But you don't post to offer a different perspective. You post just to antagonise people. Like the other day when you went on the CT thread just to try and stir and derail the thread. You then went back onto this thread to bring something up (which I had posted on the CT thread) just to once again antagonise. If you want to discuss the "science" then there was a thread specifically set up for that. If you want to be nasty about our "conspiracy theories" then once again there's been a thread set up for that, but instead you come on here and constantly try and derail the thread. Anyway thank god for the ignore button.How do you know we have never watched him?I have, and he doesnāt just break down numbers and papers into smaller sections, he concludes things from them too. FYI it was more than once he got things wrong and it has been mentioned by other scientists/researchers that he does not make accurate conclusions.
Why shouldnāt we post? Why should this thread just be an echo chamber for those who are against the Covid vaccine or any vaccine? Why do you take issue with people offering another perspective.
Itās like questioning why people are posting on the political thread if there are not into a certain politician.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
No I did not post on here something you had posted on the CT threadā¦please tell me what it was?
No one is being nasty and again I will continue to post on here as this is the vaccine thread. I do believe telling people where to post is a form of moderating?
Last edited:
It also stateās that not all scientists agree as they donāt know the cause so treatments with blood thinners could be riskyā¦it also states this which Iām sure youāll agree with too.I have read this too and not sure how you came to the conclusion.
āThey say that the evidence implicating micro-clots is undeniable, and they want trials of the kinds of anticoagulant treatment that Hawthorne is considering. Pretorius penned the Guardian article that caught Hawthorneās attention.ā
āBut many haematologists and COVID-19 researchers worry that enthusiasm for the clot hypothesis has outpaced the data. They want to see larger studies and stronger causal evidence. And they are concerned about people seeking out unproven, potentially risky treatments.āā¦itās the literal headline
It says the are concerned the hypothesis has outpaced the data as in more studies and large ones need to be done. The hypothesis has been replicated and found in more than one study so they are not saying it is a null hypothesis.
Regarding the above, they say there is no direct evidence implicating spike from vaccines in forming clots but have received a grant to look into it.
Thatās exactly what I said, but you said the evidence was undeniable until I posted the ending
so you accept the vaccines could be to blame for long covid as per this study?Thatās a bit of a contradictory post youāve made there
You said they are reluctant to accept it, that isnāt really what the article says. No I am not accepting something that has not even come to light yet and theyāre not looking at a relationship between vaccines and long covid. The grant is to look at blood clots.Thatās exactly what I said, but you said the evidence was undeniable until I posted the ending
Nothing contradictory about my post.
You said they are reluctant to accept it, that isnāt really what the article says. No I am not accepting something that has not even come to light yet and theyāre not looking at a relationship between vaccines and long covid. The grant is to look at blood clots.
Nothing contradictory about my post.
This clip just sums up why this thread has been such a lifeline for many.
Theyāre not all in agreement as I originally said.
Is this supposed to be me?!Who else does it
If not I'd quite like to meet them and ask how they made such a career U-turn
Must really irritate some people to see alternative views on the vaccines be shared. Surely you could always just not watch if you donāt like it? You pretend it doesnāt happen any other time
Everyone in this country is entitled to free speech. If heās sharing misinformation or misleading anyone, Iām certain YouTube would remove it as per their robust policies.
Not at all - alternative perspectives on anything in medicine are really useful - as long as they are backed up by robust evidence rather than just any old rubbish.
He's saying things which are blatantly untrue, and I don't see how that's helpful to anyone. Nope youtube haven't removed them, but they haven't removed a lot of things on their platform which are similar.
Sure everyone is entitled to free speech, but that doesn't mean platforms have to allow someone to make a living from health misinformation.
Last edited:
Unless you worked for the council and were on here before under another account, then itās not youIs this supposed to be me?!
If not I'd quite like to meet them and ask how they made such a career U-turn
Not at all - alternative perspectives on anything in medicine are really useful - as long as they are backed up by robust evidence rather than just any old rubbish.
He's saying things which are blatantly untrue, and I don't see how that's helpful to anyone. Nope youtube haven't removed them, but they haven't removed a lot of things on their platform which are similar.
Sure everyone is entitled to free speech, but that doesn't mean platforms have to allow someone to make a living from health misinformation.
This isn't the case @Purrrrrrr - if he was factually reporting on papers and doing a bit of science comms that would be great.
