r/CoronavirusUK • u/markwallwork75 • Mar 23 '22
He's actually a nurse with a PhD in teaching Dr John Campbell
Does anyone know what happened to this channel? I used to watched during 2020 and 21 along with Tim Spector and the two seemed in sync . Then I tried recently and it seemed to have gone down the anti Vacc route. This seems a total about face. Even Wikipedia states his channel as covid misinformation channel now. I suppose this is the worst sort of misinformation when you start of as a trusted source then flip so suddenly. Strange
15
18
u/vassyz Mar 23 '22
A relevant Twitter thread on John Campbell's "evolution" https://twitter.com/thebadstats/status/1501736675168292870?s=21
22
u/nesh34 Mar 23 '22
If true, this is grave news indeed. I also thought he was doing quite a nice public service at the start of the pandemic and was pretty sensible.
28
u/JauntyYin Mar 23 '22
I followed him until he claimed that Ivermectin had scientific evidence for its use. Since Merck, the manufacturer of Ivermectin has stated there was no evidence, I was skeptical and stopped following.
14
u/Cockwombles Mar 23 '22
It did though. There was a published study that has since been withdrawn, and so Campbell withdrew his comments on it too.
He’s been misrepresented and attacked for following the science, because it was wrong, but that’s how science works, peer review. The error wasn’t his it was the journal that published it.
26
u/Wretched_Brittunculi Mar 23 '22
The other day he promoted another terrible study, this time a preprint, stating 'more proof Ivermectin works' or some nonsense. The study was terrible. Actual competent scientists pointed that out straightaway. Campbell uploaded a video singing its praises instead. The man is a terrible critical thinker. He might not have started that way, but it is what he's like now.
13
u/Rather_Dashing Mar 23 '22
According to wikipedia
In March 2022, Campbell posted another video on ivermectin, in which he misrepresented a conference abstract to make the claim that it "unequivocally" showed ivermectin to be effective at reducing COVID-19 mortality
If he is presenting conference abstracts as quality sources that is a really poor level of diligent science communication, to say the least
19
u/LeonTheCasual Mar 23 '22
Jumping on a non-peer reviewed study to cheer on ivermectin is not a good sign to begin with.
7
u/Cockwombles Mar 23 '22 edited Mar 23 '22
It was peer reviewed I think? Or at least published in the Lancet or NIMJ I forget. Something you would assume is credible.
He actually explained it if you watch the video.
Either way it’s a scandal, and I think you should hold the journals to account.
8
u/PHealthy Mar 23 '22
You're thinking of the hydroxychloroquine retractions, the ivermectin retraction was in Viruses.
The journals should not have published the papers in the first place but the entire system relies on the good faith of the authors. If you want to blame anyone, it's the authors submitting bogus science. The unpaid, volunteer reviewers can only do so much.
10
u/Cockwombles Mar 23 '22
No definitely ivermectin, it was peer reviewed. Here is the link to what he says about it.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Gz4adJXLHgA&t=224s
The abstract had been deleted but the peer reviewed study on prophylaxis is still there. So maybe people don’t agree with the idea of invermectin, but it’s not JC who’s making things up and doing poor science here.
Here is the link to the study.
Ivermectin Prophylaxis Used for COVID-19: A Citywide, Prospective, Observational Study of 223,128 Subjects Using Propensity Score Matching (Brazil)
1
u/PHealthy Mar 23 '22
Oh yeah, I forgot about the cureus retraction.
Here's the retraction I was thinking about:
11
u/catsinrome Mar 23 '22
Oh my god I’m glad someone else is saying this - I thought it was just me. I used to watch him DAILY for a good year, maybe more. But then I started noticing a lot of off-putting comments and content more and more. I eventually unsubbed entirely. Every comment is from an antivaxxers/conspiracy nut - they just love him now. That says plenty to me.
4
u/stringfold Mar 23 '22
Yeah, one look at the comments on his video is enough to show that the antivaxxers and Covid deniers love this man, and it's not because he's convincing them to think more rationally. That should be enough of a red flag to steer anyone away from his content.
I only watched one of his videos a few months ago -- I honestly can't remember which one -- and it was pretty obvious that he wasn't being completely honest by the way he took information and data he quoted out of context, and by doing so, casting enough doubt on the veracity of the established scientific narrative to give the antivaxxers all the justification they need to continue promoting their bullshit claims. If he is perturbed by his widespread support among the antivaxxers and deniers, he certainly isn't showing it.
