Carping Comments Per Dr. John Campbell

It’s been a while since we’ve had a Carping Comments posting. (Largely due to our prior Carper having been banned, I think…)

So why now? Well, there’s a Dr. John Campbell posting about Ivermectin that included one of his videos, which he has retracted. The “story” behind this is that his video was reading an abstract where the article was not yet published, and there was a claim made after the fact that it had been “retracted”. But when you go to the original article it does not have the usual “retracted” statement. So was it? As of the last video about it by Dr. John Campbell (or at least the last one I’ve seen where he explains all this) there was still no formal retraction. But given the slightly informal nature of pre-prints, is that normal or not?

So out of an abundance of caution, Dr. John C. pulled his original video that was based on the paper. So far so good.

Yet since putting my posting up, 2 different “new” folks have popped up doing “smear type” comments per Dr. John Campbell. (Had they not had the “insult to the person” nature I’d have just let them through, but… we have a “no insults to the person” policy. Normally not applied to “Public Persons” such as politicians, but Dr. John Campbell is “just a blogger somewhere” ant not what I’d consider a “Public Person” in that sense. So are these just Mislead Mean Persons, or are they part of a Media Hit Team (as we have seen so often these days on anything Political or that goes against The Great Narrative – which now includes dissing hard core anything Ivermectin, even though it clearly works well… I’m now entering my 3rd year of use with ZERO issues and ZERO Chinese Wuhan Covid… not even Omicron…)

I waited a while (mostly due to packing up my house… and a little to see if any new news showed up per said original paper) after the first comment showed up, and just a day or so ago another one showed up. Both of these came in “some time later” from the posting date, and both have that feeling of being a Reputational Hit Piece. Like maybe they are bots or Trolls sent out to do a Cancel Culture kind of hit on Dr. John Campbell.

Now I’ve watched a LOT of his videos, and his method is pretty straight forward. Find papers in the academic literature, read them, go through what they say and comment about it using the background of other works in the field and a good dose of sound reasoning (so if the BMJ British Medical Journal publishes something it is likely right and given more creds, but if it is Joe’s Pretty Good Idea, it gets a bit more challenge). Not a lot of Personal Opinion involved. In fact, he frequently says “That’s not ME saying it, that’s this paper from FOO”. So criticism of HIM is usually rather stupid. He’s just the messenger (and not a very biased one at that).

So, OK, here’s the comments and my comments about them.

Here’s a link to the posting these folks are carping about:

https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2022/03/06/peer-reviewed-study-ivermectin-works/

Here’s his followup posting / video about Ivermectin. It looks at a newer article and also comments about the prior abstract supposed “retraction” (that I still don’t know if it was or wasn’t – as I’m busy packing and don’t have the time to chase it down). The basic point found in this review of the literature is that, yes, as a prophylactic Ivermectin works. Even at about 1/2 the proper dose given with way too long an interval given the drug half life.

On to the Carping. I’m not going to do my usual “Dig” into things like the IP number to see where they originate, just not enough time.

First up:

michael murray

185.58.164.47
This is utter garbage.
Its not a randomised trial
Its written by people promoting ivermectin and making millions

OK, first off, starting with a “garbage” insult is a bit rude. Then the assertion that ONLY a randomized trial can be valid? What about meta-studies? Observational studies? A hell of a lot of good valid understanding comes from open eyes and a working brain. Confirmation via an RCT is nice, but NOT necessary. OK, flag starts to rise…

They are being investigated for fraud and human rights violations.

Since just saying “I think ivermectin ought to be looked at” gets you “investigate” by the Hit Mob and “human rights violations” can now include using the wrong pronoun, that’s at best weak tea. It also is irrelevant as the Cancel Culture Mob have made those things boring and typical for anyone the Mob doesn’t like.

Only 6% of people took all the doses.
No statistical data on who took what is available.

No source cited. No data provided. Nothing to validate this assertion. But, OK, it might be the case. Maybe. But it falls into the typical “stuff on the wall” list of complaints from folks who are trolling or bots or paid to smear.

Its an observational study

Uh, are you advocating that ALL the prior valid Observational Studies from ALL the other medications be retracted? Eh? It’s a long long list of Peer Reviewed Literature… At this point the flag is about 1/2 way up.

The authors conclude ” this doesn’t prove ivermectin prevents covid”

And why would a tiny dose that would be absent from patients for nine out of fourteen days possibly do anything if it isnt there? By magic? It simply doesn’t even make common sense let alone bringing science into it.

