Can you?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3vY2LyQn1A
ID:2857836
 Mar 3 2023, 4:32 am
|
|
For anybody not really in the know about Dr. John Campbell:
He holds a PHD in Nursing. His primary occupation has been teaching nursing, but he has some experience as an emergency department nurse. He rose to relevance in 2019 when he started covering COVID-19, and at first was seen generally as a voice simplifying the complex emerging science for laymen, to some praise. This took a turn for the worse in 2020 when he began delving into misinformation. As of 2023, he is widely considered to be a crank who promotes anti-vaccine information to appeal to an audience of online conspiracists to inflate his view count. The key incidents that have resulted in his widespread discrediting listed below: * September 2021, spread misinformation about myocarditis being caused by failure to aspirate needles used in vaccination. There are a variety of medical justifications for why aspiration is not a recommended technique during these particular vaccinations. * November 2021, spread misinformation about Ivermectin, leading to widespread adoption of the narrative that Ivermectin has a significant impact on COVID-19 survivorship. The HSA specifically felt compelled to correct his misinformation, stating that the doctor was confusing causation and correlation, and that there was no evidence of Ivermectin being used in large numbers in Japan, which contradicts Dr. Campbell's claim that the low death rate in Japan was explained by the use of Ivermectin. The drug had never been approved for off-label use in Japan, and as such, Campbell's claims about its use were tacitly fallacious. In addition, the authors of the abstract Campbell used in March of 2022 to back up his claims about Ivermectin went so far as to refute Dr. Campbell's interpretation of their paper, and insinuated that Dr. Campbell doesn't understand how medical publishing or trials work. * November 2021, Campbell quoted from a journal abstract that had not been peer reviewed, claiming that mRNA vaccines might increase heart attack risk. The abstract had already been widely discredited. Campbell also chose to ignore that there was an expression of concern issued against the document, which is an academic method of essentially calling a publication untrustworthy for procedural reasons. * March 2022, Campbell claimed that a Pfizer document admitted the vaccine was responsible for over 1,000 deaths. In reality, the document said the opposite. * July 2022, Campbell gravely misstated the contents of an article published in the New England Journal of Medicine, claiming that it showed risks to children from vaccination was greater than the risk of serious illness. The article again, stated the exact opposite. * December 2022, Campbell made a presentation arguing that the statistics he had selected showed that the vaccines should have been withdrawn due to their high risk. The chair of Cambridge's Center for Risk and Evidence Communication, an expert in such analyses and their communication to the public, declared that the data that Campbell had selected, and the manner in which he communicated it was flawed, and "entirely inappropriate". * January 2022, Campbell used ONS statistics to show that deaths from COVID were 90% lower than reported. ONS stated that Campbell's use of their data was "factually incorrect, and highly misleading". The ONS provided statistics that show that the underlying cause of death in over 140,000 cases was listed at COVID-19, but what Campbell did, was select only those who had died with no other causes listed than COVID-19 on their death certificates. --Essentially, if you died due to asphyxiation due to complications from COVID-19, Campbell argued, that doesn't count. Only "COVID-19" as the cause of death counts. --Real doctor here, folks. * in July 2022 Campbell attempted to hype the monkeypox virus as the next pandemic, leading viewers to make the conclusion that because both viruses were being studied in laboratories, they both must have been released on the public. While he did not explicitly make this connection, this was very much the intended takeaway he left his viewers. TL;DR: Campbell is a retired emergency nurse. Someone I'm absolutely liable to take seriously on matters of procedure and intervention directly with patients, and someone who does in fact know quite a lot in terms of pathophysiology... That said, given his track record of spreading misinformation, and his gradual trend toward increasingly dishonest, misrepresented, and wholly inappropriate appropriation of half and fully baked medical information for the sake of views on youtube, I'm of the