Dr. John Campbell's Pfizer antiviral / Ivermectin misinformation: A detailed response

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 30 жов 2024

КОМЕНТАРІ • 3,6 тис.

  • @paulmcclements3176
    @paulmcclements3176 2 роки тому +135

    I actually sat right through this. Thank you. Is this misinfo also?
    ua-cam.com/video/E1GF0H9V_1g/v-deo.html

    • @ProfGregTuckerKellogg
      @ProfGregTuckerKellogg  2 роки тому +116

      First, thanks for sitting through it!
      As for your question: yes it is also misinformation. That one is particularly ludicrous. Basically, a private medical group (the Tokyo Medical Association) said go ahead and take ivermectin. But it wasn't approved, other local medical assocations didn't follow suit, nobody knows how much ivermectin was purchased, much less taken, and if you ask people in Japan about this they say "huh"? Covid cases dropped just as steeply or even more so in Osaka, Nagasaki, and other Japanese cities in which the Tokyo Medical Association wasn't active and there was no discussion of ivermectin. What *is* known is that Japan, which had gotten into vaccinations late in the game, rapidly ramped up its vaccination levels.
      The thought of people rushing out to buy Ivermectin for widespread off-label use in Japan actually makes me giggle. True story: back when I was in biotech, I was on a nearly empty late night business class train car from Fukushima to Tokyo. I told my Japanese colleague I was going to move to an open seat across the aisle so that we could each stretch our legs (we had reserved seats). She was mortified; I might as well have murdered a puppy in front of her eyes.

    • @ProfGregTuckerKellogg
      @ProfGregTuckerKellogg  2 роки тому +54

      I actually asked her, "Do you think this will be a problem"?
      She answered, "I don't know. We don't do that"

    • @jonathanport7427
      @jonathanport7427 2 роки тому +23

      @@ProfGregTuckerKellogg yes I have worked in Japan. They play with a very straight bat. They do as they thier pier group does. I am not agin Campbell but enjoy you as foil to him. Keep it up it keeps the perspective right

    • @justsayupyours
      @justsayupyours 2 роки тому +35

      @@ProfGregTuckerKellogg I gave ivermectin to a family member that had Covid and his symptoms stopped 2 1/2 hours after the first dose and he is overweight and has asthma. Meanwhile due to goofs in the health industry, ivermectin hasn’t been approved to treat Covid. They would rather send a recovering infected person home from the hospital with nothing. Why does the health industry hate people so much?

    • @RationalMind
      @RationalMind 2 роки тому +11

      @@ProfGregTuckerKellogg I’ve also heard Japan has had issues recruiting patients to enrol in clinical trials of ivermectin - hardly sounds like the populous are massive fans of it.

  • @Bookhermit
    @Bookhermit 2 роки тому +395

    This does nothing to address my points about ivermectin use:
    #1. Ivermectin, in normal human dosage, is VERY, VERY safe to take and has ZERO known dangerous interactions with other medication.
    #2. There is VERY strong correlation between population-wide use of ivermectin and low rates of covid infection. Yes, it COULD be an example of correlation not being causation, but why assume so? The actual method of action could easily be something we don't yet fully understand - like the way ivermectin tends to concentrate in lung tissue.
    This being true, preventing anyone from using ivermectin is silly, and the global demonization of its use is highly suspicious in the eyes of the general public. The only excuse seems to be fear of ivermectin use replacing vaccination, and the current tactics just encourage that exact distrust in establishment practice. i.e. just stop fighting people!!

    • @ProfGregTuckerKellogg
      @ProfGregTuckerKellogg  2 роки тому +66

      Sure, ivermectin is safe at normal human dosage. At those doses, it cannot act in the way Dr. Campbell claims.

    • @steinarnielsen8954
      @steinarnielsen8954 2 роки тому +47

      Not to mention that politicians are perfectly happy to impose lockdowns in spite of no actual evidence that it actually works. Taiwan achieved the lowest fatality rate without lockdowns.

    • @Bookhermit
      @Bookhermit 2 роки тому +92

      @@ProfGregTuckerKellogg So maybe it works some other way. Again, why the intense demonization??

    • @jimjamson9534
      @jimjamson9534 2 роки тому +20

      @@Bookhermit Oh maybe it works in a mysterious way... lol.
      Just quickly:
      India IVM great effect on covid.
      Indonesia: similar graphs, deaths, etc, but no IVM.
      Why?

    • @jimjamson9534
      @jimjamson9534 2 роки тому +4

      @@twinflame4618 Huh?

  • @thomzydervelt5152
    @thomzydervelt5152 Рік тому +7

    Btw my ivermectin cost was less than $5 . There’s no way I’m willing to pay Pfizer $3000 for a similiar acting drug .

  • @justthefacts4893
    @justthefacts4893 2 роки тому +66

    This is what “peer review “ is all about. When people say that an article is peer reviewed it means others like yourself with specific knowledge agree or disagree. I do agree with others that using the term “misinformation“ implies intent to deceive, which we don’t know. Perhaps calling it an “error” or “incorrect” would achieve the desired goal without the pejorative connotation.

    • @inasible
      @inasible 2 роки тому

      Hopefully your comment get the necessary attention

    • @ProfGregTuckerKellogg
      @ProfGregTuckerKellogg  2 роки тому +34

      Misinformation does not imply intent. Disinformation implies intent.

    • @justthefacts4893
      @justthefacts4893 2 роки тому +8

      @@ProfGregTuckerKellogg I stand corrected. You appear to have a much greater depth of knowledge in this specific mode of action than Mr. Campbell. I think the broader question still remains regarding the apparent empirical benefits of treating Covid early with Ivermectin as described by numerous reputable physicians. Some people confuse a lack of scientific explanation with a lack of effectiveness. I hope science will evolve to shed more light on this paradox.

    • @trevorcrook5753
      @trevorcrook5753 2 роки тому +5

      @@ProfGregTuckerKellogg So the Media are spreading disinformation ?

    • @trevorcrook5753
      @trevorcrook5753 2 роки тому

      Peer reviewed and published in a journal

  • @andrewsteele111
    @andrewsteele111 7 місяців тому +4

    Not aged well, as the FDA settled out of court on ivermectin

  • @eduardodiaz5459
    @eduardodiaz5459 Рік тому +20

    I've never seen the Dr. Campbell post a video without a scientific or official paper to back what he says, I indulge that perhaps there are errosrs in the information that he presents (that are not his mistake), but to say that he spreads "missinformation" is a very grave accusation.

    • @pedtrog6443
      @pedtrog6443 9 місяців тому

      The problem that has been identified here, is that Campbell doesn't appear to have the necessary pharmacological background to always properly interpret those papers

    • @eduardodiaz5459
      @eduardodiaz5459 9 місяців тому +1

      @@pedtrog6443 Mr. Campbell startad (just like me) being a believer in the vaccines. He presented all the official statisticas and relevant data that was droped every other day... But in time he noticed that the official data began to show discrepancies, and stoped to make sense. When he showed that to his followers, suddenly he bacame a "bad actor" who was not capable to inform to the general public about the disease, a conspiranoic, etc.

    • @Redwarfa
      @Redwarfa 7 місяців тому

      ​@@eduardodiaz5459unfortunately he is not a statistician either
      That's is why people train at uni for years to become so.

  • @FeralUrchin
    @FeralUrchin 2 роки тому +19

    It seems to me that the quickest way to settle the Ivermectin debate would be simply to allow its use whenever a patient requests it. Data on its efficacy would thenbe readily available. There should be little downside to this approach since IVM appears to be safe in traditional doses for humans.
    Yet hospitals and physicians seem to be strongly resistant to allowing patients to receive IVM. Why? This refusal raises deep suspicians against their motivations and general trustworthiness. Plainly the medical establishment is not concerned about IVM's safety. And plainly the medical establishment is not overly concerned with questionable safety and efficacy of the vaccines or with it's often ineffective hospital protocols for treating COVID.
    Thus, the healthcare establishment is seen to be pursuing its own interests rather than the interests of patients.
    Again, why not allow IVM to be freely given and study it's effectiveness. The reason seems only to be some inexplicable bias--thought by many of us to be money-driven or worse.

    • @blacksolidChrome
      @blacksolidChrome 2 роки тому +3

      If you hit Google there are quite a lot of studies on cov and ivermectin.
      The conclusion of the studies was very very little or zero effect.
      To answer you question: if you have teams of people working on the evaluation of the efficacy all over the world, and all teams come to very similar conclusions. Why would you give additional medication to someone when it doesn’t help? Actually you would advise against it because, medication goes though a long and detailed test regime in order to get it approved for a narrow target. You don’t just randomly hand out stuff which Very well might have adverse effects in this untested situation.

    • @midlandsman288
      @midlandsman288 2 роки тому +5

      I find it kind of amusing you suggested that doctors not giving patients Ivermectin means they are not acting in the patients best interests.
      It must be a hard job being an ER doctor only to have opinionated patients tell them how to do their job and saying their doing it wrong.

    • @cathymartens7478
      @cathymartens7478 2 роки тому +1

      To me, sitting here in Africa, this seems to be the most relevant comment I've seen on the subject. Ivermectin is very commonly used throughout Africa, it has been proven to be safe and is very cheap. My 80 year old diabetic mother got covid and was only offered vitamins. Luckily she recovered but why wasn't she prescribed Ivm? I have not yet heard a sensible answer that explains the reluctance to at least try this drug and research the results.
      Well said Jim👍👏👏
      As a quick aside, I've just seen a map of the world on CNN which showed South Africa, in the midst of this 'horrorific' omicron surge has 10 to 50% less deaths than last week? Plus there is a nasty bug going around here. We have been advised not to panic if we feel really sick because we more than likely have this bug rather than omicron which is much milder?? Non of this makes any sense to me.

    • @williamverhoef4349
      @williamverhoef4349 2 роки тому +5

      "It seems to me that the quickest way to settle the Ivermectin debate would be simply to allow its use whenever a patient requests it'
      That is exactly what you don't do.
      Once it is readily available you won't get participants for a proper clinical trial.
      And it is impossible to extract any information about ivermectin once it is readily available because it won't be the only treatment being used.
      Please leave the evaluation of drugs to those with the expertise.
      This is the same mistake Dr. John is making. He is assuming that he has expertise in drug evaluation simply because he has a PhD (which is in international nurse education).
      "hospitals and physicians seem to be strongly resistant to allowing patients to receive IVM. Why?"
      So that is one reason why. The other reason is that there are literally hundreds of drug being falsely promoted during the pandemic. They simply cannot allow patients to be medicating themselves with drugs with no evidence of effectiveness. There is also the problem of drug interaction. There's the problem of giving legitimacy to drugs that don't work or for which there is no evidence.
      "This refusal raises deep suspicians against their motivations and general trustworthiness"
      That what the promoters of ivermectin want you to believe. On the other hand, there are physicians who do acquiesce to patient demand for invermectin and the promoters of invermectin then use this to further promote the drug. It is literally a lose-lose situation for legtimate physicians trying to do the best for their patients.
      "And plainly the medical establishment is not overly concerned with questionable safety and efficacy of the vaccines "
      The vaccines are safe and effective. And before you complain, no, that does not mean 100% safe and 100% effective. It means they are orders of magnitude safer and more effective than the infection. COVID-19 is now mostly a pandemic of the unvaccinated.
      "Thus, the healthcare establishment is seen to be pursuing its own interests rather than the interests of patients"
      In general, doctors do the best they can for their patients. On the other hand, the promotion of ivermectin by people with no expertise in drug evaluation, like Dr, John Campbell, is positively harmful for those 2 million subscribers and all those who those 2 million subscribers influence in turn. Ivermectin is even being exploited by antivaxxers as an alternative vaccines.
      "Again, why not allow IVM to be freely given and study it's effectiveness."
      To repeat, this is exactly how you will never find out if it works.
      Please leave drug evaluation to the drug evaluation experts. You cannot be expected to be an expert in everything or, indeed, to understand why the experts do what they do.

    • @carbonking53
      @carbonking53 2 роки тому +3

      @@williamverhoef4349 I see you have a volley of comments on multiple videos on this channel just in the last hour all attacking people who are proponents of using or simply discussing the possible upsides of IVM. This seems to indicate you are either on big pharma's payroll or just a hate monger.

  • @ljacobs357
    @ljacobs357 2 роки тому +47

    I find Dr. Campbell informative and largely impartial. He attempts to use current data to reach conclusions but is not dogmatic about his findings. I don't find him as a person intentional spreading misinformation.

    • @ProfGregTuckerKellogg
      @ProfGregTuckerKellogg  2 роки тому +9

      I've been getting a lot of comments along these lines. But I don't see any way to view his "alternative facts" video as having been made in good faith

    • @carnagefpv8256
      @carnagefpv8256 2 роки тому +14

      @@ProfGregTuckerKellogg that's the dogma part, you know, the one where you vehemently deny any and every single thing that may point to a solution that is NOT A PFIZER vaccine. That part where you attack anybody even looking for other options?
      Sorry people don't believe the shilling anymore🤷🏻‍♂️

    • @MichaelDavidFinn
      @MichaelDavidFinn 2 роки тому +1

      @@ProfGregTuckerKellogg ah, you are giving yourself away! "Good faith"? Let's see who's bankrolling your points of view. You're not doing this out of moral superiority. By far!

    • @ProfGregTuckerKellogg
      @ProfGregTuckerKellogg  2 роки тому +1

      @mike finn, don't underestimate my sense of moral superiority. Nobody is bankrolling my point of view.

    • @leehughart3160
      @leehughart3160 2 роки тому +1

      @@ProfGregTuckerKellogg Really?

  • @jonnnybfly
    @jonnnybfly 2 роки тому +62

    This is a great analysis. I'd like to see you and Dr. John Campbell have a 3-way discussion with Dr. Mobeen Syed on his UA-cam channel. Any chance that you try to make that happen? Thanks.

    • @tarantulady8565
      @tarantulady8565 2 роки тому +7

      I’d love to see this happen.

    • @piked261
      @piked261 2 роки тому +11

      Off course he wouldn't

    • @PhysiKarlz
      @PhysiKarlz 2 роки тому +18

      Look through Campbell's videos. He only talks to people who would confirm his ideas. He cherrypicks blatantly his sources and data.

    • @piked261
      @piked261 2 роки тому +17

      @@PhysiKarlz such nonsense you're blind to the fact that he talks to many people from all sides of the argument.. because you are the one who is blinkered

    • @PhysiKarlz
      @PhysiKarlz 2 роки тому +5

      @@piked261 huhwhat....? Sensitive subject or what? How do you come upon that idea about me? You don't know me at all. I've gone through Campbell's video. And bloody hell, I thought YOU meant as well that of course Campbell wouldn't partake in such an interview.