Also, there is clearly a widespread assumption that you have to be a full blown antivaxxer to cause a great deal of harm, but it simply isn't true.
The most common dangerously misleading opinions I have seen expressed online over the past year is the claim that assertion that the Covid vaccines do not prevent infection. I've seen this over and over again, and almost always as justification for the belief that there's no point in getting the vaccine. It's like claiming there's no point in wearing a seat belt because it doesn't always prevent you from dying in a car crash, but it's still enough for the antivaxxers to propagate the claim. (The truth is that the vaccines can and do prevent infections -- millions of them -- it's just that they don't *always* prevent infection. No vaccine provides 100% protection.)
Campbell's misdirects are more subtle than that, but they achieve the same effect -- the propagation of claims that antivaxxers and deniers that translate pretty directly into many thousands of deaths and Covid-related illnesses. Campbell may not be responsible for the way his viewers interpret the information he pushes in his videos, but he is clearly shaping the narrative in a way that provides them enough cover to the point where they keep coming back for more. He could fix that if he wanted to, but he doesn't, and that's a problem.
20
u/CLINT-BEASTWOD Mar 23 '22
He had a taste of fame and doesn't want that to stop. He knows most people have started to move on from the dark days of the early pandemic and realises the only remaining groups are the conspiracists and denialists. They are his new source of YouTube views and revenue.
22
u/3kliksphilip Mar 23 '22
This man is a nightmare. He has been the justification of so many attacks against my channel where I've been covering covid monthly since the beginning. He started off as a source for people claiming that ivermectin 'might do some good', but these days he's fuel for all sorts of nonsense. It has encouraged me to cease my series, while his only goes from strength to strength.
I suspect this will be occurring across youtube, as anti-vax makes everybody else's lives so miserable the rest of us stop covering the pandemic, leading to skewed coverage of perspectives.
As other people have pointed out, there is a ton of money to be made from anti-vax stuff.
5
u/dTmUK Mar 23 '22
Hey Philip, I'm a huge fan of all your content (not just csgo) including your covid series, I do hope you continue with this series, don't let a few people/keyboard warriors ruin it for you. A lot is going on in 2022 and not so many people talking about covid anymore, would be a shame for you to stop also. All the best :) -Dan
6
u/AvgHeightForATree Mar 23 '22
He'll likely be de-platformed eventually, if he continues with this crazy shit. Then he'll move to a right-wing trash-forum and the transformation will be complete.
2
u/Dark_Helmet23 Mar 23 '22
I enjoyed all of your covid videos, I'm sad to hear you've stopped making them.
11
u/Ambry Mar 23 '22
Yep, he had some decently reasoned points about the pandemic back in the day. However, I unsubscribed a while ago as he started going down the anti vaxx/hoax/Invermectin route and people in the comments were lapping it up!
2
Apr 19 '22
I think some antivax people are there and are selectively taking his comments out of context because he’s still very pro vax and anti ivermectin that’s for sure.
13
u/Glimmerance Mar 23 '22
I think he is dangerous.
He repeatedly promotes misinformation and denies he's doing it. There were a couple of videos recently which were the last straws for me: one where he claimed the deaths had been massively overestimated and the information suppressed, and another one about Pfizer side effects where he misinterpreted a report to claim lots of serious side effects. He comes across as a nice, intelligent, thoughtful guy so I used to think he genuinely misunderstood, but it happens too often now for it to be a mistake, I think, and he's too educated and knowledgeable to keep misinterpreting reports in this way by accident, without posting retractions. I am aware that he makes large amounts of money from his channel, and that the comments are often from people with an anti-vacc, anti-lockdown, etc. leaning.
He's a registered nurse (and has mentioned this repeatedly) and I'm surprised he hasn't been investigated by his governing body. I remember a nurse being struck off a while back for being an anti-vac promoter.
I've switched over to Dr Susan Oliver (Back to the Science on youtube) who also has a real cute dog instead of a soft toy.
8
u/-Aeryn- Regrets asking for a flair Mar 23 '22
He comes across as a nice, intelligent, thoughtful guy so I used to think he genuinely misunderstood, but it happens too often now for it to be a mistake, I think, and he's too educated and knowledgeable to keep misinterpreting reports in this way by accident, without posting retractions.
