted). You can find the links to these on this thread if interested?

It's unfair for people to be convinced vaccination is not needed on the false premise they will not catch it if they're taking ivermectin, or they have a miracle cure they can use if they do. It's also unethical for groups to be profiting (like FLCCC and AFD), from a drug that does work, that they are charging to prescribe at inflated prices. The AFD have been charging patients who never actually recieve the medication, whilst putting out messages about how it is lifesaving.

Ivermectin is generally safe and well tolerated, but not at the kind of lengths of time and doses that some people are taking it for. For prevention or long COVID (which makes literally no sense to take for), you have patients paying to take it months on end. We do not have safety data for such use of ivermectin, and patients are presenting to hospitals with ivermectin induced toxicity including liver, eye, and GI damage.

What makes you "very much and unashamedly pro-ivermectin" @Malahaha? I'm suprised by these kinds of posts at this point in time, because even the most militant promoters have moved onto the new wonder drug now. Through the pandemic we've seen this with various drugs which are picked up by anti-vaccine groups - first was HCQ I believe.

In this TOGETHER study, the dose was too small and given for too few days, often with too big a delay between symptoms and start of treatment. Despite those issues, the trial still showed effectiveness.

I find it crazy how these groups are so happy to promote studies with huge methodological issues, or those that have been retracted due to fraud, as long as they have a positive result.

I am familiar with the literature - TOGETHER is a well conducted trial at low risk of bias. The criticisms being levied at it are tiny in compared to other ivermectin studies.

It's strange how you're both saying it shows a benefit AND it was so terribly designed we can trust it?

In better designed randomised controlled trials, excellent results have been see
Please name one @MichaelTsung?

If you are not being paid to post this kind of thing, I would consider why you're doing work for others who are profiting from it.

It's ridiculous on so many levels because no-one wants to suppress or block an extra drug that could prevent/treat COVID @MichaelTsung

All of these arguments are based on the false premise that "big pharma" don't want ivermectin to be shown to be successful.

We have tested many drugs now - including cheap ones that are off patent - to see what could be repurposed to treat/prevent COVID. Various drugs such as dexa and others have been approved after we had decent evidence for efficacy. The reason ivermectin hasn't been included is because there is simply no robust evidence it is effective.

There is literally no rationale to target ivermectin, but allow all these other cheap drugs to be approved.

Thank you Leafygreens. I'm not really interested in official studies about Covid/ivermectin, as its always important who funded these studies; usually the funders want a particular result, which is very easy to manipulate.
I'm more interested in actual use of the drug in countries such as India and Africa, and those results. I've lived in India and I know that many/most doctors there now treat Covid with ivm, with great success. That's what counts for me. The low death rate in Africa is also interesting; could it be linked to the fact that many Africans take ivm once a week as an anti-malaria treatment?
More studies need to be done. I do have my own supply of ivm, just in case.
I used to follow John Campbell when he was talking about vitamin d, but went off him when he became very pro-vax. I don't watch him any more.

ivnmeta has been posted on extensively @MichaelTsung

It is a psuedoscience nonsense website filled with errors. I am happy to go through the details of this, if you're interested, but it has been posted many times before.

I believe the following are fairly good studies

Nope, these are not studies, they are reviews and meta-analyses @MichaelTsung. They include retracted studies (for example - those that were proven to never have taken place) and high risk of bias studies, and therefore cannot be used to infer causality. There are other issues with them, including cherry picking positive findings, and not assessing ROB.

Kory, Meduri et al -
Bryant, Lawrie et al

And don't even get me started with "Ivermectin: a multifaceted drug of Nobel prize-honoured distinction with indicated efficacy against a new global scourge, COVID-19" - surely the title alone should indicate the issues with it's quality?

Santin, Scheim et al

There may be various flaws with the ivnmeta website. I'm referencing it mainly as a place where you can go to retrieve a list of randomised controlled trials, so a simple database for that purpose only.

Nope - it is not a list of RCTs @MichaelTsung

The author has randomly picked outcomes from all studies that show some kind of positive effect, ignoring those that don't (and that's glossing over the many other issues). He then combines them all into one bizzare model in an attempt to show efficacy. He includes retracted studies, and does not attempt to discern study quality.