How to weaponise scientific abstracts for misinformation

What is the role of a conference abstract? Why is it irresponsible for science communicators to publicise a conference abstract? Are there circumstances where a science communicator can responsibly publicise a conference abstract?
A recently published conference abstract of a retrospective observational study (Efimenko et al) has been distorted by Ivermectin advocates into false claims that it provides evidence for efficacy of Ivermectin in Covid-19. The misleading claims have included posts on Twitter by Pierre Kory and Jordan Peterson, and videos, from Dr. John Campbell. and Dr. Mobeen Syed.
Ivermectin has NOT been shown to be beneficial for treatment or prevention of Covid-19
Subscribe: kzbin.info...
Buy me a coffee: www.buymeacoffee.com/GregTK
My gear: higheredutech.com/gear/
Intro/Outro music: "Do it again", by Enzo Orefice. Licensed via StoryBlocks www.storyblocks.com/audio/sto...
▬ Contents of this video ▬▬▬▬▬▬
0:00 Introduction and background
04:14 Corrections from Drs John Campbell and Mobeen Syed
08:14 Dr. Mobeen's basic misunderstanding
08:55 My thanks to Dr. Campbell
09:20 Dr. Mobeen's ugly and reprehensible blame-shifting
10:14 Science communication is a vocation
11:10 Prof Andrew Gelman and I discuss the same conference abstract
14:16 (Ir)Responsible Science Communication
16:56 A handy flow chart for science communicators
21:16 Closing remarks
▬ Disclaimers ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
This video is for educational purposes only.
I have no conflicts of interest. I do not receive any compensation or support from any company making or developing Covid-19 vaccines or novel therapies. I made this video on my own time and with my own money and equipment, with no incentives or sponsorship (though you can buy me a coffee).
▬ About this channel ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
I'm Greg Tucker-Kellogg, PhD, a biology professor in Singapore with a career spanning both biotechnology and academia. Videos on this educational channel cover some of my scientific and teaching interests in genomics, bioinformatics, and biochemistry, as well as topics in current scientific issues of public interest. Links to my professional profile are available in the "about" section of the channel.
▬ References ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
- Original poster abstract www.sciencedirect.com/journal...
- Dr. Mobeen's fauxpology and blame-shifting • Miami Ivermectin Study...
- Dr. Campbell's apology (it's not perfect, but it's something, and it's at the beginning of this video) • Long list of side effe...
- Senior author responds to misrepresentation from Pierre Kory / s. .
- Lead author responds to misrepresentations from Pierre Kory / 15. .
- Lead author reponding to misinformation based on John Campbell's video / 15. .
- Lead author reponding to misinformation based on John Campbell's video
/ 15. .
- Lead author reaching out to John Campbell to correct his misrepresentation / 15. .
- Lead author responding to misrepresentation from Jordan Peterson / 15. .
- AP Fact check article apnews.com/article/fact-check...
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ WARNING ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
THE FOLLOWING LINKS ARE MISREPRESENTATIONS
AND/OR SCIENTIFIC MISINFORMATION
- Dr. John Campbell's video • Video
- An apparently new grifter, Dr. Mitch Rice • Video
- Dr. Mobeen's entirely predictable misinformation, which he apparently liked so much he shared it twice • Video • Video
- FLCCC inclusion of this meeting abstract in their terrible, biased "meta-analysis" of Ivermectin for Covid-19 c19ivermectin.com/efimenko.html

[@MysticOblong]

Such a concise and helpful video. Thank you. I have a super basic question. Is a conference poster a summary for conference attendees that is printed out and/or available electronically? And is a conference abstract a more detailed and formal summary than what is in the poster? Does the poster have to meet any requirements or is it more of an informal guide that isn't expected to be used outside of the conference?

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

Good question. This video is (I hope) the first of a series on some of the processes of science, so stay tuned for more! But in answer to your question, the first thing that people submit when applying to present at a conference is usually an abstract, which is a very short summary of what they propose to present. Conferences are usually a combination of oral presentations and poster sessions. Oral presentations are more competitive, and might require some additional material when applying. A large conference (like the American Association for Cancer Research) might have 10-20K attendees, and even getting a poster accepted is competitive. When you go to a conference, you get a book of abstracts. The entries include the time and place of each presentation, and the location and times of poster sessions. A large conference might take place at a convention centre, a smaller one at a hotel with conference facilities. A "poster" is a signboard on an easel, maybe A0 size larger, on which you present an abbreviated, mixed graphical/text form of a study. At designated times, an author will stand at their poster and answer questions from people who stop by to read it. A single poster session might be 2-3 hours long, with possibly hundreds of posters on easels taking up a hotel ballroom. That's where the abstract book is most useful, because you can decide how to optimise your time. Posters are usually left up for a day between sesions so people can come back and look at posters even outside of the session. If you look at the PDF of Iakov's abstract, you can see a code above the title that begins "PS". That indicates a poster session, and it probably indicates the exact time (if there are multiple poster sesisons) and location. If you look at other PDFs of abstracts from the same conference, some are marked "OP", indicating "oral presentation".

[@MysticOblong]

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg Thanks for the detailed reply. That makes it much clearer and gives me a good idea of what takes place at conferences. It's absolutely nothing like I had in mind when thinking about this abstract and the conference etc. It'd be good to have someone film a conference and show the book of abstracts and poster sessions (and other things you mentioned) so you could get a feel of what goes on. I'm thinking like a bit of a walk-thru video like you see people do at tech trade fairs.

