Dr. John Campbell's Pfizer antiviral / Ivermectin misinformation: A detailed response

Buy me a coffee: www.buymeacoffee.com/GregTK
My gear: higheredutech.com/gear/
Dr. John Campbell created a video in which he claims to have demonstrated that Ivermectin has the same pharmacodynamic modality of action as the new Pfizer antiviral PF-07321332, which inhibits the 3CL main protease of SARS-Cov-2. In this video I address Dr. Campbell's misunderstandings and show that the biochemical mechanism he claims is not well supported by data, that his interpretations are based on misundertandings of the literature, and that -- even if ivermectin inhibits the 3CL protease exactly as he describes in biochemical assays -- Ivermectin cannot achieve the corresponding pharmacodynamic effect because the highest possible concentration in the human body is several orders of magnitude too low.
Dr. Campbell's basic misunderstandings of the biochemistry, as well as his evident failure to grasp the differences between a biochemical effect and a pharmacodynamic effect, are consequential in a pandemic because of his enormous influence on this platform.
ERRATUM
There was a verbal slip-up when discussing Table 2 of the fourth paper when I mistakenly said in passing that remdesivir had the best predicted binding to 3CL protease according to Table 2. It does not: ivermectin has the best predcited binding of the compounds to 3CL protease (-7.7 kcal/mol compared to remdesivir's -7.1). I was going to make a joke that "In his defense, Dr. Campbell was accidentally correct about the relative order in this case" but I slipped up when making the larger point. To avoid any confusion, I'd deleted that second or two of video and apologise for the error. Dr. Campbell's misinterpretation of that table remains unchanged.
CHAPTERS
00:00 Introduction
04:23 Who am I to criticise Dr. Campbell?
07:53 Dr. Campbell's central claim
09:10 The drugs
14:21 The target (SARS-Cov-2 3CL main protease)
19:38 Identification of SARS-CoV‑2 3CL Protease Inhibitors by a Quantitative High-Throughput Screening (pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/...)
34:23 Microscopic interactions between ivermectin and key human and viral proteins involved in SARS-CoV-2 infection pubs.rsc.org/en/content/artic...
44:47 Identification of 3-chymotrypsin like protease (3CLPro) inhibitors as potential anti-SARS-CoV-2 agents www.nature.com/articles/s4200...
1:01:30 Ilimaquinone (marine sponge metabolite) as a novel inhibitor of SARS-CoV-2 key target proteins in comparison with suggested COVID-19 drugs: designing, docking and molecular dynamics simulation study pubs.rsc.org/en/content/artic...
1:10:45 Exploring the binding efficacy of ivermectin against the key proteins of SARS-CoV-2 pathogenesis: an in silico approach www.futuremedicine.com/doi/10...
1:13:50 Closing remarks
DISCLAIMER
This video is for educational purposes only.
DECLARATION
I have no conflicts of interest. I do not receive any funding or compensation from anyone making or developing treatments for Covid-19, including vaccines or antivirals. This video will never be monetised.
RESOURCES AND ADDITIONAL REFERENCES
- Dr. Campbell's original video • New Pfizer drug and iv...
- A response to Dr. Campbell by Dr. Susan Oliver • Science mistakes made ...
- Video on high throughput screening • High Throughput Screening
- SARS-Cov-2 assays from the NIH's National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences opendata.ncats.nih.gov/covid1...
- Zhao, Y., Fang, C., Zhang, Q. et al. Crystal structure of SARS-CoV-2 main protease in complex with protease inhibitor PF-07321332. Protein Cell (2021). doi.org/10.1007/s13238-021-00...
- The Pharmacokinetics and Interactions of Ivermectin in Humans-A Mini-review www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...
- Considerations for the discovery and development of 3-chymotrypsin-like cysteine protease inhibitors targeting SARS-CoV-2 infection pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34029...
- Glutamate-gated chloride channels and the mode of action of the avermectin/milbemycin anthelmintics pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16569...
- Ivermectin and its target molecules: shared and unique modulation mechanisms of ion channels and receptors by ivermectin www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...
- Mode of action of ivermectin link.springer.com/chapter/10....
- Ivermectin as a potential COVID-19 treatment from the pharmacokinetic point of view: antiviral levels are not likely attainable with known dosing regimens www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/...
- Pharmacokinetic considerations on the repurposing of ivermectin for treatment of COVID-19 bpspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.c...
- Toxic Effects from Ivermectin Use Associated with Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJM...

[@paulmcclements3176]

I actually sat right through this. Thank you. Is this misinfo also? kzbin.info/www/bejne/e2Kqd2N-bruSZ8k

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

First, thanks for sitting through it! As for your question: yes it is also misinformation. That one is particularly ludicrous. Basically, a private medical group (the Tokyo Medical Association) said go ahead and take ivermectin. But it wasn't approved, other local medical assocations didn't follow suit, nobody knows how much ivermectin was purchased, much less taken, and if you ask people in Japan about this they say "huh"? Covid cases dropped just as steeply or even more so in Osaka, Nagasaki, and other Japanese cities in which the Tokyo Medical Association wasn't active and there was no discussion of ivermectin. What *is* known is that Japan, which had gotten into vaccinations late in the game, rapidly ramped up its vaccination levels. The thought of people rushing out to buy Ivermectin for widespread off-label use in Japan actually makes me giggle. True story: back when I was in biotech, I was on a nearly empty late night business class train car from Fukushima to Tokyo. I told my Japanese colleague I was going to move to an open seat across the aisle so that we could each stretch our legs (we had reserved seats). She was mortified; I might as well have murdered a puppy in front of her eyes.

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

I actually asked her, "Do you think this will be a problem"? She answered, "I don't know. We don't do that"

[@jonathanport7427]

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg yes I have worked in Japan. They play with a very straight bat. They do as they thier pier group does. I am not agin Campbell but enjoy you as foil to him. Keep it up it keeps the perspective right

[@justsayupyours]

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg I gave ivermectin to a family member that had Covid and his symptoms stopped 2 1/2 hours after the first dose and he is overweight and has asthma. Meanwhile due to goofs in the health industry, ivermectin hasn’t been approved to treat Covid. They would rather send a recovering infected person home from the hospital with nothing. Why does the health industry hate people so much?

[@RationalMind]

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg I’ve also heard Japan has had issues recruiting patients to enrol in clinical trials of ivermectin - hardly sounds like the populous are massive fans of it.

[@Bookhermit]

This does nothing to address my points about ivermectin use: #1. Ivermectin, in normal human dosage, is VERY, VERY safe to take and has ZERO known dangerous interactions with other medication. #2. There is VERY strong correlation between population-wide use of ivermectin and low rates of covid infection. Yes, it COULD be an example of correlation not being causation, but why assume so? The actual method of action could easily be something we don't yet fully understand - like the way ivermectin tends to concentrate in lung tissue. This being true, preventing anyone from using ivermectin is silly, and the global demonization of its use is highly suspicious in the eyes of the general public. The only excuse seems to be fear of ivermectin use replacing vaccination, and the current tactics just encourage that exact distrust in establishment practice. i.e. just stop fighting people!!

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

Sure, ivermectin is safe at normal human dosage. At those doses, it cannot act in the way Dr. Campbell claims.

[@steinarnielsen8954]

Not to mention that politicians are perfectly happy to impose lockdowns in spite of no actual evidence that it actually works. Taiwan achieved the lowest fatality rate without lockdowns.

[@Bookhermit]

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg So maybe it works some other way. Again, why the intense demonization??

[@jimjamson9534]

@@Bookhermit Oh maybe it works in a mysterious way... lol. Just quickly: India IVM great effect on covid. Indonesia: similar graphs, deaths, etc, but no IVM. Why?

[@jimjamson9534]

@@twinflame4618 Huh?

[@scotthosking8401]

What an excellent presentation! It is impressive to see you so active in the comments also.

[@HubbHubbs]

Thanks for taking the time to explain this. I look forward to seeing Johns response.

[@barryhamm3414]

It could be a long wait

[@Marco-it2mr]

I look forward seeing John Campbell squirm when his Japanese contacts tell him they never used ivermectin...but he won't show that, because then he would look really silly with his "miracle in Japan" video.

[@Suehuskins]

Yep a long wait. I kept on him in his comments when that ivermectin pre-peer was pulled for fraud to correct his video and crickets. Other also did on his Facebook page as well. Nothing.

[@PeaceIsBetter]

Wow! All the lovely comments here. Did you get all of your family to write in? Dr. Campbell reads and analyzes the studies. That is what I hear. Please read the new Cleveland study showing the more boosters you get the sooner and more often you get Covid by Dr. Rick Kelly.

[@Redwarfa]

You just cannot help stupid

[@clarkeonenil3252]

Who should I believe, the guy with the phd in nursing, or the guy with the phd in molecular biophysics and biochemistry from Yale ? I'll go with the second guy. Several people in the comments below have said that they would like to see a debate between Dr Campbell and Prof Kellogg, but, notwithstanding the fact that it is clear from other comments that Dr Campbell has declined to engage, I would have to ask the question, why ? What on earth would be the point ? One guy has mastery of the subject at hand, he's an expert. The other guy, by his own admission, hasn't and isn't. I ended up here because I have been a fan of Dr Campbell. He doesn't do hysteria, globalist plots etc. In short, he comes across as an intelligent person with an adult outlook. However, there are a couple of things he has done which I do not like, and this ivermectin video is one of them. Even I as a layman had heard before that dosage was an issue with ivermectin. For him not to even touch on that issue is difficult for me to explain away.

[@scalpingsnake]

I always doubted Campbell, but I wanted to be as open as possible to different ideas even ones I don't want to believe. I heard too much against Ivermectin but I know Campbell looked at it so I finally decided to watch one of his videos on it. Something didn't sit right so I ended up here. This basically confirms the issue I have with channels like Campbell's; they come across as smart and impartial, they also have credentials which give them credibility but the topics are a cause for concern (putting Ivermectin in the title seems like a great way to get clicks) but the main problem is the sheer amount of misinformation in the comments. I will admit Campbell is very clearly a vaccination advocate (it's funny when the 'anti covid' crowd start hating on him for being pro vax thinking he would think like they do based off other videos he's done) but then there are so many people in the comments calling the vaccine bad etc... A Campbell never calls them out, I have not seen one video where he dismissed the misinformation in his own comment section nor does he ever leave a comment to disagree with them. That is the problem I have with him, that is why he is so dangerous. Also can I just point out how ironic it is that these people believe ivermectin definitely works but Big Pharma is trying to suppress it so they can make more money yet it's the people spreading the misinformation and lies for money that make them believe that......

[@ezlaptopstand]

Furthermore, although I do applaud your brilliant and in-depth critique of Dr. Campbell’s explanation, your use of the word “conspiracy theory” to describe anything that is supportive of ivermectin reveals your preconceived notions about it, and is an unscientific descriptor.

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

Thank you for your comment, but please don't mischaracterise my words. I didn't use "conspiracy theory" to describe "anything that is supportive of ivermectin". I used it to describe Dr. Campbell's insinuation that positive news about ivermectin is being suppressed by health authorities and companies in the service of profit. That type of insinuation is _by definition_ a conspiracy theory. It's made worse by his having propped up that insinuation on his misunderstanding of the science. www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiracy%20theory

[@jb3thegreatest623]

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg it’s not a conspiracy though as many well known celebs and even Donald trump took something other than a vaccine and recovered within days. Not once did anyone question what they used and how effective it was. Instead those protocols go completely ignored by all pharma and msm.