“Proof” is a high barrier. It indicated, which is enough to push for a more involved test and enought for thinking individuals to evaluate what was on offer themselves. (Which is, after all, the basis of the Scientific Method).

John Campbell is a renowned idiot who couldn’t interpret the contents of a can of soup let alone a crap attempt at a publication.

And there’s where the flag goes to the top of the pole. I’ve got a pretty darned good People Reader and Dr. John Campbell is a careful and fairly accurate person. Like all of us, he sometimes makes mistakes, but he also recognizes them and posts corrections. I find him HIGHLY dependable and careful. Calling him a “renowned idiot” is pretty much confirmation the poster is Carping, not thinking. Then the slur about ability to interpret? Just flat out lying for effect. I’ve watched a lot of his stuff and he is very good and very careful about pointing out what’s valid, what’s marginal, and where things are just a bit daft.

Also note the slur at the original Abstract. It was never held out as a full article publication. Either the commenter is not very careful, or this is a typical “claim what is not so you can carp about what isn’t” insult approach.

In any case, this one doesn’t pass the Smell Test for letting them through as a regular commenter.

But it aged a few days (weeks?) in the queue… and then ANOTHER one shows up from a different person. Starting to look a bit like a Take Down effort. One doesn’t make it so the next guy in the work queue picks up the “assignment”? (Life of a systems admin, you have to look at things a bit paranoid or Bad Guys will pwn you…)

No. 2:

Howard Leznoff

99.244.247.8
Campbell pulled the video because his shoddy treatment of the Miami study was exposed by, among others, Iakov Efimneko, study’s lead author.

Or, more accurately, he pulled the video when it was asserted the abstract in question had been retracted despite there being no retraction notice on the Abstract. “Shoddy treatment” is just a mindless slur. He treated the abstract with some care and was careful to point out that the ARTICLE was not available to review so might have issues. Then, which is it: Was the ARTICLE dissed by Iakov or was the ABSTRACT or was it the “treatment” by Dr. Campbell. A muddy sentence at best mostly, seemingly, as a vehicle for putting up a slur.

Must watch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szJGEIEudq0

No, I need not watch. Had I more time I might, and I may later, but usually an insult laden comment with a “Must Watch” demand just points you at some kind of Hit Piece or minor propaganda effort. I’ll “get to it later”. Maybe.

As well, the conclusion that Campbell quotes (verbally and in text), asserting the Miami study’s “unequivocal” findings omits this key line ,which suggests not oversight, but a bad faith actor: “Further double-blinded placebo-controlled RCT’s with large samples are required for defintie conclusion.”

Perhaps because that’s ALWAYS the case? Folks edit critiques for length and leave out “filler and fluff” that’s already well known. It’s ALWAYS the case that Observational Studies that indicate something is pretty darned good ought to be followed up with an RCT. BUT for off patent meds, that’s essentially never done as Big Pharma gets no money from it. That topic has been beat to death a dozen times so quite reasonably can be edited out. “bad faith actor” is again just a slur. There is NO evidence for that, and plenty for the contrary. He saw evidence for some question, so pulled the original video. Hardly “bad faith”. Sir, you lie. I have never seen Dr. John Campbell lie. At most, the occasional human error, typically corrected and owned.

What does Campbell quote the sentences before and after this, but omit a key finding? Intellectual dishonesty.

And another B.S. slur. How about just “editing for time and removing what looks like the usual boiler plate” where EVERY non-RCT paper says basically the same thing: Study it more and send money. There is NO evidence for any dishonesty in the edit, but plenty in the carping about it.

Now, from the Sys Admins POV, this is looking a lot like an organized Hit & Take Down of the Cancel Culture Mob (and / or Big Pharma or Chinese funded Troll Farms) aimed at an effective presenter showing evidence of a good drug working (and that they desperately want to keep folks from using as the GEBs middle name is “EVIL”…)

There’s just so much evidence and proof that Ivermectin works that the attempts and efforts to suppress it can only be evil. Any honest broker would do an honest trial of it (not one that uses too low a dose, on too long an interval, and long after viral replication is over – as so many Pharma Acolyte studies have done – designed to fail.)_

But whatever. There’s the Carping Comments for folks to look at. Now I can delete the originals from, the Moderation Queue.

Subscribe to feed