  • @Marco-it2mr
    @Marco-it2mr 2 роки тому +13

    It appears John Campbell was a bit disappointed when his recent Indian guest did not tout the great benefits of ivermectin - heck, even suggesting it didn't do anything.

  • @tommaz6688
    @tommaz6688 2 роки тому +29

    I missed the slide that said, I tried to contact Dr Campbell directly to discuss this before investing a ton of time into this long drawn-out video.

    • @ProfGregTuckerKellogg
      @ProfGregTuckerKellogg  2 роки тому +14

      Do you think he should have contacted experts before making a video erroneously asserting a mechanism for ivermectin and posting it to his 1.3M followers?
      FWIW, I left an extended comment on his video. But he has 1.3M followers, and his video had 11K comments by the time I posted. So I expect it wasn't even seen by him.

    • @angelanorth2924
      @angelanorth2924 2 роки тому +6

      Seeing that you have the same aims, it would surely be pertinent to contact Dr. Campbell with a view to collaborate with him.

    • @criticalthinking2062
      @criticalthinking2062 2 роки тому +2

      @@angelanorth2924 Nurse Campbell is a big pharma schill and has changed his tune since getting a cease and desist order for promoting genocide.

    • @moveuself
      @moveuself 2 роки тому +10

      @@criticalthinking2062 People can't take you seriously when you make comments like that

    • @criticalthinking2062
      @criticalthinking2062 2 роки тому +4

      @@moveuself You'll wake up one day pal.

  • @ljacobs357
    @ljacobs357 2 роки тому +33

    I find Dr. Campbell informative and largely impartial. He attempts to use current data to reach conclusions but is not dogmatic about his findings. He's allowed to make mistakes.

    • @kathyohara6658
      @kathyohara6658 2 роки тому +4

      I agree and not convinced that any of these guys are not making mistakes. Everyone with Dr. in front of their names is a plausible expert, and yet they cannot seem to agree on anything or any treatment, vaccine, side effects or even the actual covid statistics......I think we have to sift through all the conflicting jargon and do what we can with our findings. We also need to pay close attention to who they represent or work for and what motivates them.

    • @ledwards1212
      @ledwards1212 2 роки тому +5

      Dr John Campbell’s presentations are littered with mistakes and misunderstandings and (especially recently) have become rather blinkered and obsessive. Once upon a time he was a useful impartial resource but now I would urge anyone interested to broaden their horizons and seek better quality consensual viewpoints. I fear Dr John Campbell has become a victim of his own early success and has delusions of grandeur often dismissing the consensus viewpoints of multiple international authority’s to suit his narrative.

    • @psychoja
      @psychoja 2 роки тому

      Dr. John is not impartial. At least not politically.
      1. He doesn't trust anything that doesn't come from the "west" allied countries.
      2. He is all about China-bad attitude. He is blaming China for all kind of things. Most particularly how China failed to "stop the infection", but then few days ago he posts a video about Omicron, states that it is present in South Africa and states that it will be present around the world in few days. How can you blame someone for something that YOU can't do the same with all of the knowledge that you have now, that wasn't available then?
      As Lance stated, his reports are littered with mistakes and biases.

    • @anthonyward4081
      @anthonyward4081 2 роки тому +1

      @@ledwards1212 Couldn't agree more Lance.

    • @CRAlexandru
      @CRAlexandru 2 роки тому +5

      @@ledwards1212 It's unbelievable how you can say that about Dr Campbell in a world where the media calls Ivermectin "horse dewormer".

  • @PeaceIsBetter
    @PeaceIsBetter Рік тому +17

    Wow! All the lovely comments here. Did you get all of your family to write in? Dr. Campbell reads and analyzes the studies. That is what I hear. Please read the new Cleveland study showing the more boosters you get the sooner and more often you get Covid by Dr. Rick Kelly.

    • @Redwarfa
      @Redwarfa 7 місяців тому

      You just cannot help stupid

  • @andrewmartin2798
    @andrewmartin2798 2 роки тому +16

    Dr Campbell has saved a huge amount of lives and prevented many many people becoming ill with his excellent well researched videos
    What's your record how many lives have you saved?

    • @joshuabrooks91
      @joshuabrooks91 2 роки тому +14

      That doesn't mean that his video on ivermectin wasn't misinformation, and it isn't a valid excuse for him being wrong on that topic.

    • @hatoju
      @hatoju 2 роки тому +5

      How did he save lives as a retired nurse? With recommending Ivermectin, Vitamin D, Zinc or by talking about anecdotal vaccine side effects?

    • @jamesmccrindle8633
      @jamesmccrindle8633 2 роки тому

      @@hatoju he came out of retirement to give jabs.Also the french government said increase vitiman d.

    • @SUPER8ALTERN8
      @SUPER8ALTERN8 2 роки тому +4

      @@hatoju What have you done? raising awareness about how to boost your immune system during a pandemic sounds like a good idea, does it not?

    • @younggotti8195
      @younggotti8195 2 роки тому

      @@joshuabrooks91 the fact that the word “misinformation” is being thrown around is absurd, it’s also doesn’t help this guys case but rather hurts if…if he or you can’t use simple words correctly and honestly, how is anyone supposed to be believe he’s being honest about the rest

  • @Ray-dn8wd
    @Ray-dn8wd 2 роки тому +51

    To be quick and concise. You lost me with the title "misinformation". Mistaken maybe but if he makes mistakes, which we all do he will correct them if proven wrong. To dive straight into describing his video as misinformation, immediately implies he is lying and is deliberately setting out to mislead. My experience of people who use the term misinformation is that they have something to hide or something to gain so sorry I won't be listening to your opinion on this.

    • @timmyburden5701
      @timmyburden5701 2 роки тому +3

      Why dig your head in sand?

    • @CyionVR
      @CyionVR 2 роки тому +9

      when Dr. Campbell continually makes mistakes on multiple ivermectin videos, it no longer becomes just mistakes, it becomes misinformation.

    • @andrwlr1
      @andrwlr1 2 роки тому +5

      GTK was very polite considering John Campbell is deliberately dog whistling conspiracies about big pharma while offering misleading presentations about ivermectin and vitamin d.

    • @Ray-dn8wd
      @Ray-dn8wd 2 роки тому +4

      @@andrwlr1 Yes, politely called him a liar. My experience of him is that he seeks evidence and follows it. Yes dr j has a thing about companies making massive profits out of people's misery and he has every right to question. Why not take this up direct with dr j instead of publicly accusing him wrongdoing, in a very polite manner? I have no idea what the counter argument is because of the way this was approached.

    • @andrwlr1
      @andrwlr1 2 роки тому +2

      @@Ray-dn8wd I agree that there is good reason to be skeptical of big pharma, but in this case, it is John C who is capitalizing on this pandemic. John C is a gifted communicator, but he has gone astray through his deliberate dissemination of misinformation.

  • @clarkeonenil3252
    @clarkeonenil3252 2 роки тому +9

    Who should I believe, the guy with the phd in nursing, or the guy with the phd in molecular biophysics and biochemistry from Yale ? I'll go with the second guy.
    Several people in the comments below have said that they would like to see a debate between Dr Campbell and Prof Kellogg, but, notwithstanding the fact that it is clear from other comments that Dr Campbell has declined to engage, I would have to ask the question, why ? What on earth would be the point ? One guy has mastery of the subject at hand, he's an expert. The other guy, by his own admission, hasn't and isn't.
    I ended up here because I have been a fan of Dr Campbell. He doesn't do hysteria, globalist plots etc. In short, he comes across as an intelligent person with an adult outlook. However, there are a couple of things he has done which I do not like, and this ivermectin video is one of them. Even I as a layman had heard before that dosage was an issue with ivermectin. For him not to even touch on that issue is difficult for me to explain away.

    • @scalpingsnake
      @scalpingsnake 2 роки тому +4

      I always doubted Campbell, but I wanted to be as open as possible to different ideas even ones I don't want to believe. I heard too much against Ivermectin but I know Campbell looked at it so I finally decided to watch one of his videos on it. Something didn't sit right so I ended up here.
      This basically confirms the issue I have with channels like Campbell's; they come across as smart and impartial, they also have credentials which give them credibility but the topics are a cause for concern (putting Ivermectin in the title seems like a great way to get clicks) but the main problem is the sheer amount of misinformation in the comments. I will admit Campbell is very clearly a vaccination advocate (it's funny when the 'anti covid' crowd start hating on him for being pro vax thinking he would think like they do based off other videos he's done) but then there are so many people in the comments calling the vaccine bad etc... A Campbell never calls them out, I have not seen one video where he dismissed the misinformation in his own comment section nor does he ever leave a comment to disagree with them. That is the problem I have with him, that is why he is so dangerous.
      Also can I just point out how ironic it is that these people believe ivermectin definitely works but Big Pharma is trying to suppress it so they can make more money yet it's the people spreading the misinformation and lies for money that make them believe that......

  • @moehio
    @moehio 6 місяців тому +3

    Well this aged like milk, didn't it? A public apology is in order.

  • @edwardsheppard1110
    @edwardsheppard1110 2 роки тому +39

    Why do you have to take an hour to get to the point? Very irritating.
    And, in the end, you don't show that Campbell is misinforming folks on how ivermectin acts on 3CLpro. Rather you claim he is wrong to attribute ivermectin's purported efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 to 3CLpro interference because he didn't account for the necessary concentrations.
    So your title is very misleading.
    Further, according to my calculations, a standard dose of ivermectin gives a much closer blood concentration to the 20 uM reference than the tens of thousands factor you suggest. I understand a reasonable does of ivermectin might be 14mg. The molar mass of ivermectin is about 875g/mol so the the 14mg dose is about 16e-6 mol. Assuming 6L of blood, the raw blood concentration is about 2.7 uM. That's off the 20 uM by closer to a factor of ten than ten thousand. If, as you claim, there is a further reduction in availability of a factor of ten or so, the difference from 20 uM is a factor of about 100x. Still, much, much smaller than what you say.
    That extra factor of ten is suspicious. If ivermection availability is being reduced by bonding to blood chemicals, at some concentration that bonding will be saturated and every additional molecule of ivermectin will be available.
    IMO it is fair to say the Campbell left out important context but you have also. The 20 uM in the paper was acting against the 3CLpro concentration in the assay. The real questions are, what is the concentration of 3CLpro in the body that must be defeated and how much of the ivermectin in the blood makes it into the cells to defeat it?
    For example, given that 3CLpro is a catalyst, it's conceivable that its concentration might be very low. Really the only way to know is to test it. But, as Campbell says, accurately IMO, that isn't going to happen because there's no way to make money off the drug. I would add that it's against the narrative so not only would a positive result kill the career of the scientists testing it, the result would never see the light of day.

    • @imgonnawin555
      @imgonnawin555 2 роки тому

      >> And, in the end, you don't show that Campbell is misinforming folks on how ivermectin acts on 3CLpro
      Yes.... He did. He disproved every single piece of data that Dr. Campbell suggested to be "evidence". Claims with no basis, while portraying those claims to be factual is 100% misinformation. The authors of the fucking paper literally write word for word, "No biological or clinical outcomes of possible anti-SARS-COV2 activity can be explained by this data".
      How much clearer do you want it?
      Yet he still claims that this is evidence... Are you fucking kidding me?

    • @MsLickalot70
      @MsLickalot70 2 роки тому

      Thanx Edward 💪🙏✌

    • @Joe21671
      @Joe21671 2 роки тому +2

      Interesting he didn't reply to you.. 🤣😉

    • @Joe21671
      @Joe21671 2 роки тому

      Dr Hong has some very valuable insights.. ua-cam.com/video/0Wb8VzIeQqE/v-deo.html

    • @imgonnawin555
      @imgonnawin555 2 роки тому

      @@Joe21671 If you watch the video and conclude that Dr. Campbell is not providing false information to people, why would anyone bother responding?
      He literally went through multiple points and showed exactly how Dr. Campbells lack of knowledge resulted in him making false assumptions and then making false statements after inferring things from false information.
      Dr. Campbell didn't "leave out context".... he completely misrepresented multiple studies, including one that the authors literally say this data should NOT be used in the specific way that Dr. Campbell did. He also cited multiple studies that have been redacted entirely for falsifying data.

  • @henry6451
    @henry6451 5 місяців тому +2

    Just wondering if your views on the novel Covid vaccines and alternative (repurposed drugs) treatments of Covid have changed.

    • @henry6451
      @henry6451 3 місяці тому

      Thanks but it was a genuine question to which I would be genuinely interested in the answer.

  • @maureenkidd6629
    @maureenkidd6629 11 місяців тому +3

    Wow, jealousy seems to come in all professions. Really sad.

  • @enkido5838
    @enkido5838 2 роки тому +23

    One if the main arguments made against ivermectim (even from Merch) was that it was not (proven) safe.
    That is refuted in the opening moments of this video.

    • @ProfGregTuckerKellogg
      @ProfGregTuckerKellogg  2 роки тому +2

      At FDA-approved doses, yes. In use and proposed use for treating Covid, not so much. See the last reference in the details of this video.

    • @enkido5838
      @enkido5838 2 роки тому +3

      @@ProfGregTuckerKellogg
      I agree.
      But those who seem ideologically opposed to IVM never mention that.
      Instead all the news media talks about are Americans using horse medicine. There is no defence for such idiocracy or unprofessionalism
      The vast majority of ivermevtin use around the world, including for covid, is in normal human dosages.
      You are saying that science does not understand a mechanism by which invermectin could work at those dosages.
      Ok. Science does not know everything, that is why it exists.
      There is a substantial ammount of clinical experience and trials (of varying standards) which show at least correlations in favor of using IVM for covid.
      There are no reported contra- indications.
      Given the extrordinary benefit to mankind if it was even modetately effective that is worth a proper trial.
      Science can operates in more than one mode.
      Observational evidence followed by understanding the mechanism.
      AND/OR
      Proposing a theoretical mechanism then proving it by observation.
      You seem to be insisting on the latter, whilst the former is the more natural.