[@marckindermans8143]

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg Dr. Campbell's insinuation, as you call it, is substantiated by several analysis he has made in previous videos. That has nothing to do with misunderstanding the science and is once again an 'ad hominem' argument.

[@teewhite5285]

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg There is no justification for the use of such an unscientific term in a scientific discussion. It is a highly politicised term which is used to silence critical examination of official narratives.

[@alaind7745]

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg Well, this definition is wrong I'm afraid. Big Pharma companies (to make it short) are well known for trying to maximize their profits by any means even if it causes risks for the health of the people, or cost way too much. In France we had the famous "Mediator" scandal (by Servier lab company) a few years ago. Go and check by yourself. WHO had raised several alerts about the increasing influence and hard lobbying of these companies in the past years.

[@justthefacts4893]

This is what “peer review “ is all about. When people say that an article is peer reviewed it means others like yourself with specific knowledge agree or disagree. I do agree with others that using the term “misinformation“ implies intent to deceive, which we don’t know. Perhaps calling it an “error” or “incorrect” would achieve the desired goal without the pejorative connotation.

[@inasible]

Hopefully your comment get the necessary attention

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

Misinformation does not imply intent. Disinformation implies intent.

[@justthefacts4893]

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg I stand corrected. You appear to have a much greater depth of knowledge in this specific mode of action than Mr. Campbell. I think the broader question still remains regarding the apparent empirical benefits of treating Covid early with Ivermectin as described by numerous reputable physicians. Some people confuse a lack of scientific explanation with a lack of effectiveness. I hope science will evolve to shed more light on this paradox.

[@trevorcrook5753]

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg So the Media are spreading disinformation ?

[@trevorcrook5753]

Peer reviewed and published in a journal

[@thomzydervelt5152]

Btw my ivermectin cost was less than $5 . There’s no way I’m willing to pay Pfizer $3000 for a similiar acting drug .

[@richardferguson8217]

Hello Dr. T-K, I had previously read information on the pharmacokinetics of Ivermectin with respect to COVID, and understood in a foggy sort of way some of its limitations as a potential treatment. But your analysis was crystal clear. Thank you for you work on this presentation. I appreciate your motivation for the doing this and your collegial approach in the video. Richard F.

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

Thank you, that is very nice to hear

[@srolesen]

Crystal clear and fundamentally flawed, look up other in silico models comparing lipophilic and hydrophilic drugs and match those with actual dose. It is as sensible as comparing war damage by assessing the tons of TNT equivalent dropped without assessing the accuracy (or inaccuracy) of the delivery system.

[@pandorachild]

Thank you for taking the time to make this.

[@ChitwoodMitwood]

I tend to get as much info and understanding from as many sources as I can, and while Dr Campbell has been useful in many ways, for reasonings of my own I have had my eyebrows raised on many other conclusions he has made. This one seemed to me not to square up, not from my lack of knowledge, but from common sense. I do value his work. And yours, Thanks.

[@zita-lein]

As someone who subscribes and watches Dr. Campbell every day, I greatly appreciate this in depth analysis. I am a complete layman in things scientific, so finding reliable sources who can communicate at my level is priceless. Thank you SO MUCH! Subscribed!

[@stevenp2309]

Dr Campbell is definitely dog whistling to the to Anti Vax crowd more and more

[@karlhoward2737]

What I do subscribe to both here and with Dr Campbell, is over the past almost two years, I have become educated, aware and to some degree understand an area that to be honest not in my wildest dreams ever would think I’d stop, watch, absorb and recall…..either way…it’s very good to have debate, argument and fact finding….thank you for your time…..and for education many of us plebiscite..

[@markgivens3225]

As a continuing follower of Dr Campbell, I appreciate your ethical, rational, and detailed explanation. Hopefully we can all ‘seek truth’, ‘spread truth’, question scientifically and all of the best tools forward to maximize benefit and minimize risk for the people of the world. Well done.

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

Thank you!

[@usmc72409]

Well said

[@sharkymoon422]

Truth?! Let’s explain why no one as isolated or purified cold 19🤣🤣😂🤣😂..

[@80s_Boombox_Collector]

@@sharkymoon422 Do you work in this field? If not, you have no business commenting about it or trying to convince people that covid is a myth

[@sharkymoon422]

@@80s_Boombox_Collector Do you collect nuts 🥜? If not then you have no reason to act like ya nuts!

[@justthefacts4893]

Sir, regardless of the replies for and against your views, I have to commend your diligence in answering the many comments and questions as much as you have. I have never seen such a thorough and prolific set of responses! My hat is off to you sir!

[@lindaanderson3698]

Thank you. These are the discussions that should be going on and allowed on line and not shut down.

[@purplenights1]

Present your own case without criticizing other professionals. If you have to do that, then you have no case to present.

[@Sceince01]

@@purplenights1 please don’t call Campbelm a professional . He is a disgrace to medical profession . He has full confidence in the dumbness of his audiences when it comes to COVID. Obviously his confidence is well placed .

[@davidwhite732]

This video seems to miss the point. The main takeaway I got from Dr Campbell's videos was that he feels there is enough evidence to justify a proper study of the effectiveness of the drugs. He makes it very clear that he is not urging their use without such evidence. Whether or not his analysis of the existing evidence is correct is interesting but only matters if the existing evidence can be clearly shown to demonstrate that the drugs cannot work. The current evidence may be insufficient to justify a drug company investing in the drugs but what matters here is public perception. A definitive test would settle matters for good except, of course, for a minority who will never be convinced.

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

In the video to which I'm responding, Campbell wrongly argues that Ivermectin and the new Pfizer drug work the same way, and insinuates that the Pfizer drug is just "Pfizermectin". This type of insinuation is dangerous and misleading.

[@davidwhite732]

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg Have you contacted Dr Campbell about this? I am hopeful that he would correct his analysis given the opportunity.

[@Q_thulu]

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg , Ive watched alot of his videos and that was never my takeaway. He seems to advocate for investigations of all methods of treatment. I appreciate your investigation and explanation. But could do without finger pointing and accusations. Runs a bit unprofessional.

[@joshuabrooks91]

The main takeaway is that he mischaracterized the evidence he pointed to, didn't address major issues such as the dosages that would be needed to have any benefit (which would be harmful or never get the necessary uptake), didn't discuss the fact that the "in vivo" evidence is lacking, etc. The main take away is that Dr. Campbell was clearly in over his head. Why didn't he even know that he didn't understand the metrics he was using to describe the pharmacokinetic mechanisms he was attributing to ivermectin? If he didn't understand that fundamental aspect, why was he giving his advice about that mechanism to his 1 million+ viewers?

[@richardneedleman6709]

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg If I am not a Pfizer stockholder, how is this dangerous? Perhaps it is more dangerous to withold clinical trial data for more than 50 years?

[@luis6674]

Thank you for talking all the time to make this detailed video and for making it honestly and respectfully. And sorry for the slightly off topic here, but what you said at 1:01:20 regarding the possibility of IVM acting as a 3CL protease inhibitor would need a total reformulation, like an inhaler, is just so important when whenever I hear anything related to this I must comment. Ok, so the important part is that this virus has a long period of incubation (5-6 days usually, though often over a week or 10 days), and this incubation period happens in the upper respiratory tract. And the upper respiratory tract is directly accessible. Just as you noticed in that short comment: if Ivermectin would be inhaled (or sprayed in the nose or throat) it would far exceed those concentration levels on the surface, where the virus is actively replicating. Obviously, we don't need IVM for that. Nor do we need to give a pill that would reach plasma concentrations high enough to inhibit replication. This new pill by Pfizer works if you treat early. But then again, if you treat early almost anything works. To "kill" a virus is very easy as long as it's accessible. There are so many ways to prevent and early treat this infection (with scientific evidence in case it was even needed - sometimes the rationale is clear enough by itself - with studies in vitro, in vivo, clinical trials, etc...) that I'm still amazed why everyone ignores it.

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

In addition to vaccines, I think a wide range of treatment options will be needed. I'm excited about both the Pfizer and Merck compounds, and about the fluvoxamine results. I expect we'll see more in the next year.

[@luis6674]

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg But my point is: what is the rationale for taking a pill that will reach high enough plasma levels to reach the upper respiratory tract and inhibit viral replication when you can directly access the upper respiratory tract and inhibit viral replication more effectively with simple and innocuous substances? The Pfizer pill works because you give it at a stage when the virus has still not wrecked havoc in all your system. You kill it before, while it's still in the upper respiratory tract actively replicating. But a nose spray for common colds with Iota-Carrageenan is more effective at that. Mouthwash/gargle agent too (for the mouth and throat). Even an hypertonic saline solution inhibits the virus. (I didn't realize that my name here is different from the one at Twitter, where I replied too so I could post links. There you can check bibliography).

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

@@luis6674 Oh I apologise, I misunderstood your point. I would have to look at the literature in more detail, but I don't think that an agent given by an inhaler would change that, for several reasons. First, I don't believe the infection is limited to just those inhaler-accessible cells except perhaps in the very early stages. At some point a medication would need to get into the bloodstream. But a second reason is that taking an inhaled agent is only as effective as a person's ability to inhale. As people become symptomatic, their breathing worsens, and then medication needs to be given orally or intravenously. Just as an additional point, you write "The Pfizer pill works because you give it at a stage when the virus has still not wrecked havoc in all your system". I don't think we know that yet. The first phase 3 clinical trials were done on such patients, but I'm sure they will move to run trials in patients with more severe disease now that they know how efficacious it is.

[@luis6674]

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg Thanks for the reply. Yes, please do look at the literature if you have the time and interest. It will hopefully solve any doubts you may have. I'm really only referring to early treatment (and even prophylactic use), since once the virus enters the bloodstream (varies, but usually a week or more) and starts messing up with all your system there's no magic pill. It will depend on each patient and the specific reactions he's having to find the right treatment for him. At that point antivirals are not that useful (not saying they have zero value, but it's limited), since you have to deal with blood clotting, inflammation, etc... which is what causes deaths. The only really effective treatment is early treatment (neglected so far, unfortunately). After that you just do what you can and hope for the best.

[@williamparry4538]

Hold up, the way you imagine this the virus just stays suspended in the space in the lungs, and so aerosolised protease inhibitors are essential. But the virus takes hold in the nasal, mucosal, and respiratory tract during this time, which would mean oral protease inhibitors or other anti-viral acting agents would somewhat serve these areas. Not to be relied on its own, but you don’t need to aerosolise an oral drug for it to have an effect in the target area you’ve mentioned.

[@Marco-it2mr]

It appears John Campbell was a bit disappointed when his recent Indian guest did not tout the great benefits of ivermectin - heck, even suggesting it didn't do anything.

[@shawndakayelizando6764]

Thank you for the information. I appreciate you taking the time to help us who are not familiar with this field. I found your video to be respectful and truthful.

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

Thank you

[@philwaters9751]

Detailed but not to the point of opacity. Clear, episodic, step by step approach, and above all that, polite. Thank you sir. .. xxx :-)

[@panamabob100]

F

[@annamarsch6091]

We are all searching for the truth and for solutions. Thank you.

[@javadoggy39]

Thank you. I need to watch this a couple times to grasp it. Really appreciate you sharing your expertise in an area where most of us are out of our depth.

[@javadoggy39]

@@paulbarclay4114 Care to give us a link to the study? Or do you just want us to take your word for it?

[@javadoggy39]

@@paulbarclay4114 thanks but trialsite news - where you got that interpretation of the study is a conspiracy/pseudoscience website

[@DerrickWeil]

Nice for you to make a response , I hope you reached out to him for him to talk about this and help correct this before making a video.

