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.

Thanks @ollyollyoxenfree
Good to come across your logic and science based explanations.

Thanks from me as well @ollyollyoxenfree - from 'vera99' .

Apparently, he is a crackpot. Wouldn't be surprised if he starts wearing a white coat soon with a stethoscope.

www.reddit.com/r/AskDocs/comments/qqeirv/how_reputable_is_dr_john_campbell/

People actually think that questioning the integrity of big Pharma companies is a conspiracy theory?

I guess that’s why they’ve literally lost multiple court cases because of multiple violations and corruptions?

List of biggest here

It’s coming to something when it’s tin hat to say Pharma companies are beacons of integrity

This is a good overview of why some people, like John Campbell, may be skeptical of this ‘new’ pfizer anti viral drug because it has the same claimed mechanisms of ivermectin. Both have been shown to be protease inhibitors in the lab. That is the only claim about ivermectin.
It’s worth investigating. That’s all. Claiming anyone who thinks it’s worth investigating a nut job, especially with the backdrop of big Pharma….it’s just strange!

Just reading this, didn’t know Johnson and Johnson have had to withdraw their Baby Powder in the US and Canada in 2020 because of links to ovarian cancer….yet I’m sure I could pop to Superdrug and buy some today...yet they know of the links to cancer... and are still selling it here. It’s not as straightforward as ‘The Science’ like people want it to be.

www.drugwatch.com/manufacturers/

@hamstersarse

People actually think that questioning the integrity of big Pharma companies is a conspiracy theory?

I guess that’s why they’ve literally lost multiple court cases because of multiple violations and corruptions?

List of biggest here

It’s coming to something when it’s tin hat to say Pharma companies are beacons of integrity

But you're the only person using terms like "beacon of integrity"?

Literally no poster has tried to claim the pharmecutic industry is some kind of saintly power not driven by profit, nor that there haven't been huge issues.

It's this strange kind of black and white thinking that is so prominent in these threads, and is used as a of diversion tactic from questions you don't want to answer.

Like,

-If "big pharma" is blocking real evidence that ivermectin is an effective treatment/prevention for COVID because it's cheap, why have other low-cost existing drugs been approved?
-Why were large scale RCTs set up (solidarity, recovery) with the sole aim of identifying existing drugs that could be reposistioned?
-Why allow the initation of well-designed RCTs to test ivermectin efficacy (e.g., togther, principle) if you're trying to block it's use?

[quote hamstersarse]This is a good overview of why some people, like John Campbell, may be skeptical of this ‘new’ pfizer anti viral drug because it has the same claimed mechanisms of ivermectin. Both have been shown to be protease inhibitors in the lab. That is the only claim about ivermectin.
It’s worth investigating. That’s all. Claiming anyone who thinks it’s worth investigating a nut job, especially with the backdrop of big Pharma….it’s just strange!

Just reading this, didn’t know Johnson and Johnson have had to withdraw their Baby Powder in the US and Canada in 2020 because of links to ovarian cancer….yet I’m sure I could pop to Superdrug and buy some today...yet they know of the links to cancer... and are still selling it here. It’s not as straightforward as ‘The Science’ like people want it to be.

www.drugwatch.com/manufacturers/[/quote]
You realise what a broad term "protease inhibitor" is?

Many drugs have a similar mechanism of action. That does not mean the new anti-viral being tested by pfizer is actually ivermectin in disguise.

Re-packing ivermectin as a fancy new anti-viral for COVID would be extradionarily stupid, given that there is no robust evidence it is beneficial.

I've followed JC's videos off and on from the start and I do think there's been a shift. Not just in the types of commenters below the line but also in JC himself. I liked the videos better when he found and shared stats and news stories and educated from his personal academic background, but now he seems to be theorising well beyond that. I've been wondering recently if he's started seeing himself as more of an expert on covid-specific things than he ever used to. I do think he's fundamentally pro-vax, but has (perhaps naively, perhaps egged on by the comments on his videos) strayed into giving his theories and opinions on things that are actually too far beyond what he's actually qualified to do.

That said, I don't think these things are black and white. He still presents some useful data. I'm also curious about the aspiration issue, and I like the reports from the African medic and his patients.

Literally no poster has tried to claim the pharmecutic industry is some kind of saintly power not driven by profit, nor that there haven't been huge issues.