    • @ProfGregTuckerKellogg
      @ProfGregTuckerKellogg  2 роки тому +3

      @enki Do I've said in the past that I think the warnings about its veterinary use are foolish and bound to backfire, as they have. The issue is not that humans are not horses. The issue is that SARS-Cov-2 is not a parasite.
      I'm going to quote a few lines of yours:
      You write "There is a substantial ammount of clinical experience and trials (of varying standards) which show at least correlations in favor of using IVM for covid."
      The higher the standards, the lower the association. The best trials have not shown a benefit of using IVM for Covid. The trials showing the greatest benefit have been fundamentally flawed or fraudulent. You might ask yourself this question: why is pro-ivermectin clinical research plagued with fraud? It may well be because clinician-scientists are trying to make a name for themselves in the midst of a pandemic by breaking news of a massive benefit from use of ivermectin.
      You write: "Given the extrordinary benefit to mankind if it was even modetately effective that is worth a proper trial."
      I agree. That's what the TOGETHER trial was, and what the PRINCIPLE trial is, and what the Lopez-Medina trial was. That's what the Cochrane meta-analysis is designed to determine. As soon as the TOGETHER trial's ivermectin arm was stopped, ivermectin advocates started complaining about the trial design. When the Lopex-Medina trial was published, FLCCC didn't accept the results. Ivermectin advocates are _pre-emptively_ criticising the PRINCIPLE trial design in case it comes back negative. When Cochrane's meta-analysis showed no support for use of IVM _outside of_ well-designed clinical trials, the Cochrane analysis was criticized as being flawed and conflicted by ivermectin advocates.
      The great irony of the Ivermectin-for-Covid story is that _ivermectin advocates are the ones standing in the way of, or refusing to accept the results of, proper clinical trials._
      You write "You are saying that science does not understand a mechanism by which invermectin could work at those dosages"
      No. I'm saying that the mechanism Dr. Campbell's claims in his analysis is far-fetched and unsupportable by the data in vivo, and that the only reason he seems to be proposing is to make a spurious comparison to stand up a mythical mechanism for ivermectin next to a demonstrated mechanism for the Pfizer compound. You tell me: what is his motivation for this comparison? It's not to get clinical trials for Ivermectin.

    • @enkido5838
      @enkido5838 2 роки тому +1

      @@ProfGregTuckerKellogg
      I have refrained from ascribing motives to those who seem to be opposed to IVM but your suggestion that well respected professionals would risk their reputation on some mythical glory obtained by supporting a wild goose chase is frankly bizarre.
      The FDA will eventually approve treatments based on assessments of trials which meet specific criteria.
      Are you telling me that that has been done and that claims of efficacy for IVM were disproven?
      I have only seen statements that they did not have evidence to support its use. ( because no one had funded such studies or for them to assess them).
      Beyond that claims and counter claims about this trial or that trial and fraud and whistleblower reports about big pharma trail malpractice make the situation inconprehensible.
      Your ask me to tell you what Dr C's motives are.
      You seem to have more insight on that than me since you assert it is not to get a proper trial. Since that is the only request I have heard him make with regard to this and since I agree.
      I believe that is the motive.
      For me at least that wish is motivated by my own faith in the value of openmindedness in science.
      It seems obvious to me that since India and most of the underdeveloped world have not fallen into an absolute abyss there must be sonething more at play than we understand. Ideas such a genetic variations in Africa or Japan, prevalance of malaria, parastites (and their treatmentst) diet........
      An openminded exploration of these could lead to radically different solutions.
      None of that undermines the rest of the scientific effort so I don't understand the antagonism.

    • @ProfGregTuckerKellogg
      @ProfGregTuckerKellogg  2 роки тому +3

      @@enkido5838 I've not ascribed any motivations to Dr. Campbell and am not interested in doing so. I asked you to speculate as a thought exercise. I have no idea. But his video was certainly not about "more trials are needed for ivermectin"
      Also, I did not mean any antagonism in my reply at all; I'm just trying to be direct and kind of bouncing forth between a lot of responses.
      OK, to the matters at hand.
      Like other humans, any scientist can be lured by fame or money. Many ivermectin-for-covid advocates have argued that opposition to ivermectin use for Covid is motivated by greed, that somehow scientists who think that evidence does not support use of ivermectin in treating Covid are in some sort of cabal with Pfizer or "big pharma", which is of course a bunch of companies competing with each other. Incidentally that rationale is (by definition) a conspiracy theory.
      I don't know why there is so much fraud in Ivermectin research, but I think it's not something that should be ignored. I don't think it's conspiratorial, but but it's there: bad actors have repeatedly published fraudulent or impossible studies with positive results for ivermectin. A plausible explanation (and one that doesn't require any conspiracy at all) is that people really believed the in vitro results would pan out in the clinic, and wanted to be the first or best to demonstrate that in the clinic. This is totally understandable (although of course inexcusable). A trial in Malaysia overlapped with "World Ivermectin Day", which made news in Malaysia. But the trial ended up giving negative results for Ivermectin, so FLCCC has dismissed it as biased.
      Concomitant parasitic infections (especially in underdeveloped nations) are a real possibility, and given widespread use of dexamethasone, which can potentiate parasitic infections, that could be a role for ivermectin. But the trial would need to control for steroid use. Another, much more grim but I think very real possibility, is that deaths in less developed nations have been dramatically under-reported, so we actually don't have a good estimate of, say, the death toll in Uttar Pradesh or most places in Africa based on the official numbers. There was a solid epidemiological paper that looked at this a couple of months ago. India may have had 10x the reported number of Covid deaths so far.

  • @nevermore5375
    @nevermore5375 2 роки тому +13

    What then is the danger of Pfizer's new drug? Has it been properly studied with groups of subjects? How long? What were the results?

  • @lindosland
    @lindosland 2 роки тому +11

    Phew! That was hard-going, and yes, your criticisms appear to be well-founded. But there is an important point to make: was this why the 'fact checkers' blocked John's video on Facebook - I very much doubt it! I believe that instead they blocked it simply because it offered a challenge to the new drug, and someone had told them to block it.
    If they had presented even the basics of your information, such as that three of the papers were about in-silico modelling, then I am sure John would have been happy to comment and acknowledge his mistake. In taking us into the deep details of just one mechanism of action against the virus, I feel you do an injustice to Dr John and others by not addressing the real issue; that there is overwhelming evidence of the effectiveness of Ivermectin in clinical trials.
    Given the excellent known safety record of Ivermectin in humans, and it's low cost, it would seem obvious that bigger trials should have been be carried out, and they have not been. John's attempt to compare was a distraction, as is your critique. The correct approach is not to compare, but to ask firstly, 'are the numerous trial results genuine and honestly presented'. Secondly, if they are genuine, then what are the mechanisms of action (and there seem to be several, including the reduction of inflammatory response and cytokine storm in the second phase of the illness, when the viral replication phase is probably over and irrelevant anyway). You were very fair to Dr C in many respects, but by failing to address the overall issue - which is of vital importance to millions of people - and saying something like, 'nevertheless Ivermectin may well be very effective through mechanisms we do not fully understand,' I feel you are being very unfair and refusing to acknowledge that something is very very wrong about the desperate lengths being gone to to prevent further serious conversation about Ivermectin.
    While you correctly point out that 'in-silico' modelling does not give us definite results, I think it could also be pointed out that all experiments at the molecular level suffer the same problem - they do not necessarily represent what is happening in the human body. There might, for example, be ways in which Ivermectin recruits other molecules in the body to make it more effective as a protease inhibiter than modelling would suggest.

    • @ProfGregTuckerKellogg
      @ProfGregTuckerKellogg  2 роки тому +3

      Honestly, I think the TOGETHER trial and the PRINCIPLE trial are very well designed trials. I haven't seen anyone object to trials *except* people from the FLCCC or BIRD when trial results don't go their way.

    • @lindosland
      @lindosland 2 роки тому +4

      @@ProfGregTuckerKellogg I think the world has now moved on from just looking at 'evidence', to asking, 'who can we trust, and why?' All evidence comes ultimately from people. There are quite simply too many interests as stake in those trials and interested parties involved or funding them. We also need an answer to the question, 'why is the FLCCC (and so many others) not telling the truth - what have THEY to gain?' I see no reasonable answer offered to this question. The only way out is to involve the FLCCC fully in the trial, but that is probably not going to happen.

    • @MsLickalot70
      @MsLickalot70 2 роки тому +2

      I know you are right because so many trolls have come out 😂😂

  • @22WallTall
    @22WallTall 2 роки тому +3

    Why are we ignoring the overwhelming safety signals in VAERS, and why are we vaccinating healthy 5-year-olds?

    • @AVeryStableMilkingStool
      @AVeryStableMilkingStool 2 роки тому +1

      We've been vaccinating healthy people for about 200 years. Mostly under-fives. Get a basic education.

  • @Leo-fw1xr
    @Leo-fw1xr 2 роки тому +46

    The number of dislikes on this video is disheartening.
    Many people appear to not even watch the video or try to understand it. Instead they decide to go to comments and, presumably, other social media to claim this is an attack on John and is somehow shutting down debate.
    Please explain to me how a polite, extensive and highly detailed rebuttal of John’s arguments by a specialist in the field of molecular biophysics (which is the area John made the main mistake in) can be called an attack, or as some commenters have said, “shutting down debate”.
    It’s an hour long video that goes into every detail of what you might want to know and even invites John to make corrections if any of his views were misrepresented.
    As an example, shutting down debate would be a one minute video dismissing John’s views out of hand; this isn’t what was done here.
    To the people being toxic and reactionary in comments:
    Please try to be open to new information once in a while. You are the people damaging debate and spreading baseless misinformation.

    • @terjeoseberg990
      @terjeoseberg990 2 роки тому +7

      The education system has failed us. These people clearly failed to understand this video, and therefore don’t believe the results.

    • @sgordon8123
      @sgordon8123 2 роки тому +3

      He has no major good points to make. Dr John Campbell has a huge body of work and this is nit picking one bit. He will make money off the back of clickbait though.

    • @nonflyingdutchman9573
      @nonflyingdutchman9573 2 роки тому +9

      @@sgordon8123 Dr John Campbell is the one making money off click-bait. He's increasingly playing to the Ivermectin conspiracy theorists and has seen his views go up enormously.. And, as GTK points out, he's pushing out misinformation and unfounded claims about suppression of data on Ivermectin

    • @stephenguy3901
      @stephenguy3901 2 роки тому +10

      @@sgordon8123 you must be a member of the John Campbell cult

    • @98luk45
      @98luk45 2 роки тому +2

      @@sgordon8123 Did you even finish school? "Dr" cambell is a nurse with a "doctorates" in nursing education. He's not a medical researcher like GTK Bioinformatics and doesn't have anywhere near the level of knowledge of other academics who are active in the field. It's not hard to become a nurse; in fact, it's one of the easiest fields to get into unless your intellectual capacity is severely lacking - i.e. an IQ less than 90.
      I don't know what your job is, but my engineering buddies and I used to joke about how nurses are too dumb to be doctors and need to stop pretending to be one. Responsibilities of an nurse (i.e. "Dr" John Cambell) is to ensure the client receives medication, check for basic vitals, and report to the real doctor. Whatever they do outside of their job isn't credible since their work isn't reviewed by other professionals.
      Fun fact - nurses pretending to be doctors is a problem large enough that it's a jailable offence for nurses to identify as doctors. The only thing that prevents "Dr" Cambell from being jailed is he can say his "Dr" title is for his PhD in nursing education.

  • @markgivens3225
    @markgivens3225 2 роки тому +64

    As a continuing follower of Dr Campbell, I appreciate your ethical, rational, and detailed explanation. Hopefully we can all ‘seek truth’, ‘spread truth’, question scientifically and all of the best tools forward to maximize benefit and minimize risk for the people of the world. Well done.

    • @ProfGregTuckerKellogg
      @ProfGregTuckerKellogg  2 роки тому +7

      Thank you!

    • @usmc72409
      @usmc72409 2 роки тому +2

      Well said

    • @sharkymoon422
      @sharkymoon422 2 роки тому +1

      Truth?! Let’s explain why no one as isolated or purified cold 19🤣🤣😂🤣😂..

    • @80s_Boombox_Collector
      @80s_Boombox_Collector 2 роки тому +15

      @@sharkymoon422 Do you work in this field? If not, you have no business commenting about it or trying to convince people that covid is a myth

    • @sharkymoon422
      @sharkymoon422 2 роки тому

      @@80s_Boombox_Collector Do you collect nuts 🥜? If not then you have no reason to act like ya nuts!

  • @midasracer
    @midasracer 2 роки тому +20

    I will watch this when I have the time. In the mean time many countries are distributing Ivermectin and since my country won't I have bought Ivermectin myself. I read many reports from people it helps, it's cheap, side effects are known so why not?

    • @tonykelpie
      @tonykelpie 2 роки тому +6

      Depends on whether Ivermectin is being used instead of interventions that are known to work, or as well as interventions that are known to work. Dr Campbell has overestimated the value of meta-analysis, which if the trials analysed are biased can only produce doubtful results

    • @hawaiianrobot
      @hawaiianrobot 2 роки тому +1

      which countries are distributing ivermectin for covid?

    • @steinarnielsen8954
      @steinarnielsen8954 2 роки тому +3

      ​@@tonykelpie Lockdowns have not been proven to work.

    • @tonykelpie
      @tonykelpie 2 роки тому +1

      @@steinarnielsen8954 I made no statement about lockdowns. But - what was responsible for the big fall in UK cases between April and July 2020?

    • @steinarnielsen8954
      @steinarnielsen8954 2 роки тому +1

      @@tonykelpie You need large scale ranomized controlled trials to determine that.

  • @fintonmainz7845
    @fintonmainz7845 2 роки тому +10

    35:30 Campbell "if you're a biochemist you'll understand that, if not you're like me and just get the jist"
    The point is that he didn't "get the jist".
    This is where Nurse John is so dangerous: he doesn't know his limits.

    • @rajTrondhjem10
      @rajTrondhjem10 2 роки тому

      Nurse John is what his channel should be named and he is very dangerous indeed.

    • @Redwarfa
      @Redwarfa 7 місяців тому +1

      It's deliberate,lying by omission to make lots of money

    • @fintonmainz7845
      @fintonmainz7845 7 місяців тому

      @@Redwarfa I agree. I no longer believe Retired Nurse John is mistaken. He is now telling deliberate lies.

    • @Redwarfa
      @Redwarfa 7 місяців тому

      @@fintonmainz7845 so why are the anti vacc still believing him

  • @zita-lein
    @zita-lein 2 роки тому +37

    As someone who subscribes and watches Dr. Campbell every day, I greatly appreciate this in depth analysis. I am a complete layman in things scientific, so finding reliable sources who can communicate at my level is priceless. Thank you SO MUCH! Subscribed!

    • @stevenp2309
      @stevenp2309 2 роки тому +11

      Dr Campbell is definitely dog whistling to the to Anti Vax crowd more and more

  • @prandz420
    @prandz420 2 роки тому +6

    you are being quite charitable to assume he is making mistakes and not intentionally spreading misinformation

    • @OliverMagoo
      @OliverMagoo 2 роки тому +4

      I use to think they were just honest mistakes as well until he posted the "Freedom of Information Revelation" video a few days ago. He's making it sound like the true number of Covid deaths in the UK is only 17,000. Judging by the comments, that's how people are taking it too. You'd have to be pretty stupid not to see that those numbers exclude most legitimate deaths. They exclude anyone with so much as a single comorbidity. That's why the numbers don't match the excess deaths figure - not because anything nefarious is going on.