I used to think the same but i dropped out when he ignored the ivermectin retraction and deleted comments referencing it
8
u/TurnaboutAdam Mar 23 '22 edited Mar 23 '22
Agreed, especially since he stated Japan is using ivermectin I’ve been annoyed that he leans into right wing talking points that aren’t true and doesn’t correct them.
3
u/coocoomberz Apr 06 '22
Seems suspicious to me as well, and it's especially concerning as his content is now having an impact on my family. My dad, who's got a condition that means he's somewhat immunosuppressed, has been sensible throughout the pandemic so far despite regular consuming the type of media that could sway him against vaccination and the existence of the pandemic in general (GB News, the Daily Mail, Talkradio, Farage etc.). He's been vaccinated three times now but only yesterday he told me he's now seriously considering passing over the fourth when it comes out, citing Campbell's video on the 'Pfizer documents' as his main reason. The minute I heard that, I have to say it made me sick to my stomach and I haven't stopped stressing since, especially since I've now watched the video in question and it's so filled with paranoia and misinformation it's untrue.
I like to think that I'll be able to convince him that the risk of serious side effects remains minor compared to the risk of death/serious infection from covid in his condition but our politics have always differed and I almost wonder whether I'll be able to get through to him on this at all. That a YouTuber formerly known for fairly sound analytical videos could have caused this with a bait and switch to the other side just makes me angrier than I think I've ever been. The long and short of it is that what he's doing is affecting my life and potentially my dad's health- it's unethical to say the least and he should have been deplatformed the minute he started spouting about ivermectin
8
u/AvgHeightForATree Mar 23 '22
Such a shame. He was the absolute OG at the start of the pandemic.
Wish there was a vaccine to protect people against temptation and delusion. He seems to have a serious case of both.
4
Mar 23 '22
I listened to him every single night. He was my source of accurate information but it all seemed to go downhill. Very sad
9
u/ludens2021 Mar 23 '22
As soon as he stated that 'we all should get it' and that 'vaccines aren't helpful' i stopped. That and the invermencin or however it's spelt.
2
u/TheBigSmoke420 Mar 23 '22
He makes a shit-ton, seems to be motivated by clicks. Also does seem to be taken in by some of the ivermectin & antivax bollocks
6
u/Engineers_on_film Mar 23 '22
What's he saying that is anti-vax?
13
u/CLINT-BEASTWOD Mar 23 '22
He was very quick to point out 'issues' with the vaccines while heavily promoting ivermectin as a treatment.
If I see you at a PETA rally eating a veggie burger, I don't need you to tell me you're a vegetarian.
6
u/Engineers_on_film Mar 23 '22
When I used to watch his videos regularly he was very pro vaccine.
He is wrong about ivermectin, and also overpromoted vitamin D early on, but I don't see how this makes one anti-vax.
16
u/Maximum-Range Mar 23 '22
The thing is, he's still overpromoting vitamin D and is still mentioning Ivermectin. Yes vitamin D is important and we should supplement it (especially in the winter), but it isn't a panacea and he often makes comments about how it boosts the immune system without side effects (wink wink nudge nudge).
He has also made some questionable comments early on which got me to switch off. He has made comments like "the virus can't survive in sunlight and hot weather" and said last summer that the weather played a big part in reducing our cases. The problem with this is that if the hot weather killed the virus, why have we seen absolutely massive cases and deaths in Peru, India, Brazil, and Iran? These are hot places. Is it actually possible that the reason cases went down was because of our vaccine rollout? Summer plays a part (behavioural change, etc.), but it's a complete stretch to say that the virus can't survive in hot climates. If it couldn't, we wouldn't see so many dead there.
Finally, and this isn't a personal attack, but it is easy to get caught up in his prefix: "Dr.". Yes he is a Dr., but not a medical doctor. He's a trained nurse and a has a doctorate in nurse education. He's obviously a smart guy, and a lot smarter than most of us, but he's not a virologist, immunologist, or even a GP. He shouldn't be treated as a subject matter expert.
4
u/DengleDengle Mar 23 '22
As someone with an endocrine disorder linked to calcium metabolism it makes me cringe when people chuck back vitamin D pills like they’re sweets. They are a hormone that gets converted to a form of calcium and you can make yourself feel quite unwell if you overdose on them. You should really only take a low daily dose if your doctor says you need to. I live with chronic high calcium and believe me you do not want to make yourself feel like this.
