All the more reason it would be better in the future to cite the study instead of a jpg from a screengrab of a Dr. John YouTube.
I do agree that it would be better if the study had been linked immediately. The source seems completely irrelevant so the obsession with it appears to be simply a way to discredit the poster without discussing the study.
So the conclusion here that while CN is bashing the mere idea of discussing a study that originated from Dr John, he is clearly mistaken, even if said studies had mistakes or issues (like most studies), the overarching point seems to be relatively accepted today as far as I understand.
Does churchill agree that posting the source would have been better?
Iâm not arguing against that. It would be 100% be better. Iâm just trying to place it within the ranking of moderation required and ban-worthy sins.
Churchill you said that you didnât do it immediately. You didnât just post the study, you posted the screenshot and dicked around about it.
I have no idea, seems like a weird question to ask me. He could for all I know be a very shitty poster. As far as I can tell a lot of people think that about me as well. Not sure the place to rank us is About Moderation.
.
Youâre wrong again, CN. Too big to apolgise though.
As stated, the link was deleted. I have always stated I posted the screenshot only as a summary and it shouldnât matter where the screenshot came from. The pdf was provided within 5 mins of the original post containing the lovely screenshot summary.
Nice try, again.
1 Like
I know Iâm not going to change your mind, and it really seems like I live in a wholly different reality than a lot of people here, but I donât think this accurately characterizes the usefulness and trajectory of the thread over the last couple years.
1 Like
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.
1 Like
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.
Youâve presumably read the thread so you know thatâs not the whole ordeal and itâs frankly dishonest and insulting to present it that way.
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.
Yuv said heâs largely unfamiliar with the COVID thread.
EDIT: Ponied
1 Like
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.
1 Like