    • @prandz420
      @prandz420 2 роки тому +6

      Oliver Magoo I will check that out thanks. I used to believe what he said at face value since he is more qualified than I am and assumed he had much more expertise. Then I checked up on the study he cites in his ‘heart risk after vaccines’ video. Absolutely blew my mind when I found out he was using such terrible sources of information to draw huge conclusions from. I don’t think I can give him the benefit of the doubt because there is no way he doesn’t know better. He is citing from an incomplete and non reviewed abstract only paper which has no statistical analysis and not even units of measurement in the results. Unbelievable.

    • @ProfGregTuckerKellogg
      @ProfGregTuckerKellogg  2 роки тому +5

      That "Freedom of Information Revelation" video of his is absolutely maddening. I just can't see how an informed viewer can watch that and not recognise Campbell's medacity.

  • @Mikeincebu
    @Mikeincebu Рік тому +4

    Maybe you should stick to just critiquing your own channel if you notice now the FDA is now in court because of the remarks they made about Ivermectin

  • @darrylbaker5271
    @darrylbaker5271 2 роки тому +76

    This is what we all want, polite dialog and discussion. Unfortunately, debate is discouraged on Social Media and cable news and we are told to blindly follow the science, but Covid still rages. By shutting down discussion and being told to take more and more vaccines people have lost faith in the science.

    • @usmc72409
      @usmc72409 2 роки тому +6

      Couldn’t agree more.

    • @bannerlad01
      @bannerlad01 2 роки тому +11

      The use of the term misinformation in this video is aimed at shutting down debate

    • @Leo-fw1xr
      @Leo-fw1xr 2 роки тому +6

      @@bannerlad01 If I’ve ever seen polite, well-argued debate, this is it.
      Did you even watch the video? The author is not attacking John for spreading misinformation - merely correcting him on a topic he is far more knowledgeable about.
      Broaden your horizons a little, try to not take any new information regardless of presentation as an attack - it definitely wasn’t one.

    • @trustnoone9921
      @trustnoone9921 2 роки тому +5

      @@Leo-fw1xr no need to watch the video. The use of the word Misinformation in the video title is intentional and defamatory in this current context of government and media alignment to demonise anyone challenges their narrative

    • @tomdivittis2688
      @tomdivittis2688 2 роки тому +6

      @@trustnoone9921 I agree. He does even say explicitly that John was spreading misinformation. He did say it was due to misunderstanding the paper, but that doesn’t change the framing.
      After I finish this video, I’m going to see if there are any videos on this channel taking the same effort to discuss some of the obvious nonsense coming out of the mouths of people like Tony Fauci and Francis Collins. If they were doing their jobs, maybe Dr. Campbell wouldn’t even be known so well. “Shut up and take the shot” does not qualify as intelligent conversation and is not how you talk to adults that you want to take you seriously. Most of us learn this in primary school.

  • @ChitwoodMitwood
    @ChitwoodMitwood 2 роки тому +9

    I tend to get as much info and understanding from as many sources as I can, and while Dr Campbell has been useful in many ways, for reasonings of my own I have had my eyebrows raised on many other conclusions he has made. This one seemed to me not to square up, not from my lack of knowledge, but from common sense. I do value his work. And yours, Thanks.

  • @deborhais
    @deborhais 2 роки тому +6

    Would it be possible for you and Dr. Campbell to have a conversation about ivermectin? I think it would be helpful for the less knowledgeable to see how he reacts to your concerns?

    • @CyionVR
      @CyionVR 2 роки тому +2

      Dr. Campbell won't do that because he knows he will be wrecked, I know of someone he used to collaborate with until she pointed out his ivermectin mistakes to him in private and now he will not speak with her.

    • @andrwlr1
      @andrwlr1 2 роки тому +2

      @@CyionVR I posted rebuttals on John Campbell's video pages with links to peer-reviewed data and those rebuttals have been deleted, presumably by John Campbell.

  • @lustgarten
    @lustgarten 2 роки тому +15

    It was great to find this and thinks it is an important topic for people seeking accurate covid info. However, it could have reached a much larger audienc with more salience if it had been targeted for an audience that does not have the patience or background to digest this. I hope you see this and would take it under consideration and think about a short 10 minute version that would include your most important points. thanks again.

    • @reasontolive6287
      @reasontolive6287 Рік тому +1

      Yes! And as eye catching and easy to watch and understand as possible, so it gets more likes and attracts more attention!

  • @richardferguson8217
    @richardferguson8217 2 роки тому +16

    Hello Dr. T-K,
    I had previously read information on the pharmacokinetics of Ivermectin with respect to COVID, and understood in a foggy sort of way some of its limitations as a potential treatment. But your analysis was crystal clear.
    Thank you for you work on this presentation. I appreciate your motivation for the doing this and your collegial approach in the video.
    Richard F.

    • @ProfGregTuckerKellogg
      @ProfGregTuckerKellogg  2 роки тому +2

      Thank you, that is very nice to hear

    • @srolesen
      @srolesen 2 роки тому +1

      Crystal clear and fundamentally flawed, look up other in silico models comparing lipophilic and hydrophilic drugs and match those with actual dose. It is as sensible as comparing war damage by assessing the tons of TNT equivalent dropped without assessing the accuracy (or inaccuracy) of the delivery system.

  • @benedict303
    @benedict303 2 роки тому +12

    so how do you explain the fact that Remdesivir was approved with by far less studies than IVM?

    • @ProfGregTuckerKellogg
      @ProfGregTuckerKellogg  2 роки тому +6

      It's not just the number of studies, but the quality. The remdesivir study, as I understand it (though I haven't looked at the issue in as much detail) was very well designed very high quality randomized clinical trial (www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2007764). The largest ivermectin studies were either flawed, fraudulent, or not randomized clinical trials. www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD015017.pub2/full

    • @danilodesnica3821
      @danilodesnica3821 2 роки тому +5

      @@ProfGregTuckerKellogg One could say the same about the Pfizer Phase 3 trial results. Have you read the article in BMJ 2nd November? At best, deeply flawed, at worst - fraudulent. The sheer number of symptomatic cases (477) ignored and untested at a single trial site, absolutely swamps the total number of confirmed, tested COVID-19 cases for the entire trial across all sites. Doesn't that worry you?

    • @Marco-it2mr
      @Marco-it2mr 2 роки тому +2

      @@danilodesnica3821 "The sheer number of symptomatic cases (477) ignored and untested at a single trial site,"
      Except that this is not what the article says, and which also is not true. This was the number for ALL trial sites combined, and explicitly discussed in the article describing the trial.

    • @ProfGregTuckerKellogg
      @ProfGregTuckerKellogg  2 роки тому +1

      @@danilodesnica3821 That BMJ article has upset a lot of scientific experts, but perhaps not in the way you expect. Here's a well-known and respected harvard professor specifying in causal inference and clinical trial research twitter.com/_MiguelHernan/status/1455949302027612162

    • @danilodesnica3821
      @danilodesnica3821 2 роки тому

      @@Marco-it2mr I'll reread the article again, thanks for pointing that out. But even if the 477 cases were across all sites, the number still swamps the total number of reported cases by a factor of three. That makes the results highly suspect to my mind.

  • @CupOfSweetTea
    @CupOfSweetTea Рік тому +2

    John campbell needs silencing. Any university he is affiliated to needs to distance themselves from him.

  • @Starfish2145
    @Starfish2145 2 роки тому +28

    Your explanation below of why ivermectin isn’t efficacious against SARSCoV2 is excellent. You are not demonizing it. Thank you.

  • @frostythesandwich
    @frostythesandwich 2 роки тому +32

    Thank you for doing this, I've been watching Dr. Campbell for a while now because he's one of the few channels I've found that's willing to delve into real scientific literature. The problem with this is that I've dedicated my life to studying Information Technology and do not know enough about Biology or Chemistry to be able to defend myself from believing the claims he makes based off of said literature. If you hadn't made this video I would probably still believe the claims of that video, I think in these circumstances we need people with a knowledge base like yours to speak up and show us the nuance. So, again, thank you and I hope you continue making content like this, there are plenty of people like me that I think would greatly benefit from stuff like this.

    • @dixonpinfold2582
      @dixonpinfold2582 2 роки тому +4

      You frankly admit your inability to judge on these matters and that it left you 'defenceless against the claims of Dr. Campbell' (my paraphrase) and in the same breath you fulsomely express great gratitude for having been set straight here by "Professor Greg". That doesn't make any sense. No doubt you still can't make your own way through the material, but for some reason have decided to just believe the last person you listened to.
      The comments here leave me amazed. So does the video itself up to this point (35 min)-at least the fact that the man talking in it shows such shocking nervousness.

    • @frostythesandwich
      @frostythesandwich 2 роки тому +3

      @@dixonpinfold2582 Go home bot you're drunk.
      " If you hadn't made this video I would probably still believe the claims of that video" - Me
      "and in the same breath you fulsomely express great gratitude for having been set straight here by "Professor Greg"." - Your dumbass interpretation.
      "but for some reason have decided to just believe the last person you listened to." Why do you think this is what any of us have done with this info?
      If you aren't a bot prove it by answering the following:
      "What's harder to catch the faster you run?"

    • @dixonpinfold2582
      @dixonpinfold2582 2 роки тому +2

      @@frostythesandwich lol The greatest answer I ever gave to any question in my life got erased, I guess, 'cause it's not visible here now. It was just too rude. Apt and hilarious, but too rude. Anyway, have a nice life, buddy.

    • @frostythesandwich
      @frostythesandwich 2 роки тому +3

      @@dixonpinfold2582 Thank you bot, thank you.

    • @laetrille
      @laetrille 2 роки тому +2

      @@dixonpinfold2582 hahahhahaha you hypocrite you literally use that glorified nurse as truth, you suck.

  • @TomHimanen
    @TomHimanen Рік тому +6

    Gotta respect the fact that he has the balls to keep this video still published. 😆

    • @davidk7262
      @davidk7262 8 місяців тому +1

      The truth will always be the truth regardless of if you like it or not.

  • @eliyahukonn3245
    @eliyahukonn3245 2 роки тому +42

    14 minutes in you explain the most known use of ivermectin and it's action as anti-parasitic. Wondering if you understand at this point the possibility of also being anti-viral. Still listening.

    • @ProfGregTuckerKellogg
      @ProfGregTuckerKellogg  2 роки тому +18

      If you are still listening, I do get to that (although I admit this video is a bit of a slow burn). The two antiviral mechanisms that have been proposed in the literature are (i) the original _in vitro_ experiment, which was proposed to target α/β-mediated importin (at 2 micromolar concentration) and (ii) the 3CL protease that Campbell touts (at 20-50 micromolar concentration). To the extent that there is any data on either of these, it is _in vitro_ biochemical data. To work in the body, ivermectin would have to reach *at least* those concentration levels, in the blood or in lung cells. The highest concentration of ivermectin _ever achieved_ in plasma is ~ 0.02 micromolar, far less than required. And that required 8.5 times the approved FDA dosage.
      Ivermectin doesn't really distribute in the human body. It stays in the gut, which makes it great for intestinal parasites.

    • @eliyahukonn3245
      @eliyahukonn3245 2 роки тому +5

      @@ProfGregTuckerKellogg I don't think he touts much of anything but his old school faith in vaccines and that seems to have influenced his misplaced trust in the new ones. The supposed efficacy of ivermectin is from? You don't get any grant money from the government either? Your salary is only from tuition and endowments? Seriously, l listened to both sides and yours is the first that seems credible, even though it comes off rather proud.

    • @eliyahukonn3245
      @eliyahukonn3245 2 роки тому +3

      @@ProfGregTuckerKellogg why would it have to reach high levels if it merely aids in preventing the cytokine storm?

    • @ProfGregTuckerKellogg
      @ProfGregTuckerKellogg  2 роки тому +7

      @@eliyahukonn3245 I get research grants in Singapore, but my work is in cancer, genomics, and computational biology, nothing related to Covid at all. My research grants don't contribute to my salary.

    • @ProfGregTuckerKellogg
      @ProfGregTuckerKellogg  2 роки тому +8

      @@eliyahukonn3245 But how would it aid in preventing the cytokine storm? It has to get into the body somehow. All the approve applications of ivermectin are either topical (head lice, rosacea) or in the gut (intestinal parasites). What makes ivermectin so wonderful and safe as an anti-parasitic is that it has exquisite sensitivity to glutamate-gated ion channels -- which are in these parasites -- while having very low bioavailability (and being unable to cross the blood brain barrier) in humans.

  • @CyionVR
    @CyionVR 2 роки тому +15

    Great video. Don't burn yourself out answering too many comments because they will be never-ending. My advice is to pick your battles, as these people can chew up all your time if you let them.

  • @johugra1
    @johugra1 2 роки тому +32

    As a non medical person watching this video was like pulling a thorn out of your finger. I am very grateful for the effort made to detail the scientific response. For me this highlights how conspiracy theories can get going. Lets face it. John Campbell is a lovely man and a very good communicator but his analysis of the papers involved is wrong in this instance.We must "follow the science".

    • @ProfGregTuckerKellogg
      @ProfGregTuckerKellogg  2 роки тому +23

      Yes. I think he's been really valuable in a lot of areas, and it's unfortunate that he's been lulled into some really dodgy anti-science along the way. In my mind I keep coming back to his "Alternative Facts" video, which troubles me because I can't see how he could have made it in good faith.

    • @Marco-it2mr
      @Marco-it2mr 2 роки тому +9

      @@ProfGregTuckerKellogg He's been lulled into dodgy 'science' several times prior, highlighting a vitamin D "randomized trial" that was not a randomized trial, as well as an amazing hydroxychloroquine treatment paper from Belgium, which clearly noted they had no idea why people got, or did not get, the treatment, and also that the treated group was on average much younger, but that was not discussed in Campbell's video at all. It's as if he goes all awry as soon as treatments are discussed, missing all the caveats and issues.

    • @johugra1
      @johugra1 2 роки тому +11

      @@Marco-it2mr Watching GTK's video made me acutely aware of how difficult it is to draw the right conclusions from these papers even when it is your field. A hurried review of a paper that is not in your area of expertise is risky and once you have made claims it becomes harder to back down.

    • @MarcosElMalo2
      @MarcosElMalo2 2 роки тому +9

      @@johugra1 It would be one thing if he offered corrections, but he doesn’t seem to admit mistakes when they’re of any consequence.
      I’m taking vitamin D3 after watching his videos based on the principle that it can’t hurt and it might help. But he’s got a real bee in his bonnet that health authorities aren’t pushing vitamin D enough, and it borders on questioning the integrity of many of his fellow health professionals. That really bothers me.