mindset that touting him as some kind of paragon on the subject of the pandemic demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of how science is done, how medicine is practiced. I think, what concerns me the most, isn't even the study. --And to be clear, there are serious problems with the study itself. A lack of correlation means that some mask trials showed that masks were effective. Some did not. A study that showed that masks were ineffective to prevent disease would lead to the conclusion that Campbell is presenting here. This doesn't show that. This study shows no correlation in the data set. For a study, this is interesting, but in a meta study, this is meaningless. Campbell knows this. That's what concerns me. He's representing a lack of correlation to mean that masks are ineffective, when the only thing a lack of correlation shows is that the multiple studies that were cited showed contradictory results. The lack of correlation just means that the selected data set or the methodology is flawed. I guess my question is, if Dr. John Campbell can admit he was wrong, why is he admitting that he was wrong by wrongly representing how meta studies work? | |
For anybody not in the know about bubbles, I had ChatGPT explain it to me
"Bubbles are pockets of gas that are enclosed within a liquid or a solid material. In most cases, bubbles are formed when a gas is trapped within a liquid, such as air bubbles in water or carbon dioxide bubbles in soda. However, bubbles can also form in solids, such as when gas is trapped within the structure of a foam material like styrofoam. Bubbles can come in many different shapes and sizes, ranging from tiny bubbles that are too small to see with the naked eye, to large bubbles that can be several centimeters in diameter. The shape of a bubble is determined by the forces that act on its surface, such as surface tension and pressure from the surrounding material. Bubbles are important in many different fields, including chemistry, physics, and engineering. They can be used to study the properties of liquids and gases, to help mix and transport materials, and to create foams and other materials with unique properties. Additionally, bubbles can be found in many natural phenomena, such as boiling water, ocean waves, and volcanic eruptions." | |
Ter13 wrote:
I guess my question is, if Dr. John Campbell can admit he was wrong, why is he admitting that he was wrong by wrongly representing how meta studies work? Because there's money in catering to the antivaxx crowd, hth | |
Ourico wrote:
A simple "no" would have sufficed. Kinda the whole problem with the antivax crowd innit? Wanting to boil absurdly complex issues down into a binary, and not really caring very much about facts. Suggesting that N95 masks do nothing to reduce the spread of respiratory droplets is laughable on its face. I guess if you want a really simple way to think about all of this: * People who are ill with communicable disease should attempt to reduce their impact on others who may not be able to refuse to interact with said ill person even if they don't consent to the interaction. * Appropriate masking is an effective way to limit the spread of viral particulates in congregate settings for *short* interactions near infected people. * Because COVID had a long incubation period where the virus could be spread, without the carrier being symptomatic, masking was reasonable when there were no mechanisms for vaccination, and the dominant strains were far more dangerous than they are now. Simple, fact-driven reasoning. It's just really hard to empathize with the anti-masking position, on grounds that I'm not a sociopath. | |
 | |
hey, isn't ourico the guy who posted a CNN article insisting it was proof of a grand conspiracy around the covid narrative, but then it was pointed out that really CNN just shows a listing of recent top stories on their articles, old ones included. and after that he stopped responding to questions about it and was never able to admit he is wrong about that article because he stopped emotionally maturing in the 8th grade?
[edit] take a quick guess who orange is | |
I respect your opinions as a librarian; but, as a licensed healthcare professional, my opinions are a little different.
As to the other comment about money, I wonder if it's more lucrative to convince people that they need several shots, or whether it's more lucrative to convince them that they don't! | |
They should of never forced healthcare workers out of their job for not getting the jab when the jab doesn't even stop anything, because of their laws hundreds if not thousands of hospitals and patients probably suffered and received inadequate healthcare.