It's this strange kind of black and white thinking that is so prominent in these threads, and is used as a of diversion tactic from questions you don't want to answer.

You do exactly what you are accusing of, but this is typical of what is prevalent in the narrative at the moment. Any questions around the vaccine (i.e. not black and white thinking) are immediately labelled anti-vax. Shut down - it is black and white. Any question about why ivermectin was dismissed without due trial (i.e. not black and white thinking) is labelled as pushing horse dewormer. Shut down - it is black and white. Any question about whether it is moral, ethical of safe to be vaccinating children is labelled as, well, I don't quite know what the argument is...something about being for the 'greater good'. But again, shut down because it is so black and white.

That is the point here. The childish comments about Dr John Campbell on this thread show that people can only tolerate black and white thinking.

@hamstersarse

Literally no poster has tried to claim the pharmecutic industry is some kind of saintly power not driven by profit, nor that there haven't been huge issues.

It's this strange kind of black and white thinking that is so prominent in these threads, and is used as a of diversion tactic from questions you don't want to answer.

You do exactly what you are accusing of, but this is typical of what is prevalent in the narrative at the moment. Any questions around the vaccine (i.e. not black and white thinking) are immediately labelled anti-vax. Shut down - it is black and white. Any question about why ivermectin was dismissed without due trial (i.e. not black and white thinking) is labelled as pushing horse dewormer. Shut down - it is black and white. Any question about whether it is moral, ethical of safe to be vaccinating children is labelled as, well, I don't quite know what the argument is...something about being for the 'greater good'. But again, shut down because it is so black and white.

That is the point here. The childish comments about Dr John Campbell on this thread show that people can only tolerate black and white thinking.

I have no idea what you're trying to argue at this point @hamstersarse

My replies were to your claim that "big pharma" is deliberately blocking the use of ivermectin because it is cheap and they cannot make a profit.

I have explained the reason ivermectin is not being used as a treatment or prophylaxis agent for COVID is not because it is being nefeariously smeared and blocked by "big pharma", but because there is no robust evidence it is beneficial in treating COVID

I have asked you why if this is not the case, other cheap treatments have been approved and not blocked, and why large scale trials have been initiated to generate high quality evidence regarding ivermectin effiacy, but you continue to evade and divert.

and thank you @vera99 @Adem @PAFMO, that is very nice to hear in what can sometimes seem like a blackhole of COVID craziness

The point is not about whether it is effective, that as of yet, as you agree is unproven.

The point is that you were accusing me of black and white thinking when this entire thread is devoted to dismissing and cancelling someone who wanted to have a conversation about it. This is the actual definition of black and white thinking. Ivermectin = bad.

Does it not worry you slightly given your prestigious role in epidemiology about how this sort of thing is happening when it comes to discussion about Covid treatments and strategies - there is one narrative and that is it. No discussion allowed.

Just a quick google on the latest on Ivermectin and this came up as the top and most recent news article:

this constantly refers to it being an animal drug. Also this person has been fired as a doctor for discussing it

This can be only described as propaganda - and it makes me wonder why. Does it not you?

I don't really care if Ivermectin is effective or not, time will tell once the Oxford study is completed. The main point is the infantile notion that you can stop people talking about things you don't like.

He seems to be cherry-picking vaccine adverse reactions and my gut instinct is that there are probably more adverse reactions than it is politic to publicise for the greater good and all that. My 30-year-old nephew refuses point blank to have it and he's no conspiracist by a long shot and if he watched this video I would have difficulty persuading him otherwise.

@hamstersarse

The point is not about whether it is effective, that as of yet, as you agree is unproven.

The point is that you were accusing me of black and white thinking when this entire thread is devoted to dismissing and cancelling someone who wanted to have a conversation about it. This is the actual definition of black and white thinking. Ivermectin = bad.

Does it not worry you slightly given your prestigious role in epidemiology about how this sort of thing is happening when it comes to discussion about Covid treatments and strategies - there is one narrative and that is it. No discussion allowed.

Just a quick google on the latest on Ivermectin and this came up as the top and most recent news article:

this constantly refers to it being an animal drug. Also this person has been fired as a doctor for discussing it

This can be only described as propaganda - and it makes me wonder why. Does it not you?

I don't really care if Ivermectin is effective or not, time will tell once the Oxford study is completed. The main point is the infantile notion that you can stop people talking about things you don't like.