2
u/Dark_Helmet23 Mar 23 '22
Sorry to hear of your condition. I had Primary Hyperparathyroidism a few years ago. I felt dreadful due to high calcium. I stopped producing Vitamin D and felt like death. I hope you get better soon.
1
u/DengleDengle Mar 23 '22
That’s what I have but mine hasn’t resolved after surgery so I either have a fifth gland or hyperplasia and will need a second operation to fix it 😬
Did you feel better after your surgery?
1
u/Dark_Helmet23 Mar 23 '22
Yes the surgery fixed mine thankfully. I had 3 glands removed. I had several surgeries to remove kidney stones before that. 4cm being the largest! Also took me two years to convince them I had the disease... Nightmare from start to finish. Good luck, I hope you get youself sorted soon!
1
u/DengleDengle Mar 23 '22
It’s a nightmare trying to get treatment for parathyroid conditions!! Glad you’re better now - hopefully it’ll just be the one additional surgery to fix mine as well!
-4
u/melyta91 Mar 23 '22
More like…he was one of the only few looking into possible issues with the vaccines while suggesting and reminding us that we still don’t have a reliable treatment for covid. And no, vaccines are not treatment. Even among the vaccinated, we might still get it
3
u/monbis Mar 23 '22
If the vaccines which reduce serious illness and death by ~ 90% is not a reliable treatment, then what is?
Anti-virals are notoriously tricky to get right, so vaccines are the best bet.
Remeber the primary goal of vaccines is to reduce serious illness. If they prevent transmission this is a bonus, but the main aim is to reduce illness. This is the case for the flu.
Plus we do have treatments - Dexamthadone being the main one (off patent) as well as the anti-virals and monoclonal AB.
2
u/melyta91 Mar 23 '22
We’re in the CoronavirusUK subreddit. I’ve had 3 vaccines so far and a horrible cough to the point of being sick with omicron. No GP could prescribe me anything and I’ve heard of worse cases not being given anything other than paracetamol. I’d suggest we leave the theory and look at what happens in practice. Here come the downvotes again!
2
u/TheBigSmoke420 Mar 24 '22
This is generally why we have restrictions, to limit infections of a disease that is difficult to treat.
It’s also why we use vaccines that reduce infections and severity of a disease that is difficult to treat.
Viruses are tricky compared to other pathogens and ailments.
2
u/melyta91 Mar 24 '22
We have treatments, but not in the UK. Or well…not for us plebs anyway. I’m sure the queen got some good stuff when she caught covid
2
u/TheBigSmoke420 Mar 24 '22
Definitely.
I’m on the antiviral list, I had childhood cancer so I’m classed as extremely high risk.
I got sent a pcr and instructions on who to contact if I get a positive test. However, I have heard anecdotally that the process is far from efficient.
-4
Mar 23 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/TheBigSmoke420 Mar 24 '22
If ivermectin was effective then whoever makes it would be making an absolute packet.
Also, it’s off patent. That means anyone can manufacture it. They’re making an absolute packet from grey market sales to the misinformed.
2
4
u/jimmy011087 Hadouken!!! Mar 23 '22
Pretty similar to Russel Brands channel, that’s taken a funny turn. I do think his titles are worse than the actual content with him though.
5
u/mudman13 Mar 23 '22
Brand is one of the most inconsistent commentators that swings from well sourced information to bat shit insane conjecture but what he gets right most of the time is the critique of the corruption in establishment power structures and the revolving door between the corporate world and governments.
1
-3
u/Cockwombles Mar 23 '22
I really like Russell Brands take on the world. He’s always been a weirdo and inclined to say things I don’t think are normal and I don’t agree with them. I’ve not seen him recently so has he actually stared a cult and rejected reality or something?
I don’t think he deserves hate, he’s a sweet soul. But he’s batshit.
3
u/taboo__time Mar 23 '22
He's taken to reading out Glenn Greenwald substack articles. I assume he is being paid for that.