[@jamesdellaneve9005]

I heard Dr Campbells theme from other sources as well. I am glad for your detailed explanation. I have been impressed by the case studies of Ivermectin but have been waiting for more powerful experiments. Then this story came up.

[@enkido5838]

One if the main arguments made against ivermectim (even from Merch) was that it was not (proven) safe. That is refuted in the opening moments of this video.

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

At FDA-approved doses, yes. In use and proposed use for treating Covid, not so much. See the last reference in the details of this video.

[@enkido5838]

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg I agree. But those who seem ideologically opposed to IVM never mention that. Instead all the news media talks about are Americans using horse medicine. There is no defence for such idiocracy or unprofessionalism The vast majority of ivermevtin use around the world, including for covid, is in normal human dosages. You are saying that science does not understand a mechanism by which invermectin could work at those dosages. Ok. Science does not know everything, that is why it exists. There is a substantial ammount of clinical experience and trials (of varying standards) which show at least correlations in favor of using IVM for covid. There are no reported contra- indications. Given the extrordinary benefit to mankind if it was even modetately effective that is worth a proper trial. Science can operates in more than one mode. Observational evidence followed by understanding the mechanism. AND/OR Proposing a theoretical mechanism then proving it by observation. You seem to be insisting on the latter, whilst the former is the more natural.

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

@enki Do I've said in the past that I think the warnings about its veterinary use are foolish and bound to backfire, as they have. The issue is not that humans are not horses. The issue is that SARS-Cov-2 is not a parasite. I'm going to quote a few lines of yours: You write "There is a substantial ammount of clinical experience and trials (of varying standards) which show at least correlations in favor of using IVM for covid." The higher the standards, the lower the association. The best trials have not shown a benefit of using IVM for Covid. The trials showing the greatest benefit have been fundamentally flawed or fraudulent. You might ask yourself this question: why is pro-ivermectin clinical research plagued with fraud? It may well be because clinician-scientists are trying to make a name for themselves in the midst of a pandemic by breaking news of a massive benefit from use of ivermectin. You write: "Given the extrordinary benefit to mankind if it was even modetately effective that is worth a proper trial." I agree. That's what the TOGETHER trial was, and what the PRINCIPLE trial is, and what the Lopez-Medina trial was. That's what the Cochrane meta-analysis is designed to determine. As soon as the TOGETHER trial's ivermectin arm was stopped, ivermectin advocates started complaining about the trial design. When the Lopex-Medina trial was published, FLCCC didn't accept the results. Ivermectin advocates are _pre-emptively_ criticising the PRINCIPLE trial design in case it comes back negative. When Cochrane's meta-analysis showed no support for use of IVM _outside of_ well-designed clinical trials, the Cochrane analysis was criticized as being flawed and conflicted by ivermectin advocates. The great irony of the Ivermectin-for-Covid story is that _ivermectin advocates are the ones standing in the way of, or refusing to accept the results of, proper clinical trials._ You write "You are saying that science does not understand a mechanism by which invermectin could work at those dosages" No. I'm saying that the mechanism Dr. Campbell's claims in his analysis is far-fetched and unsupportable by the data in vivo, and that the only reason he seems to be proposing is to make a spurious comparison to stand up a mythical mechanism for ivermectin next to a demonstrated mechanism for the Pfizer compound. You tell me: what is his motivation for this comparison? It's not to get clinical trials for Ivermectin.

[@enkido5838]

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg I have refrained from ascribing motives to those who seem to be opposed to IVM but your suggestion that well respected professionals would risk their reputation on some mythical glory obtained by supporting a wild goose chase is frankly bizarre. The FDA will eventually approve treatments based on assessments of trials which meet specific criteria. Are you telling me that that has been done and that claims of efficacy for IVM were disproven? I have only seen statements that they did not have evidence to support its use. ( because no one had funded such studies or for them to assess them). Beyond that claims and counter claims about this trial or that trial and fraud and whistleblower reports about big pharma trail malpractice make the situation inconprehensible. Your ask me to tell you what Dr C's motives are. You seem to have more insight on that than me since you assert it is not to get a proper trial. Since that is the only request I have heard him make with regard to this and since I agree. I believe that is the motive. For me at least that wish is motivated by my own faith in the value of openmindedness in science. It seems obvious to me that since India and most of the underdeveloped world have not fallen into an absolute abyss there must be sonething more at play than we understand. Ideas such a genetic variations in Africa or Japan, prevalance of malaria, parastites (and their treatmentst) diet........ An openminded exploration of these could lead to radically different solutions. None of that undermines the rest of the scientific effort so I don't understand the antagonism.

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

@@enkido5838 I've not ascribed any motivations to Dr. Campbell and am not interested in doing so. I asked you to speculate as a thought exercise. I have no idea. But his video was certainly not about "more trials are needed for ivermectin" Also, I did not mean any antagonism in my reply at all; I'm just trying to be direct and kind of bouncing forth between a lot of responses. OK, to the matters at hand. Like other humans, any scientist can be lured by fame or money. Many ivermectin-for-covid advocates have argued that opposition to ivermectin use for Covid is motivated by greed, that somehow scientists who think that evidence does not support use of ivermectin in treating Covid are in some sort of cabal with Pfizer or "big pharma", which is of course a bunch of companies competing with each other. Incidentally that rationale is (by definition) a conspiracy theory. I don't know why there is so much fraud in Ivermectin research, but I think it's not something that should be ignored. I don't think it's conspiratorial, but but it's there: bad actors have repeatedly published fraudulent or impossible studies with positive results for ivermectin. A plausible explanation (and one that doesn't require any conspiracy at all) is that people really believed the in vitro results would pan out in the clinic, and wanted to be the first or best to demonstrate that in the clinic. This is totally understandable (although of course inexcusable). A trial in Malaysia overlapped with "World Ivermectin Day", which made news in Malaysia. But the trial ended up giving negative results for Ivermectin, so FLCCC has dismissed it as biased. Concomitant parasitic infections (especially in underdeveloped nations) are a real possibility, and given widespread use of dexamethasone, which can potentiate parasitic infections, that could be a role for ivermectin. But the trial would need to control for steroid use. Another, much more grim but I think very real possibility, is that deaths in less developed nations have been dramatically under-reported, so we actually don't have a good estimate of, say, the death toll in Uttar Pradesh or most places in Africa based on the official numbers. There was a solid epidemiological paper that looked at this a couple of months ago. India may have had 10x the reported number of Covid deaths so far.

[@baylissfxbees2056]

I see ivermectin used in patients everyday and - all the critical voices and me open to this valuable disscussion - it works. People using the human preparation in recommended doses describe what it feels like, when the effect sets in and when levels obviously seem to decrease after 24h hours. I am grateful for you coming forward with your knowledge and taking part in serious discussion as well as other serious comments within this thread. Medicine has always made progress because of different voices presenting their point of view. I want to understand the why, may the definite understanding come earlier or later. There was a great statement of Prof. Biesalszki about vitamins on a congress: We measure blood, we look what we find there.. but what is finally taking place within the cell, what and how it is available there.. not even he can tell often. Maybe this is here important as well as one comment here is stating as well. But thank you for your work on this!! 🙏🏻

[@herculeholmes504]

That to me is *the* one and only critical question: Does it work? I know almost nothing about medicine and a great deal less than that about biochemistry, but if Ivermectin works, it works, and I don't care if the _how_ is a mystery. And if it doesn't work, if it's all just coincidence and placebo, then stop using it I guess. I've only watched 10 minutes of the video as most of it is technical and completely beyond me, but I'll make sure to keep it bookmarked. I wonder why people are downvoting it? I wouldn't know, but it sure sounds like very high quality information.

[@aj-zc7ox]

Yep it 100% worked , did for me

[@mantizshrimp]

Thx so much for this. I understand Dr Campbell might get some stuff wrong and some stuff also goes over my head tbh.. Correlation is not causation - that's what I go by and therefore I look at what I understand well and look for those points. I always say ivermectin helps at least a bit, but is ofc not a substitute for a vaccine. But should rather be viewed as additional therapy or medicine with a low risk factor

[@C3lloman]

Have you heard about a thing called the placebo effect? Subjective assessments from patients without a control group are meaningless. Give them a sugar pill and you'll get quite a few positive reports of that as well.

[@rhinohog75]

@@C3lloman You haven't had covid. When you do, that will be an excellent opportunity for you to try your sugar pills.

[@Starfish2145]

Your explanation below of why ivermectin isn’t efficacious against SARSCoV2 is excellent. You are not demonizing it. Thank you.

[@darrylbaker5271]

This is what we all want, polite dialog and discussion. Unfortunately, debate is discouraged on Social Media and cable news and we are told to blindly follow the science, but Covid still rages. By shutting down discussion and being told to take more and more vaccines people have lost faith in the science.

[@usmc72409]

Couldn’t agree more.

[@bannerlad01]

The use of the term misinformation in this video is aimed at shutting down debate

[@Leo-fw1xr]

@@bannerlad01 If I’ve ever seen polite, well-argued debate, this is it. Did you even watch the video? The author is not attacking John for spreading misinformation - merely correcting him on a topic he is far more knowledgeable about. Broaden your horizons a little, try to not take any new information regardless of presentation as an attack - it definitely wasn’t one.

[@trustnoone9921]

@@Leo-fw1xr no need to watch the video. The use of the word Misinformation in the video title is intentional and defamatory in this current context of government and media alignment to demonise anyone challenges their narrative

[@tomdivittis2688]

@@trustnoone9921 I agree. He does even say explicitly that John was spreading misinformation. He did say it was due to misunderstanding the paper, but that doesn’t change the framing. After I finish this video, I’m going to see if there are any videos on this channel taking the same effort to discuss some of the obvious nonsense coming out of the mouths of people like Tony Fauci and Francis Collins. If they were doing their jobs, maybe Dr. Campbell wouldn’t even be known so well. “Shut up and take the shot” does not qualify as intelligent conversation and is not how you talk to adults that you want to take you seriously. Most of us learn this in primary school.

[@jonnnybfly]

This is a great analysis. I'd like to see you and Dr. John Campbell have a 3-way discussion with Dr. Mobeen Syed on his KZbin channel. Any chance that you try to make that happen? Thanks.

[@tarantulady8565]

I’d love to see this happen.

[@piked261]

Off course he wouldn't

[@PhysiKarlz]

Look through Campbell's videos. He only talks to people who would confirm his ideas. He cherrypicks blatantly his sources and data.

[@piked261]

@@PhysiKarlz such nonsense you're blind to the fact that he talks to many people from all sides of the argument.. because you are the one who is blinkered

[@PhysiKarlz]

@@piked261 huhwhat....? Sensitive subject or what? How do you come upon that idea about me? You don't know me at all. I've gone through Campbell's video. And bloody hell, I thought YOU meant as well that of course Campbell wouldn't partake in such an interview.

[@BezoomnyBratchny]

In my 12 or so years on KZbin, this is up there as one of, if not the, most meticulous and intellectually stimulating debunking videos I've ever seen. Thank you for all the time and effort that clearly went into making it. It was an absolute pleasure to watch. Fantastic work.

[@tommaz6688]

I missed the slide that said, I tried to contact Dr Campbell directly to discuss this before investing a ton of time into this long drawn-out video.

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

Do you think he should have contacted experts before making a video erroneously asserting a mechanism for ivermectin and posting it to his 1.3M followers? FWIW, I left an extended comment on his video. But he has 1.3M followers, and his video had 11K comments by the time I posted. So I expect it wasn't even seen by him.

[@angelanorth2924]

Seeing that you have the same aims, it would surely be pertinent to contact Dr. Campbell with a view to collaborate with him.

