Talk:John Campbell (YouTuber)

Treatments for COVID-19: Current consensus

A note on WP:MEDRS: Per this Wikipedia policy, we must rely on the highest quality secondary sources and the recommendations of professional organizations and government bodies when determining the scientific consensus about medical treatments.

1. Ivermectin: The highest quality sources (1 2 3 4) suggest Ivermectin is not an effective treatment for COVID-19. In all likelihood, ivermectin does not reduce all-cause mortality (moderate certainty) or improve quality of life (high certainty) when used to treat COVID-19 in the outpatient setting (4). Recommendations from relevant organizations can be summarized as: Evidence of efficacy for ivermectin is inconclusive. It should not be used outside of clinical trials. (May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, July 2021, July 2021) (WHO, FDA, IDSA, ASHP, CDC, NIH)
2. Chloroquine & hydroxychloroquine: The highest quality sources (1 2 3 4) demonstrate that neither is effective for treating COVID-19. These analyses accounted for use both alone and in combination with azithromycin. Some data suggest their usage may worsen outcomes. Recommendations from relevant organizations can be summarized: Neither hydroxychloroquine nor chloroquine should be used, either alone or in combination with azithromycin, in inpatient or outpatient settings. (July 2020, Aug 2020, Sep 2020, May 2021) (WHO, FDA, IDSA, ASHP, NIH)
3. Ivmmeta.com, c19ivermectin.com, c19hcq.com, hcqmeta.com, trialsitenews.com, etc: These sites are not reliable. The authors are pseudonymous. The findings have not been subject to peer review. We must rely on expert opinion, which describes these sites as unreliable. From published criticisms (1 2 3 4 5), it is clear that these analyses violate basic methodological norms which are known to cause spurious or false conclusions. These analyses include studies which have very small sample sizes, widely different dosages of treatment, open-label designs, different incompatible outcome measures, poor-quality control groups, and ad-hoc un-published trials which themselves did not undergo peer-review. (Dec 2020, Jan 2021, Feb 2021)

Which pages use this template?

Last updated (diff) on 27 February 2023 by Sumanuil (t · c)

looking at the trees not the forest

In almost every video John Campbell has stressed the importance of the vaccine and other non-medical safeguards such as mask wearing. Yes, he questions some data but overall, and many times over, he states that the deaths from Covid are underestimated. That is that there are more deaths from covid than governments make claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John gowland (talk • contribs) 15:01, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

All of which we have gone over more than once here (see the talk page above). Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

When the errors haven’t been fixed, it doesn’t really matter that you went over it. It seems everyone can see how bad the article is, except for a few people who have the power to stop edits. DisCerno (talk) 07:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

If you mean experienced editors who understand our policies and how to apply them, as opposed to new users who do not, yes you are right. We reflect what RS say, if RS has it wrong there are mechanisms to address that. But until those RS are either contradicted by other RS, or retract their claims we must reflect what they say. Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@DisCerno The sources argument was settled in the AFD. The mandate coming out of that decision was to improve the article, not to remove anything based on disagreements about sources. I promised a couple of weeks ago to propose some edits here on the Talk page (I won't edit the article). I don't have much time right now and I wanted to look at the changes made by @Straybolt in detail before I try to suggest anything. Wikipedia doesn't promise to be 100% accurate about anything. It promises to back up what it says with sources that have been accepted as reliable. And until such time as consensus changes on any given article, the Wikipedia way is to live with what we have and keep working on improving things with minimal conflict. Michael Martinez (talk) 17:57, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@Michael Martinez: A reminder: Template:Reply_to You cannot directly type the "@" symbol to notify a user of your reply, you must use the template documented here or manually create a wikilink to their user page. The "@" symbol is used by this template for display purposes only.

