Dr. John Campbell Rips The Beeb In That Oh So British Way ;-)

Remember that BBC article that dissed Ivermectin? Claiming that there were horrible methodological flaws in the Meta Analysis and they failed to go back up stream to get original patient data?

Well, Dr. John Campbell takes a look at it. I love the delicious way the British can rip a new one via “agreeing”… (Learned if from Mum ;-)

Among other minor bits:

The “Lead Author” of the referenced “paper” is a student at university.

He could not find one of their references so it is supposedly non-existent in the published press.

The proposed change to Meta-Analysis would only result in ALL medical meta analysis done to date being discarded… So, OK, why not… /sarc;

From 9 October. 27 minutes of pure “cat with mouse”…but politely.

Subscribe to feed


About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in Covid. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Dr. John Campbell Rips The Beeb In That Oh So British Way ;-)

  1. YMMV says:

    I figure with a title like that YouTube is less likely to take it down.

    Pointing out the part where Japan, with one of the two Nobel Prize winners for the discovery of Ivermectin, asked Merck to do a study of IVM for Covid and they declined.

    link: https://www.campbellrivermirror.com/news/bc-search-and-rescue-groups-warning-against-use-of-what3words-app/
    (long paper)
    quoting from page 61:

    Kitasato University, based on the judgment that it is necessary to examine the clinical effect of ivermectin to prevent the spread of uncertain COVID-19, asked Merck & Co., Inc. to conduct clinical trials of ivermectin for COVID-19 in Japan. This company has priority to submit an ap- plication for an expansion of ivermectin’s indications, since the original approval for the manu-
    facture and sale of ivermectin was conferred to it. However, the company said that it had no in- tention of conducting clinical trials. As a result, Kitasato University decided to conduct a doctor- initiated clinical trial, the decision of which was published81) on the 12th of May.

    and page 75

    The first approved company to manufacture and sale ivermectin was Merck & Co. in the United States. If this company had conducted a clinical trial to confirm the efficacy and safety of iver- mectin for the recent COVID-19 pandemic, it could have been done in a very short period of time. Then, a necessary and sufficient amount of studies could have been conducted with a large number of cases, consultations and collaborations with regulators—the NIH, CDC and the FDA—carried out smoothly, and an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) could have been is- sued much earlier than hydroxychloroquine and remdesivir. Had this happened, it is speculated that the widespread clinical use of ivermectin in the United States could have prevented a large number of affected and fatal cases.

    Obviously I have selected certain bits, so do read the whole paper. It is more historical than medical.

    Vaccines continue to be The Solution to Covid according to the PTB. The vaccines have demonstrated protection for most individuals, but the risks are still being investigated. Apart from that, it is also becoming clear that those vaccines are NOT very effective at ending the pandemic.
    Whereas IVM protects the person taking it and DOES help end the pandemic. My opinion, not proof.

  2. andysaurus says:

    I trust Campbell because he is calm and measured. He has the avuncular approach that one would hope all doctors portrayed.

    You should be aware that his doctorate is in nursing, which is why he is scrupulous in avoiding prescription himself. I personally think that this gives him more credibility.

    If it turns out that ! V M has been disallowed in Western nations because the FDA could not give emergency use authorisation to the vaccines if a safe therapeutic was available, then thousands or millions have lost their lives unnecessarily. Probably just for money. I would set up a war crimes tribunal to judge those responsible.

  3. Scissor says:

    Andysaurus, your point about IVM being disallowed and potential loss of life is exactly right. Perhaps worse, financial incentives and standard practices of care from use of Remdesivir, venting and Midazolam seem homicidal.

  4. David A says:

    The vaccines have demonstrated short term protection from Covid severe cases for some people. They have not demonstrated short or long term protection from vaccines caused reduced immunity and associated morbidity and mortality overall. Possibly Quite the opposite. https://notrickszone.com/2021/10/11/counterintuitive-more-vaccinations-leads-to-more-infections-hospitalizations-deaths/

    I am not certain how more proof for the effectiveness against Covid is with Ivermectin Zinc, and vitamin D could exist then the many dozens of studies and practical demonstration in many nations directly tested on hundreds of millions of people. In India the positive testing rate dropped from over twenty percent to .01 percent. The RO was shattered! The disease died! In science of course, proof is never absolute, yet it does not get much better then that.

  5. AC Osborn says:

    I can’t say that I am impressed with Dr Coleman’s video, he didn not do anywhere enough reading or research.
    I also got the distinct impression that the studies being criticised were linked to in the study he was reading.

  6. E.M.Smith says:

    @AC Osborn:

    I think you are looking for an R&D Video while this one was a General Critique Of Sloppy BBC.

    The purpose was not to do a load of research, but to show how on very basic requirements both the BBC and the paper the BBC cited were horrid failures. There’s no need nor expectation that, if criticizing the BBC and the paper they cited, you bring in a load of other papers and do a literature search on the topic.

    For example: Hiding the fact that the “Lead Author” is a student and just showing his University affiliation. That’s a kind of subtle fraud and the BBC either didn’t catch it or didn’t care, so sloppy journalism at best.

    For example: Dissing “Meta Analysis” for not going back to collect the original patient data and thus claiming the study is unusable. As that is the standard way all medical meta analysis papers are done, to assert that is to by extension assert ALL Meta Analysis medical papers ever written are also unusable. A patent violation of several things including accepted scientific standards, and it looks more like a propaganda spin by the BBC / Paper in question than anything of merit.