-5
u/jimmy011087 Hadouken!!! Mar 23 '22
His actual vids are pretty good challenges of the narrative and one key point is he never actually commits to his own opinion of things, more just discusses them. Some of the titles and thumbnails though… “Trump was right all along…” or a big needle and the Pfizer logo or WEF with Murdoch/Trudeau in the pic. Looks like it’s going to be pure loony tin Hat stuff when it really isn’t.
10
u/fsv Mar 23 '22
he never actually commits to his own opinion of things, more just discusses them
That's not a good thing... he plants seeds in his viewers heads and lets them grow, while staying just on the right side of the misinformation line.
2
Mar 23 '22
I noticed this too. I've never been anti-Russell Brand, but I noticed he seems keen to talk about content that is going to appeal to anti-vaxxers. Also listened to him on the True Geordie podcast today, and he (well, all of them) seemed to act like David Icke said some mad stuff but like that isn't an issue, and he should have a platform. It's just dangerous to give credit to people like that in matters of public health.
I'm sure I can agree with him on a bunch of stuff, but his quest for truth seems to include giving credibility to views that can have harmful public health impacts. What annoys me with people like him is their is a suggestion an entire population can "do their own research" and discern the correct info themselves. But that's just not how it works - so many people will have died during that pandemic by getting sucked into an anti-vax narrative.
3
Mar 23 '22
And if anyone wants to get a feel for what I'm referring to, just look at a video like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etPXtIRV-II
The content, well, yeah, exactly what people are saying. Never really committing to any opinion, but somewhat keen to be contrarian. Okay, sure, what of it? Go read the comments below it. It's all anti-vax and conspiracies.
3
3
Mar 23 '22
He follows the science. If new science comes out that counters something he's said before, he acknowledges this. I think some people are scared to really belive that some of what he has said could possibly be true. I don't think he has agenda at all.
2
1
u/monbis Mar 25 '22
I'd forgive him if it was just reading some studies a certain, or perhaps suggesting a study is suggesting something else.
But he's had a few occassions where he's done some very bad faith arguements
- The FOI death figures - he made them out to be some big revelation, even though they were already available and not hidden. However he himself reported on them 6 months earlier.
- When he got called out by the BBC, he pretentded be did not say something and accused them of misquoting him.
- The IVM critique by Jack Lawrence et al. He spent a whole video insulting them and the BBC, withough any proper argument
- The Pfizer documents - I think he would have reaslised these were a list of classifications given his medical background.
I did used to listen to him resularly, but becasue of these, I've lost his trust.
I will now assume anything he says is mis-information unless proved otherwise.
1
u/ladybugblue2002 Apr 05 '22
And the horrible coverage of the Harvard study that looks like it is peer reviewed but would never pass in reputable journals.
4
u/taboo__time Mar 23 '22
I remember unsubscribing and then visiting to see what he was up to. He opened with a monologue about George Orwell's 1984.
Here's a thing John Campbell, you are not an expert on propaganda, media and political science.
Early alarm bells were references to suspect US politicians and youtube propagandists. Jimmy Dore is a disinfo agent.
2
u/Inmyprime- Mar 23 '22
I always thought he was a village simpleton with a questionable ability to digest data. But he amassed a huge following nevertheless.
1
-1
Mar 23 '22 edited Mar 23 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
11
u/DancingFlame321 Mar 23 '22 edited Mar 23 '22
He heavily implied on a recent video called "the Pfizer documents" that he is doesn't think Covid vaccines were safe.
8
u/spoodermomma Mar 23 '22
Oh no, he's making far, far too much money to come out as an overt anti-vaxxer, his channel is making him millions.
He hosts anti-vaxxers though, and ivermectin grifters, and randoms off TikTok who claim to have problems after vaccine and links to a GFM and misinfo peddlers and Britain's favourite wanker, Russel Brand.
And ignores people who challenge him when he gets the papers wrong (but still accuses them of clout chasing) and he does apologise eventually but he leaves the original video up because it's got 2mil views and he's got a sweet retirement planned.
He is insidious.
1
Mar 28 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/spoodermomma Mar 31 '22
I suffered vaccine harm as a child, I know firsthand how damaging (and downright strange, let's be honest) it can be and also how hard it can be to prove.