[@criticalthinking2062]

@@angelanorth2924 Nurse Campbell is a big pharma schill and has changed his tune since getting a cease and desist order for promoting genocide.

[@moveuself]

@@criticalthinking2062 People can't take you seriously when you make comments like that

[@criticalthinking2062]

@@moveuself You'll wake up one day pal.

[@TomHimanen]

Gotta respect the fact that he has the balls to keep this video still published. 😆

[@davidk7262]

The truth will always be the truth regardless of if you like it or not.

[@LL-dk5lb]

Prof Kellogg, I want to thank you for being a great teacher. You have no idea how you've inspired me with this video. I'm currently in my final 6 months of a Public Health Master's dissertation, with the goal to pursue a PhD. The public's reaction to academics and scientists since the pandemic has really discouraged me. I appreciate your professional attitude in responding to challenging comments and having to defend your character. I don't think I'll ever have the patience to educate concepts to people that are beyond a pair of scissors and tape. I've taken the approach of not trying to explain colors to blind people just to avoid the toxic discussions. Thank you for continuing to teach facts, your efforts are appreciated by many of us.

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

Wow, thank you. This really touched me.

[@josephjones5070]

Kellogg That famous Kellogg was a eugeniscist. You wouldn't be related, would you? Lol!

[@MrParky018]

Remember.....Theory is theory and it is not reality!! Statistics show reality and IF something works it would 100%...The self righteous cyclic academic arguement is statically rarely 100%! The only time it is is when all academics come together and gaslight we are right!!

[@Diego-fb5fq]

Let's hope that you two together can move us forward in terms of science over propaganda -- what an education these two years have been! As non-medical professionals trying to see into the depths of virology. Please help us clear the decks for any worse virus that may come along in a decade or so.

[@GetH0NEY]

Campbell is clearly pushing misinformation for the sake of views.

[@sharkymoon422]

Virus?! I don’t see many isolated viruses

[@SpotterVideo]

COVID-19 “Science” Questions ? How did computer geek Bill Gates become the world health czar, who decided every person on the planet must be “vaccinated” and be given a unique identification number? Did Dr. Anthony Fauci write an article printed in the Washington Post during 2011 which advocated for “Gain-of-Function” research in viruses? Did Fauci say it was a risk worth taking? Did Dr. Ralph Baric at UNC Chapel Hill perform “Gain-of-Function” research on Corona viruses? Why did N.C. Governor Roy Cooper tell pharmacists not to fill prescriptions for Hydroxychloroquine, even though it was prescribed by medical doctors in that state? Did this order lead to any deaths? If there was no “vaccine” for the 1918 Spanish Influenza virus, how did that pandemic end? Did a recent Israeli study conclude natural immunity produced by recovery from a COVID-19 infection is thirteen times better than that produced by the shots now being promoted in the U.S. ? Are less than 1% of the “vaccine” injuries being recorded by the VAERS system? Are many of those with injuries being ignored? If Dr. Anthony Fauci is the official source of “Science” which is not to be questioned, why did he change his story about the need to wear masks? How much of the Bill of Rights found in the U.S. Constitution has been ignored during the last two years? The answers to many of these questions are found in Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s new book “The Real Anthony Fauci, [Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Heath] =================================== Proof the CDC lied about Hydroxychloroquine: Based on the following article from the CDC's own website, the CDC knew Chloroquine was an effective anti-viral against COVID viruses during 2005. Hydroxychloroquine has almost the same properties as its cousin Chloroquine. Why did the CDC mount a smear campaign against HCQ during the COVID-19 pandemic? If a safe treatment alternative was available, the Emergency Use Authorization of the experimental gene therapies would not have been allowed under current law in the United States. Therefore, the CDC had to discredit all known drugs which could inhibit COVID-19. How many thousands of people would be alive today if they had been treated with HCQ or Chloroquine within the first week of COVID-19 infection? Page 24 of Robert Kennedy's new book "The Real Anthony Fauci" reveals an organized group of buyers in Zambia emptying drugstores of HCQ and then burning the medication in bonfires outside the towns. Why was this done? Why did North Carolina's governor Roy Cooper order pharmacies not to fill prescriptions for Hydroxychloroquine? If you do not think there is an effective anti-viral medication for COVID-19, read the article in the link below from 2005. Then ask yourself… Why was this drug ignored? Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread (cdc.gov) stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/3620?fbclid=IwAR2KybtnansjXybP0tqfopnA1IyeWdiTMQwvA_dVPSSavXPhh_K8KcCQy1o Several of the doctors involved in this study worked for the CDC. See the concentrations and conclusion of page 9. The concentrations used were the same as those currently used to treat Malaria. Were there African nations which had lower COVID-19 death rates because they were taking Hydroxychloroquine to prevent malaria? Has a similar war been waged on Ivermectin, which was used in some parts of India to greatly reduce COVID-19 deaths? Why were the discoverers of this drug awarded the Nobel Prize during 2015?

[@MarcosElMalo2]

@@GetH0NEY if you wish to stick to facts, we don’t know why he is doing what he is doing. You’re jumping to a conclusion based on the fact established here that Campbell is in error. Please avoid “connecting dots” that aren’t in evidence-you’ll turn yourself into a conspiracy nut.

[@stevenp2309]

@@MarcosElMalo2 he is clearly dog whistling to the anti Vax crowd and those who are conspiratorial thinkers

[@barryhamm3414]

Thank you for the time and effort put into making this video, I understood very little of the technical detail but I am comforted knowing that people such as yourself have the necessary expertise.

[@StonedustandStardust]

A fan of Dr Campbell, but I know no one is infallible. Appreciate and want the facts. Looking forward to Dr Campbell's response. Hopefully he will invite you to appear with him to discuss this. Thank you.

[@lustgarten]

It was great to find this and thinks it is an important topic for people seeking accurate covid info. However, it could have reached a much larger audienc with more salience if it had been targeted for an audience that does not have the patience or background to digest this. I hope you see this and would take it under consideration and think about a short 10 minute version that would include your most important points. thanks again.

[@reasontolive6287]

Yes! And as eye catching and easy to watch and understand as possible, so it gets more likes and attracts more attention!

[@EricSmith9000]

Thanks for linking everything, including the original video.

[@danbrooks497]

Watched the whole thing! Learned something! Thank you 🙏🏻

[@philjones8693]

Very informative. I'd be extremely reluctant to attempt to interpret research papers that were outside my area of expertise. I'm wondering if JC will put out a "hands up, I got a few things wrong here" video.

[@williamverhoef4349]

Dr. John Campbell has already been corrected about his misinterpretation of an ivermectin meta-analysis by another researcher who he used to have on as a guest reporter. His response was to replace her. After promoting ivermectin in more than 20 videos over more than 6 months, I doubt that he is going to retract. Past history suggests that he will either ignore the corrections by Greg Tucker-Kellogg as he did that other researcher or dismiss it like he did the BBC report on the fatally flawed and fraudulent ivermectin studies that he has promoted.

[@MichaelLeightonsKarlyPilkboys]

@@williamverhoef4349 I've always got a bit of a grifter vibe from John Campbell. Would you mind telling me the name of the guest reporter he replaced?

[@williamverhoef4349]

@@MichaelLeightonsKarlyPilkboys Yes, the lowest estimate of his income from KZbin is $50,000 per month (but that was before his recent accelerated output of about ten videos per week). The highest estimate is about $2,000,000 per year. He replaced researcher, Susan Oliver - who used to comment on the situation in Australia - after she sent him an email explaining the errors in his assessment of a meta-analysis of Ivermectin.

[@MichaelLeightonsKarlyPilkboys]

@@williamverhoef4349 Thanks so much for the information William!

[@MrParky018]

@@williamverhoef4349 when are you lot going to come out with the errors made on MRNA drugs?

[@ElGordo1959]

Excellent! Thank you for taking the time and the professional manner in which you addressed this. We need more qualified people like you to step forward to combat misinformation. Also anyone with a guitar and a mandolin must be trustworthy! ;)

[@MsLickalot70]

Troll

[@80s_Boombox_Collector]

@@MsLickalot70 And you're not?

[@MsLickalot70]

@@80s_Boombox_Collector my remark looked like something you get payed for to you?

[@80s_Boombox_Collector]

@@MsLickalot70 Did the original comment look like that? Not to me. Unless of course you disagree with the video and want to bash anyone who praises it.

[@eduardodiaz5459]

I've never seen the Dr. Campbell post a video without a scientific or official paper to back what he says, I indulge that perhaps there are errosrs in the information that he presents (that are not his mistake), but to say that he spreads "missinformation" is a very grave accusation.

[@pedtrog6443]

The problem that has been identified here, is that Campbell doesn't appear to have the necessary pharmacological background to always properly interpret those papers

[@eduardodiaz5459]

@@pedtrog6443 Mr. Campbell startad (just like me) being a believer in the vaccines. He presented all the official statisticas and relevant data that was droped every other day... But in time he noticed that the official data began to show discrepancies, and stoped to make sense. When he showed that to his followers, suddenly he bacame a "bad actor" who was not capable to inform to the general public about the disease, a conspiranoic, etc.

[@Redwarfa]

​@@eduardodiaz5459unfortunately he is not a statistician either That's is why people train at uni for years to become so.

[@ohngesicht2042]

Dear Professor Greg, Thank you for your Video! I especially liked your explanation using the graph with the drug target to show that the max. achievable concentration of Ivermectin is not enough for protease inhibition. I think it would be beneficial to make another shorter video in which this is explained, because some people who come across this video might not watch this far or overlook it because it's part of such an informative but long video

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

Thanks, i might make a TL;DR version. I've been buried in end-of-semester marking.

[@diaasalman2298]

Plz, do ASAP

[@ohngesicht2042]

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg That would be great! Maybe include the information that Ivermectin is transported in the blood by Plasma too, as this was information I had to Google. Thank you for video! It helped me a lot to understand Ivermectin more and hopefully help me to explain it to my family (many of whom would prefer ivermectin over getting vaccinated)

[@surnbe]

@@ohngesicht2042 You should be careful of the " max. achievable concentration of Ivermectin is not enough for protease inhibition" because #1 IVM is very safe up to at least 4 mg/kg and only is known to be dangerous around 51.5mg/kg. The max dosage tested is around .6 mg/kg .. however there is this... "The safety and pharmacokinetic properties of ivermectin were further assessed in a multiple-dose clinical pharmacokinetic study involving healthy volunteers. Subjects received oral doses of 30 to 120 mg (333 to 2000 mcg/kg) ivermectin in a fasted state or 30 mg (333 to 600 mcg/kg) ivermectin following a standard high-fat (48.6 g of fat) meal. Administration of 30 mg ivermectin following a high-fat meal resulted in an approximate 2.5-fold increase in bioavailability relative to administration of 30 mg ivermectin in the fasted state." Merck Simply taking Ivermectin with food significantly increases the bioavailability by 2.5 fold. This is an important consideration.

[@jajafiggdi]

@@surnbe this study which shows safety in huge doses isn't talked about by mostly anyone. Ain't it funny

[@loriklingbeil2215]

This has been so helpful! Can't thank you enough for taking the time to put together this detailed critique. It's worth taking the time to listen to the whole thing and I hope everyone does.

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

Thanks for watching

[@lnedelcu66]

Hi Doc, what can you say about anti-covid vaccin , it works or not? How many doses/year do you think we must do it?

[@ljacobs357]

I find Dr. Campbell informative and largely impartial. He attempts to use current data to reach conclusions but is not dogmatic about his findings. I don't find him as a person intentional spreading misinformation.