And so it goes on...

At no point have I said ivermectin is "bad" or dismissed it as a "horsedewormer". These are all claims you're making up instead of answering basic questions as to the rationale behind "big pharma" blocking the use of ivermectin, yet happily allowing other cheap drugs to be approved, and funding ivermectin RCTs to establish efficacy.

The issue is not that John Campbell is talking about ivermectin, it's that he's quoting studies that have either been retracted as they are fraudelent, or so low quality that you they cannot be used to infer causality. Despite having no relevant training, he is happy to disagree with epidemiologists who have critically reviewed the literature. He makes basic epidemiological errors, and links to the nonsense ivmeta website as a source of information. In short, he is spreading misinformation about ivermectin which is dangerous.

No idea why you've linked that article but as you have, it relates to an anti-vaccine doctor who amongst other things, has been refusing to treat vaccinated patients. I'm not sure why you think it is controversial she has had her medical license suspended

...while Bowden told the hospital she was vaccinated, she emailed patients saying she would only treat the unvaccinated, the representative said.

"Despite what she has posted, Houston Methodist does not and will never deny care to a patient based on vaccination status," the spokesperson said. "Dr. Bowden, who has never admitted a patient at Houston Methodist Hospital, is spreading dangerous misinformation which is not based in science."

www.cbsnews.com/news/mary-bowden-texas-doctor-suspended-covid-19-misinformation-vaccinated-patients/

This can be only described as propaganda - and it makes me wonder why. Does it not you?

And no, not when I've reviewed the original ivermectin literature @hamstersarse. I don't rely on the media's interpretions of scientfic studies as they can often get it wrong.

Given that people were literally ingesting vetinary grade ivermectin not safe for human consumption, due to the misinformation spread by groups like FLCCC and AFDs (and now John Campbell), I think it is fair enough the FDA put out a PSA asking people not to ingest horse dewormer. It is what was literally happening.

Having watched a Dr John video then YouTube algo served me this which has had over a million views in a day. No idea what he says is true or what the implications of his opinion is.

Given that people were literally ingesting vetinary grade ivermectin not safe for human consumption, due to the misinformation spread by groups like FLCCC and AFDs (and now John Campbell), I think it is fair enough the FDA put out a PSA asking people not to ingest horse dewormer. It is what was literally happening.

What’s your actual evidence for that?

I don’t think there is any

If people in the us want ivermectin, human version, they can get it

www.cnn.com/2021/09/07/politics/fact-check-oklahoma-ivermectin-story/index.html

You seem to imagine journalists do their proper research and would never just jump on a bandwagon

If this is the reason why you don’t want people like John Campbell to talk about it, it’s a very weak argument

If the data is so clear, it would be job done

If this is the reason why you don’t want people like John Campbell to talk about it, it’s a very weak argument @hamstersarse

I'll just repost my reply, not that it seems to do much good:

The issue is not that John Campbell is talking about ivermectin, it's that he's quoting studies that have either been retracted as they are fraudelent, or so low quality that you they cannot be used to infer causality. Despite having no relevant training, he is happy to disagree with epidemiologists who have critically reviewed the literature. He makes basic epidemiological errors, and links to the nonsense ivmeta website as a source of information. In short, he is spreading misinformation about ivermectin which is dangerous.

If the data is so clear, it would be job done
Again, this is very naive. Groups like AFD, FLCCC and BIRD do not care that the studies they are referencing are at high risk of bias, or have been retracted, or do not actually back up the claims they are making. Websites like ivnmeta wrangle together things that look plausible but quickly fall apart under critique.

@hamstersarse

Given that people were literally ingesting vetinary grade ivermectin not safe for human consumption, due to the misinformation spread by groups like FLCCC and AFDs (and now John Campbell), I think it is fair enough the FDA put out a PSA asking people not to ingest horse dewormer. It is what was literally happening.

What’s your actual evidence for that?

I don’t think there is any

If people in the us want ivermectin, human version, they can get it

www.cnn.com/2021/09/07/politics/fact-check-oklahoma-ivermectin-story/index.html

You seem to imagine journalists do their proper research and would never just jump on a bandwagon

If this is the reason why you don’t want people like John Campbell to talk about it, it’s a very weak argument

If the data is so clear, it would be job done

However, the FDA has received multiple reports of patients who have required medical attention, including hospitalization, after self-medicating with ivermectin intended for livestock.

www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19

"Just reading this, didn’t know Johnson and Johnson have had to withdraw their Baby Powder in the US and Canada in 2020 because of links to ovarian cancer….yet I’m sure I could pop to Superdrug and buy some today...yet they know of the links to cancer... and are still selling it here. It’s not as straightforward as ‘The Science’ like people want it to be."