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

@@MysticOblong I should have included a video link. Here's a walk-through at an EMBO (European Molecular Biology Organisation) conference from 2011 kzbin.info/www/bejne/gJ6UooeIZ5eLhtE

[@MysticOblong]

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg Excellent thanks. Will check that out.

[@drummingjack7055]

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg Interesting video, thanks!

[@angelajones4193]

Thank you for this. What I find most depressing is that some of the commentators on Dr Campbell's and Dr Been's videos are so unprepared to listen to any kind of argument against what they have been told, even if it Dr Campbell, for instance, has tried to go back on his remarks. There is always this claim that 'they' have tried to cover up the truth.

[@petitio_principii]

The commentaries over such channels, and almost in general when the video covers it, are really depressing, tiresome. The same illogical arguments and falsehoods repeated over and over. And even if you're super polite trying to clarify the facts, your comments may end up disappearing while the ones with "alternative facts" remain there, barely challenged. One supposed problem was publishing links, but apparently even quotes and DOI codes can be problematic for the atomated mechanisms handling things, although I highly suspect there's also a huge deal of human false-flagging.

[@malpollard6320]

Great video. Thanks for taken the time. The fact that Dr Mobeen and Campbell, stuffed up their retractions, showed that while they knew they were wrong, they had no idea why they were wrong.

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

Yes, but I'm hoping Campbell has an open mind on this topic.

[@dharmacharinipasadanandi7110]

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg me too. He's not a bad man. He's worked for people, for so many years. He's always had faith in medicine, warts and all. It's not his fault there are so many pitfalls in a pandemic.

[@williamverhoef4349]

@@dharmacharinipasadanandi7110 I don't accept that excuse. John Campbell has been a regular source of misinformation during the pandemic. He has set himself up as an expert is science communication, so he should know what he is talking about. And it is clear that he does not. And how on Earth can you do justice to a topic when you've decided to churn out a video a day. Surely he is just sacrificing quality for quantity. In any case, he has only retracted when forced to. He has previously been approached privately by at least four people with expertise in the subject of which he presumed to speak pointing out his errors and he completely ignored them. He even ejected one from regular appearances on his videos. Not a bad man? I beg to differ. He couldn't exactly ignore the public airing of his ineptitude on this occasion. But even while accepting some responsibility he still tried to blame the authors.

[@MarcosElMalo2]

@@williamverhoef4349 Campbell *is* an expert in medical communication. What he is not is a virologist, an epidemiologist, or someone who had more than a surface understanding of research. And that’s been his stumbling block, especially the last of the three. He makes a basic category mistake when he mistakes a conference abstract for a study. He has made others, such as confusing in vivo, in vitro, and in silico. The problem seems to be that he thinks he understands something when he doesn’t, and perhaps pride, arrogance, or overestimating his own abilities prevents him from knowing he’s out of his depth. I hope he has felt sufficiently humiliated to motivate him to re-evaluate his strengths and weaknesses.

[@martifingers]

@@williamverhoef4349 Hi. Indeed it's the refusal to engage which is so disappointing and maddening particularly given Dr Campbell's statements inviting correction. His skills could be put to really good use if he was eg peer reviewed before videos were released. I really don't see why a code of practice for YT science communicators could not be drawn up. But what do I know ? I have no expertise in this area and do not claim any.

[@anneboyer6359]

Dear Greg, retired old KZbinr nurse campbell is still going on about ivermectin as you may have seen his latest video about it. Your channel deserves far more views. Alas, tinfoil brigade has more viewership in the world we live in.

[@RavikantRai21490]

LOL "retired old youtuber nurse campbell".

[@clairelariviere3122]

Prof Greg, I have a lot of respect for what you are doing with these videos. I wish I wish you’re viewership was up there with Campbell’s. Viewers seems to like his videos because he makes everything simple but, here’s the tough part, good science is simply not simple. It’s rigorous, detailed and usually not easy to understand. That’s why we have genuine experts. 👍. I’ve just rewatched the Campbell part and, while at first viewing I thought he’d shown some class, I now see it differently. He’s annoyed….at who exactly? The authors? Unreal. And minimizing the impact on the viewers by referring to merely wasting ten minutes of their time. Not classy.

[@myhealthobs5290]

Share it as far and wide as you can

[@rickstrole9634]

Please e

[@MarcosElMalo2]

“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.” The non-expert public needs simplifications to get a grasp of whatever information you need to communicate. Depending on the audience, you might need different levels of simplification. For example, you might be communicating to a group of fourth grade children, or you might be communicating to a group of college freshman that have all taken chemistry and biology. The above quote is from Albert Einstein. I’m sure we are all aware of his work. To the degree that most of us understand his theories of relativity, it’s been dumbed down to concepts we can understand. We just don’t have the mathematical knowledge to understand his proofs. It’s been simplified for the general public by people like the great Richard Feynman. The problems that some science or medical communicators get into is that THEY DONT KNOW THEIR STUFF. They don’t have a sufficient depth of knowledge or they have an incomplete knowledge of a topic, thus they don’t understand the thing they are trying to explain. When the communicator doesn’t realize that they are out of their depth, they make mistakes like the ones described in this video. We’ve also seen people like Dr. Campbell make some of these fundamental categorical mistakes before. Thank god he had the good sense to demonstrate some humility when he issued his correction. There’s a chance he might be brought down to earth and get back to doing good work. Campbell might yet correct his lack of understanding of basic categories in research. Dr. Mobeen seems much too arrogant to accept blame for making a mistake. I haven’t watched his videos, but his anger tells me he won’t put in the work to understand his mistakes.