It's not about helping us, it's about turning a profit. | |
I respect your opinions as a librarian My whole job is about finding authority and parsing information for reliability and institutional consensus. I may not be an expert in healthcare, but I'm real good at spotting charlatanry. All I'm saying is Campbell is using sources in a disingenuous manner, and has a history of doing so. When he has a history of using sources in a manner that the authors of his sources come forward and state that he is lying about what their paper says, how can we rely on Dr. Campbell as a font of academic authority? I mean, let's talk about the meta study that Campbell is referencing here: Does its methodology regarding masks indicate the efficacy of masks being worn by the patient, or by the practitioner? I generally agree with the study that hand washing and surface sanitization was not an effective way to prevent COVID transmission, and was more or less saying that as early as late 2019 due to my experiences living in asia during SARS: That viruses like the flu and SARS were not problems in Asia because of a lack of hygiene, but rather congregate settings. --And I was correct in 2019, that the attitude that Americans had toward it that it would not take hold in the US was somewhat ignorant of the reality of how the west avoided the first SARS epidemic: Rapid governmental action and robust testing at ports of entry combined with the relatively lower virulence and asymptomatic incubation period of the virus. COV-2's characteristics made it a virus of elevated concern, and the experts saw that well before it gained a foothold in the US. In general, I guess I just don't really care for the notion that you being an EMT makes your opinion more relevant than the positions of the highest medical authorities --If we're gonna wave authority around with titles, it's just a game of who can spout the name of agencies absent the context of specific, verifiable, testable claims. Unless we're gonna dig into those sources and determine the value of their authority on a subject: Which is what I do for a living. If you can't really articulate an intelligible position other than "I drive an ambulance, therefore am basically a virologist", I don't see how we're going to bridge the gap of our own intellectual and egotistical blind spots. Your initial post was a reach for undeserved (or at least, labored) authority lacking the context of just who that authority was in the larger context of his experience. I provided that context, and your response indicated that the context was irrelevant. So... I don't think that really does your notion that your credentials are valid on the subject any favors. I am willing to discuss the material of your source's sources. You can hurl veiled insults and disrespect. Cool. | |
To be clear, I'm referring to my education and licensure in health science. But you don't need any special qualifications to express skepticism in the first place; I only mention it because I know some readers are hung up on "authoritative" sources.
I only do what I do for work now because I got sick of office drama and want to work with other men. Haven't driven an ambulance in a very long time though; that's for the new guys! Lastly I'll be totally honest and say that I only read about 20% of everything you've typed here. It's not that I dislike you, but you all just matter a lot less to me than I seem to matter to you. | |
want to work with other men Read: Not women. I only read about 20% of everything you've typed here No, no, I know. For the most part, birds of your feather just skim and fill in the rest with argument sounds. I'd say it's a loss, but really, a lack of empathy for others or effort to dig into complex topics is sort of the vibe that distinguishes... You know, and not much is really lost. you all just matter a lot less to me than I seem to matter to you. And you're right. I do care quite a lot about intellectual cowardice and disingenuousness in a person. I think, though, given the initial impetus to post a thread that you knew was a shot at people you view to be your ideological enemies, and your lack of interest in the following conversation, the whole bad faith enagement thing we've talked about before isn't improving. What's real telling to me, is the same thing that I said to your buddy Xoox a while back: Name one lefty political bait thread lobbed at y'all on this board. --We don't do this. Why is it that you choose to continue to antagonize folks while also running the narrative that you are the ones being oppressed? He didn't answer, and I expect you won't either. So, if you aren't interested in a conversation about the research, why bring it up? (Rhetorical, because we both know it's just bad-faith nose-rubbing of people you disagree with.) If you wanna lord how right you are over people, why completely fail to articulate your position when asked? Could it be the point is just malicious shit-stirring? It's not that I dislike you, but you all just matter a lot less to me than I seem to matter to you. Nor I you, but you insist on bringing the attention to yourself. --Don't do yourself the disservice of going down the road of "Now I'm BYOND satan", because you aren't. I actually found you quite reasonable to engage with until the topic inevitably turned, apropos of nothing, to your opinions on homosexuals, jews, and women. That's where the interactions began to sour, because once I'd told you it made me uncomfortable, you couldn't leave it alone and had to double down. If you had chosen to engage on development-oriented topics instead of this one, you'd be having an entirely different conversation. We basically wouldn't think of you at all if you didn't insist on demanding the attention. | |
Don't confuse my apathy for cowardice. I have spent enough time arguing on forums to know that people don't concede to having changed their opinions, even when they have, and even when it should be a point of pride and intellectual honesty to do so.