Also, it is StrayBolt, with a capital "B". StrayBolt (talk) 01:41, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback but I'm still getting used to the reply interface/box which prompts you to pick a username when you type in the @ symbol. Perhaps it's a bug? Michael Martinez (talk) 02:05, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Misleading information

The wiki entry on Campbell is very misleading, it makes it sound like he’s spreading misinformation. I’m very surprised to come here and find that instead of letting people correct the article, the page has been locked and a few mods are angrily insisting that the page should remain misleading. Is it normal that mods can do that on wikipedia? This is a huge strike against wikipedia’s credibility. 80.62.116.70 (talk) 06:59, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

That is what RS have said, so we reflect that. Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes he is totally open with his sources of information. In fact blood contamination by mRNA vaccines can cause problems, this is a fact. The vaccine is an intramuscular vaccine not an intravenous vaccine. Its not intended to enter the blood supply in quantity. What is false about that. Show me the data showing the vaccine is blood safe. 142.184.189.13 (talk) 11:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Rs say the claim is false, so do we. Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

@ WP:IP users: Campbell is very good about listing sources. Wikipedia also is. That helps people verify statements. When you say "this is a fact", it would help support your statement if you included a WP:RS, or even better WP:MEDRS. Have you read the sources in the article? If you look at the current version, second paragraph[1], it says Dore's statement was misleading. FYI, "Myocarditis occurs when the heart muscle (myocardium) becomes inflamed. Inflammation occurs when your body’s immune system responds to infections, for example."[2] Campbell has often talked about aspiration.[3] These are the last lines on the factchecking website, "There is a lack of data on frequency and effects of IV injection in humans. Most likely, two approaches are needed to further validate the data: large animal studies and studies comparing incidence of vaccine-associated thrombosis/thrombocytopenia/myocarditis in countries with mandated syringe aspiration to countries that don’t mandate this practice."[4] Perhaps there are more recent studies than Oct 2021, but at the time it still wasn't known. StrayBolt (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

It is highly unethical to do a study of intravenous injection of the vaccine. We already know what it does in the animal study Campbell discussed (he always reviews studies). Surely it is required to take the safe approach rather than say there is lack of data, so take the unsafe approach. And Wikipedia's subjective preference of more reliable sources just so happens to align with politically biased left wing sources and others are "misinformation" because they may contradict or question. Thus readers be aware that Wikipedia is a propaganda arm. Campbell is the most reliable source I've seen. 140.141.182.236 (talk) 09:32, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

This article contains misinformation

Whoever wrote this article has a clear vendetta against Dr John Campbell. If Wikipedia wants to be taken seriously, a full review of this page needs to occur. 88.8.188.92 (talk) 14:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

See all the threads above, and all the threads in the archive. Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Amcluesent (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree that this article by itself contains misinformation about a medical practicioner who is doing his best to show the scietific evidence in transparent way. Therefore, accusations that Dr Campbell is spreading misinformation is not legit and should be deleted from the page. 2001:16A2:C552:3300:8DE:AA9D:6418:4C00 (talk) 00:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Dr John Campbell and his views can clearly be a controversial topics. Is it not possible for this Wikipedia article to describe situation(s) rather than taking a position in the controversy? It seems from the above Talk discussion that the editors/contributors are more interested in defending the "position" taken in the article rather than simply representing all of available information on the topic of Dr John Campbell. Very disappointing so far! 128.250.0.142 (talk) 01:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

We don't do WP:FALSEBALANCE here. If the reliable sources take a position, so too will Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 01:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia itself is not accepted as reliable sources because of such unbalanced propaganda-article. Looks more like weapon in hybrid warfare. 2003:E5:3F15:9C5E:2F71:D213:EC25:3602 (talk) 07:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

It is for its own policies, which this is a link to. Slatersteven (talk) 09:15, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

A full review by whom? Not Wikipedia, they are the ones maintaining their own misinformation. 140.141.182.236 (talk) 09:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Misinformation about Dr Cambell