[@myhealthobs5290]

@@MarcosElMalo2 when you get around to watching his videos you'll probably see that he's not making mistakes out of naivety. I know it's a big call to say that but look at who he interviews, who he doesn't, what he cherry picks, what he glosses over and the type of mistakes he makes. He knows what effect he has on his viewers, he would read his comment section.. He consistently feeds fear, uncertainty and distrust about the vaccines and waters down the risks associated with the virus and he dies it in seeming perfect synchronicity with about 15 others I won't name here.

[@clairelariviere3122]

@@MarcosElMalo2 well said. I’m not at all familiar with Mobeen (and that’s not going to change lol) but I am somewhat familiar with Campbell. Kudos to prof Greg for showing him offer a clarification with some class, although he still managed to minimize the impact of his words and somehow blame the authors for annoying him. He didn’t take responsibility for reporting on an abstract. I wouldn’t have known about it otherwise as I don’t watch Campbell’s videos anymore so as not to add to his metrics. While it’s generous of you to have that hope for him, I more wish than think it to be possible. Having watched Campbell early on in the pandemic when he was helping people understand the virus in a helpful way, I was able to see the shift to the nefarious side of misinformation. I believe that he was able to see an increase in viewers and wanted to continue on that trajectory. He had many months to course correct If he does now, I would be surprised and delighted.

[@intrusivethought]

This needs to be boosted in a major way. These usual suspects have a habit of propagating at times reckless and biased information.

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

I wish it had a snappier title.

[@hawaiianrobot]

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg might need to workshop some clickbait titles. The #1 Thing MEDIA and PUNDITS Get Wrong About CONFERENCE ABSTRACTS 6 Dumb Mistakes SOCIAL MEDIA INFLUENCERS Make When It Comes to CRITICALLY ASSESSING THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE 5 JAW-DROPPING FACTS About BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH. Number 3 Will SHOCK You!

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

@@hawaiianrobot You're hired. I might even try a split test.

[@hawaiianrobot]

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg my h-index would probably be a bit higher if I didn't name my articles things like "[method 1] vs. [method 2] preparation of metal oxides for capacitors"

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

@@hawaiianrobot I feel your pain

[@tonyclif1]

If Campbell and Mobeen now know the abstract was flawed, shouldn’t they admit their poor ability to assess science documentation? If they say the “withdrawn study” was bad, how do they justify their positive reaction to it?

[@mikebarker9187]

Hunh? Why would they not take the claims of the authors of the abstract - given the basic awareness by all that it is and was an abstract and not a full report - at face value?

[@mikebarker9187]

Who with drew the abstract? Campbell? Did Campbell WRITE the abstract? Did Campbell plan to present the data and research behind the abstract? Did Campbell sneak into the researchers Excel files and rearrange all the data?

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

@@mikebarker9187 The abstract was not withdrawn.

[@mikebarker9187]

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg The impression I got from your vid from the author is that the study, data, analysis, and abstract itself were no longer valid. Withdrawn or not. From the mouth of the researcher.

[@mikebarker9187]

And yes, Campbell himself shows the still available abstract and acknowledges his awareness that it presents a false/poor/incorrect/invalid - what is the correct adjective? - claim or data set.

[@littlebluemarble]

Clear, concise, great information , Thank you for a great video

[@MrArdytube]

Greg, it would probably be a good idea to do an entire video about how these conferences work, what the purpose is, why do people attend, why do people present, how are presenters selected and bt whom

[@willow.1392]

Thanks for talking sense.

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

Kinda bummed nobody laughed at the B-roll of the violinist and the dart hitting the target, TBH. I want to make more of this kind of educational material, which I think can help people develop better skills as consumers of information. I'm open to suggestions for title changes and description suggestions. Right now, I think the video is better than the title (though I do like the thumbnail).

[@minRef]

I laughed at the dart hitting the target.

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

@@minRef Mobeen was SO CLOSE!

[@clairelariviere3122]

I thought the title was on point. If you’re looking to shake it up a bit (which I personally don’t think is needed but I’m old school) have you considered using your musical background and connecting a catchy lyric or song title? Like, for Instance and suggested without too much thought on my part, « Shut Up » by Simple Plan lol

[@MysticOblong]

The violins made me laugh :)

[@Lily-Bravo]

I laughed, but I wonder if it had appeared in the corner rather than take over the whole screen might have been better. I was watching under cat on laptop circumstances and thought she had switched channels for me!!

[@dharmacharinipasadanandi7110]

What came next, was ivermectin advocates saying (in the comments section), that the author must have been pressurised to retract the abstract...?!?!?! . Reminds me of the bit in Monty Pythons "Life of Brian" where people insist on following him as the messiah, no matter how hard Brian tries to correct them and dissuade them :) I agree that doc mobeen was much more defensive than I expected him to be. John Campbell did say he was sorry. We simply need to wait for the Oxford principle trial to publish - I hope it's completely unequivocal and settles the matter.

[@jamesnite2157]

'Alright, I am the Messiah! Now f*** off!'