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

I've been getting a lot of comments along these lines. But I don't see any way to view his "alternative facts" video as having been made in good faith

[@carnagefpv8256]

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg that's the dogma part, you know, the one where you vehemently deny any and every single thing that may point to a solution that is NOT A PFIZER vaccine. That part where you attack anybody even looking for other options? Sorry people don't believe the shilling anymore🤷🏻‍♂️

[@MichaelDavidFinn]

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg ah, you are giving yourself away! "Good faith"? Let's see who's bankrolling your points of view. You're not doing this out of moral superiority. By far!

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

@mike finn, don't underestimate my sense of moral superiority. Nobody is bankrolling my point of view.

[@leehughart3160]

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg Really?

[@midasracer]

I will watch this when I have the time. In the mean time many countries are distributing Ivermectin and since my country won't I have bought Ivermectin myself. I read many reports from people it helps, it's cheap, side effects are known so why not?

[@tonykelpie]

Depends on whether Ivermectin is being used instead of interventions that are known to work, or as well as interventions that are known to work. Dr Campbell has overestimated the value of meta-analysis, which if the trials analysed are biased can only produce doubtful results

[@hawaiianrobot]

which countries are distributing ivermectin for covid?

[@steinarnielsen8954]

​@@tonykelpie Lockdowns have not been proven to work.

[@tonykelpie]

@@steinarnielsen8954 I made no statement about lockdowns. But - what was responsible for the big fall in UK cases between April and July 2020?

[@steinarnielsen8954]

@@tonykelpie You need large scale ranomized controlled trials to determine that.

[@BromanP47]

Amazing work! Thank you for such a detailed and thorough analysis. I saw the video you are rebutting and, while I consider myself fairly knowledgeable to mitigate such misinformation, I still had many questions about Dr. Campbell's videos that you addressed here. Please continue this work as best as you can because the frequency of misinformation and propaganda surrounding these topics is rampant and can be extremely dangerous. We need people like you with the knowledge, and the ability to share that knowledge effectively to combat these dangers!

[@MichaelDavidFinn]

Misinformation? Propaganda? Is that all you understood? Rather sad. The only reason I'm replying is that I worked for Novartis pharmaceuticals. When there is significant financial gain to be made nothing will stop it from happening. Not Government, not legislation, not ethics. If there's no patent, one can't sell high. Ivermectin is worthless. Research how much Pfizer has made and how insider trading has taken place by both political parties in the US. I should know. I've been involved in lesser deals with government officials for common drugs.

[@BromanP47]

@@MichaelDavidFinn My guy, IVM doesn't work against COVID. Sure, I'm not gonna sit here and defend pharmaceuticals as if they aren't incredibly corrupt. However, when it comes to IVM and COVID, the people who are spreading misinformation are those who are ignoring the evidence and continuing to spout pro-IVM nonsense. This video alone demonstrates with multiple points of evidence how ineffective and unfeasible IVM is against COVID, and there are countless other sources you can refer to that show the same thing. IVM is an incredible drug when used for its intended treatment, but against COVID it is ineffective.

[@confuzsays7196]

Thanks for this research, you are a champion.

[@BK-cs4gv]

I have seen a lot of Dr Campbell's videos in my recommendations recently and they seem to have a lot of traction. Will look forward to watching this when I get the chance. I have had long running discussions through COVID with several friends who lap up the kind of stuff people like Dr Campbell produce so good to know the argument and counter evidence I do my best to stay informed but there is nothing like and expert breaking it down. Thank you.

[@MrParky018]

Sorry, but Campbell uses " reality" real world statistics. Lab based science is very clever but is never 100% and only rarely comes up with solutions!!

[@Backtothescience]

Thank you for the thorough forensic analysis. Your back to basics approach demonstrated the benefits of you having experience in teaching.

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

Thank you!

[@bordersw1239]

Good to see you on here - I was going to link him to your channel!

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

@@bordersw1239 Dr. Oliver is terrific!

[@waynehiebert3801]

@@bordersw1239 does dr. oliver have a you tube channel~? link pls..

[@Backtothescience]

@@waynehiebert3801 yes I do. It is the name that I am commenting from.

[@ImpressionsFromEverywhere]

I greatly appreciate your effort with this video! Thank you very much! I consider it a huge privilege being able to listen to experts in their fields clear up misunderstandings on such important topics. So much is at stake here. Kudos for putting up with all the demonstrated irrationality (anecdotal "evidence", etc) in the comments as well. Best regards to SG from a NUS alumnus in Europe.

[@kimwiser445]

No one is going to be right all the time and that’s why we need discussions instead of censorship. I’m glad you made this video and you shouldn’t be attacked.

[@moehio]

Well this aged like milk, didn't it? A public apology is in order.

[@ryfe9197]

Thank you for this video. Having appreciated the role that Dr Campbell has played in filling a vacuum left by media censorship, I needed to approach your critique with an open mind. I watched it to the end because I am a biology nerd. If the same kinds of critiques by expert clinicians, data analysts, and scientists were allowed and listened to without deplatforming and vilification the scientific method would have been spared from becoming dogma, and perhaps some people would still be alive that are no longer with us.

[@laetrille]

Media censorship? Provide examples don't just jump on the bandwagon

[@sp_liberated]

Lol media censorship? Very creative.

[@josephjones5070]

@@sp_liberated You sub list says alot. Very one sided. Very judgemental. One wonders why you would bother engaging this topic again now, when all of those instirutions that your kind have so religiously followed for the last two years are backtracking on a myriad of "facts". Do you agree with Vaush's arguments for child pron? Lol! I guess if it doesn't agrre with your manufactured point of view it doesn't count as censorship, right? Hypocrite.

[@josephjones5070]

@@laetrille Another video game poster... That says it all, doesn't it?

[@jessereichbach588]

@@laetrille Yea, media propaganda would be a better term. It's not a bandwagon. Cable news networks, the likes of Fox, OAN, CNN, MSNBC and even established traditional press like NYT, WaPO etc.. are corporate and political mouthpieces for their desired parties and biggest corporate sponsers. That part is undeniable. It's also undeniable they get a great deal of money from big pharma. They've also smeared other outlets when it aided their narrative. And they've lost cases for defamation or libel on various occasions. And when it comes to "politics" it's 100 times worse than on an issue like CV. 2020 was a good example. The Biden laptop is a blatant one, that they've now admitted was true all along. And no, I'm not a Trump supporter. Actually a lifelong Democrat. And the Time magazine article, where they gloated about how a bipartisan coalition "saved the election", released just after Biden took office, is a great example. Both censoring stories and publishing disinformation to get Trump out of office. Whether you support Trump or not, is irrelevant. Again, I do not support him in any way and never have. But when media is getting directly involved, lying and censoring information to effect the Democratic process, it means they are propagandists. The "lab leak" hypothesis is another. Countless articles in 2020 with false narratives attempting to assert lab leak "wasn't possible" or "plausible" using completely fallacious arguments. And 2 years later, the same publications, including the CDC directly, admitting lab leak is a viable option and needs investigating. These are just a few verifiable instances of intentional disinformation by major media. And it's both partisan ends of the media spectrum. Whether FOX, CNN, NY post or NYT. CDC and NIH changed their narratives multiple times between 2020 and 2022, eventually committing to hypotheses that they were, just two years prior, calling conspiracy theories. Another easy one, in I think 2014, LA Times reporter Ken Dilanian was let go for have a collaborative relationship with CIA/US Intelligence, running stories of global interest by intel before going to press. He continues to work for some cable news network today. And if you think that's "rare" or unique to him, you'd be wrong. He just happened to get caught, and LAT had little choice when it went public. Which is why another outlet picked him up. Another easy one, how much do you know about the war in Yemen? Heard a lot of reporting on the news about that? I'm sure you've heard a ton about Ukraine. On a daily basis since February. So then it's interesting that a similar situation has been ongoing in Yemen for years and gets little to no press. Why would that be? Because the US has an economic dependence on the country in question, Saudi Arabia, who, by agreeing to solely use the US dollar in all petrol transactions, as the major global oil produce, helps maintain the US dollars strong role around the world. And we have a direct political relationship with them. That one is actual censorship, like shoving the Biden laptop story under the rug leading up to the election. Those are just facts. And you can verify them in short time if you genuinely want to know the facts rather than pushing a "trust media" narrative. You can probably do it in under an hour if you genuinely want to. Pretty simple, look at the reports on various issues back in say 2020 and what they were saying, and then jump ahead to 2021 or 2022 and see what they were saying then. They don't align. I would post the specifics, but since every time I try to post a link, YT deletes the entire post, you will have to just do some easy searching. Which, is just their policy I guess. Not suggesting that is any kind of conspiracy. And nothing I am saying has to do with this video or Dr. Campbell. Just a general validation of the original posters comment, which was met by naive and condescending replies. But if you think establishment media is trustworthy, and don't approach their narratives with healthy skepticism, then you have no connection to reality and don't want to.

[@lindosland]

Phew! That was hard-going, and yes, your criticisms appear to be well-founded. But there is an important point to make: was this why the 'fact checkers' blocked John's video on Facebook - I very much doubt it! I believe that instead they blocked it simply because it offered a challenge to the new drug, and someone had told them to block it. If they had presented even the basics of your information, such as that three of the papers were about in-silico modelling, then I am sure John would have been happy to comment and acknowledge his mistake. In taking us into the deep details of just one mechanism of action against the virus, I feel you do an injustice to Dr John and others by not addressing the real issue; that there is overwhelming evidence of the effectiveness of Ivermectin in clinical trials. Given the excellent known safety record of Ivermectin in humans, and it's low cost, it would seem obvious that bigger trials should have been be carried out, and they have not been. John's attempt to compare was a distraction, as is your critique. The correct approach is not to compare, but to ask firstly, 'are the numerous trial results genuine and honestly presented'. Secondly, if they are genuine, then what are the mechanisms of action (and there seem to be several, including the reduction of inflammatory response and cytokine storm in the second phase of the illness, when the viral replication phase is probably over and irrelevant anyway). You were very fair to Dr C in many respects, but by failing to address the overall issue - which is of vital importance to millions of people - and saying something like, 'nevertheless Ivermectin may well be very effective through mechanisms we do not fully understand,' I feel you are being very unfair and refusing to acknowledge that something is very very wrong about the desperate lengths being gone to to prevent further serious conversation about Ivermectin. While you correctly point out that 'in-silico' modelling does not give us definite results, I think it could also be pointed out that all experiments at the molecular level suffer the same problem - they do not necessarily represent what is happening in the human body. There might, for example, be ways in which Ivermectin recruits other molecules in the body to make it more effective as a protease inhibiter than modelling would suggest.

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

Honestly, I think the TOGETHER trial and the PRINCIPLE trial are very well designed trials. I haven't seen anyone object to trials *except* people from the FLCCC or BIRD when trial results don't go their way.

[@lindosland]

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg I think the world has now moved on from just looking at 'evidence', to asking, 'who can we trust, and why?' All evidence comes ultimately from people. There are quite simply too many interests as stake in those trials and interested parties involved or funding them. We also need an answer to the question, 'why is the FLCCC (and so many others) not telling the truth - what have THEY to gain?' I see no reasonable answer offered to this question. The only way out is to involve the FLCCC fully in the trial, but that is probably not going to happen.

[@MsLickalot70]

I know you are right because so many trolls have come out 😂😂

[@jonathanport7427]

I like your attention to detail. I look forward to your next video.