In the article about John Cambell there are some serious mistakes that need looking into. It states that he has presented false information. This is untrue. His information is legitimate and sometimes people misunderstand what he is saying or draw a conclusion. In any event if he has stated misleading information then it needs to sourced to the episode it was stated in to be addressed. There was a misleading article in the BBC for example that he clarifies in a follow up show. The guy is not politically motivated and followed the statistics. 97.120.164.160 (talk) 02:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Then you wont have much difficulty finding reliable sources to back up your claim before we put it into the article. Thanks. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 02:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

We do not need 15 threads making the same point. Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Unrestrained freedom vs chaos - hmm. Odonanmarg (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Who locked this page

It's full of half-truths and libel without references. Jtjohnston (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Huh? There are more than two dozen references. MrOllie (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

... and it's not locked, just semi-protected. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 22:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The page was placed under a 1-year protection in February. And it was protected because people weren't even bothering to register accounts to make edits. It may be that future requests for protection will be made if Dr. Campbell's supporters keep trying to circumvent the Wikipedia process.

What you might want to do is point out here on the Talk page specific sentences you feel are incongruous with their attributed sources. About 50 people (last time I checked) have this page on their Watchlists. If you can point out a factual discrepancy in the article, someone will correct it. But that's a time-consuming process. And you might want to review the final decision in this discussion from last year before going too far down that rabbit-hole.

To others who haven't yet joined the Wikipedia community:

Some of the claims Dr. Campbell has made in his videos contradict information that the Wikipedia community deems to be authoritative. Ultimately, this article and others must reflect the consensus of the Wikipedia community, not the views of people who don't participate in that community. That doesn't mean every Wikipedian agrees 100% with everything said in every article but over the years Wikipedia has adopted many policies and guidelines to help people understand what is and isn't acceptable content here.Michael Martinez (talk) 22:50, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

One of the so-called "authoritative" information that contradict Dr. Campbell is sourced from the W.H.O. The same W.H.O. who at the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic advised that there was no need to prevent travelers from Wuhan to enter countries, that face masks were not necessary, that Covid-19 was not human-to-human transmissible, that they were sure the pandemic did not originate from a lab in Wuhan. Meanwhile, noted meta-analyst Dr. Tess Lawrie, who has done work for the W.H.O., etc., did a thorough study of the efficacy of Ivermectin as a prophylactic or early treatment and objectively and scientifically found evidence of this, has been, just like Dr. Campbell, gaslighted by the well-financed arm of Big Pharma who stood to lose billions in profits should Ivermectin be perceived as an alternative to their high-profit, expensive drugs. This Wikipedia page, unfortunately, falls into this category of "gaslighting" and should be deleted if it can't be revised to reflect actual facts and the truth. Dr. Campbell himself mentions this Wikipedia page in this video at around 19:10 mark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ve42PHy7O00&t=1213s. Discussion of Dr. Tess Lawrie's findings and meta-analysis can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2ju5v4TAaQ&t=20s Bluelobe (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Youtube is not an RS, a worldwide panel of medical experts is. And we had an wp:AFD discussion and the result was keep. Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

If Putin said on YouTube he was going to invade Ukraine and didn't say it anywhere else, he shouldn't be believed because it was on YouTube? Listen to Dr. Tess Lawrie explain in great detail her meta-analysis before you continue gaslighting Dr. Campbell. Bluelobe (talk) 17:21, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Non-YouTube evidence: 1) https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/36858/pdf/ 2) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34145166/ 3) https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/08000/ivermectin_for_prevention_and_treatment_of.7.aspx Bluelobe (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

W.H.O. failings at start of pandemic: https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/coronavirus-who-china-canada-pandemic-1.5549836. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/04/world-health-organization-blame-pandemic-coronavirus/609820/ and https://www.bbc.com/news/world-57085505 Bluelobe (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

And you need to read wp:soap. Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, where do we source to WHO? Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Please read the 15 threads about this issue above, and comment on one of those. Slatersteven (talk) 09:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

It has been said, it needs to be said again if you are unhappy with how we report what RS say about Mr Campbell, it is down to you to produce better sources. Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)