[@dharmacharinipasadanandi7110]

@@jamesnite2157 he IS the messiah! :) :) :)

[@jamesnite2157]

I would add that Campbell didn't really apologise - he said 'Given that the abstract was flawed, everything I've said is flawed, as I can only say what was in the abstract.' I don't accept this - he completely ignored the crucial data that highlighted why it was a deeply flawed cohort comparison. This is lying, or at least misrepresentation, by omission. The abstract was less than 1 A4 page, so his only excuse for omitting those key details was to exaggerate a pro-IVM conclusion to feed viewership. If he had any integrity, then 1) he should have mentioned why the authors made a fuss about misrepresentation of the abstract (which would bring attention to the fact he failed mention the key differences in cohorts, showing he's incapable of basic analysis and/or a liar); 2) he should have removed the original video or _at least_ included a caption/comment/description somewhere on that video that his interpretation is void. He won't though because money > integrity. His only real apology was for wasting people's 10 minutes listening to him waffle over irrelevant information. He underestimates the total time by several orders of magnitude.

[@hassanabdaladl]

@@jamesnite2157 you are absolutely correct. He should have said he made a huge mistake even presenting the abstract to his audience. The way he waffled in his video sounded like he was questioning whether or not it was 'really even retracted' because it's still up; in a way to save face and pass the buck.

[@hughbassoon]

Thanks Professor Greg. Very useful.

[@MysticOblong]

I'm wondering if David Pakman and his team also found this video very useful for background research on conference abstracts etc in his video "They're Pushing ANOTHER Bogus Ivermectin "Study"" kzbin.info/www/bejne/mGjSi3mNbK1sjJo The Pakman video also features some of the interview Prof Greg did with with Iakov Efimenko. Would have been good if Pakman credited this channel with a link in the description which unfortunately he didn't.

[@lynch4815]

Greg, thank you for doggedly keeping up with this new bout of misinformation! As a younger scientist, it seems like a great deal of misinformation comes from having scientific literature that is "open" to the public but not written for public consumption. Do you agree with this? And if so, do you see any remedies? (Maybe journals should be requiring authors to include a top-line disclaimer for lay audiences?)

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

I honestly don't know, except that it's complicated. As I was making this video, I grew increasingly angry at the fundamentally irresponsible role of some popular science communicators. In this case, Campbell was nowhere near as bad as Mobeen in his response, but both of them made the same initial (and really) basic mistake. Both of them share a lot of stuff they don't understand, which they really shouldn't do, although again Campbell is somewhat better in this regard because he admits it. But still, the better choice when not understanding something is simply not to make that video.

[@hassanabdaladl]

There's a huge problem with this open access to information. The information is read by entirely uninformed laypeople, or presented to uninformed laypeople through biased lenses (of these so called "educators") etc. There needs to be either checks and balances on the middle men or on the public access, imho. But it is a much more nuanced issue.

[@bmint]

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg I’d say you are moderating quite well! But it would be nice to see you take your professor role more seriously and try educating them and us, instead of this fixation it seems on the current narrative! Which is harmful as well! There are other options for treatments, you know it! Make a properly informed/informing video on that and watch your subscriber count go up!

[@marloes8726]

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg start by being more professional. Stop calling out Campbell and Dr Mobeen in trying to make your point. You can learn that from them, if you want more subscribers. At least Dr Mobeen deleted his video and accepted his mistake. Campbell has done,/said nothing so far.

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

@@marloes8726 If you watch this video, there's an entire section on Dr. Campbell's apology, and a section in which I thank him for it. Dr. Mobeen deleted his video, yes, but then made another video to punch down on a medical student to his half million subscribers instead of accepting responsibility for his mistake. I'm not sure what kind of example of professionalism you think that Dr. Mobeen sets with that behaviour.

[@jonathanport5002]

Please discuss the cynical use of the Phifer papers by Campbell. I like the elephant analogy

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

Thanks. 盲人摸象 is the actual idiom. I'm trying to broaden my scope, so while I might do a video to discuss the Pfizer documents, I don't think I'll focus on Campbell's facile interpretation of them.

[@jonathanport5002]

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg yes chasing Campbell has been fun but he is becoming an easy target could be time to move on. But it infuriated a lot of us how he has mislead so many . He must know what he is doing.

[@hassankassem7017]

Super clear, considered and well produced video Greg. I now feel I understand properly the flaws people made in how this abstract was approached. Thanks for sharing!

[@vtbn53]

Fantastic video, thanks so much once again.

[@picahudsoniaunflocked5426]

Majority Report just shouted out your video & played a clip! YAY!

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

I saw! How cool is that. I wish they had linked it

[@picahudsoniaunflocked5426]

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg Me too, if I can find the original I'll try to comment. Would like to see them talk with you, actually.

[@drummingjack7055]

Thank you for the video! 🙏

[@BloobleBonker]

Please explain why the Oxford Principle study results are being delayed. Just explain. Thank you.

[@nonflyingdutchman9573]

Why are you not directing this question to those running the Oxford PRINCIPLE study? Just explain. Thank you.

[@bhobba]

Great video. Have you done one yet on the 95% confidence level usually used, meaning 5% of results could be wrong?