[@TWCH]

I smiled broadly after the second time Dr Campbell, with dramatic subtlety, mentioned The Royal Society of Chemistry and you immediately popped into the video. Arguing from authority on any subject triggers my skepticism. You, Professor, are a fabulous teacher. I understood way more of this presentation than I would have predicted. BTW any admiring commenters reading this should know the good professor plays a mean dobro too:)

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

Thanks Charlie, that's a different channel 😉

[@ljacobs357]

I find Dr. Campbell informative and largely impartial. He attempts to use current data to reach conclusions but is not dogmatic about his findings. He's allowed to make mistakes.

[@kathyohara6658]

I agree and not convinced that any of these guys are not making mistakes. Everyone with Dr. in front of their names is a plausible expert, and yet they cannot seem to agree on anything or any treatment, vaccine, side effects or even the actual covid statistics......I think we have to sift through all the conflicting jargon and do what we can with our findings. We also need to pay close attention to who they represent or work for and what motivates them.

[@ledwards1212]

Dr John Campbell’s presentations are littered with mistakes and misunderstandings and (especially recently) have become rather blinkered and obsessive. Once upon a time he was a useful impartial resource but now I would urge anyone interested to broaden their horizons and seek better quality consensual viewpoints. I fear Dr John Campbell has become a victim of his own early success and has delusions of grandeur often dismissing the consensus viewpoints of multiple international authority’s to suit his narrative.

[@psychoja]

Dr. John is not impartial. At least not politically. 1. He doesn't trust anything that doesn't come from the "west" allied countries. 2. He is all about China-bad attitude. He is blaming China for all kind of things. Most particularly how China failed to "stop the infection", but then few days ago he posts a video about Omicron, states that it is present in South Africa and states that it will be present around the world in few days. How can you blame someone for something that YOU can't do the same with all of the knowledge that you have now, that wasn't available then? As Lance stated, his reports are littered with mistakes and biases.

[@anthonyward4081]

@@ledwards1212 Couldn't agree more Lance.

[@CRAlexandru]

@@ledwards1212 It's unbelievable how you can say that about Dr Campbell in a world where the media calls Ivermectin "horse dewormer".

[@davidheard8015]

Thanks Greg, this was an excellent explanation of the data around ivermectin and COVID. I will be using this to educate the scientifically challenged! I believe that the effects seen in vitro and binding assays are likely to be non-specific protein binding, as suggested by the low percentage of free ivermectin in plasma. You should also point out the difference in biology between parasitic worms, which are not intracellular and viruses which are… does ivermectin even get into cells?

[@bigmacfullerton7870]

Except the Ivermectin works on almost everyone who tries it against Covid like me, my wife, my cousin and her husband who was deathly ill and sent home from the hospital with little to no treatment. All of us were really sick and started feeling 50% better 24 hours after taking Ivermectin. I guess it was just all coinkidink???

[@patriciagiles5833]

As a fellow nurse, I used to follow him and like his laymen-language presentations. Then something started to change on his channel. It went from evidenced based to propping up unscientific pop culture narratives in hopes of boosting his audience capture. There's no money or glory in telling inconvenient truths. People need their beliefs validated, no matter how irrational they are. John Campbell learned that the political right (who make up the vast majority of pandemic conspiracists/deniers) will amplify any misinformation they can from a credentialed person. After he started this pandering, his monetization exploded exponentially.

[@polyfission2776]

let me guess, you have pronouns in your twitter bio

[@patriciagiles5833]

@@polyfission2776 Well your guess is wrong there, pal. Btw, don't join the traveling circus as a clairvoyant; you suck at it. You'd be more suited for the clown show.

[@JDela10]

I've also noticed the change in Campbell's videos. It got to a point where i stopped watching them, but KZbin kept recommending them. One video was recommended maybe a couple of months ago about a study and it said something like "vaccine side effects" in the title. For a day or two I saw it multiple times recommended and didn't watch it, but then he changed the title of the video to add something like "heart complications".. so he seemed to actually change the title of the video to be more dramatic and, from my point of view, to lure in a certain audience. Then there was another video he had made where he was showing data on iirc spikes of cases of myocarditis in people in the UK, and seemed to be suggesting it correlated with the roll out of vaccines. The only problem is the myocarditis incidents with vaccines are a rare side effect of the mRNA vaccines and affects young men and teen boys mostly. The issue is looking at his data I immediately realised that the UK had primarily used the astrazeneca (not mRNA) vaccine in its mass vaccination program for the early parts of 2021, and it was given with age being a priority. That is, when one of the alleged spikes of myocarditis was occurring in early 2021, young men and boys were not being given the mRNA vaccines (or any at the start of the year due to age based rollout), yet this didn't seem to dawn on him.

[@MrDezokokotar]

Thank you for this video, im a frequent Dr Campbell viewer but not a fanboy, i appreciate rebuttals like this. I find some of his videos very informative but i do see some faults in others and take them with a grain of salt. A few questions if i may. Regarding the 4th paper, from around 1:07:07 you say that Remdesivir has the "best score" (-9.9) when refuting Dr. Campbells claim but thats in the PLpro column, not 3CLpro. For 3CLpro is has a worse score than Ivm. (-7.1 vs -7.7) Is this a mistake you made or am i misunderstanding something? Also, is the overall average score, which Ivm seems to have the best at -8.5, irrelevant? (they are all targets of sars-cov-2) You also note several times the in silico nature of some of the studies, somewhat disparagingly it seems. Dr. Campbell claimed that its a "very well recognized science" but you didnt comment on that. I understand they dont necessarily replicate into actual experiments but does a promising in silico study not encourage or suggest an actual experimental study should be done? (whether these in particular can be seen as "promising" is another matter of course) I ask because a common belief among the more reasonable proponents of Ivermectin (ones that dont simply think its a magic bullet but see it as promising) is just that not enough attention is being paid to it by companies, governments etc. that dont fund much further research or large trials. (possibly because its so unprofitable compared to other very promising medication) Most studies as simply done by clinicians. Im aware of how efficatious the new Merck and Pfizer drugs appear to be but theyve only been developed fairly recently, Covid has been here for almost 2 years now. Do you agree with this sentiment or do think Ivermectin is not promising as a Covid treatment and gets as much or more research attention than it should?

[@garethstell5992]

One thing I have noticed from this, given the possible mistakes in dissecting the data shown, not one mention has been made about the real life results from Uttar Pradesh in India or Japan where Ivermectin use has shown incredible results......

[@pat2562]

@@garethstell5992 Maybe because it's not true.

[@garethstell5992]

@@pat2562 but it is true, that is just the point. Dig out the reports and read for yourself. Average daily infections in that region were around 22, TWENTY TWO! Other regions, similar sized populations, and only using the so called "vaccines", on average daily cases were 30,000!!! You go figure!

[@pat2562]

@@garethstell5992 I have figured, but I don't have the links or the energy to repost, especially when facts are irrelevant to so many. The first question an epidemiologist asks is, "what are the possible reasons for X finding"? Your inability to hypothesize and test out possibilities makes sense, you're not an expert, but believe it or not, the people who spent 12 years learning their craft, can think of multiple reasons for any finding. Every expert I ever read or listened to always said the same thing thing, "There's no evidence it works or certainly not in any major way, but I would love to wrong". The slander against doctors, that they would rather watch their patients die than use something not profitable to big pharma, is reprehensible. The positive studies were low quality, at least one outright fraudulent. If it were anywhere as effective as Kory and Weinstein believe, then the evidence would have come to light with the better done studies. It would be dramatic and obvious-and it's not.

[@MarcosElMalo2]

@@garethstell5992 Using alternative KZbin accounts to post your comments doesn’t make it more true. It makes you a disinfo spewing troll. You’re not an ignorant fool, you’re a malevolent person actively trying to harm people.

[@frostythesandwich]

Thank you for doing this, I've been watching Dr. Campbell for a while now because he's one of the few channels I've found that's willing to delve into real scientific literature. The problem with this is that I've dedicated my life to studying Information Technology and do not know enough about Biology or Chemistry to be able to defend myself from believing the claims he makes based off of said literature. If you hadn't made this video I would probably still believe the claims of that video, I think in these circumstances we need people with a knowledge base like yours to speak up and show us the nuance. So, again, thank you and I hope you continue making content like this, there are plenty of people like me that I think would greatly benefit from stuff like this.

[@dixonpinfold2582]

You frankly admit your inability to judge on these matters and that it left you 'defenceless against the claims of Dr. Campbell' (my paraphrase) and in the same breath you fulsomely express great gratitude for having been set straight here by "Professor Greg". That doesn't make any sense. No doubt you still can't make your own way through the material, but for some reason have decided to just believe the last person you listened to. The comments here leave me amazed. So does the video itself up to this point (35 min)-at least the fact that the man talking in it shows such shocking nervousness.

[@frostythesandwich]

@@dixonpinfold2582 Go home bot you're drunk. " If you hadn't made this video I would probably still believe the claims of that video" - Me "and in the same breath you fulsomely express great gratitude for having been set straight here by "Professor Greg"." - Your dumbass interpretation. "but for some reason have decided to just believe the last person you listened to." Why do you think this is what any of us have done with this info? If you aren't a bot prove it by answering the following: "What's harder to catch the faster you run?"

[@dixonpinfold2582]

@@frostythesandwich lol The greatest answer I ever gave to any question in my life got erased, I guess, 'cause it's not visible here now. It was just too rude. Apt and hilarious, but too rude. Anyway, have a nice life, buddy.

[@frostythesandwich]

@@dixonpinfold2582 Thank you bot, thank you.

[@laetrille]

@@dixonpinfold2582 hahahhahaha you hypocrite you literally use that glorified nurse as truth, you suck.

[@oniasus1549]

Thank you for an excellent video. Good to see an open discussion regarding the science instead of the usual emotional response presented elsewhere. Polite and informative. Love your work.

[@rickstrole9634]

That was the longestass convoluted talk on anything on any subject I've ever attempted to get through God.have mercy!!!!..while liqifiying subject lines for many hours..(at least it seemed like many hours) and, had i not cut to the last 90 sec. I would not have been able to tell if he were a proponent of ivermectin or again'it.....I can only ask this nice doctor (who is as muchofa doctor as Jill biden is a doctor) this...how many times did ya vote for lyin' Joe biden???? Mercy!!!

[@drijackson]

Excellent and thorough review, thank you.

[@wboyle5899]

I watch Dr John channel its great you have differnt opinions debate is good I would love to see you two guys chatting together with a good chat and exchanging opinions best wishes from Glasgow Scotland

[@andywells8125]

I really enjoyed this video, thanks for going to so much effort to make it! For it has kindled in me an interest in bioinformatics.You talked about so many different aspects of that science, the experiments, how to interpret data, and the molecular interactions are all fascinating topics. So thanks for this rigorous analysis!

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

Thanks for watching!

[@srolesen]

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg You spend 80 minutes without mentioning the different transport mechanisms, do you actually expect them to function the same? Do you find that to be a sensible assumption for an expert biochemist?

