Nurse Campbell also has a wiki page, so we can just directly address his bullshit instead of linking to YouTubes no one is going to watch other than faithful watcher Churchill:
In November 2021, Campbell said in a video that ivermectin might have been responsible for a sudden decline in COVID-19 cases in Japan. However, the drug had never been officially authorised for such use in the country; its use was merely promoted by the chair of a non-governmental medical association in Tokyo, and it has no established benefit as a COVID-19 treatment.[4]Meaghan Kall, the lead epidemiologist for COVID-19 at the UK Health Security Agency, said that Campbell was confusing causation and correlation. Further, Kall said that there was no evidence of ivermectin being used in large numbers in Japan; rather, she said it âappears this was based on anecdata on social media driving wildly damaging misinformationâ.[4]
In March 2022, Campbell posted another video on ivermectin, in which he misrepresented a conference abstract to make the claim that it âunequivocallyâ showed ivermectin to be effective at reducing COVID-19 mortality, and that ivermectin was going to be a âhuge scandalâ because information about it had been suppressed. The authors of the study have had to rebut such misrepresentations of their paper; one tweeted that âpeople like John Campbell are calling this a âgreat thought out studyâ when in reality itâs an abstract with preliminary data. We have randomized controlled trials why are we still interested in retrospective cohort data abstracts?â
In November 2021, Campbell quoted from a non-peer-reviewed journal abstract by Steven Gundry saying that mRNA vaccines might cause heart problems.[6] Campbellâs video was viewed over 2 million times within a few weeks and was used by anti-vaccination activists as support for the misinformation that COVID-19 vaccination will cause a wave of heart attacks.[6] According to a FactCheck review, Campbell had in his video drawn attention to typos in the abstract, and a lack of methodology and data, but he did not mention the expression of concern that had been published for the abstract, saying instead that it could be âincredibly significantâ.[6]
In March 2022, Campbell posted a misleading video about the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, claiming that a Pfizer document showed it was associated with 1,223 deaths. The video was viewed over 750,000 times and shared widely on social media. In reality, the documents cited explicitly disclaimed any connection between vaccinations and deaths reported
A popular misconception throughout the pandemic has been that deaths have been overreported.[7] In January 2022, Campbell posted a YouTube video in which he cited figures from the UKâs Office of National Statistics (ONS) suggesting they showed deaths from COVID-19 were âmuch lower than mainstream media seems to have been intimatingâ and concentrated on a figure of 17,371 death certificates where only COVID-19 was recorded as a cause of death. Within a few days the video had been viewed over 1.5 million times.[23] It was shared by British Conservative politician David Davis who called it âexcellentâ and said that it was âdisentangling the statisticsâ, and American comedian Jimmy Dore used it to claim that COVID-19 deaths had been overreported and that it proved the public had been the victim of a âscaremongering campaignâ.[24][7] The ONS responded by debunking the claims as spurious and wrong.[25] An ONS spokesman said âto suggest that [the 17,000] figure represents the real extent of deaths from the virus is both factually incorrect and highly misleadingâ.[24] The official figure for COVID-19-related deaths in the UK for the period was over 175,000; in 140,000 of those cases the underlying cause of death was listed as COVID-19.
This is only the greatest hits. Campbell was a well known moron influencer among actual medical online communities for some time, which is how I recognized a screenshot of text as his dumbass work.
In isolation, this easily merits a day or two off. In the context of him constantly trolling the thread, dishing out personal attacks, and earning dozen of bans by multiple mods, Iâd say it should earn substantially more time off. Obviously everyone has their own sense of whatâs appropriate. Using an ongoing public health crisis as an opportunity to troll people seems really distasteful to me.
So am I correct to understand that this whole ordeal, which is being discussed here months later, is that a completely legit paper, which was referenced in a JAMA editorial while in preprint and was published 3 weeks after it was referenced on this board, wasnât immediately linked properly?
@trolly, even seeing the language here by CN towards Church and vice versa it appears that the trolling and personal attacks (I would point out that âNurse Johnâ is offensive and fairly disgusting regardless of who that person is) are part of their relationship. That sucks, but those things donât start on their own. Itâs easy to start seeing them with a bias, like @MakeHaste did earlier without even realizing it.
Though that wasnât anywhere near the first post from Churchill that caused significant controversy in the COVID thread. So just using Bayesian logic, any post from him is going to be met with considerably more skepticism than the same post from another poster.
I admitted here to barely reading the thread, having a very small sample size and responding to what MakeHaste added here. It is better to say that Iâm incorrect.
Nurse John represents himself as a doctor in a medical context when his doctorate is in nursing education. He has no right to be presenting himself as a doctor on any sort of medical context. Nurse John is what he is when he works in medicine.
I do not have strong opinions. MakeHaste presented a case and Iâm responding to it. He has done so in About Moderation. I have written and explained my thinking at every stage while asking questions when Iâm uninformed. And I will say iâm probably a lot more familiar than you with the process of publishing scientific papers, so Iâm probably more suited to discuss that issue.
this seems to be the issue, I agree. but then we have some self-fulfilling prophecy which isnât all that different from bad political analogy we can all think about if try.
churchill doesnât think heâs to blame for previous controversies and then any additional post he makes that receives special scrutiny is answered with aggression on his part and the cycle continues. Since the two incidents i am familiar was him ridiculed for the variant (which had a ⢠all caps representation to mock it) and now this case, i remain unconvinced the scrutiny is as warranted as others think.
The ordeal was posting a jpg from a completely shady YouTube guy, not disclosing the source, responding with trolls and gibberish when people asked for the source, and further dissembling when people correctly point out that the original source was an unpublished preprint that should be taken with a great degree of skepticism.
I suppose thatâs fair. CN gets out of line quite often.
No. I havenât. Iâve called him by what he is, a nurse.
Is there something about a PhD in nursing (research doctorate) that makes someone less qualified than an MD (professional doctorate) to understand the current state of COVID research?
Yes. Relevant training in understanding medical literature, which doctors get at least 7 years in, and JC has clearly missed a few lessons.
This seems fair, but church claims he did post the link fairly quickly after. I will venture a guess that you can correct or not that the initial responses included a fairly aggressive tone towards church (the only linked post here included âa sucker for any britâ for example). That might also helped fuel the âtrollsâ you mention.
I will say again that while these cases have not convinced me, i fully agree that thereâs a chance churchill isnât a good poster, especially when it comes to scientific pedigree. Every piece evidence iâve seen shows he is treated like shit and is treating you guys like shit.
In August 2020, UNICEFâs regional office for Europe and Central Asia cited Campbellâs YouTube channel as an excellent example of how experts might engage with social media to combat misinformation,[16] citing a March 2020 briefing by Social Science in Action.[17] In an October 2020 interview on DW, Campbell is introduced as âan independent health analyst and one of the UKâs on-line authorities on this pandemic.â[18]