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.

@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 don't know the specifics of these claims about the ivermectin trials, but this is a poor point. There's a very clear profit motive when it comes to generic drugs, especially given the opportunities created by a pandemic to exploit a new market.

Cheap, generic drugs allow people to create and market new products for very low costs and barriers to entry - no R&D or government approvals required.

Brands like Nurofen would never make any money if it weren't possible to manipulate the consumer into buying a brand name over an identical cheap generic.

The motives for big Pharma to fake trials have to do with the high costs of R&D and licencing. This is a different motive and a slightly different market, but if ivermectin gets a reputation as a covid wonder drug then there will be a race to create a recognised brand.

@IncredulousOne

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?

They have been listed in the previous threads or you can find them with a quick websearch including explanations as to why this has been proven. I'm not going to bother looking them up when it will just result in endless denials and pointless replies.

1. I'm not attempting to "muddy the water", you claimed scientific fraud was a conspiracy theory, I provided historical examples. Bizzare.

Yup @TheLeadbetterLife

There's many reasons for this which have been discussed.

FLCCC are charging hundreds of pounds for online ivermectin consultations and marking up the cost significantly, American Frontline Doctors doing the same but never actually sending people the medications

time.com/6092368/americas-frontline-doctors-covid-19-misinformation/

On some podcast I listen to, wish I could recall which, fairly recently..

There was a whole analysis of how ivermectin is being promoted by anti-vacc groups with the express purpose of undermining faith in establishment messages, by promoting an "The Elite are Hiding things from you" narrative. The package the pro-Ivermectin message with lots of other messages they want to sell.

Someone else (another podcast) was explaining the biological mechanism of how ivermectin is effective against single-cell parasites, but viruses entirely lack the same biological pathway. That's why Ivermectin can be safe & effective for malaria but irrelevant for viruses.

riveted1

1. No, I don't think they have. Please provide robust evidence of the 6 fraudulent trails or concede that your assertion is a fabrication...

1. You've misinterpreted my second point. My second point is neither pro- nor anti-Ivermectin. My point is that your claim (that groups of scientists are conspiring with scientific journals to publish fraudulent positive data on Ivermectin) is by definition a "conspiracy theory". It may or may not be a correct theory, but I do find it deliciously ironic that you have become that which you so publicly berate!

@IncredulousOne

riveted1

1. No, I don't think they have. Please provide robust evidence of the 6 fraudulent trails or concede that your assertion is a fabrication...

1. You've misinterpreted my second point. My second point is neither pro- nor anti-Ivermectin. My point is that your claim (that groups of scientists are conspiring with scientific journals to publish fraudulent positive data on Ivermectin) is by definition a "conspiracy theory". It may or may not be a correct theory, but I do find it deliciously ironic that you have become that which you so publicly berate!

Sigh - you do like wasting good peoples time don't you - Elgazzar, Cadegiani, Niaee, Samaha, Carvallo and another I cannot find right this second have been proven to be fraudulent.

I fully expect you to reply that as I can't find the 6th it's all a fabrication, but to be frank, five faked trials are more than enough.

Your second point makes no sense.

@lljkk

On some podcast I listen to, wish I could recall which, fairly recently..

There was a whole analysis of how ivermectin is being promoted by anti-vacc groups with the express purpose of undermining faith in establishment messages, by promoting an "The Elite are Hiding things from you" narrative. The package the pro-Ivermectin message with lots of other messages they want to sell.

Someone else (another podcast) was explaining the biological mechanism of how ivermectin is effective against single-cell parasites, but viruses entirely lack the same biological pathway. That's why Ivermectin can be safe & effective for malaria but irrelevant for viruses.

I think that this systematic review, suggests that there is significant evidence for anti-viral properties:

www.nature.com/articles/s41429-020-0336-z

So I'm not quite sure why you would claim that it is "irrelevant for viruses"? Do you have the qualifications to make such a claim yourself, or are you just repeating what you think you recall from an unreferenced podcast?

Oh dear... We hold things to a high standard of proof on here, riveted1... A list of 5 surnames hardly provides evidence of falsification of results.

After all, I am sure that you yourself would require a far higher standard of proof if I were to claim that a study had showed that Ivermectin could be beneficial.

So...

Firstly, you need to provide links to the papers.

And then you will need to provide links to credible sources that prove that these papers were fraudulent.

@riveted1
Advance search is your friend don't waste your breath.

@IncredulousOne

Oh dear... We hold things to a high standard of proof on here, riveted1... A list of 5 surnames hardly provides evidence of falsification of results.

After all, I am sure that you yourself would require a far higher standard of proof if I were to claim that a study had showed that Ivermectin could be beneficial.

So...

Firstly, you need to provide links to the papers.

And then you will need to provide links to credible sources that prove that these papers were fraudulent.

The press (oooh scary mainstream I know) have already done that, as have Nature, the BMJ and the scientists mentioned in the above. Google is your friend, but you're going to have to skip past the anti Vax bollocks you bookmark first.

@IncredulousOne

Oh dear... We hold things to a high standard of proof on here, riveted1... A list of 5 surnames hardly provides evidence of falsification of results.

After all, I am sure that you yourself would require a far higher standard of proof if I were to claim that a study had showed that Ivermectin could be beneficial.

So...

Firstly, you need to provide links to the papers.