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

I have a video with Andrew Gelman, one of the most highly cited statisticians in the world, that touches on it

[@Cabiriad]

I think this thumbnail and latest title are just great! I thought maybe typo? until I looked it up. I see what you did there ;)

[@steve6375]

Great video. However, I do feel that the science world needs to be brought into the 21st Century. The days of printed abstracts, posters, physically attending conferences and the printing of scientific papers which are only read by scientists in the same field have now been largely superseded - after all, we no longer have to go to the Royal Society to present a new discovery to the world or even be a member of the Royal Society! We now have the *internet* and this means billions of people have access to these resources and it is inevitable that the information will be misinterpreted by many of them. So anything published online or offline should contain very clear statements at the start and at the end which indicate the type of intended audience it is directed at and clearly indicates the level of validity of the contents of the piece. Perhaps a star rating where one star means very weak evidence and five stars mean that the equipment. method, results, stats/calculations and conclusions have been peer reviewed by very eminent (named) experts in the relevant fields.

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

It's a changing world, that's for sure, and I think you are onto something. Let me offer a slightly different angle, one that is frankly new to me, and is by no means gelled in my mind. There's a lot of confusion, clearly, about how science works, and about what scientists do. I guess it's always been thus, and the inner workings of science will generally seem strange to someone outside the field, and more so to someone outside of science at large. But it's also too easy to ignore that people also don't understand what _science communicators_ do either. If you ask a non-expert person on the street to describe the job of a scientist, they would probably admit to not knowing. But if you ask them about the responsibilities of a science journalist, they would probably claim to have some idea. But I'm not convinced that hypothetical person is right. Look what Campbell and Mobeen did with their fauxpologies! Mobeen, especially, wanted to blame the authors for failures of science, when the failure was his as a science communicator and erstwhile educator. His mistake would have been the same even if the work had ended up leading to a major discovery and advance: he still has no business basing anything on an abstract. But _because people don't know that,_ Mobeen can easily (and wrongly) get away with it, and convince people that he's a victim.

[@nonflyingdutchman9573]

Con men and snake-oil salesmen have been around for a lot longer than the internet and to be honest most reasonably intelligent people know if they have the background knowledge, experience and training to understand something or not, and if not they know to defer to the views of those who do. The vast majority trust Fauci, or Whitty in the UK, and have been vaccinated and don't take Ivermectin.

[@dilipanthonypinto1620]

Thanks for the enlightenment…

[@DRnab1983]

Well I think you can discuss a conference abstract - in context - and acknowledging that is only a conference abstract. I think the where John Campbell fell down is he didn’t seem to know how conference abstracts work

[@nonflyingdutchman9573]

but as the video explains, if you only have the conference abstract you don't have the context.

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

What @nonflying dutchman wrote is exactly the point. If you ONLY have the abstract, it's impossible to know what you are talking about because by definition you don't have that needed context.

[@DRnab1983]

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg I bigger point was that John - seemed puzzled why there was no paper that he could find at least with the awful one on cardiac biomarkers - which is emblematic of his overall lack of familiarity in the space. Conference abstracts too often are “published” - in relatively bigger journals because they are held by major societies - so when it appears to John that they are “published” in day circulation he lends them far more credence than they deserve

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

@@DRnab1983 I just watched part of his most recent video, and my jaw dropped. He seems to think the journal has some obligation to place a notice on a poster from a conference last year because its authors never turned it into a paper. What I'm saying first here is that I take your point. I agree with you, to an extent. But Campbell is at this point a professional medical and scientific communicator to the public, based on his experience in nursing and nursing education, his PhD in nursing education, and the success of his KZbin channel. He's a professional. He has a professional obligation to be responsible. He's scratching his head and saying that it's someone else's responsibility to prevent him from being completely reckless. It would be understandable for a layperson to be confused about the matter. It's inexcusable for a person in his position, with his education, experience, and professional responsibility, to be confused.

[@DRnab1983]

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg - I don’t know if he published much himself from his PhD or if he ever attended a conference but something is missing in his knowledge and experience ... a gap he is unaware of ... that’s the charitable view - it could be he just is saving face and knows exactly how big an error it was

[@beachdancer]

I suggest that the abstract should not include the ratio and that it had should just state that the ivermectin group had better outcomes and it remains to be discovered if that was due to the drug or other differences. The ratio gives a false sense of precision and certainty. What do you think?

[@Schokland2007]

Where can I find the video Campbell's apologizing for putting out the wrong information? The only recent video (with 951,984 views!) I see on his channel is "Ivermectin, more evidence".

[@Marco-it2mr]

It is in the "Long list of side effects to look out for" video.

[@Schokland2007]

@@Marco-it2mr Thanks, I just found it myself in Greg's references of this video but it is confusing. The "Ivermectin, more evidence" is still prominent on Campbell's channel and the apology is hidden in a video with an irrelevant title.

[@Marco-it2mr]

@@Schokland2007 Well, even that apology is half-hearted, with his references to the website of a crank doctor. I'm not even going to give the guy's name, to not have people here be inclined to check his website.

[@GregTuckerKellogg]

@@Schokland2007 I take your point, but my view is, well, baby steps. I want to give him credit for the effort that he made, which is far more genuine than Mobeen.