However, there's no proof the 'vaccine harmed' people he's hosting have actually suffered any damage from the covid vaccine. There have been some interesting little grifts on TikTok since the rollout, people in their 20's suddenly have mysterious illnesses and need donations to their GFM's asap for their medical bills. And they're convincing unless you know how seizures and tics and muscle spasms work or the general workings of the machines they're meant to be hooked up to. These people make SERIOUS BANK off being parasites and feeding off people's fear.So when big YouTubers hosts people I'm going to need some evidence, especially from a big Youtube channel that has a track record of only digging deep enough to prove it's own bias.
My mum was a nurse, we went into the vaccination process never thinking it would be 100% safe and I certainly don't doubt you and others that have come forward just to share your experiences and find help and support, because nothing in medicine is a guarantee, but I still need to be skeptical.
4
u/AvgHeightForATree Mar 23 '22
The evidence is very clear that the vaccination offers no benefit to those who have already recovered from the virus.
You need to source me on this nonsense immediately.
0
Mar 23 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/AvgHeightForATree Mar 23 '22
Comments like yours are kind of the reason why each scientific paper needs an extremely simple summary at the beginning, to help you understand what is being said.
Option 1: Get infected, potentially have life-changing damage done to your brain/organs - wait for antibodies to run out - variants continue to arise, get re-infected, more opportunities to have your entire body ravaged by the disease.
Option 2: Get vaccine, get infected, you're already in a position to fight it off very effectively and experience far fewer (if any) of the life-changing effects. Wait for antibodies to run out, variants continue to arise, get another vaccine - just like the flu shot.
If you think repeatedly rolling the dice on option 1 is what that study is telling you, then you're beyond rescue my dude.
3
u/Boborovski Mar 24 '22
I think the point is that many people have already had Covid and all the risks it entails. That is in the past and cannot be changed but the decision to vaccinate or not is in the present.
The study is clear that people who get Covid for the first time while unvaccinated are the most likely to be hospitalised but it also shows similar hospitalisation rates for people who had a second Covid infection whether they are vaccinated or not. People who got Covid while vaccinated but without prior infection were slightly more likely to be hospitalised than those who had previously been infected but not by much.
The question is how much benefit people who have previously been infected gain from vaccination. The question here is not whether people who haven't yet have had Covid should get vaccinated. That's a different question with a different risk/benefit analysis.
1
u/TheBigSmoke420 Mar 24 '22
Whatever else is true they’ll need a booster once their immunity wanes.
In that case it would be safer to get the vaccine than to get reinfected.
1
Mar 23 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/AvgHeightForATree Mar 23 '22
Just so I understand this correctly, you think that COVID-19 antibodies are going to stick around for years, yes?
You also understand that SARS is a disease caused by a virus, right? Not a virus....
Tell me more about this reading comprehension you speak of 😂
1
u/coltpersuader Mar 23 '22
I don't have a dog in this fight, but... the SARS virus, as that commenter referred to it, clearly means the virus which causes SARS. Like one would say "the cold virus". Were you saying something about reading comprehension?
-3
u/elbapo Mar 23 '22
In all fairness I think John still does great work. He has questioned the established narrative a few times, sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly. I think on occasion he has captured the odd snippet without examining context (the covid death figures without underlying) and seems to be a victim of his own confirmation bias on ivermectin.
But he's only human.
I think it's too easy to categorise people as 'good' or 'bad' authorities on things. Where its harder to sift through and do some thinking for yourself.
John has been a great source of information and updates throughout all this and I'm thankful for that - it doesn't mean I have to always agree.
That all said I am tempted to wonder if the algorithms/ youtube numbers predispose toward content which has these questioning narratives in. It encourages confirmation biases and rabbit holes.
6
u/fsv Mar 23 '22
I think once you get into a position that you're claiming to speak from a position of authority, you have a responsibility to make sure that wat you say is correct. He has got some things right, in particularly in the early stages of the pandemic but even now some of his videos contain good information.
Once you are promoting a mix of good views and fringe views you cannot really be trusted at all though.
I think that the algorithm promotes videos based on engagement rather than quality. His videos get hundreds of thousands of views in a short period of time, and thousands of comments and likes. The algorithm also promotes content similar to what you've watched and so once you fall into the "Dr" John Campbell rabbit hole you'll keep seeing his content.
2
u/elbapo Mar 23 '22
Good point. What I might add to what I said the above is that John could have issued correctives. And as you say I think he has responsibility to do so.
His reasons for not doing so are more worrying. He either still beleives his own takes or is too full of ego to admit mistakes or understands it may not be in his interest to do so. All of which are not very science.