[@thomashoffman5604]

The only reason why there is any obsession about it is, If you talk about any possible benefits from ivermectin there is a good chance you will canceled, censored or lose your job. It has become a political topic. If talk negatively about it, you will not be canceled, censored or lose your job. The science has been canceled. Why are they so worried about scientist and doctors talking about ivermectin having any possible benefits? If it does have some benefits, wouldn't you want to hear about it. If it doesn't have any benefits, let the scientist do the trials/studies on it to find out. What are they worried about. Fauci has admitted to lying about wearing masks. His reason was, "It was for the greater good". He has established they he will lie to us if he thinks "it is for the greater good". Right now, he thinks "the greater good" is getting everyone vaccinated. So, it would not be out of character for him to lie and suppress anything that can be seen as creating vaccine hesitancy because it is for the "greater good". Ivermectin has been caught in the crossfire of the greater good. I like everyone line they people say about ivermectin. "he CDC and the FDA has determined that there is no evidence that ivermectin is effective against Covid" or people will say Ivermectin is not approved for Covid". Neither one of those statements proves it does not work. Fund some trial/Studies to find out. It's been 18 months of wasted time. The CDC and FDA just complains about the 80+ international studies that are all flawed in some way. I don't see them funding any trials or studies on ivermectin. I understand now there are some studies going on. maybe we will finally get some more information that will give more clarity. Also, Pfizer new pill may work good enough to end the pandemic. We will have to see how well it works as a preventative and treatment. A pill can be easily give worldwide to everyone on the planet at the same time for possible 2 weeks. I think iIm a little too optimistic on that. No trained personnel to administer, No refrigeration required. Easily transported. It could be given to everyone to take home and wait for a certain day where everyone starts taking the pill at the same time.

[@fjspicer1]

@@thomashoffman5604 your the first person here who has spoken any sense, with all of these big pharma trolls including Faucci the FDA & CDC all debunking the use of or effectiveness of Ivermectin won't even mention the apparent coincidence of what happened in Uttah Pradesh, Argentina ete. For whatever reason not one of them will admit that it works

[@ynsmdd8678]

@@fjspicer1 because it has shown time and time it doesn't

[@Laura_Daniels]

You are being very kind towards Dr. Campbell. He is missing the molecular details, but I have a feeling he knows what he is doing, overall!!

[@gavcarl]

Oh he does, he is making money fooling idiots online.

[@pietercastelein2568]

Hopefully the oxford principle study will bring some clarity on this matter

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

I hope so!

[@andrewsteele111]

Not aged well, as the FDA settled out of court on ivermectin

[@Hallero123]

It’s about time we have researchers speaking up!

[@patriciahorgan2584]

Thank you for this video. Actually I didn't understand much of it - but I am so pleased that you disagreed in such a detailed and polite way. We are divided in so many ways because we do not really listen carefully to someone we disagree with anymore. We need good examples of good debates. They are not just scientific - but also healing.

[@imgonnawin555]

There is no discussion to be had. Dr. Campbell is spewing nonsense. When someone lies to you blatantly, you don't have a conversation to figure out a middle ground. Dr. Campbell is not a scientist and doesn't know WTF he is talking about. Period. He just redistributes random bits of information that he doesn't even understand because his viewers understand even less than him. He shouldn't be making claims. Instead, he is fueling the misinformation and taking advantage of people to make money. He is fucking pathetic.

[@younggotti8195]

@@imgonnawin555 hahaha come back to reality buddy

[@imgonnawin555]

@@younggotti8195 ???

[@younggotti8195]

@@imgonnawin555 your whole response is idiotic, lacks anything remotely factual and is very ignorant of you….btw, saying someone doesn’t understand something because of their title or lack there of is one of the worst cop out arguments there is

[@imgonnawin555]

@@younggotti8195 No point in even arguing with someone like you. You have all the answers. Take vitamin D and Ivermectin. Get your medical advice and science lessons from a retired nurse. Make sure you disregard the part where the actual scientist from Harvard is the one proving that Dr. Campbell is a crackpot misinformation depot.

[@prandz420]

you are being quite charitable to assume he is making mistakes and not intentionally spreading misinformation

[@OliverMagoo]

I use to think they were just honest mistakes as well until he posted the "Freedom of Information Revelation" video a few days ago. He's making it sound like the true number of Covid deaths in the UK is only 17,000. Judging by the comments, that's how people are taking it too. You'd have to be pretty stupid not to see that those numbers exclude most legitimate deaths. They exclude anyone with so much as a single comorbidity. That's why the numbers don't match the excess deaths figure - not because anything nefarious is going on.

[@prandz420]

Oliver Magoo I will check that out thanks. I used to believe what he said at face value since he is more qualified than I am and assumed he had much more expertise. Then I checked up on the study he cites in his ‘heart risk after vaccines’ video. Absolutely blew my mind when I found out he was using such terrible sources of information to draw huge conclusions from. I don’t think I can give him the benefit of the doubt because there is no way he doesn’t know better. He is citing from an incomplete and non reviewed abstract only paper which has no statistical analysis and not even units of measurement in the results. Unbelievable.

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

That "Freedom of Information Revelation" video of his is absolutely maddening. I just can't see how an informed viewer can watch that and not recognise Campbell's medacity.

[@TurnaboutAdam]

Absolutely babies on here can’t take an alternative opinion on their magic drug.

[@arcaneentity8458]

The fact that the creator liked this comment speaks volumes about his intended purpose.

[@CyionVR]

Great video. Don't burn yourself out answering too many comments because they will be never-ending. My advice is to pick your battles, as these people can chew up all your time if you let them.

[@zo1dberg]

Thanks, this is the type of conversation that needs to take place. Hopefully Dr Campbell sees this and gives it the attention it deserves.

[@jessicanoir6217]

Thank you! I learned so much. Accurately.

[@NMWanderings]

Thank you so much for your effort to examine these claims! I like Dr. Campbell and his overall presentations on the pandemic. Even though most reputable sources discounted IVM, I gave him the benefit of the doubt as I know some drugs are used "off label". I will be more skeptical now.

[@JayJay-ki4mi]

Dr Campbell is now used by the Government as a mouthpiece.

[@donzezo]

Look at his videos now comparing to months ago, he started to give his opinion (yet this is his not specialty as he is in Nurse field) also he started to consider some weak studies that he even criticized yet he used the info in his later videos !

[@sp_liberated]

John Campbell’s vitamin D drumbeat is a bit aggressive as well.

[@Leo-fw1xr]

The number of dislikes on this video is disheartening. Many people appear to not even watch the video or try to understand it. Instead they decide to go to comments and, presumably, other social media to claim this is an attack on John and is somehow shutting down debate. Please explain to me how a polite, extensive and highly detailed rebuttal of John’s arguments by a specialist in the field of molecular biophysics (which is the area John made the main mistake in) can be called an attack, or as some commenters have said, “shutting down debate”. It’s an hour long video that goes into every detail of what you might want to know and even invites John to make corrections if any of his views were misrepresented. As an example, shutting down debate would be a one minute video dismissing John’s views out of hand; this isn’t what was done here. To the people being toxic and reactionary in comments: Please try to be open to new information once in a while. You are the people damaging debate and spreading baseless misinformation.

[@terjeoseberg990]

The education system has failed us. These people clearly failed to understand this video, and therefore don’t believe the results.

[@sgordon8123]

He has no major good points to make. Dr John Campbell has a huge body of work and this is nit picking one bit. He will make money off the back of clickbait though.

[@nonflyingdutchman9573]

@@sgordon8123 Dr John Campbell is the one making money off click-bait. He's increasingly playing to the Ivermectin conspiracy theorists and has seen his views go up enormously.. And, as GTK points out, he's pushing out misinformation and unfounded claims about suppression of data on Ivermectin

[@stephenguy3901]

@@sgordon8123 you must be a member of the John Campbell cult

[@98luk45]

@@sgordon8123 Did you even finish school? "Dr" cambell is a nurse with a "doctorates" in nursing education. He's not a medical researcher like GTK Bioinformatics and doesn't have anywhere near the level of knowledge of other academics who are active in the field. It's not hard to become a nurse; in fact, it's one of the easiest fields to get into unless your intellectual capacity is severely lacking - i.e. an IQ less than 90. I don't know what your job is, but my engineering buddies and I used to joke about how nurses are too dumb to be doctors and need to stop pretending to be one. Responsibilities of an nurse (i.e. "Dr" John Cambell) is to ensure the client receives medication, check for basic vitals, and report to the real doctor. Whatever they do outside of their job isn't credible since their work isn't reviewed by other professionals. Fun fact - nurses pretending to be doctors is a problem large enough that it's a jailable offence for nurses to identify as doctors. The only thing that prevents "Dr" Cambell from being jailed is he can say his "Dr" title is for his PhD in nursing education.

[@andrewmartin2798]

Dr Campbell has saved a huge amount of lives and prevented many many people becoming ill with his excellent well researched videos What's your record how many lives have you saved?

[@joshuabrooks91]

That doesn't mean that his video on ivermectin wasn't misinformation, and it isn't a valid excuse for him being wrong on that topic.

[@hatoju]

How did he save lives as a retired nurse? With recommending Ivermectin, Vitamin D, Zinc or by talking about anecdotal vaccine side effects?

[@jamesmccrindle8633]

@@hatoju he came out of retirement to give jabs.Also the french government said increase vitiman d.

[@SUPER8ALTERN8]

@@hatoju What have you done? raising awareness about how to boost your immune system during a pandemic sounds like a good idea, does it not?

[@younggotti8195]

@@joshuabrooks91 the fact that the word “misinformation” is being thrown around is absurd, it’s also doesn’t help this guys case but rather hurts if…if he or you can’t use simple words correctly and honestly, how is anyone supposed to be believe he’s being honest about the rest

[@samanthagrave1964]

I listened til the end, thank you so much.

[@teddylee9545]

Do you have any links to any pharma company,either directly or indirectly.

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

No. (The conflict disclaimer in the video details covers this)

[@22WallTall]

Why are we ignoring the overwhelming safety signals in VAERS, and why are we vaccinating healthy 5-year-olds?

[@AVeryStableMilkingStool]

We've been vaccinating healthy people for about 200 years. Mostly under-fives. Get a basic education.

[@healthgroupcoaching.comHindi]

excellent video. highlights confirmation bias and publication bias. how commentators fish out studies which support their inherent beliefs and also how many negative studies do not get published to balance the positive/ borderline ones. your passion and effort to communicate your expertise is commendable and enviable

[@davidgmillsatty1900]

But did it debunk Ivermectin? Please search: real-time meta analysis of 71 studies. KZbin deletes any post with a link.

[@donsproule6295]

My only question is when Dr. John Campbell is going to respond. I quite enjoy him and I hope he will take the rebuttal well.

[@deborhais]

Would it be possible for you and Dr. Campbell to have a conversation about ivermectin? I think it would be helpful for the less knowledgeable to see how he reacts to your concerns?

[@CyionVR]

Dr. Campbell won't do that because he knows he will be wrecked, I know of someone he used to collaborate with until she pointed out his ivermectin mistakes to him in private and now he will not speak with her.

[@andrwlr1]

@@CyionVR I posted rebuttals on John Campbell's video pages with links to peer-reviewed data and those rebuttals have been deleted, presumably by John Campbell.

[@fredk3859]

This was an excellent video. Between some experts putting out ideas and others critiquing and even debunking them, I feel like I'm getting a much better understanding of where the arguments are coming from. I wish the mainstream media and institutions like the FDA would do a better job summarizing the information in an understandable way, like you do, instead of claiming that ivermectin is just horse de-wormer, which is clearly a stupid statement. But, I guess, at least in the case of media, they clearly don't see their business as reporting truth and facts. I'm not sure what the FDA's excuse is. Kudos also for your patience in replying to pretty much everybody asking questions in the comment section.

[@pat2562]

The various agency's failures in communication have been staggering. Throw in media complicity and big techs censorship games, and it's very difficult to know who to trust. I appreciate the views of pure scientists who aren't clinicians. Dr Paul Offit is a pediatrician in favor of vaccinating children. In a discussion with Dr Zubin Damania (Zdoggmd), he readily conceded that as a doctor seeing children in the hospital, he has a bias in favor of vaccination. Other doctors aren't so self aware. For instance, Dr Kory is, by all accounts, a very fine physician and he made important contributions early on, but now he has dug his heels in on Ivermectin. When he got sick, he said it was because it was delta and so everyone should double their dose. That's crazy. Doctors who disagree are pharma shills, studies are hit pieces and so on. It's tragic, he's way too emotionally invested now. Academics can more easily remain objective.