There are many specific examples of John Campbell making very basic errors, referencing retracted papers (this includes ones that were found to be totally fraudalent - i.e. the study never actually happened), makings statements that are misleading/incorrect, and pushing conspiracy theories with no evidence base. Added to this is the fact that he is not an expert - he has no relevant training or experience that gives his disagreements legitimacy. This is part of the reason he makes mistakes.
There are many actual scientists including epidemiologists and virologists who you can follow for information. This is why I'm not sure why people feel a retired nurse with a phd in online education somehow has legitimacy over them.
To add to this, there are credible scientists and clinicians who are skeptical about various aspects of vaccine policy, I'm sure you'd agree with some of their views. But presumably because they're not courting controversy for likes & money, they haven't come up here or you're not interested. There's a bell curve of opinions on the coronavirus vaccines and this thread just seems to be a gathering of those at the complete extreme end.
You mean heās only being factual if he keeps to one narrative, thereās no room for balanced viewsā¦ The paper he quoted wasnāt actually redacted it was still on the site at the time , he even did a follow up vid explaining this ,he doesnāt have a vaccine policy only that heās fully vaccinated himself .
He has made more than one mistake on more than one occasion.
The paper was retracted as it is listed in one of his videos and when you click on the link in his video it takes you to this:
From this video:
Link to retracted paper:
Effects of a Single Dose of Ivermectin on Viral and Clinical Outcomes in Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infected Subjects: A Pilot Clinical Trial in Lebanon - PubMed
Ivermectin appears to be efficacious in providing clinical benefits in a randomized treatment of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2-positive subjects, effectively resulting in fewer symptoms, lower viral load and reduced hospital admissions. However, larger-scale trials are warranted for this conclusion to...
Last edited:
No - he is not being factual because of the reasons I stated, this completely irrespective to what the views are.
There are many specific examples of John Campbell making very basic errors, referencing retracted papers (this includes ones that were found to be totally fraudalent - i.e. the study never actually happened), makings statements that are misleading/incorrect, and pushing conspiracy theories with no evidence base.
You need to see past this dichtomy @monga - there have been several points where I've changed my opinion because newer (robust) scientific evidence came out.
If there genuinely was good quality, replicated, data that showed vaccination against coroavirus was now uncessary (or indeed they were killing us all) I'd say so - most of us don't blindly agree with whoever coorobates our currently held views.
And yes - plenty of the people pushing misinformation and those leading misinformation campaigns are actually vaccinated themselves, because they know it's a win-win & don't care about the health of the people they're misleading.
Can you link where he was pushing conspiracies Iād be genuinely interested to see that .Iāve always found him to be very unbiased in his vids.
I've given up. I think the way these posters are describing him speaks for itself that they don't actually watch his videos at all maybe a snip here and there. . Many lurkers here will see that as well, especially those who he helped through the pandemic. He most certainly isn't a CT or antivax. Those are the reasons I share anything of his because he isn't on my side of the fence at all, but in doing so, people now believe he is antivax and a CT.
I am actually going to do what @Freedomofspeech89 has done. because every time a new person joins we have the same merry-go-ound again.
That was in 2021 as we know ivermectin was studied long after that as a possible treatment for covid patients experiencing gut inflammationā¦ Itās your trigger word is it notHe has made more than one mistake on more than one occasion.
The paper was retracted as it is listed in one of his videos and when you click on the link in his video it takes you to this:
View attachment 1577259
From this video:
Link to retracted paper:
Effects of a Single Dose of Ivermectin on Viral and Clinical Outcomes in Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infected Subjects: A Pilot Clinical Trial in Lebanon - PubMed
Ivermectin appears to be efficacious in providing clinical benefits in a randomized treatment of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2-positive subjects, effectively resulting in fewer symptoms, lower viral load and reduced hospital admissions. However, larger-scale trials are warranted for this conclusion to...pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
It was a retracted paper. Trigger word? Right.That was in 2021 as we know ivermectin was studied long after that as a possible treatment for covid patients experiencing gut inflammationā¦ Itās your trigger word is it not
Someone who has challeged Dr John Campbell and misinformation from a video. His bio: I'm Greg Tucker-Kellogg, a biology professor with a PhD in Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry (Yale), postdoctoral training in biological chemistry and molecular pharmacology (Harvard Medical School), and 30 years of research experience.
- Status