    • @johugra1
      @johugra1 2 роки тому +8

      @@MarcosElMalo2 This pandemic has highlighted a very difficult problem that has developed in this highly complicated world. Who and what do you trust. I saw professor Tim Spector's somewhat lukewarm disagreement with Dr Campbell. I guess Tim Spector is relying on others for his stance as nearly everyone does because in this complicated world it takes a huge effort to do the sort of job Professor Greg did to counter misinformation. This issue of who and what do you trust is behind the derailment of the Republican party in the USA so it is a huge general issue!

  • @baylissfxbees2056
    @baylissfxbees2056 2 роки тому +35

    I see ivermectin used in patients everyday and - all the critical voices and me open to this valuable disscussion - it works. People using the human preparation in recommended doses describe what it feels like, when the effect sets in and when levels obviously seem to decrease after 24h hours. I am grateful for you coming forward with your knowledge and taking part in serious discussion as well as other serious comments within this thread. Medicine has always made progress because of different voices presenting their point of view. I want to understand the why, may the definite understanding come earlier or later. There was a great statement of Prof. Biesalszki about vitamins on a congress: We measure blood, we look what we find there.. but what is finally taking place within the cell, what and how it is available there.. not even he can tell often. Maybe this is here important as well as one comment here is stating as well. But thank you for your work on this!! 🙏🏻

    • @herculeholmes504
      @herculeholmes504 2 роки тому +10

      That to me is *the* one and only critical question: Does it work?
      I know almost nothing about medicine and a great deal less than that about biochemistry, but if Ivermectin works, it works, and I don't care if the _how_ is a mystery. And if it doesn't work, if it's all just coincidence and placebo, then stop using it I guess.
      I've only watched 10 minutes of the video as most of it is technical and completely beyond me, but I'll make sure to keep it bookmarked. I wonder why people are downvoting it? I wouldn't know, but it sure sounds like very high quality information.

    • @aj-zc7ox
      @aj-zc7ox 2 роки тому +8

      Yep it 100% worked , did for me

    • @mantizshrimp
      @mantizshrimp 2 роки тому +2

      Thx so much for this. I understand Dr Campbell might get some stuff wrong and some stuff also goes over my head tbh.. Correlation is not causation - that's what I go by and therefore I look at what I understand well and look for those points. I always say ivermectin helps at least a bit, but is ofc not a substitute for a vaccine. But should rather be viewed as additional therapy or medicine with a low risk factor

    • @C3lloman
      @C3lloman 2 роки тому +9

      Have you heard about a thing called the placebo effect? Subjective assessments from patients without a control group are meaningless. Give them a sugar pill and you'll get quite a few positive reports of that as well.

    • @rhinohog75
      @rhinohog75 2 роки тому +5

      @@C3lloman You haven't had covid. When you do, that will be an excellent opportunity for you to try your sugar pills.

  • @stuartgreen5631
    @stuartgreen5631 Рік тому +2

    If someone uses the snotty words ‘misinformation’ or ‘disinformation’ without quotes, I move on to another video right away. It’s not a perfect selector but there’s only so much time in a day. Best of luck.

  • @OhioGalReads
    @OhioGalReads 2 роки тому +3

    I think what Dr. Campbell was trying to say in a round about way is that we should have been using Ivermectin all along. The mechanisms are not exactly the same. And the Ivermectin is probably the better of the two.

  • @StonedustandStardust
    @StonedustandStardust 2 роки тому +3

    A fan of Dr Campbell, but I know no one is infallible. Appreciate and want the facts. Looking forward to Dr Campbell's response. Hopefully he will invite you to appear with him to discuss this. Thank you.

  • @BezoomnyBratchny
    @BezoomnyBratchny 2 роки тому +35

    In my 12 or so years on UA-cam, this is up there as one of, if not the, most meticulous and intellectually stimulating debunking videos I've ever seen. Thank you for all the time and effort that clearly went into making it. It was an absolute pleasure to watch. Fantastic work.

  • @andymagana9596
    @andymagana9596 10 місяців тому +3

    This didn't age well .

    • @Dee-mn4ud
      @Dee-mn4ud 8 місяців тому

      How?

    • @AwesomeRepix
      @AwesomeRepix 8 місяців тому

      @@Dee-mn4ud Again, just someone writing random stuff.

  • @gjsterp
    @gjsterp 2 роки тому +5

    Has anyone contacted several doctors in Japan working in the Covid ICU's to find out if ANY of them are prescribing IVM ?
    Surely, that should be easy enough to do.

    • @jussayinnit
      @jussayinnit 2 роки тому

      Well, considering IVM is best used in the early stages of the disease, BEFORE someone ends up with a full blown case and needs to be in the ICU, I don't think your question is valid.
      IVM is meant either as a prophalactic or as an early intetvention. NOT for treatment of severe hospitalized cases.

    • @gjsterp
      @gjsterp 2 роки тому

      Joseph Jones
      Early use of IVM was what Dr. Kory claimed, but I've seen reports of family members who have had to sue the hospital to administer IVM to loved ones in the ICU. IVM supposedly has Anti-inflammatory properties and that many be what saved these people, because the three reports I saw, the people got out of the ICU and went home.
      I've also heard people claim IVM was helpful in clearing their Long Covid symptoms,
      but No Government Agency is doing any studies, which should be the Real Red Flag of where their priorities lie. $$$

    • @prndownload
      @prndownload 2 роки тому

      @@gjsterp Did you ever think that maybe they already know it was just used as a placebo and doesn't actually work? In order to believe IVM works you have to believe that shadowy figures were able to trick the entire world and prevent this apparent cure from being used. I can point you to people who have won herman cain awards that were taking IVM and they admit it didn't do anything.

    • @Redwarfa
      @Redwarfa 7 місяців тому

      Why would anyone with half a brain,even bother
      Remember the Japanese wear masks,and always have,to protect each other from viruses,so why would they suddenly count

  • @patriciagiles5833
    @patriciagiles5833 2 роки тому +2

    As a fellow nurse, I used to follow him and like his laymen-language presentations. Then something started to change on his channel.
    It went from evidenced based to propping up unscientific pop culture narratives in hopes of boosting his audience capture.
    There's no money or glory in telling inconvenient truths. People need their beliefs validated, no matter how irrational they are. John Campbell learned that the political right (who make up the vast majority of pandemic conspiracists/deniers) will amplify any misinformation they can from a credentialed person. After he started this pandering, his monetization exploded exponentially.

    • @polyfission2776
      @polyfission2776 2 роки тому

      let me guess, you have pronouns in your twitter bio

    • @patriciagiles5833
      @patriciagiles5833 2 роки тому +1

      @@polyfission2776 Well your guess is wrong there, pal.
      Btw, don't join the traveling circus as a clairvoyant; you suck at it. You'd be more suited for the clown show.

    • @JDela10
      @JDela10 Рік тому +4

      I've also noticed the change in Campbell's videos. It got to a point where i stopped watching them, but UA-cam kept recommending them. One video was recommended maybe a couple of months ago about a study and it said something like "vaccine side effects" in the title. For a day or two I saw it multiple times recommended and didn't watch it, but then he changed the title of the video to add something like "heart complications".. so he seemed to actually change the title of the video to be more dramatic and, from my point of view, to lure in a certain audience.
      Then there was another video he had made where he was showing data on iirc spikes of cases of myocarditis in people in the UK, and seemed to be suggesting it correlated with the roll out of vaccines. The only problem is the myocarditis incidents with vaccines are a rare side effect of the mRNA vaccines and affects young men and teen boys mostly. The issue is looking at his data I immediately realised that the UK had primarily used the astrazeneca (not mRNA) vaccine in its mass vaccination program for the early parts of 2021, and it was given with age being a priority. That is, when one of the alleged spikes of myocarditis was occurring in early 2021, young men and boys were not being given the mRNA vaccines (or any at the start of the year due to age based rollout), yet this didn't seem to dawn on him.

  • @dogblessamerica
    @dogblessamerica 2 роки тому +4

    I'm not going to hold my breath for John Campbell to respond to this.
    A while ago he covered the positive results for Fluvoxamine in the Together Trial. He did not address the results for Ivermectin in the same trial, because they didn't show any efficacy, and Campbell has a tendency to actively discard information that doesn't align with his pre-existing view that Ivermectin works.

  • @meltedbrains1
    @meltedbrains1 2 роки тому +15

    Hi there.
    I had a question: In his follow-up video titled "Alternative Facts", Dr. Campbell addresses the claim that the articles he cites are simply in-silico (computer-simulated) experiments and thus not valid for comparison with the Pfizer drug.
    He cites the article (that he claims is the only one in the public domain) "Exploring the Binding Mechanism of PF-07321332 SARS-CoV-2 Protease Inhibitor through Molecular Dynamics and Binding Free Energy Simulations" as performing the same computational simulations to demonstrate the mechanism used by the Pfizer medication.
    If he is indeed right that this is the only real evidence we have about the mechanism of the Pfizer drug (ie. no in-vitro experiments), how does that affect your argumentation here, as the core seems to rest on the fact that 3 out of 5 of the articles cited were in-silico?
    If he is wrong however, could you provide some information showing evidence NOT based on computer simulations about the drug's mechanism?
    Thanks in advance.

    • @ProfGregTuckerKellogg
      @ProfGregTuckerKellogg  2 роки тому +19

      Thank you so much for this question; I was hoping someone would ask. I saw that "Alternative Facts" video after I made this video, and I literally laughed out loud at the part you refer to. What Campbell doesn't admit in his attempt to rebut the fact checkers is that he _didn't_ realise it was _in silico_ work at the time of his original video. There's no way he did realise it at the time, both because he never mentioned it to his viewers and because he finally noticed that the fifth paper was _in silico_ and made a big deal of it.
      But it's also not remotely true that everything known about PF-07321332 is from _in silico_ studies. PF-07321332 was derived from an earlier molecule PF-00835231 that was published in 2020 and included biochemical, _in vitro_ and even _in vivo_ experiments on bioavailability and clearance in rats, dogs, and monkeys. (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7571312/). One of the references in the description of this video includes a detailed three-dimensional structure of PF-07321332 in complex with the 3CL protease; that was determined experimentally and shows exactly how the molecule bindds to the protein and inhibits the enzyme function. (The paper I linked above in this answer has similar data for PF-00835231). It's frankly absurd for Campbell to make those claims, and it means either that he knows even _less_ about drug discovery than I thought, or that he's getting defensive at the criticism and just making stuff up.

    • @meltedbrains1
      @meltedbrains1 2 роки тому +7

      ​@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg Thanks for your answer, that was super quick!
      Thanks also for the additional information. I am definitely far from being a molecular biologist, so understanding the papers you mentioned are beyond my capabilities - I'll leave that to experts like yourself :)
      That said, it's good to know that there are indeed in vitro and in vivo studies validating the simulations for the Pfizer drug's mechanism.
      I don't personally believe Campbell is being malicious or making stuff up as a defensive reaction (who knows?), I am hoping this is just a matter of misunderstanding and not having done enough research on the topic. I do really hope he addresses your points in good (scientific) spirit.

    • @joshuabrooks91
      @joshuabrooks91 2 роки тому +2

      @@ProfGregTuckerKellogg Greg - you say: "There's no way he did realise it at the time,..." Don't underestimate the power of motivated reasoning. He may have "known it" in a sense but not incorporated that knowledge into his deliberative process. Indeed, even as someone without any technical skills it was immediately obvious to me that what was lacking in his video were (1) any discussion of in vivo evidence and, (2) any discussion of dosages required to achieve results in vivo. But in dealing with maverick contrarianism for quite a while now, I have developed the view that it's best to always avoid mind-probing and to just assume motivated reasoning as a first principle.

    • @tonykelpie
      @tonykelpie 2 роки тому

      @@meltedbrains1 Dr Campbell is aPhD nurse whose PhD is (I believe) from the University of Bolton. I was not previously aware Bolton had a University.

    • @tonykelpie
      @tonykelpie 2 роки тому +2

      @@joshuabrooks91 Joshua this is one of the mechanisms of observer bias; the most difficult of the various biases to correct for. Best wishes

  • @KleWdSide
    @KleWdSide 2 роки тому +2

    I can't seem to find any videos of John Campbell addressing the misinformation, deleting the videos & admitting that he was wrong...

  • @sonikgoat
    @sonikgoat 2 роки тому +8

    I won't lie and claim I sat through the whole video and comprehended everything I was being shown. I watched enough to know I was well out of my depth! I have watched the Campbell video in question once - did he ever come out in open 'support' of Ivermectin, or just point out some information and leave it to the viewer to make their own mind up? I don't recall him being openly pro-Ivermectin - I may be wrong. And perhaps some people were drawn to conclusions by his presentation of said information.
    How does this counter analysis serve the general understanding of the situation? On this platform, to what extent is the minutiae of the science helpful to an understanding of the 'big picture'? In social media terms, most people will, I guess, not take away the key points of this analysis so much as the overall headline, which could be all too easily paraphrased as 'Campbell=misinformation'. In posting this counter analysis you have bought scientific rigour into the world of social media and the net effect of your post must be understood in these terms. This is a counter to a channel noted by many for its neutrality and I have to ask whether you have considered who is best served by this very public categorisation of John Campbell as a spreader of 'misinformation'?

    • @karenvanhook6748
      @karenvanhook6748 2 роки тому +3

      As I recall, Dr Campbell helped us to understand how a protease inhibitor works, and said both the new drug and ivermectin are protease inhibitors, and raised the question of why people were railing against ivermectin but hailing the new drug as a wonder. Since I had had no clue what a protease inhibitor was before, I found it very helpful. I gather from the comments on this video that perhaps the bottom line is that ivermectin shows promise as a protease inhibitor in a test tube but in actual practice, you can't get enough of it into your blood to make it work inside the body. I think if Dr Campbell were made aware of that, he could explain it very simply.

  • @dr-jules-vocalist-pianist
    @dr-jules-vocalist-pianist 2 роки тому +7

    I've watched a lot of John Campbell's videos and while he normally does a great job explaining things for the lay public, he does sometimes get things plain wrong. The problem is that he works entirely on his own, and his schedule demands that he can give little more than a cursory look to many papers that he discusses. As you pointed out, his education doesn't qualify him for some of the things he discusses. I'm pretty sure he only ever reads the abstracts in many cases (as was the case with his discussion of the famous Barcelona calcifediol paper which was ultimately retracted for serious methodological issues). He has obviously put his money on ivermectin, and has fallen into a bit of a vanity trap as a result. It's a shame because a lot of the stuff he has done has been really good, and I think that is worth pointing out too. (P.S. my background is Ph.D. biomedical scientist).

  • @gkannon77
    @gkannon77 2 роки тому +10

    Couldn't agree more. I listen to the majority of Dr Campbell's videos, but have recently noticed more bias and even subtle self-hubris than in his earlier videos. I'm not sure he is fully aware of his weaknesses, and he seems to get offended by views that are not identical to his own.