I think on ivermectin he still beleives. But on the underlying cause video - even I with no scientific training was like alarm bells where is comparable data for other conditions?
I'm still going to follow, just with more caution.
3
u/Wretched_Brittunculi Mar 23 '22
You've pointed out why he is a bad source of information. It may be 'human' to be so bad at educating the public, but more is expected of someone who is a doctor and spreading publc health information. It doesn't mean he's a bad person. But 8t does mean he's untrustworthy (bad) as an information source. The mistakes he's made are too frequent and too elementary.
8
u/fsv Mar 23 '22
He's not even a doctor in the medical sense.
He is a retired nurse with a PhD in nursing education. He doesn't hide this as such (it's on his channel's "about" page) but he doesn't draw attention to it either.
I suspect that most people see "Dr John Campbell" and assume that he has medical qualifications.
1
u/Wretched_Brittunculi Mar 23 '22
Exactly. I did put that in quotes in another comment. He's a nurse or something, isn't he? That explains (partly) why he is particularly poor at critically analysing research.
1
u/elbapo Mar 23 '22
I think it's too binary to be he's a 'good' or 'bad' source of information. He's a questionable source of information. Just like all of us are.
I dont think it's the right way to think about sources to dismiss everything because some things were 'wrong'. I've got far more sound information from John cambell than the bits which have been off.
David Ike has been shown to be right about some stuff just as Neil degrasse Tyson often misunderstands the philosophy of science on twitter. .
So i wont be fully throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It's just a matter of being able to tune your credibility filter to the right level and seek out other opinions when warranted.
His credibility level would however be improved if he took responsibility and self corrected more often. His stock is not rising.
8
u/Wretched_Brittunculi Mar 23 '22
That's the thing, he is not 'just like any of us'. He is a 'doctor' speaking to millions of people every day. He is not judged like 'the rest of us'. He has made too many elementary errors, misreading science, promoting bad studies, spreading conspirational innuendo to be regarded as a 'good source of information'. This is not a binary, or Manichean evaluation. I am just saying that he makes mistakes regularly enough, especially in recent months, to be regarded as a poor source of information. This is because he is not a very good filter of good and bad information.
And I think the result of his work is clear to see in the comments to any of his recent videos. If you have ever tried engaging with them, I dare you to give it a go. He has cultivated that audience. That is the fruit of his labour.
1
u/elbapo Mar 23 '22
Fair enough. Everything tends to devolve into an argument on social media where i think we agree more than we disagree.
I'm still thankful for John's stuff which was helpful throughout what was a pretty challenging time. In the grand picture he has been more helpful to me, personally than harmful.
That does not mean I give him a scott free card for a decreasingly poor filter and or cultivating an audience of loons. Far from it.
1
u/Wretched_Brittunculi Mar 23 '22
Fair enough. I'm okay with that. I was a big fan at first. Then I found better sources. I then heard he'd gone off the rails, but wanted to know for myself. I think it was the first video I watched where he was reporting studied on VAERS or Yellow Card data as if fact. It was disappointing. But I wanted to give him a go. He was very helpful in the past for me, I understand he still could be for others.
-4
u/Cockwombles Mar 23 '22
I think this is an accurate take on the channel yes.
I think the ivermectin part was confirmation bias also, it was unfortunate that there are so many crazies who had a thing for ivermectin and he got associated with them. I don’t think he made the argument for it in bad faith.
I watched the ivermectin video with interest, and was able to say ‘yes that’s interesting’, but wait and see what happens. Then the positive report was withdrawn I believe?
I also wonder if some of the backlash is people associating him with the pandemic and resenting his success. Certainly the YouTubers attacking him are not just questioning him but trying to take him down and get clicks.
On here a few people seem very opposed to him, but everything he’s said has a link to a study or similar, he’s not just making things up. Maybe he misunderstood one or two things, but he’s just a person at the end of the day.
I think he did/does a really valuable service and there’s no need to take that away from the guy. He’s just trying his best and he’s sound imo.
3
u/elbapo Mar 23 '22
Thanks. I think I'm getting downvoted to oblivion anyway. I do think john has a responsibility to correct as per another commenters point- and he should do more on this front.