    He had to be careful in his “critique” to not step over a “ban me” line, and did it with a subtle British Bite in many cases. I don’t think I can explain it ( I grew up with it from Mum and BBC) and it can confuse folks with more American culture, but that was the thing I enjoyed about it. Things like “agreeing with, while having derisive tone” and “damning with faint praise”; that says “this is trash” while being polite and not saying that it is trash out loud. Or saying things like “Well, that looks interesting, where’s the supporting data?… Oh, there isn’t any. Ah. Well… I suppose that’s good enough then…”

    Then bits like “The BBC have a really good reputation” followed by “because they were” really good. Ouch! And “We’re over here out of reality and they are going to bring us back to it”… followed later by “2 journalists” practicing medicine… It’s that “set up / subtle take down” dynamic that’s so fun.

    If you are looking for this to be an in depth scientific counter argument, you are missing the point of it. To put up the BBC and the paper they cited to a bit of polite ridicule that passes censorship.

  7. YMMV says:

    In the midst of all the “vaccines work”, “IVM is horse paste”, “vaccines don’t prevent spreading”, “vaccine breakthrough cases”, “vaccine harm” comments here, there, and everywhere,

    I realize that my opinion has changed subtly without me consciously realizing it. It has gone from “those without the vaccine need IVM” to “EVERYBODY needs IVM”.

    Actually, that is everybody needs Vit-D, Zinc, IVM, and so on. Details, but important.

    Many of the fully vaccinated that I know are panicked. They think everybody should have the vaccine, no matter what, and they blame the continuing pandemic on the unvaccinated.
    Which is worse, Covid or the lynch mob?

    I went for a long time without personally knowing any Covid cases. Now I personally know Covid cases who are fully vaccinated.

    So my new opinion is that now everybody should have a supply of IVM and know how to use it.

    Maybe the new slogan should be “IVM is not just for anti-vaxxers anymore!”
    Maybe that would help build IVM acceptance.

  8. YMMV says:

    @AC Osborn, he is “taking the piss”.

  9. YMMV says:

    From the FLCCC website: https://covid19criticalcare.com
    “What Was Left Out of the BBC Story Slamming Ivermectin. Read Dr. Tess Lawrie’s interview here.”
    and “here” links to: https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/BBC-story-Tesss-interview.pdf

    breaking news: journalist asks for information and then ignores it because it doesn’t fit the narrative

  10. Pingback: Ivermectin Real Time Meta Analysis | Musings from the Chiefio

  11. E.M.Smith says:

    Seems that accidental IV injection of the vexxine is a problem and just “drrawing back” would fix it.

  12. AC Osborn says:

    EM and others, I am well aware of British humour, being English, especially “taking the piss”.
    I was only looking in terms of how he would be critisized by the anti Ivermectin brigade.

  13. H.R. says:

    We need a better term than “anti-vaxxer”.

    I’m not an anti-vaxxer. I am against getting a jab that is not actually a vaccine, according to the definition of a vaccine since forever… until the definition was recently changed to make the mRNA therapy injections fall under the new definition of a vaccine. The jab is a ‘vaccine’ in name only and not actually a vaccine.

    I’m against getting injected with something that can, if not immediately or short term, then possibly long term, cause harm that is greater than the disease it is meant to prevent.

    I’m against taking a ‘vaccine’ for a virus for which I may have natural immunity, particularly if the injection bypasses my natural immunity and may deliver spike proteins that are as harmful as the spike proteins to which I’m naturally immune.

    I’m against getting injected with a ‘vaccine’ that doesn’t protect against the original virus strain after about 6 months and offers no protection against variants of the virus.

    Given that after years of attempts, there has never been a successful vaccine developed against corona viruses, and that the current ‘vaccines’ seem destined to join those failed attempts, why would anyone not be allowed to decline being a guinea pig when the prospects of success are marginal at best?

    I am against getting injected with an unapproved therapy that has not gone through the years of development and rigorous testing that all other prior vaccines have undergone.

    I am against getting coerced or forced or publicly shamed and badgered to be injected with something that most elected officials, government employees, and large special interest groups are exempt from getting such an injection.

    I am against getting injected with an unproven, unapproved ‘vaccine’ when there are known preventatives that offer excellent protection against this corona virus and its variants, and known treatments that are quite effective and successful.

    But wait. There’s more… but that’s enough for starters.

    So I’m not anti-vaccine. I am strongly anti vaccine this current crop of mRNA therapies.

    I started out with the proposition that we need a better term than the derogative term ‘anti-vaxxer’ with all its negative implications meant to shame people into getting, at best, a dodgy jab.

    So far, I’ve referred to myself as a scientifically valuable member of the control group, but there’s no ring to that phrase nor any pizazz. It has no punch and is definitely not catchy.

    Besides “Proud, brave member of the Control Group. You can thank me later,” I don’t have any ideas for what would make a dynamite T-shirt.

  14. YMMV says:

    T-shirt idea.
    Text across the top: Anti-vaxxer with the vaxxer part struck out and GMO written in, in red.
    Then a two column list. Heading: Good Vaccines Dodgy Vaccines
    on the left, polio, measles, and a long list fading out towards the bottom
    on the right, do I really have to list those? What about Anthrax?

  15. The True Nolan says:

    How about “I’m not anti-vaxx. I’m anti-guinea pig.”
    Or just “Pro-vaxx. Anti-guinea pig.”

  16. H.R. says:

    Hey, I like the Pro-vaxx, anti-guinea pig.

    That’s going on a t-shirt.

  17. E.M.Smith says:

    Oh Dear… I seem to have put my suggestions for a new name in the wrong thread here:


    I’m not “Anti-vaccine”. I and all my family had all the usual shots.

    I’m Anti-Human-Guinea-Pig.

    I’m Anti-Nuremberg-Medical-Experimentation.

    I’m Anti-Government-Civil-Rights-Abuse.

    In short, I’m Anti-Bullying.

    I’m pro-human-rights and liberty.

Comments are closed.