    • @MeoithTheSecond
      @MeoithTheSecond 2 роки тому +4

      He's definitely been going through a Russell Brand like transformation slowly over time, audience capture as they call it.

    • @gkannon77
      @gkannon77 2 роки тому +1

      @@MeoithTheSecond audience capture, lol. Haven't heard that before. And yes, very similar to Russell Brands audience, who I also occasionally listen to as well. Except Russell Brand's more clickbait, whereas John's somewhat unaware of his change due to his newfound popularity.

  • @suecooke7284
    @suecooke7284 2 роки тому +21

    Also you could respond directly to Dr Campbell as he is always open to more clarification on these issues.

    • @Backtothescience
      @Backtothescience 2 роки тому +16

      Sometimes he is open, and sometimes he is not. I used to regularly appear in his videos, and was due to do an interview with him on my research, but he ghosted me after I sent him an email explaining the flaws in an ivermectin meta-analysis that he had presented.

    • @funkmasterbrad01
      @funkmasterbrad01 2 роки тому +12

      @@Backtothescience he is addicted to the view counts and appearing as the only person in the room with 'common sense'.
      This is why he's gradually moved from daily updates on covid cases to highly speculative/misinformed hot takes on a bunch of pharmacology he doesn't quite understand. It's so embarrassing.

    • @jimjamson9534
      @jimjamson9534 2 роки тому +3

      @@funkmasterbrad01 I am a great fan of Dr C's and I have to say I agree with you.
      Thanks to this guy I understand a bit more about those in silico studies which are amazing..

    • @Backtothescience
      @Backtothescience 2 роки тому +5

      @@funkmasterbrad01 sadly, appealing to conspiracy theorists brings in more views than sticking to the science.

    • @ianandersen2130
      @ianandersen2130 2 роки тому +5

      Seems all too common, thing I don't understand is surely John Campbell's isn't getting ad rev from his videos, I thought anything covid related was demonetorized. Regardless he's fallen into the IVM rabbit hole hard, and the comment sections of his videos are a dumpster fire of anti Vax pro IVM.
      In the video John made after this one where he disputes the fact check he uses a retracted poster paper as evidence hosted on an antivax website to hide the retracted watermarks, no mention of it to the audience, shameful stuff.

  • @Darlnk
    @Darlnk 2 роки тому +4

    Why haven’t you talked with Dr John? You are correct in saying he is a very good communicator online.

    • @ProfGregTuckerKellogg
      @ProfGregTuckerKellogg  2 роки тому +2

      I left a public comment on his video. He has over 1.3 million followers and had over 11,000 comments at the time I left my comment. To be honest, I've never seen him reply to a comment on his recent videos. I don't blame him for this; his following is too large for him to read every comment, much less reply.

    • @xxxxx-vr2fq
      @xxxxx-vr2fq 2 роки тому +2

      @@ProfGregTuckerKellogg To be fair you have just accused him of misinformation so I don't think leaving him one comment is really good enough. The other thing I would point out is social media such as you tube, Facebook etc have a habit getting videos removed that contain the slightest hint of misinformation yet it's still up.

  • @LL-dk5lb
    @LL-dk5lb 2 роки тому +41

    Prof Kellogg, I want to thank you for being a great teacher. You have no idea how you've inspired me with this video. I'm currently in my final 6 months of a Public Health Master's dissertation, with the goal to pursue a PhD. The public's reaction to academics and scientists since the pandemic has really discouraged me. I appreciate your professional attitude in responding to challenging comments and having to defend your character. I don't think I'll ever have the patience to educate concepts to people that are beyond a pair of scissors and tape. I've taken the approach of not trying to explain colors to blind people just to avoid the toxic discussions. Thank you for continuing to teach facts, your efforts are appreciated by many of us.

    • @ProfGregTuckerKellogg
      @ProfGregTuckerKellogg  2 роки тому +6

      Wow, thank you. This really touched me.

    • @jussayinnit
      @jussayinnit 2 роки тому

      Kellogg
      That famous Kellogg was a eugeniscist.
      You wouldn't be related, would you?
      Lol!

    • @MrParky018
      @MrParky018 Рік тому

      Remember.....Theory is theory and it is not reality!! Statistics show reality and IF something works it would 100%...The self righteous cyclic academic arguement is statically rarely 100%! The only time it is is when all academics come together and gaslight we are right!!

  • @jonathanport7427
    @jonathanport7427 2 роки тому +22

    Well your science takes some following sir. I do hope our doctor Campbell comes back to you publicly. We all just want to know one way or the other. Those journalists who took him to task were foolish. You appear well qualified and sincere. They will say you are paid by merc and Pfizer but Campbell will approach you scientifically . Thanks for the video. Discussion is the way foreward

    • @Backtothescience
      @Backtothescience 2 роки тому +11

      Dr Campbell was mistaken about the journalists. The various journalists that he pointed out in his video worked for the parent company, and had no involvement in the article he was critiquing. The article he was critiquing was written by someone with a PhD in immunology. It also wasn't written in response to Dr Campbell's video. It was written before he even made his video. He mistakenly thought it was about him.

    • @jonathanport7427
      @jonathanport7427 2 роки тому +3

      @@Backtothescience ?? You sure?? Don't think we on the same page

    • @Backtothescience
      @Backtothescience 2 роки тому +8

      @@jonathanport7427 I am talking about the video John called "Alternative facts"

    • @helmutsilver5006
      @helmutsilver5006 2 роки тому +10

      I'm. never going to get bored of saying this...
      Why is anyone on this subject metaphorically genuflecting and calling Campbell "our doctor" or "the good doctor"...
      Do you guys realise that the reason I track and critique Campbell's videos and wage informational war on his threads (and I clearly have his attention for doing so as last Sunday the man or his channel admins spent an hour following me round his comments threads deleting comments (and links to information) which utterly dismantled a myth he had planted the seeds of on whichever video it was Inwas responding to) is because he has become a hero to an elderly relative of mine who is addled with every antivaxx conspiracy and pro-ivermectin myth going and in a heated family debate over her refusing to allow a nontogenarian super-vulnerable relative in her care to have a COVID jab, referred to "Doctor John Campbell, a GP and virologist from Cumbria" as her authority convinced that he's a staunch antivaxxer being cleverly subtle to avoid getting UA-cam bans in the "great reset" plot by Bill Gates to install Windows 11 in all our arms and fit us with 5G.
      I'm not kidding...
      I asked her to show him to me. She did. I spent the last months tracking him and trying to win her poor mind back. The effect of her mania has wrecked her family relationships and friendships.
      I found Campbell's comments threads DOMINATED by anti-vaxxers who identify him as one of them and he will delete posts discrediting his claims from the threads but NEVER comments to correct all the myths and accolades his adoring and lucrative million plus viewers write.
      I realised he was courting the confusion and misconceptions and milking them.
      His disciples are in several groups...
      Pro-consensus who think he's pro-vaxx.
      Anti-vaxx who think he's anti-consensus.
      Anti-vaxx who think he's a shill for consensus.
      Anti-vaxx who think he's subtly anti-vaxxing by faking consensus.
      Pro-consensus who think he's become anti-vaxx.
      That much confusion is not a sign of healthy situation.
      Finding out that his PhD is irrelevant to his topics and something of a technicality hyped into a false credential I've encountered a lot of users on the threads just like my relative who when confronted with the truth reacted angrily insisting that I was besmirching the good doctor's name and this slander was 'fake news' against him to discredit his expertise...
      It seems some of his viewers have googled badly and found that the UK has a Dr John Campbell who is a virologist, not a nurse teacher from Cumbria...
      I feel that repeatedly referring to this man with a technical PhD with more platitude and respect than he's earned in the field is literally part of the chip on his shoulder that he's exercising in this curious 'retirement pastime' instead of going down to the local hospital to help nurse people through COVID...
      He is not a medical doctor. He does not have a medical PhD. He is a 'scientist' in the looses sense of the word.
      By contrast, pro-Vaxxer and rock star Dexter Holland of The Offspring IS a qualified expert with a PhD on an mRNA related subject.
      Whenever I cite him as a greater authority than John Campbell and ask if anyone cares what HE thinks I'm told it's ridiculous to believe a rock star has a PhD qualification which qualifies him more than the good Doctor Campbell...
      Can we please stop massaging this charlatan attention-seeker's ego...
      It's dangerously misleading to gullible people.

    • @jonathanport7427
      @jonathanport7427 2 роки тому +3

      @@helmutsilver5006 Hi . Well you not too happy. If you follow Campbell for a long while it becomes self evident that he is a real provider.
      He is up to his knees in problems with the oral antivirals but we shall see on that score.
      Sorry your own relatives are cutting up rough as we say in uk.
      But lively debate is to be truly to be encouraged.

  • @luis6674
    @luis6674 2 роки тому +20

    Thank you for talking all the time to make this detailed video and for making it honestly and respectfully.
    And sorry for the slightly off topic here, but what you said at 1:01:20 regarding the possibility of IVM acting as a 3CL protease inhibitor would need a total reformulation, like an inhaler, is just so important when whenever I hear anything related to this I must comment.
    Ok, so the important part is that this virus has a long period of incubation (5-6 days usually, though often over a week or 10 days), and this incubation period happens in the upper respiratory tract. And the upper respiratory tract is directly accessible. Just as you noticed in that short comment: if Ivermectin would be inhaled (or sprayed in the nose or throat) it would far exceed those concentration levels on the surface, where the virus is actively replicating.
    Obviously, we don't need IVM for that. Nor do we need to give a pill that would reach plasma concentrations high enough to inhibit replication. This new pill by Pfizer works if you treat early. But then again, if you treat early almost anything works. To "kill" a virus is very easy as long as it's accessible. There are so many ways to prevent and early treat this infection (with scientific evidence in case it was even needed - sometimes the rationale is clear enough by itself - with studies in vitro, in vivo, clinical trials, etc...) that I'm still amazed why everyone ignores it.

    • @ProfGregTuckerKellogg
      @ProfGregTuckerKellogg  2 роки тому +7

      In addition to vaccines, I think a wide range of treatment options will be needed. I'm excited about both the Pfizer and Merck compounds, and about the fluvoxamine results. I expect we'll see more in the next year.

    • @luis6674
      @luis6674 2 роки тому +4

      @@ProfGregTuckerKellogg But my point is: what is the rationale for taking a pill that will reach high enough plasma levels to reach the upper respiratory tract and inhibit viral replication when you can directly access the upper respiratory tract and inhibit viral replication more effectively with simple and innocuous substances? The Pfizer pill works because you give it at a stage when the virus has still not wrecked havoc in all your system. You kill it before, while it's still in the upper respiratory tract actively replicating. But a nose spray for common colds with Iota-Carrageenan is more effective at that. Mouthwash/gargle agent too (for the mouth and throat). Even an hypertonic saline solution inhibits the virus. (I didn't realize that my name here is different from the one at Twitter, where I replied too so I could post links. There you can check bibliography).

    • @ProfGregTuckerKellogg
      @ProfGregTuckerKellogg  2 роки тому +3

      @@luis6674 Oh I apologise, I misunderstood your point. I would have to look at the literature in more detail, but I don't think that an agent given by an inhaler would change that, for several reasons. First, I don't believe the infection is limited to just those inhaler-accessible cells except perhaps in the very early stages. At some point a medication would need to get into the bloodstream. But a second reason is that taking an inhaled agent is only as effective as a person's ability to inhale. As people become symptomatic, their breathing worsens, and then medication needs to be given orally or intravenously.
      Just as an additional point, you write "The Pfizer pill works because you give it at a stage when the virus has still not wrecked havoc in all your system". I don't think we know that yet. The first phase 3 clinical trials were done on such patients, but I'm sure they will move to run trials in patients with more severe disease now that they know how efficacious it is.

    • @luis6674
      @luis6674 2 роки тому +2

      @@ProfGregTuckerKellogg Thanks for the reply. Yes, please do look at the literature if you have the time and interest. It will hopefully solve any doubts you may have.
      I'm really only referring to early treatment (and even prophylactic use), since once the virus enters the bloodstream (varies, but usually a week or more) and starts messing up with all your system there's no magic pill. It will depend on each patient and the specific reactions he's having to find the right treatment for him. At that point antivirals are not that useful (not saying they have zero value, but it's limited), since you have to deal with blood clotting, inflammation, etc... which is what causes deaths. The only really effective treatment is early treatment (neglected so far, unfortunately). After that you just do what you can and hope for the best.

    • @williamparry4538
      @williamparry4538 2 роки тому +3

      Hold up, the way you imagine this the virus just stays suspended in the space in the lungs, and so aerosolised protease inhibitors are essential. But the virus takes hold in the nasal, mucosal, and respiratory tract during this time, which would mean oral protease inhibitors or other anti-viral acting agents would somewhat serve these areas.
      Not to be relied on its own, but you don’t need to aerosolise an oral drug for it to have an effect in the target area you’ve mentioned.

  • @justthefacts4893
    @justthefacts4893 2 роки тому +13

    Sir, regardless of the replies for and against your views, I have to commend your diligence in answering the many comments and questions as much as you have. I have never seen such a thorough and prolific set of responses! My hat is off to you sir!

  • @jamesdellaneve9005
    @jamesdellaneve9005 2 роки тому +16

    I heard Dr Campbells theme from other sources as well. I am glad for your detailed explanation. I have been impressed by the case studies of Ivermectin but have been waiting for more powerful experiments. Then this story came up.

  • @philwaters9751
    @philwaters9751 2 роки тому +23

    Detailed but not to the point of opacity. Clear, episodic, step by step approach, and above all that, polite. Thank you sir. .. xxx :-)

  • @davidlee3806
    @davidlee3806 5 місяців тому +4

    Stop slandering. Stop covering up.

  • @TurnaboutAdam
    @TurnaboutAdam 2 роки тому +6

    Absolutely babies on here can’t take an alternative opinion on their magic drug.

    • @arcaneentity8458
      @arcaneentity8458 2 роки тому

      The fact that the creator liked this comment speaks volumes about his intended purpose.

  • @ryfe9197
    @ryfe9197 2 роки тому +24

    Thank you for this video. Having appreciated the role that Dr Campbell has played in filling a vacuum left by media censorship, I needed to approach your critique with an open mind. I watched it to the end because I am a biology nerd. If the same kinds of critiques by expert clinicians, data analysts, and scientists were allowed and listened to without deplatforming and vilification the scientific method would have been spared from becoming dogma, and perhaps some people would still be alive that are no longer with us.

    • @laetrille
      @laetrille 2 роки тому +4

      Media censorship? Provide examples don't just jump on the bandwagon

    • @sp_liberated
      @sp_liberated 2 роки тому +3

      Lol media censorship? Very creative.