[@petitio_principii]

Sometimes such channels will be covering something and the coverage seems pretty reasonable, except that they're seldom ever making caveats trying to prevent some misinterpretations. Some that may be hard to predict, I'd grant that. But then, surely in the comment section, there will be top-scoring comment threads with such misinterpretations, going virtually unchallenged. Certainly not by channels' administrators themselves, apparently. At least I haven't seen that yet, that I recall. And funnily enough, comments trying to correct such misinterpretations may end up disappearing, which I like to think is mostly due to some weird backfiring of automated mechanisms, although I can't help but think there's some human false-flagging involved, that is never corrected by the channels themselves. To make things worse, it takes some effort to know whether one's comments are really there or not, they may be shown only to the logged account. I find it tremendously disrespectful a policy for YT to have. Makes me think thrice before commenting, "why bother." Not only the odds of somehow having a persuasive message are not tremendously good, but the message itself may not be there for long.

[@arandomguy777]

Media also amplifies info

[@jonathanport5002]

I find your insight into all this very reassuring. Thanks

[@handofthesly]

So just to clarify, they were undertaking a study/analysis but didn't have an official paper written up yet. The abstract was a summary of what they had found in their study so far and they were presenting it in the conference meeting and it got published alongside his manuscript which he later withdrew because he found flaws in the study. But the abstract didn't get withdrawn and didn't have any notes on it to say that the manuscript had been. Nevertheless, because their findings weren't yet written up as an actual paper let alone published in a journal or peer reviewed then it is irresponsible to draw conclusions from it as it is just an initial analysis that was being showcased at a meeting?

[@drdave34]

I believe this part is wrong: " it got published alongside his manuscript which he later withdrew because he found flaws in the study." No paper was published, and therefore no paper was withdrawn. They were planning to write up a paper, but they decided not to do that. This conference abstract wasn't published alongside anything else but the other conference abstracts.

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

"and it got published alongside his manuscript" For this part, no. There was no manuscript published, ever, and so no manuscript was withdrawn. The AP story wording is, in fact, misleading, because they describe the draft manuscript as being withdrawn, but what that means is that the authors stopped pursuing efforts to publish it. I realise the distinction may sound like hair-splitting, but it's important and one that any active scientist or medical/science communication professional would (and should) recognise. But yes, it's irresponsible to draw conclusions from an initial analysis being shown at a meeting, especially if you didn't attend the meeting and have only the isolated abstract to work with. One way to think of it is that meeting abstracts are _tools for meeting participants._

[@MarcosElMalo2]

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg how’s this for an analogy? It’s like reading a course description in a college catalog, and then assuming you understand the material taught in the course. Another: It’s like basing a book report on a short description of the book. Or maybe better, basing your book report on a book *proposal*.

[@drdave34]

@@MarcosElMalo2 The course description is a good analogy, especially if the course is canceled before ever being taught. Like, maybe it turned out the course was a bad idea when it was proposed and then withdrawn (I've seen such courses). It would be silly to say "well, what happened in the course?" when the course was never taught.

[@handofthesly]

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg ahh I see, that definitely helps clear things up thanks

[@laurencehogg6010]

I think this direction youre taking now will really help. The more I watch you the more I think I misjudged you when I first discovered your channel and I was horrified to see how one academic was talking about another (albeit retired) with what seemd like the objective of grifting (to use your turn of phrase...) off another's channel. The fact that you clearly know what your talking about and have a knack with tough material just made it worse for me to watch. I don't think that's the case any more and the way you chose to speak about your youtube colleagues in this video - for good and for ill - was exemplary. But Im still having real problems with this conference abstract (apologies) - not becuase of your explanation in this video but because of what's played out on KZbin and twitter for the world to see - I dont think it's done much for public confidence in science, and I think something similar will probably happen again. Please bear with me. That a conference abstract should not be given the same weight as a full paper is obvious to you. In coming to that conclusion you're relying on in-depth knowledge of a specialised process and many years experience, as does everyone in your research community. My concern is this: now you're on KZbin you have millions of potential viewers who cannot rely on this experience. What they have witnessed looks like a piece of science being published with a very clearly worded conclusion (abstract/paper/conference/poster/published - these words in an academic context mean little to the majority or people), then withdrawn, but technically not becuase it was never published as a paper. This is not me stating my own view or having a pop at anyone, it's me trying to put myself in the place of someone who doesn't have your experience, looking at what's happened and trying to make sense of it. As an explicit example, your explanation of what has happened here and why it shouldn't have was very clear. But (this isn't a critisism) you assumed all your audience will know what a conference abstract is; many will have no idea. A quick look at the comments here shows people asking very sensible questions about what is a poster, how to start looking at the literature, the relevance of this methodology v RCT, one very astute comment that centres on the language - 'the abstract was abstracted from something' etc. KZbin could be fantastic for science and acdemics - so much more than just watching recorded lectures - but it's new, it isn't self regulating and it feels like we're all still figuring out the rules. What I would hate to happen is for this marvellous opportunity to be missed and instead by accident only undermine confidence in what you're all trying to do. I hope I'm making sense...

[@nonflyingdutchman9573]

A genuine question from the other side of the argument as a career scientist: why is it that people who don't understand the difference between a conference abstract and a peer-reviewed paper believe that they understand the science? How do we address this?

[@marloes8726]

Laurence Hogg, I was hoping this video would have more educational info for the layman, as you describe in your comment. The title gives you that impression. Unfortunately about half of the video is still spent on 'grifting'.