Just to add they've suspected the baby powder/ cancer link for decades. My mother didn't use it on me as a baby and I was born in the early 80s! I suppose the point I'm trying to make is that it can take a long time for issues like this to be investigated, problems to be aknowledged and changes made, especially when money and reputation is at stake.

I believe the FDA withdraw around 1700 drugs a year that have previously been deemed safe.

Haven’t RTFT. But on the point of ivermectin when I tested positive for COVID a couple of weeks ago I was invited onto a RCT and one of the drugs on the trial was ivermectin. I wasn’t eligible for the trial so didn’t look much further into it but there must be some thought that ivermectin may be of use in COVID?

Sorry it wasn’t a randomised trial. But still a trial of two different drugs.

@PokemonGoGoGo

Haven’t RTFT. But on the point of ivermectin when I tested positive for COVID a couple of weeks ago I was invited onto a RCT and one of the drugs on the trial was ivermectin. I wasn’t eligible for the trial so didn’t look much further into it but there must be some thought that ivermectin may be of use in COVID?

Yes @PokemonGoGoGo that'll be the PRINCIPLE trial at Oxford I mentioned in my pps

As I said to @hamstersarse, their claims that ivermectin's use is being deliberately blocked & evidence smeared doesn't really make any sense given that well-designed, well-powered studies have been set up at respected insituitions to test effiacy in treating early stage (outpatient) coronavirus symptoms. Two of these have been null, and the principle results have not been released yet.

The issue is that there's a huge amount of fraud and misinformation in the ivemectin literature. Many of the positive studies have been low quality or found to have been fraudelent. I think we are up to 8 retracted ivermectin papers, the most recent was Pierre's Kory's:

www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/frontiers-removes-controversial-ivermectin-paper-pre-publication-68505

Despite this, many anti-vaccine groups like FLCCC and AFD spread misinformation that ivermectin will prevent/cure COVID (including for hospilised patients - which makes no sense as it's an anti-viral) along with fake claims about the vaccines, and are profiting by selling marked up ivermectin, and charging £££ for online consultations. In the case of AFD, the drug often never arrives and the patients have been scammed out of money.

This is dangerous - it leads to people turning down a safe vaccine because they are told a drug exists that will prevent them from getting COVID, or cure them if they get it, and leading to ivermectin induced toxicity from people taking it in unregulated amounts & timescales. There are also heartbreaking stories of relatives desperately trying to get ivermectin to dying relatives (because some fradualent doctors will prescribe it), despite the fact there is no evidence for efficacy, and indeed no rationale as to why ivermectin would work for late stage COVID.

John Campbell is repeating this misinformation, hence the thread. Despite what PPs have tried to claim, the issue isn't that he's talking about ivermectin, it's the claims he's making.

@ollyollyoxenfree

At which point in John Campbell's video does he encourage the use of Ivermectin over vaccination?

It is just untrue and false to claim he has.

What is the evidence that people are turning down the vaccine for Ivermectin?

There is not one documented case of anyone in the UK overdosing or even taking Ivermectin. What are you basing the claims that it is 'dangerous' to talk about the hypothetical mechanisms of Ivermectin?

@containsnuts

"Just reading this, didn’t know Johnson and Johnson have had to withdraw their Baby Powder in the US and Canada in 2020 because of links to ovarian cancer….yet I’m sure I could pop to Superdrug and buy some today...yet they know of the links to cancer... and are still selling it here. It’s not as straightforward as ‘The Science’ like people want it to be."

Just to add they've suspected the baby powder/ cancer link for decades. My mother didn't use it on me as a baby and I was born in the early 80s! I suppose the point I'm trying to make is that it can take a long time for issues like this to be investigated, problems to be aknowledged and changes made, especially when money and reputation is at stake.

Yes, I'm 56 and remember the first scares about it when I was quite little. It's all talc based powders I believe. I'm always surprised when I see some brands still on the shelves, but I wonder if formulation etc changed over the years. Used to love Avon talc.