    • @jussayinnit
      @jussayinnit 2 роки тому

      @@sp_liberated
      You sub list says alot.
      Very one sided.
      Very judgemental.
      One wonders why you would bother engaging this topic again now, when all of those instirutions that your kind have so religiously followed for the last two years are backtracking on a myriad of "facts".
      Do you agree with Vaush's arguments for child pron?
      Lol!
      I guess if it doesn't agrre with your manufactured point of view it doesn't count as censorship, right?
      Hypocrite.

    • @jussayinnit
      @jussayinnit 2 роки тому +1

      @@laetrille
      Another video game poster...
      That says it all, doesn't it?

    • @jessereichbach588
      @jessereichbach588 2 роки тому +1

      @@laetrille Yea, media propaganda would be a better term. It's not a bandwagon. Cable news networks, the likes of Fox, OAN, CNN, MSNBC and even established traditional press like NYT, WaPO etc.. are corporate and political mouthpieces for their desired parties and biggest corporate sponsers. That part is undeniable. It's also undeniable they get a great deal of money from big pharma. They've also smeared other outlets when it aided their narrative. And they've lost cases for defamation or libel on various occasions. And when it comes to "politics" it's 100 times worse than on an issue like CV. 2020 was a good example. The Biden laptop is a blatant one, that they've now admitted was true all along. And no, I'm not a Trump supporter. Actually a lifelong Democrat. And the Time magazine article, where they gloated about how a bipartisan coalition "saved the election", released just after Biden took office, is a great example. Both censoring stories and publishing disinformation to get Trump out of office. Whether you support Trump or not, is irrelevant. Again, I do not support him in any way and never have. But when media is getting directly involved, lying and censoring information to effect the Democratic process, it means they are propagandists. The "lab leak" hypothesis is another. Countless articles in 2020 with false narratives attempting to assert lab leak "wasn't possible" or "plausible" using completely fallacious arguments. And 2 years later, the same publications, including the CDC directly, admitting lab leak is a viable option and needs investigating. These are just a few verifiable instances of intentional disinformation by major media. And it's both partisan ends of the media spectrum. Whether FOX, CNN, NY post or NYT. CDC and NIH changed their narratives multiple times between 2020 and 2022, eventually committing to hypotheses that they were, just two years prior, calling conspiracy theories. Another easy one, in I think 2014, LA Times reporter Ken Dilanian was let go for have a collaborative relationship with CIA/US Intelligence, running stories of global interest by intel before going to press. He continues to work for some cable news network today. And if you think that's "rare" or unique to him, you'd be wrong. He just happened to get caught, and LAT had little choice when it went public. Which is why another outlet picked him up. Another easy one, how much do you know about the war in Yemen? Heard a lot of reporting on the news about that? I'm sure you've heard a ton about Ukraine. On a daily basis since February. So then it's interesting that a similar situation has been ongoing in Yemen for years and gets little to no press. Why would that be? Because the US has an economic dependence on the country in question, Saudi Arabia, who, by agreeing to solely use the US dollar in all petrol transactions, as the major global oil produce, helps maintain the US dollars strong role around the world. And we have a direct political relationship with them. That one is actual censorship, like shoving the Biden laptop story under the rug leading up to the election. Those are just facts. And you can verify them in short time if you genuinely want to know the facts rather than pushing a "trust media" narrative. You can probably do it in under an hour if you genuinely want to. Pretty simple, look at the reports on various issues back in say 2020 and what they were saying, and then jump ahead to 2021 or 2022 and see what they were saying then. They don't align. I would post the specifics, but since every time I try to post a link, YT deletes the entire post, you will have to just do some easy searching. Which, is just their policy I guess. Not suggesting that is any kind of conspiracy. And nothing I am saying has to do with this video or Dr. Campbell. Just a general validation of the original posters comment, which was met by naive and condescending replies. But if you think establishment media is trustworthy, and don't approach their narratives with healthy skepticism, then you have no connection to reality and don't want to.

  • @pw7962
    @pw7962 Рік тому +1

    Dr. Greg Tucker-Kellogg, the once director of Eli Lilly Singapore, one of the pharmaceutical companies that received emergency authorization for drugs, which would not have been approved had there been available prophylaxis. Dr. Greg Tucker-Kellogg whose pharmaceuticals are making billions of dollars. I’m sure the good doctor doesn’t have any shares in any of these companies. Seems like a pretty big conflict of interest.

    • @davidk7262
      @davidk7262 8 місяців тому

      He has never been employed by Eli Lilly.

  • @fredk3859
    @fredk3859 2 роки тому +53

    This was an excellent video. Between some experts putting out ideas and others critiquing and even debunking them, I feel like I'm getting a much better understanding of where the arguments are coming from. I wish the mainstream media and institutions like the FDA would do a better job summarizing the information in an understandable way, like you do, instead of claiming that ivermectin is just horse de-wormer, which is clearly a stupid statement. But, I guess, at least in the case of media, they clearly don't see their business as reporting truth and facts. I'm not sure what the FDA's excuse is. Kudos also for your patience in replying to pretty much everybody asking questions in the comment section.

    • @pat2562
      @pat2562 2 роки тому +1

      The various agency's failures in communication have been staggering. Throw in media complicity and big techs censorship games, and it's very difficult to know who to trust. I appreciate the views of pure scientists who aren't clinicians.
      Dr Paul Offit is a pediatrician in favor of vaccinating children. In a discussion with Dr Zubin Damania (Zdoggmd), he readily conceded that as a doctor seeing children in the hospital, he has a bias in favor of vaccination.
      Other doctors aren't so self aware. For instance, Dr Kory is, by all accounts, a very fine physician and he made important contributions early on, but now he has dug his heels in on Ivermectin.
      When he got sick, he said it was because it was delta and so everyone should double their dose. That's crazy. Doctors who disagree are pharma shills, studies are hit pieces and so on. It's tragic, he's way too emotionally invested now. Academics can more easily remain objective.

    • @roseofsharon7551
      @roseofsharon7551 2 роки тому

      The FDA doesn’t have excuses. They are captured and have been so for decades. Such a bloated arm of the government that apparently doesn’t have the time to do their own critical analyses but, instead, rely on the honor system of the companies they are supposed to monitor. Anyone who relies on FDA approval as their only evidence of credibility needs to return to the kiddie table.

    • @krisr3612
      @krisr3612 2 роки тому +2

      @@pat2562 Regarding Dr. Kory, he is FLCCC. You may want to look at FLCCC on Wikipedia. I will see if it will let me post it here.

    • @pat2562
      @pat2562 2 роки тому

      @@krisr3612 Thank you, but obviously I know of his organization.

    • @krisr3612
      @krisr3612 2 роки тому +1

      @@pat2562 Oh good. Kory and the FLCCC which was started at the beginning of the pandemic promoting HCQ and then IVM seem pretty shady. Their articles have been rejected and retracted for falsifying results and plagiarism. Red flags go up whenever see them mentioned. I don't think anyone respectable in the medical community take them seriously.

  • @FoxKhan30
    @FoxKhan30 2 роки тому +11

    I have read quite a few of the comments left here. They are proof you did the right thing addressing this publicly.

    • @cherylbutterworth6293
      @cherylbutterworth6293 2 роки тому +2

      He's deleted any comments that challenged his misinformation actually.

  • @richardbizzigotti5140
    @richardbizzigotti5140 2 роки тому +1

    please provide one scientific paper which disputes "Ivermectin inhibits and disrupts binding of the SARS-CoV-2 S protein at the ACE-2 receptors"

    • @gribbler1695
      @gribbler1695 Рік тому

      But is it safe at the dosage to be effective? No.

  • @NikolaEngineering
    @NikolaEngineering 2 роки тому +8

    Thank you for this brilliant clarification on this and the "Japan Miracle". I don't know what happened to John Campbell. He has always provided useful informationon COVID-19. Now he is sending people down the Ivermectin path.

    • @Marco-it2mr
      @Marco-it2mr 2 роки тому +3

      What happened is that he is being fed some information by certain sources that he has decided to trust. Blindly trust, I would almost say.

    • @mcomeadow
      @mcomeadow 2 роки тому +1

      Agreed - he's jumped the shark completely...
      I have to admit that I fell for Chloraquin myself - and ended up poisoning myself badly when I got COVID.
      Everyone makes mistakes - the key is owning up to them and the mistakes you've made and avoiding similar ones in future
      Why? I fell for the same flawed studies, and I wasnt experienced enough in medical research to tell the wheat from the chaff..

    • @imgonnawin555
      @imgonnawin555 2 роки тому +2

      @@Marco-it2mr No, he is seeing his viewer numbers go up, and that means $$$. Also, he likes people watching him because it makes him feel like he is intelligent and knowledgeable, but he doesn't actually know WTF he is talking about.

    • @dwayneevens8039
      @dwayneevens8039 2 роки тому

      Dr John Campbell is the one to trust. I have seen Ivermectin work first-hand many times. You'd be an idiot not to take it if you had covid. What rubbish this was. Thanks for wasting an hour of my time."Dr"

    • @imgonnawin555
      @imgonnawin555 2 роки тому +1

      @@dwayneevens8039 "Trust" isn't relevant here. It's factual information. This guy is not asking you to believe him or to trust him.... He is giving you factual information.... not speculative nonsense from a retired nurse.
      >> "I have seen Ivermectin work first-hand many times"
      This is one of the dumbest comments I have ever read. Most people that get covid, survive. So, unless you conducted some magical experiment in an alternate universe with the same people taking the drug in one reality and not taking it in another, what you have "seen" is again, IRRELEVANT.
      My friend drank cat piss when he got Covid. Then he got better. Cat piss cures Covid?

  • @mididoctors
    @mididoctors 2 роки тому +4

    The work load required to undo the damage of misinformation deliberate or otherwise is a reason why misinformation spreads ....talking horse shit is a low energy path compared to deconstruction... Truth can be costly time wise

  • @GrievenceCapitolist
    @GrievenceCapitolist 2 роки тому +3

    I unsubscribed from Dr C . The sub threads get really nasty and antivax . I'm sure some of them will show up here . Thanks for the unbiased views and clarifications .

    • @GrievenceCapitolist
      @GrievenceCapitolist 2 роки тому +1

      @Studio 1106 I left because of the trolls in the replies . I also left because he has too much faith in ivermectin .

  • @Links-Plus2
    @Links-Plus2 Рік тому +4

    Real life experience: In India, Utter Pradesh and Goa distributed ivermectin for use as soon as there was suspicion of COVID-19. The result were a dramatic decrease in hospitalizations and death. Tamil Nebu, a region almost identical in demographics, geography and economics did not. The result was an explosion of cases. This is as close to a real life experience that one can ask.

    • @Marco-it2mr
      @Marco-it2mr Рік тому

      Ah, the India lie. India even stopped recommending ivermectin in September 2021. Why? BECAUSE IT DID NOT WORK!
      Uttar Pradesh and Goa were top of the list when it came to missed infections - retrospective serological tests showed they missed up to 99% of infections.

    • @gribbler1695
      @gribbler1695 Рік тому +1

      Ref: Evaluation of Ivermectin as a Potential Treatment for Mild to Moderate COVID-19: A Double-Blind Randomized Placebo Controlled Trial in Eastern India ( J Pharm Pharm Sci. 2021)
      "Inclusion of ivermectin in treatment regimen of mild to moderate COVID-19 patients could not be said with certainty based on our study results as it had shown only marginal benefit in successful discharge from the hospital with no other observed benefits."

    • @gribbler1695
      @gribbler1695 Рік тому +1

      Many other factors, including immunity from previous infection, vaccination, and lockdowns, likely helped reduce the number of cases.
      Uttar Pradesh implemented restrictions to curb the spread of the virus, including a complete lockdown on 30 April 2021. The lockdown was extended several times across May 2021, followed by night and weekend restrictions until September 2021.

  • @Nikkka82
    @Nikkka82 2 роки тому +3

    We all understood already that author is fishing via Dr.John Campbell presence on UA-cam capturing Dr. Campbell followers attention to gain HIS OWN videos reviews. This is a known technic but NOT NICE during pandemic, when people are scared and fed up with gvrnmnt poor management.

  • @burtonschrader2
    @burtonschrader2 2 роки тому +8

    Thank you! I have blocked Dr Campbell, who seems to be a nurse with a PHD. He has a big YT following but then, so does Trump. I look at Doctor Mike Hansen and find him to be honest and informative. He is also a MD and his qualifications are noted on line. Very clearly. Campell's disclosure is a bit vague.

  • @RationalMind
    @RationalMind 2 роки тому +17

    Truly excellent video. I and several others also made comments under the video pointing out many of these mistakes, but like your own comment, they just get drowned out in the sea of thousands of pro-ivermectin comments. Hopefully this video has much better visibility, and maybe John will even respond to it, but I’m not going to hold my breath on that. I think he came across too strong to walk it back now - admitting to this many mistakes in one go might make even some of his most devoted followers second-guess his reliability. This isn’t an isolated incident either, he’s made similar mistakes in many other videos, on a wide range of topics. It would be a Herculean task to correct them all when he’s pumping out daily videos and has such a massive audience.
    I hope you can make more videos like this in the future, it’s rare to have someone with such relevant expertise make these kind of response videos, and they’re sorely needed at the moment.

    • @ProfGregTuckerKellogg
      @ProfGregTuckerKellogg  2 роки тому +2

      Thank you, I really appreciate it.

    • @bannerlad01
      @bannerlad01 2 роки тому

      Yes, I mean how dare people want to make decisions about their own health with their doctors. What monsters

    • @RationalMind
      @RationalMind 2 роки тому +1

      @@bannerlad01 yeah, because that’s definitely what I said, isn’t it?

  • @LPCLASSICAL
    @LPCLASSICAL 2 роки тому +8

    I like the way you present your credentials. It is a shame that "Dr" John Campbell does not start each video making it clear is speciality is nursing education - he does not hold a medical degree. He uses the title gained via his Phd for marketing reasons - frankly - it gives him more credibility than he deserves.

  • @TWCH
    @TWCH 2 роки тому +20

    I smiled broadly after the second time Dr Campbell, with dramatic subtlety, mentioned The Royal Society of Chemistry and you immediately popped into the video. Arguing from authority on any subject triggers my skepticism. You, Professor, are a fabulous teacher. I understood way more of this presentation than I would have predicted. BTW any admiring commenters reading this should know the good professor plays a mean dobro too:)

  • @medusa210562
    @medusa210562 2 роки тому +7

    Ivermectin it is said may have many more benefits than untiviral. Thousands of doctors like to use for covid.
    THE BIG QUESTION HERE IS; WHY IS BIG PHARMER OPPRESSING ALL EARLY TREATMENTS.