And then you will need to provide links to credible sources that prove that these papers were fraudulent.

You are legitimately bonkers @incredulousone

You asked for a list of studies that have been proven fraudulent. I provided you with them.

Maybe you didn't understand, but those are the first authors. If you search for example,

elgazzer et al, ivermectin

you will find the trial

I presume you can just about manage that one on your own. It will bring up the retraction notices, and the rationale as to why they are fraudulent.

Not good enough...

[quote Geamhradh]@riveted1
Advance search is your friend don't waste your breath.[/quote]
Thank you for the heads up

I am genuinely surprised one poster could be confused to such an extent to post these questions repeatedly, when multiple posters spend what looks like days providing simple and clear explanations.

You're the one making the claims - the burden of proof is on you.

www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/16/huge-study-supporting-ivermectin-as-covid-treatment-withdrawn-over-ethical-concerns

www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/sep/25/fraudulent-ivermectin-studies-open-up-new-battleground-between-science-and-misinformation

www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/93658

www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2021/08/30/no-ivermectin-cannot-treat-covid-19/

How about we pass the hot spud to you? You're the one who says "we" have high standards. We do indeed. Your mission for today: show us:
Reputable papers/links showing that there have been no fraudulent and misleading studies carried out by dodgy as fuck "scientists" with no links whatsoever to conspiracy theorists and/or far right agit prop.

Remember, links please. To papers. Bearing in mind, as you know, HQ delete links to mis/disinformation.

@IncredulousOne

You're the one making the claims - the burden of proof is on you.

Well no, not when you posted all this crap repeatedly on the last thread, it was answered, and still you just repeat and repeat and repeat your nonsense

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

It is apparent that in the time someone takes the required time to read a paper, explain to you why it is problematic, or does not actual prove what you think it does, you have come up with half a dozen new abstracts, all with the same problem @IncredulousOne

It is something that could go on literally, forever (particularly when you start repeating them in different threads)

I am aware of one study (discussed on that other thread) that appears to have contained falsified data and has been withdrawn.

You claim that there are six.

Yet no matter how many times I ask, you decline to provide links to the allegedly fraudulent papers.

And no, it's not my job to disprove any wild assertions you throw around. If you're so sure that this is all as cut and dried as you claim then it would be trivially simple for you to provide links to these retracted, fraudulent papers.

The fact that you continue to avoid doing do suggests that it's not quite as you are claiming...

... I will of course happily retract that assertion if you provide proof of the six fraudulent papers to which you have referred.

@IncredulousOne

I am aware of one study (discussed on that other thread) that appears to have contained falsified data and has been withdrawn.

You claim that there are six.

Yet no matter how many times I ask, you decline to provide links to the allegedly fraudulent papers.

And no, it's not my job to disprove any wild assertions you throw around. If you're so sure that this is all as cut and dried as you claim then it would be trivially simple for you to provide links to these retracted, fraudulent papers.

The fact that you continue to avoid doing do suggests that it's not quite as you are claiming...

... I will of course happily retract that assertion if you provide proof of the six fraudulent papers to which you have referred.

I have provided you with the list of studies.

As I said, you can manage to find them, it's not difficult.

If you actually have something to add (i.e., a rationale reason as to why you believe they have been wrongly retracted, or that they data has not been made up), then by all means post.

You'd be a lot more aware if you opened the links given to you.
Meanwhile we await your links. But it's not your job to provide links, is it? Just everybody else's?
And we all know why. You and your anti-vax mates hardly ever provide links because by throwing vague bollocks around, you sow the seeds, but don't cross the deletion line. Not so much these days anyway.

I’ve watched a couple of his videos. I know who he is:

Could it be that he really believes in what he’s talking about and maybe there’s something to what he’s saying?

I steer away from invectermin etc discussions. I’m not interested in mainstream medicine full stop.

But I think things have become so polarised. We don’t all belong to just one camp.

It's weird that Campbell has chosen this hill to die on.

No, riveted1, you haven't even provided a list of the six studies, let alone links or any evidence that they are fraudulent as you claim.

You've just provided a list of 5 authors.

It's almost as if you've got something to hide...

@IncredulousOne

No, riveted1, you haven't even provided a list of the six studies, let alone links or any evidence that they are fraudulent as you claim.

You've just provided a list of 5 authors.

It's almost as if you've got something to hide...

I genuinely don't understand how you're not capable of locating a high profile study with the name of the first author?

As I said, you can manage to find them, it's not difficult. Have a little go, if you fail to to do this then I will link the articles.

If you actually have something to add (i.e., a rationale reason as to why you believe they have been wrongly retracted, or that they data has not been made up), then by all means post.

@Geamhradh

You'd be a lot more aware if you opened the links given to you. Meanwhile we await your links. But it's not your job to provide links, is it? Just everybody else's? And we all know why. You and your anti-vax mates hardly ever provide links because by throwing vague bollocks around, you sow the seeds, but don't cross the deletion line. Not so much these days anyway.

But I'm not the one making wild assertions, so it's not up to me to provide the proof.

If I said "it has been scientifically proven that vaccines are killing hundreds of thousands of people" you would (quite rightly) expect me to provide some evidence to back up that claim. If you challenged my assertion and I then just turned round and said "it's been discussed elsewhere - you go ahead and prove me wrong" then you wouldn't consider that to be a sufficient response to justify me initial assertion, would you?