[@laurencehogg6010]

@@nonflyingdutchman9573 Thank you for taking the time to reply. I realise I'm guilty of coming with problems not solutions. At the moment I find myself swinging between "it's the wild west, it will sort itself out" and "this could go wrong". I believe the 'youtube academic' (apologies...) is a relatively new phenomenon and we havent worked out 'how to do it' yet as a community. This is as far as I think I've got: 1) surely there has to be a small research project here, maybe a PhD for someone? and 2) the current situation is unsustainable, they have to start talking to each other. Prof T-K has said he has reached out. Today I've taken the liberty of writing to Dr Campbell to ask him to consider reaching out. I've got no idea what I'm doing; I dont know if that's my place or any of my business; there are no rules. All I think I know is that everyone wants the same outcome.

[@laurencehogg6010]

@@marloes8726 Thank you for your response. I think people doing these videos are making progress despite the fact that they're still working out how to do this on youtube. In this video, Prof T-K critiques the approach of other academic youtubers, he's not unkindly critical of them personally. He's trying to explain what's happened, the only thing that's missing is as you say - a bit more background knowledge so people have a kind of 'toolkit' that allows them to understand these explanations better and then make up their own mind.

[@drdave34]

Laurence Hogg, This is a really interesting comment. I'm a rhetoric of science scholar, so I want to add something from that perspective. (Full disclosure: I'm also Greg's brother.) I don't know if you're an academic, but I'm going to assume you're not. People who are not academics are often surprised at how severe academics are with one another. If you read the stuff that comes out a science journal, it seems very calm and measured, but behind the scenes there is often a pretty epic struggle. Within the scientific field, scientists tend to be understated. So when one scientist writes "It is unclear how [Scientist A] obtained results so divergent from the published literature," that scientist is really saying "[Scientist A] screwed up." Greg's rhetoric in this public forum may seem brash, but that's because, KZbin not being a place where scientists are writing tor other scientists, a person can speak his or her mind directly. I actually think Greg is really restrained here,.

[@stevewhocares9970]

Bam

[@anilmaxkarande-zn2hf]

Very useful ☺

[@picahudsoniaunflocked5426]

17:15 Oooh please please put that flowchart on a mug & totebag pretty please? Merch to assuage my totebag covetousness; merch to give a mug to a soon-to-STEM-graduate. [I can't speak to t-shirts bc I'm a crone who still slices garments up like a teen.]

[@goldenboy8167]

If I understand this correctly, Dr Campbell & Dr Been took a crumb and thought it was a cookie. The real problem here is that they didn't understand that from the beginning. They both seem like decent open-minded guys but have a great influence due to their popularity. What about the people who understand it and deliberately use it to spread their bias? Or that don't dig enough to find out what they are actually spreading, just because it looks to confirms their bias? Which one of these is Jordan Peterson?

[@darkdrift0r124]

Hi it'll be nice of you to do a long-form (VERY TECHNICAL) explanation of exactly how and why the current MRNA vaccines are safe and effective, with your depth of knowledge. It might help a skeptic (me included) to understand more.

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

Great suggestion! I'll put it on the queue

[@bmint]

I think he’s been flagged/suspended for lying and harassing.. all the videos/info he has been against and all the evidence keeps piling up! I do not believe he has a leg left to stand on.. and even if he does, I will not believe him! He is a very manipulative narcissist! And his fanboys will play along to make themselves all look worse while they like and argue each other! His information is not helping anyone!

[@darkdrift0r124]

@@bmint Cool but i wanna hear what he has to say

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

@@bmint LOL.

[@MrArdytube]

Conference abstracts… and the vanity publishing “open source” internet only “journals”

[@bmint]

Where is the full paper? the abstract was abstracted from something? Break it down for us in a way dr Campbell would, pull out the projector and do some professoring doc!

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

No. The abstract was just what they wrote before the conference, to help people find their poster. It's _for the people at the conference._ Here's a video of a poster session to give you a sense of what it's like kzbin.info/www/bejne/gJ6UooeIZ5eLhtE

[@hughbassoon]

I’m no expert but I’ve done a couple of poster sessions and abstracts of them. They are just initial results of some data that we present but may not make it to being a paper. And in those initial results which are on the poster there is also an abstract which is an attempt to summarize those initial results. Then as shown in the video, i stood by the poster during the poster session and got feedback from people looking at the poster. If the conference organizers think that your information is interesting you might be invited to make a presentation of your findings. Once again, the abstract in the abstract book us an attempt to summarize what you found. There is a time for some questions from the audience and it is an opportunity to talk to other people who might be doing similar work. One of my poster sessions which was also a presentation made it into a paper……the other didn’t.

[@hughbassoon]

I should have said “interesting enough”. Also if the information seems worthy of being made into a paper there is a lot of work involved and it needs to be peer reviewed and this all takes time and revision. Sometimes the researcher gives up and moves on to other projects or jobs.

[@bmint]

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg I learned this from watching you, thanks.. so there was an abstract and a poster, at a convention, but no paper to present, that he would have abstracted from to give you after seeing his poster to decide if you should hear his presentation.. How stupid do you think people are?

[@bmint]

@@hughbassoon so now there is 2 abstracts? Get out of here!

[@charliezxi]

Did you go to the conference? If no, why are you using the abstract? It would seem you don’t know what you’re talking about.

[@nonflyingdutchman9573]

Well Prof Greg did talk to the author of the study, and published that talk on KZbin......

[@charliezxi]

@@nonflyingdutchman9573 I’m just using his own flowchart, here.