On a personal note, I think a great deal of your distaste for me is just a failure to understand others who hold opinions and experiences much different from your own. For example, in your mind, it may be near inconceivable that someone would not want to work with a lot of women. In my mind, it's just common sense. But, it's probably not a good investment of anyone's time to go on and on about that sort of stuff. As for me being a BYOND Satan, I think only the extremely histrionic would even entertain the idea. I fancy myself an unwavering force in a sea of social insanity. | |
Don't confuse my apathy for cowardice. No no, intellectual cowardice. I'm not coming at your masculinity, just your rigor. I think a great deal of your distaste for me is just a failure to understand others who hold opinions and experiences much different from your own. For example, in your mind, it may be near inconceivable that someone would not want to work with a lot of women. The lack of self awareness it takes for someone who regularly spouts bigoted diatribes about jews, women, and homosexuals to accuse others of just being intolerant when they express distaste at him doing so...  And nah, my distaste for you doesn't really exist. You seem to think you have the power to emotionally impact me beyond the level of annoyance, but you very much lack that ability. I'm a philosophy nerd. Crawling around in your brain is just what I do for fun. After all, you don't need to use a sharp stone to hone a knife. What's happening here, though, is more just disagreement that we don't seem to be able to resolve, because someone masks (get it? Masks? No?) dropping to insults by pretending to be disinterested instead of staying on topic every time someone pushes back on his misinformation. We don't have beef. We're having a conversation, and you're just sorta doing a bad job. Now, do you see the irony of starting a thread goading people who you perceive as not being able to introspect and change their beliefs, when you, in the same thread have chosen to disengage the moment someone disagrees with you, and have implicitly stated the position that opinions different than your own simply aren't worth engaging? | |
My lack of intellectual cowardice is precisely why I hold opinions that you find so abhorrent. Understand that I just have zero interest in a longform debate here, and never did even before posting this thread.
We simply have nothing in common apart from an interest in 2D games. You will likely never be able to see me as anything more than a villain, because you will likely never really understand those who are different from yourself. And for that reason, I am just not as invested here as you are. DMs are always open though. | |
a villain I don't see you as a villain at all. Just incorrect. Prideful. And xenophobic. We simply have nothing in common apart from an interest in 2D games Which is a shame, because again, I wasn't fond of you, but I was more than willing to work with you provided you chose to express your opinions about homosexuals literally anywhere else but to me, because I didn't want to work with someone who felt the need to criticize my sexual orientation instead of focusing on work. Work you never produced a shred of over a period of 7 months. Following a conversation about how sharing nudes of women in a group chat without the consent of said women was wildly inappropriate in a work-themed discord, and a conversation about how misogyny wasn't welcome in a work-oriented discord either, you got a third chance, and blew it to come at me about homosexuals spreading disease. I don't have beef, but you seem to think I do. I explained at the time the consequences, and that's sorta set the stage for this whole conversation hasn't it? It would have never come up, but instead of a conversation about masking, you had to be prideful and dig in on the personal, didn't you? | |
I don't recall criticizing you for being gay while in that Discord, nor do I recall being asked to do any work on the project.
And going forward, please spare me the -phobic and -ist and -ism lingo. It really is tiresome and I could not care less after so many debates on those issues. | |
I don't recall criticizing you for being gay while in that Discord You didn't, and at some level, I'm sure you're aware of the subtle word weaseling you just did. Just made the environment uncomfortable for your coworkers with bigoted comments. I'm well aware you're familiar with the consequences of that in a regular workplace. nor do I recall being asked to do any work on the project It was my understanding that Jordan brought you on to create a design document. If you weren't working on the project, why were you angry in your chat with Xooxer that I 'forced you out'? In fact... Why the hell were you even there? | |
If they really cared about us they would of forced everyone inside of bubbles.