  • @lindaanderson3698
    @lindaanderson3698 2 роки тому +13

    Thank you. These are the discussions that should be going on and allowed on line and not shut down.

    • @purplenights1
      @purplenights1 Рік тому +1

      Present your own case without criticizing other professionals. If you have to do that, then you have no case to present.

    • @Sceince01
      @Sceince01 Рік тому

      @@purplenights1 please don’t call Campbelm a professional . He is a disgrace to medical profession . He has full confidence in the dumbness of his audiences when it comes to COVID. Obviously his confidence is well placed .

  • @fozzledoff1
    @fozzledoff1 Рік тому +5

    Dr Campbell: "it makes perfect sense if you do take the time to read it".. which he didnt.. and he knows his viewers wont.

  • @lnedelcu66
    @lnedelcu66 2 роки тому +3

    Hi Doc, what can you say about anti-covid vaccin , it works or not? How many doses/year do you think we must do it?

  • @Laura_Daniels
    @Laura_Daniels Рік тому +1

    You are being very kind towards Dr. Campbell. He is missing the molecular details, but I have a feeling he knows what he is doing, overall!!

    • @gavcarl
      @gavcarl Рік тому +1

      Oh he does, he is making money fooling idiots online.

  • @kaiduponte4091
    @kaiduponte4091 2 роки тому +39

    I follow Dr. Campbell but have recently become concerned by him Cherry-picking data and even repeating wrong information in order to minimize the pandemic. The most recent video I had a concern with is his claim that most deaths were not caused by COVID. In the beginning, his was the voice of reason, leading us through research, but now I have to take his teaching with a grain of salt. He seems to fallen into the Q rabbit hole. I am very sad about my having to sift through his “truths” because it means that I can no longer fully depend on him for the full story.

    • @sp_liberated
      @sp_liberated 2 роки тому +6

      Yes. Cherry picking is what caused me to unsubscribe John Campbell. The title of the videos is another concern for me. I feel they are intended to get anti vaxxer attention.

    • @WalterFoddis
      @WalterFoddis 2 роки тому +5

      For many months, I was a big follower of Dr Campbell & promoted his channel to friends. But then when he went pro-ivermectin & then didn't retract after the fraudulent studies were exposed, I subconsciously tuned out. Over time, I realized I had stopped following him. Still, unlike many of other ivermectin proponents, he's honest, not a grifter. I think if he just had an open conversation with a few of his critics, like Prof. George & Dr. Dan Wilson (Debunk the Funk), he would see where he has erred. Sad to see, though.

    • @PTTM2006
      @PTTM2006 2 роки тому +2

      Same thing here, I unsubscribed when he did a video about people having only covid as cause of death. Covid causes respiratory problems and thse are added to the cause of death, I already had problem with is inverctermin videos. But the main thing here is since I unsubscrided UA-cam KEEP BRINGING HIM UP IN MY SUGGESTION ! I'm really starting to think youtube and facebook are biased

    • @elbarto7420
      @elbarto7420 2 роки тому +2

      Same here, I had to stop watching. His channel has increasingly become an anti vaxxer haven.

    • @SDesWriter
      @SDesWriter 2 роки тому

      "Claim"? The CDC admitted that 94% of "CoVid" deaths had at least 4 co-morbidities. In addition, you can be shot in the head and while you're on life support the doctor can find out you have a family member with CoVid and the CDC instructs them to ASSUME you had CoVid and to list you as a CoVid death. It's got nothing to do with "Q", the CDC has publicly admitted on multiple occasions that they count deaths as CoVid deaths if the person had CoVid at the time of death OR if it can be assumed he MIGHT have had it. So we have no idea how many CoVid deaths were from the virus vs people who died from other causes WHILE they had CoVid.
      Isn't it interesting the the daily US death rate is virtually identical for 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022 (so far)? If CoVid was killing such an enormous number of otherwise healthy individuals, then why didn't that rate climb? Feel free to Google the numbers from the CDC web site. No "Q" necessary.....

  • @lindaclemens8590
    @lindaclemens8590 2 роки тому +8

    Sounds like you need to be on the frontline with patients and seeing the results of the measures. Watching others suffer and finding repurposed drugs that help the immune fight is a whole other story. Get on the front line and then your instruction becomes rooted. What would you have done on the frontlines in September, 2020. Interesting analysis in hindsight. Telling patient to wait till they need to be hospitalized seems like malfeasance. Too bad science has blocked debate.

    • @joshuabrooks91
      @joshuabrooks91 2 роки тому +1

      There have been many studies looking at the efficacy of ivermectin. Some are still ongoing. None of that changes the facts of whether Dr. Campbell was wrong in his video about ivermectin. Do you think he wants people to defend his video on ivermectin even though it clearly contained many errors?

    • @lindaclemens8590
      @lindaclemens8590 2 роки тому

      There have been plenty of studies on preventative measures that would have saved thousands of lives. Many doctors, many nurses, many nations of these testify to this fact. And too these protocols would have given the patient natural immunity that could have built herd immunity too. This with the vaccines would have quickened the well being of everyone. This, as most of the frontline doctors say, isn’t an either or case. This is practical doctoring.

  • @gregoryfrancis7389
    @gregoryfrancis7389 2 роки тому +15

    Thank you for this very informative video. Midway through the pandemic, I thought Dr. Campbell was providing a good perspective of things. A lot of comments seemed to veer to conspiracy theories, though, and Dr. Campbell's videos seemed to drift a bit that way too. I suspect he got out of his depth but felt encouraged to push on.

    • @clairelariviere3122
      @clairelariviere3122 2 роки тому +7

      I completely agree. Perhaps he is more dangerous than some because, based on the first few months of the pandemic and his excellent videos, one might continue to expect accurate info from him. Sadly that’s just not the case.

    • @gavinmcewen5896
      @gavinmcewen5896 2 роки тому +3

      @@clairelariviere3122 Very well put!

    • @johnnyt3720
      @johnnyt3720 2 роки тому +3

      @@clairelariviere3122 Yes indeed. I think he might be a wolf in sheep's clothing. I wonder how much money is being made from all the videos.

  • @Nthompson50000
    @Nthompson50000 2 роки тому +12

    No matter what anyone does, people just really want Ivermectin to be the answer. People are losing their damn minds

    • @bannerlad01
      @bannerlad01 2 роки тому +2

      And if they think it is who are you to stop them taking it if their doctors also think it is a good idea. All’s this video says really is that the in vitro studies use a toxic dose level to achieve protease binding. That debunks nothing as we still have the observational and trial studies that show there is something there.

    • @brendaboyer7500
      @brendaboyer7500 2 роки тому +1

      What an interesting response. When actually, the world appears to be losing their mind over wanting that shitty vaccine to be the answer. When it’s shite

    • @hawaiianrobot
      @hawaiianrobot 2 роки тому +2

      @@bannerlad01 because it's not based on evidence. that's a key factor of modern medicine - treatments being evidence-based.

    • @Nthompson50000
      @Nthompson50000 2 роки тому

      @@brendaboyer7500 You need to educate yourself on this topic before commenting further

    • @Nthompson50000
      @Nthompson50000 2 роки тому

      @@bannerlad01 i'm honestly bored with explaining things to you guys. You will just continually goalpost move or won't allow yourself to become educated

  • @peterwickham9984
    @peterwickham9984 2 роки тому +27

    Dr. John is amazing and I have learned so much for him. He is respectful and open minded. And he is very careful to criticize people.

    • @Marco-it2mr
      @Marco-it2mr 2 роки тому +11

      "And he is very careful to criticize people."
      He's not careful at all. His attempt to delegitimize a paper by noting the first author was "just a student", ignoring the four other authors, is an excellent example of how he works when his beliefs are contradicted. This is also why he ghosted Susan Oliver, who dared contradict a guest Campbell had had on his channel and who he blindly believed: Tess Lawrie. And now he is posting a defense of ivermectin based on misconstruing the facts, both in terms of its supposed mechanism of action and what is going on in Japan (not to speak of elsewhere). He's gone down the rabbit hole recently.

    • @drstalone
      @drstalone 2 роки тому

      Well now only if the factcheckers on that paper had 't quoted Pfizer about 'horse medicine'...

    • @uppercutgrandma4425
      @uppercutgrandma4425 2 роки тому +5

      @@Marco-it2mr he absolutely is cautious, he went through each credential precisely.
      He addressed the other writers as well and brought up a very acute observation. Why are there more journalists than dr's fact checking medical information.

    • @Marco-it2mr
      @Marco-it2mr 2 роки тому +2

      @@uppercutgrandma4425 No, he did not address the other authors AT ALL. He only mentioned the first author's status as a student. Just show me the time stamp in his video where he mentions Kyle Sheldrick's credentials. Or Nick Brown's. Or Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz' credentials. Or James Heathers.
      A journalist should be looking for facts. Doctors mostly have other, more pressing, things to do.

    • @barryp8145
      @barryp8145 2 роки тому

      @@Marco-it2mr yes he did.

  • @ljacobs357
    @ljacobs357 2 роки тому +6

    I find Dr. Campbell informative and largely impartial. He attempts to use current data to reach conclusions but is not dogmatic about his findings. I don't find him the type to intentially spread misinformation.

    • @alaindumas1824
      @alaindumas1824 2 роки тому +2

      I only watched a few of his videos but, as a MD, I saw that J Campbell was commenting on papers he didn't understand and lacked basic knowledge of pharmacology.

  • @john-eo1ns
    @john-eo1ns 2 роки тому +2

    Hello, would you like to comment on Japans success with IVM is this coincidence or is it working in some other mode of action you don't understand.

    • @ProfGregTuckerKellogg
      @ProfGregTuckerKellogg  2 роки тому +2

      Hi John, thanks for the question. I think there's no evidence that Japan's success has really been due to ivermectin. I'm not being dismissive here. They have had very high vaccination rates, high mask wearing and social distancing without lockdown, etc. Just fantastic cooperation (although if you've been to Japan it is not actually surprising; just amazing to an outsider). But they didn't use ivermectin everywhere, and the places that did use ivermectin didn't do any better or worse than those that did. Tokyo did, and just today Pierre Kory crowed about it on Twitter as an obvious ivermectin success story. But as Dr. Kyle Sheldrick points out, the same steep declines (or greater!) were seen in other Japanese cities that never recommended Ivermectin twitter.com/K_Sheldrick/status/1462719455364935681

    • @Marco-it2mr
      @Marco-it2mr 2 роки тому +2

      @@ProfGregTuckerKellogg Worse, there is zero evidence Tokyo even used ivermectin to any relevant extent. There was one doctor who said it should be tried. He had done the same in February of this year, but apparently no one listened then, so why now?

  • @HubbHubbs
    @HubbHubbs 2 роки тому +7

    Thanks for taking the time to explain this. I look forward to seeing Johns response.

    • @barryhamm3414
      @barryhamm3414 2 роки тому +12

      It could be a long wait

    • @Marco-it2mr
      @Marco-it2mr 2 роки тому +6

      I look forward seeing John Campbell squirm when his Japanese contacts tell him they never used ivermectin...but he won't show that, because then he would look really silly with his "miracle in Japan" video.

    • @Suehuskins
      @Suehuskins 2 роки тому +2

      Yep a long wait. I kept on him in his comments when that ivermectin pre-peer was pulled for fraud to correct his video and crickets. Other also did on his Facebook page as well. Nothing.

  • @wiliamtinker9377
    @wiliamtinker9377 2 роки тому +3

    I think that you should get in contact with Dr. Campbell directly to put forth your opinions to him. I'm quite sure he would respond.

    • @ProfGregTuckerKellogg
      @ProfGregTuckerKellogg  2 роки тому +4

      Honestly (and I'm not trying to be a douche about it) it would be easier for him to get in touch with me. He's got an *enormous* following; I can't even comprehend what his inbox must look like.

    • @Marco-it2mr
      @Marco-it2mr 2 роки тому +3

      I'm pretty sure he won't. He already ghosted Susan OIiver, after she had the audacity to criticize his claims.

    • @wiliamtinker9377
      @wiliamtinker9377 2 роки тому +3

      @@ProfGregTuckerKellogg Thank you very much for responding and pointing me to Dr. Oliver. Her videos were very informative. Again, thank you.

    • @wiliamtinker9377
      @wiliamtinker9377 2 роки тому +3

      @@Marco-it2mr Thank you for pointing me to Dr. Oliver.

    • @DefaultName-bw1bx
      @DefaultName-bw1bx 2 роки тому

      @@ProfGregTuckerKellogg that is a cop out response

  • @wendychan6679
    @wendychan6679 Рік тому +2

    Thank you for your misinformation. I have seen for myself that the drug is a dog and I will continue to regard Dr Campbell very highly.

    • @thx1187
      @thx1187 11 місяців тому

      Biotech, vaccine pushers, propaganda

  • @MarkWilkinsLondon
    @MarkWilkinsLondon 2 роки тому +14

    Thank you for making this video which I watched to the end. I already had my concerns about John Campbell’s ability to analyse data and this really confirmed them.

  • @suecooke7284
    @suecooke7284 2 роки тому +8

    I appreciate hearings critiqued from people so that I can be best informed you talk about Dr Campbell's background but there is nothing on your UA-cam channel description about your own background. This would be helpful in assessing the quality of your response. Not saying you are t talking factually, just saying I don't know you are. Thanks

    • @drdave34
      @drdave34 2 роки тому +10

      At about minute 4, Greg describes his background (PhD in molecular biochemistry and biophysics, Yale, postdoc at Harvard, researcher for a number of years in the pharmaceutical industry, currently a Professor in Practice at the National University of Singapore).

    • @drdave34
      @drdave34 2 роки тому +2

      @@twinflame4618 Who? Wtf are you talking about

    • @ProfGregTuckerKellogg
      @ProfGregTuckerKellogg  2 роки тому +8

      I describe my own background at 4:20. In addition, if you look at the channel profile under "about", I provide links to both my LinkedIn profile and my Google Scholar profile

    • @thompike4562
      @thompike4562 2 роки тому

      He doesn't only claims those things he provides and there by is the messenger for a number of expert papers. Why are you investing so much time about Ritonavir. His presentation was not really about Ritonavir. ....like seriously what has his presentation to do with grape juice?!

    • @ProfGregTuckerKellogg
      @ProfGregTuckerKellogg  2 роки тому +8

      @@thompike4562 I did that to explain pharmacokinetic interactions, which was a topic of Dr. Campbell's video as well. A key reason ivermectin *cannot* have the pharmacodynamic effect claimed by Dr. Campbell is that the pharmacokinetics make it impossible for ivermectin to reach the required concentration.

  • @eddyvon
    @eddyvon 2 роки тому +2

    ???? Follow the money.
    The truth is more than evident, their lies do not suddenly become truth