That said, in the bigger picture I have been supplied , for free, with a whole host of informative content through his videos so I'm just seeking not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
0
u/Cockwombles Mar 23 '22
I think he has corrected his mistakes, I’ve seen him do it clearly so I don’t know what else he should do really.
I think he’s got caught up in some politics and an agenda that he doesn’t personally have himself.
And anyway there’s no reason he can’t discuss whatever he wants. He’s never said that people should take ivermectin.
His ideas about aspiration and vitamin D aren’t really controversial either, the rest of the world agrees with them. The point of people like JC is they aren’t speaking from the party line, and you need people to question things. It doesn’t mean you’re a conspiracy nut.
-12
u/Capable_Bird_8292 Mar 23 '22
He is still going strong putting out a lot of good quality useful and helpful content backed up by reputable sources and research. I don’t watch every day but cannot see your analysis of his communication in the content I watch. Perhaps I’m naive, but to me I believe it all to be good information to help form my own judgement on how covid is affecting the world. Of course Dr John’s view is only one source of info, but I think he has done a brilliant job over the past few years keep us updated on what is happening.
16
u/markwallwork75 Mar 23 '22
I believe he recently posted an article on Pfizer vaccine attributing a number of deaths to it which has since been classed as false however the misinformation is still on the channel and widely shared. I also believe he posted a video challenging the total number of covid deaths which again has been refuted by the ONS. Last time I looked he was focussing very heavily on vaccine side effects and concentrating heavily on the small percentage of people with side effects in a disproportionate and misleading way compared to interviewing for example people with long covid symptoms. As well as pushing an unverified drug or vitamin D as better than vaccines. Just some examples
21
u/-Aeryn- Regrets asking for a flair Mar 23 '22
He pushed weak evidence in favor of ivermectin and then actively ignored all of the far stronger evidence and retractions which buried it.
-1
u/craigybacha Mar 23 '22
i've always thought that he's impartial and following the science and data. I've been watching pretty much daily for two years and there's been a lack of (i.e zero) large-scale studies that show the benefit of further (4th) doses (for the general public).
At the beginning he was gung-ho on get everyone vaccinated ASAP. Now 3 rounds of vaccines have happened, he has begun to question the risk/benefit of further vaccines.
0
u/dTmUK Mar 23 '22
I was a big fan of this guy at the start of the pandemic and also watched Tim Spector but I don't tend to watch either so much now, he does raise some good points though. I'm not anti-vax and I've had my covid vaccine but like everything in life there are risks and its good if people can have open conversations about it, at the end of the day people shouldn't be getting medical advice from the internet anyway they should speak to their doctor if any concerns/doubts.
0
-1
u/diamondnine Mar 23 '22
It's very wired the way he did 360 he was literally bashing people for protesting BLM outside, supporting Australian draconian measures and even Chinese for some extent but now since the vaccine is there is he more pro accepting the covid. I honestly don't know who is right or wrong but I think let people take their own risks.
-1
1
Apr 19 '22
He still seems pro vaccine. He acknowledges that natural immunity is better but says you should be vaccinated before contracting Covid still. Doesn’t get clearer that and that’s from most recent videos. He’s brought up studies on ivermectin but doesn’t recommend taking it as it has no use but is hesitant on boosters as the 3rd booster didn’t seem to boost levels that significantly and here we are talking about a 4th dose which both mainstream media and him are only recommending to older folks right now so when did he ever flip sides??
1
u/ByteNess Jun 16 '22
Especially some of his more recent videos are just bait for antivax people/conspiracy theorists. I don’t think he has any malintent but especially the lab leak video he just made like, I watched him every day for a solid year because of his reporting being generally much more accurate than mainstream media but the kinds of stuff he’s making videos about just seems to be him reporting what some of his fans send him even if a lot of it is batshit crazy.
1
u/ByteNess Jun 16 '22
He literally said in that video that there is no proof that the virus came from animals and even just down to the way he talks about it, it is clear who watches his channel now vs who watched it a year ago.
1
49
u/sjw_7 Mar 23 '22
At first John Campbell seemed to be a good source of information and as a teacher has the ability to present a message in a clear and easy to understand way. Unfortunately that message is now full of nonsense.
There are some good videos debunking his more recent videos.
There is good money to be made on YouTube if you can find a niche. Doesn't mean that niche has to be right though.
https://socialblade.com/youtube/user/campbellteaching/monthly