[@roseofsharon7551]

The FDA doesn’t have excuses. They are captured and have been so for decades. Such a bloated arm of the government that apparently doesn’t have the time to do their own critical analyses but, instead, rely on the honor system of the companies they are supposed to monitor. Anyone who relies on FDA approval as their only evidence of credibility needs to return to the kiddie table.

[@krisr3612]

@@pat2562 Regarding Dr. Kory, he is FLCCC. You may want to look at FLCCC on Wikipedia. I will see if it will let me post it here.

[@pat2562]

@@krisr3612 Thank you, but obviously I know of his organization.

[@krisr3612]

@@pat2562 Oh good. Kory and the FLCCC which was started at the beginning of the pandemic promoting HCQ and then IVM seem pretty shady. Their articles have been rejected and retracted for falsifying results and plagiarism. Red flags go up whenever see them mentioned. I don't think anyone respectable in the medical community take them seriously.

[@Costa_Conn]

I'm impressed by your attenuated facial response to Campbell's faux pas'. I was practically screaming at my computer watching his video totally misinterpreting the docking and screening. Thank you.

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

Hah, thanks!

[@maureenkidd6629]

Wow, jealousy seems to come in all professions. Really sad.

[@fintonmainz7845]

35:30 Campbell "if you're a biochemist you'll understand that, if not you're like me and just get the jist" The point is that he didn't "get the jist". This is where Nurse John is so dangerous: he doesn't know his limits.

[@rajTrondhjem10]

Nurse John is what his channel should be named and he is very dangerous indeed.

[@Redwarfa]

It's deliberate,lying by omission to make lots of money

[@fintonmainz7845]

@@Redwarfa I agree. I no longer believe Retired Nurse John is mistaken. He is now telling deliberate lies.

[@Redwarfa]

@@fintonmainz7845 so why are the anti vacc still believing him

[@FeralUrchin]

It seems to me that the quickest way to settle the Ivermectin debate would be simply to allow its use whenever a patient requests it. Data on its efficacy would thenbe readily available. There should be little downside to this approach since IVM appears to be safe in traditional doses for humans. Yet hospitals and physicians seem to be strongly resistant to allowing patients to receive IVM. Why? This refusal raises deep suspicians against their motivations and general trustworthiness. Plainly the medical establishment is not concerned about IVM's safety. And plainly the medical establishment is not overly concerned with questionable safety and efficacy of the vaccines or with it's often ineffective hospital protocols for treating COVID. Thus, the healthcare establishment is seen to be pursuing its own interests rather than the interests of patients. Again, why not allow IVM to be freely given and study it's effectiveness. The reason seems only to be some inexplicable bias--thought by many of us to be money-driven or worse.

[@blacksolidChrome]

If you hit Google there are quite a lot of studies on cov and ivermectin. The conclusion of the studies was very very little or zero effect. To answer you question: if you have teams of people working on the evaluation of the efficacy all over the world, and all teams come to very similar conclusions. Why would you give additional medication to someone when it doesn’t help? Actually you would advise against it because, medication goes though a long and detailed test regime in order to get it approved for a narrow target. You don’t just randomly hand out stuff which Very well might have adverse effects in this untested situation.

[@midlandsman288]

I find it kind of amusing you suggested that doctors not giving patients Ivermectin means they are not acting in the patients best interests. It must be a hard job being an ER doctor only to have opinionated patients tell them how to do their job and saying their doing it wrong.

[@cathymartens7478]

To me, sitting here in Africa, this seems to be the most relevant comment I've seen on the subject. Ivermectin is very commonly used throughout Africa, it has been proven to be safe and is very cheap. My 80 year old diabetic mother got covid and was only offered vitamins. Luckily she recovered but why wasn't she prescribed Ivm? I have not yet heard a sensible answer that explains the reluctance to at least try this drug and research the results. Well said Jim👍👏👏 As a quick aside, I've just seen a map of the world on CNN which showed South Africa, in the midst of this 'horrorific' omicron surge has 10 to 50% less deaths than last week? Plus there is a nasty bug going around here. We have been advised not to panic if we feel really sick because we more than likely have this bug rather than omicron which is much milder?? Non of this makes any sense to me.

[@williamverhoef4349]

"It seems to me that the quickest way to settle the Ivermectin debate would be simply to allow its use whenever a patient requests it' That is exactly what you don't do. Once it is readily available you won't get participants for a proper clinical trial. And it is impossible to extract any information about ivermectin once it is readily available because it won't be the only treatment being used. Please leave the evaluation of drugs to those with the expertise. This is the same mistake Dr. John is making. He is assuming that he has expertise in drug evaluation simply because he has a PhD (which is in international nurse education). "hospitals and physicians seem to be strongly resistant to allowing patients to receive IVM. Why?" So that is one reason why. The other reason is that there are literally hundreds of drug being falsely promoted during the pandemic. They simply cannot allow patients to be medicating themselves with drugs with no evidence of effectiveness. There is also the problem of drug interaction. There's the problem of giving legitimacy to drugs that don't work or for which there is no evidence. "This refusal raises deep suspicians against their motivations and general trustworthiness" That what the promoters of ivermectin want you to believe. On the other hand, there are physicians who do acquiesce to patient demand for invermectin and the promoters of invermectin then use this to further promote the drug. It is literally a lose-lose situation for legtimate physicians trying to do the best for their patients. "And plainly the medical establishment is not overly concerned with questionable safety and efficacy of the vaccines " The vaccines are safe and effective. And before you complain, no, that does not mean 100% safe and 100% effective. It means they are orders of magnitude safer and more effective than the infection. COVID-19 is now mostly a pandemic of the unvaccinated. "Thus, the healthcare establishment is seen to be pursuing its own interests rather than the interests of patients" In general, doctors do the best they can for their patients. On the other hand, the promotion of ivermectin by people with no expertise in drug evaluation, like Dr, John Campbell, is positively harmful for those 2 million subscribers and all those who those 2 million subscribers influence in turn. Ivermectin is even being exploited by antivaxxers as an alternative vaccines. "Again, why not allow IVM to be freely given and study it's effectiveness." To repeat, this is exactly how you will never find out if it works. Please leave drug evaluation to the drug evaluation experts. You cannot be expected to be an expert in everything or, indeed, to understand why the experts do what they do.

[@carbonking53]

@@williamverhoef4349 I see you have a volley of comments on multiple videos on this channel just in the last hour all attacking people who are proponents of using or simply discussing the possible upsides of IVM. This seems to indicate you are either on big pharma's payroll or just a hate monger.

[@benedict303]

so how do you explain the fact that Remdesivir was approved with by far less studies than IVM?

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

It's not just the number of studies, but the quality. The remdesivir study, as I understand it (though I haven't looked at the issue in as much detail) was very well designed very high quality randomized clinical trial (www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2007764). The largest ivermectin studies were either flawed, fraudulent, or not randomized clinical trials. www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD015017.pub2/full

[@danilodesnica3821]

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg One could say the same about the Pfizer Phase 3 trial results. Have you read the article in BMJ 2nd November? At best, deeply flawed, at worst - fraudulent. The sheer number of symptomatic cases (477) ignored and untested at a single trial site, absolutely swamps the total number of confirmed, tested COVID-19 cases for the entire trial across all sites. Doesn't that worry you?

[@Marco-it2mr]

@@danilodesnica3821 "The sheer number of symptomatic cases (477) ignored and untested at a single trial site," Except that this is not what the article says, and which also is not true. This was the number for ALL trial sites combined, and explicitly discussed in the article describing the trial.

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

@@danilodesnica3821 That BMJ article has upset a lot of scientific experts, but perhaps not in the way you expect. Here's a well-known and respected harvard professor specifying in causal inference and clinical trial research twitter.com/_MiguelHernan/status/1455949302027612162

[@danilodesnica3821]

@@Marco-it2mr I'll reread the article again, thanks for pointing that out. But even if the 477 cases were across all sites, the number still swamps the total number of reported cases by a factor of three. That makes the results highly suspect to my mind.

[@john-eo1ns]

Hello, would you like to comment on Japans success with IVM is this coincidence or is it working in some other mode of action you don't understand.

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

Hi John, thanks for the question. I think there's no evidence that Japan's success has really been due to ivermectin. I'm not being dismissive here. They have had very high vaccination rates, high mask wearing and social distancing without lockdown, etc. Just fantastic cooperation (although if you've been to Japan it is not actually surprising; just amazing to an outsider). But they didn't use ivermectin everywhere, and the places that did use ivermectin didn't do any better or worse than those that did. Tokyo did, and just today Pierre Kory crowed about it on Twitter as an obvious ivermectin success story. But as Dr. Kyle Sheldrick points out, the same steep declines (or greater!) were seen in other Japanese cities that never recommended Ivermectin twitter.com/K_Sheldrick/status/1462719455364935681

[@Marco-it2mr]

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg Worse, there is zero evidence Tokyo even used ivermectin to any relevant extent. There was one doctor who said it should be tried. He had done the same in February of this year, but apparently no one listened then, so why now?

[@samik83]

I've heard the Ivermectin clinical trials are going on now. Do you have any info on when we might see some of the results?

[@Marco-it2mr]

We have several already reporting their results: no relevant effect.

[@samik83]

@@Marco-it2mr can you link some here?

[@Marco-it2mr]

@@samik83 Look for the I-TECH trial in Malaysia and the Together trial done in Brazil - it stopped the ivermectin trial due to futility (i.e., didn't do anything).

[@charlottemarceau8062]

This is very informative. Do you know anything about the peer review of Pfizer's data for their new drug? It would be interesting to see if their data is confirmed (Dr Cambell suggesrs that the uk government approved the drug based on Pfizer's data alone, is this right?) Thank you for the effort you put into this

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

I think he was referring to to Merck's compound, not Pfizer's

[@charlottemarceau8062]

Oh yes that's right.

[@MR..181]

Drug and vaccine company tv ads pay for the air time ofvthe "news"...so propaganda for sales.

[@thesecondquestion]

Thanks for covering, he points out it is "in silica". I enjoy his talks, but also listen carefully. Maybe it was awhile ago, but I took it as potential news, I believe he said it was in peer review and in silico, and to keep an eye on it. I didn't think he was promoting anything other than news That said, I do like indepth peer review done respectfully. Keep up the good work!.

[@rastaray6401]

Prof Greg, could you share if Dr. Campbell has responded to this video or reached out to you in anyway? Thank you for putting in time and effort to do this - very appreciated

[@garyraab9132]

“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” - Richard P. Feynman.

[@Marco-it2mr]

Quotes are always fun when they are so absolute. After all, we have beautiful theories that were contradicted by experiments...and where a very close scrutiny of the experiment showed it was the latter that was far more likely to be wrong. Example: neutrinos faster than light measured by OPERA.

[@garyraab9132]

@@Marco-it2mr True most top level scientist don’t approach theories as being right or wrong. With each new piece of evidence, scientists modify the Bayesian credence of their models. The problem with layperson reporting on science related issues, black or white is the normal, with very little attention paid to probability and randomness. With a high level of certainty, one can predict that the layperson has very little understanding, if any, of the complexity of a virus, and the complexity of a human cell, with even less understanding about their innate and adaptive immune system. Which will leads them to unsubstantiated black-and-white opinions.