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

Oh, please. I'm not talking about the abstract. I'm not criticising it, or promoting it, or defending it. I'm talking about how scientific communication, how it was used unprofessionally by others.

[@lawrencejwinkler]

What’s the purpose of conference abstract? If the abstract is BS, why was it put out in the first place?

[@nonflyingdutchman9573]

to advertise the presentation at the conference

[@lawrencejwinkler]

@@nonflyingdutchman9573 Why is it okay to advertise a BS abstract? Such an abstract has no business being advertised.

[@nonflyingdutchman9573]

@@lawrencejwinkler The abstract was advertising the presentation of the work so that people go along and listen and see if what's presented has any merit. The abstract wasn't bullshit, it's just that after the presentation and after the authors later submitted a manuscript for publication the feedback they got from peer-review prompted the authors to not proceed to try and publish the work in a journal. That's a normal part of the scientific process. What is BS is clueless, self-proclaimed internet experts not understanding what a conference abstract is and pushing it as a fully peer-reviewed piece of work.

[@hamburg7142]

@@lawrencejwinkler Did you even watch the video? It’s all explained.

[@lawrencejwinkler]

@@hamburg7142 Of course. That's why I made the comment I made. An abstract is anything should have positive value. Sure, write up an abstract, but if it's garbage at the outset, it servers no legitimate purpose to be written up and published. Maybe I've got integrity and that's the difference. I would never make a claim, written up in a abstract, that didn't have substance behind it. Maybe it's my education as a lawyer, where you don't make claim to the court and to opposing parties you can't reasonably expect to substantiate.

[@bmint]

It’s been a while? Did you get flagged/suspended for your blatant misinformation and harassment?

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

No. I have a day job. I've been marking student assignments and writing a paper.

[@bmint]

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg Is there no spring break in Singapore? I hope it’s a proper real “paper”? That word is meaningless thanks to you and your fanboys btw! Please be very critical of your students, very, that will give them the incentive to surpass you! And historically speaking, this is a long stretch of silence for your channel? and most shocking of all, where did your fanboys go?

[@bmint]

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg fda says opiates are approved.. if your students went to Florida for spring break and don’t make it back.. is that on you as a professor who knows so much about medicine?

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

@@bmint I never delete comments or ban users for disagreement. But I've banned a few outright trolls, and you are moving to the front of that queue

[@bmint]

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg and that is why you are flagged! You can only do that so many times before the algorithm hides your content.. haters are motivators! If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.. Banning or blocking my comments, will only hurt your channel and you more, people who read that will think you are a baby who when not getting their way throws a fit.. your fanboys aren’t defending you anymore! Report and ban me! As I said it will only hurt you! The algorithm will believe you are hurt, your comments will be turned off and your content will be harder to find! Which might be good? So please block me!

[@jackybogues2495]

I am puzzled . Just because an experiment is not double blind control randomised , does not mean it cannot be VERY promising . Ivermectin had an extremely low risk profile with lots of promise That IS suspicious whether you like it or not

[@skepticalbadger]

No it isn't. Have you watched the video interview on this very channel with the ACTUAL AUTHOR explaining this?

[@rickstrole9634]

Jacky you are correct...you have to know there is a concerted effort to beat down absolutely anything that the political right (and this is a right left thing as always these days) has put forth including lifesaving things such as ivermectin... these prof.g.t. Kellogg (he/him) (he actually posted his pronouns in a tweet) sucks ups commenting on what a wonderful person g.t.kellogg he/him is and how his videos transcend all other opinions are leftwingers...there.. that why it doesn't sound right to you

[@williamverhoef4349]

@@rickstrole9634 If you can't contribute please have the decency to remain silent. This is a science channel. Nobody is interested in your politics.

[@williamverhoef4349]

Let me guess. You didn't watch the video.

[@jackybogues2495]

@@williamverhoef4349 I’ve tried to listen to other side and only counter I hear is “there is no evidence ‘x’ or no randomised control” Demanding a gold standard experiment isn’t the only way of arriving at scientific truth,

[@antb9521]

You might want to read the latest studies on Ivermectin and consider apologizing to Dr. John for defaming him and his honest work.

[@hawaiianrobot]

which studies?

[@drummingjack7055]

Which latest studies? And what do new studies have to do with Campbells wrong information regarding this abstract?

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

I haven't defamed him in the slightest, and if you are speaking of the laughably bad and conflicted Brazil study, he's still wrong about that.

[@mikebarker9187]

When will we see your misinformation videos on Fauci, CDC data reports, CDC policy statements, WHO, Pediatrics Journal, and the public health agencies of the many states and nations?

[@homeygdoggydogg]

Perhaps never. But you do agree that Campbell and Dr Mobeen are full of garbage?

[@thefbat5847]

@Greg I have no idea how you have the mental fortitude to constantly answer comments like these

[@tonyclif1]

@@homeygdoggydogg it’s far easier to change the subject than for him to admit that.

[@mikebarker9187]

Okay. Campbell is a scumbag fraud ugly dog and his mother smells of elderberry. … Now when will we see your misinformation videos on Fauci, CDC, WHO, Pediatrics Journal?

[@mikebarker9187]

@@homeygdoggydogg No. Of course not. … Neither do I think our guy here is full if garbage.

[@karidobie]

Sorry prof, but you are offending my academic intelligence with this. I think you are just trying to get publicity. So, I' ll stop waisting my time here.

[@williamverhoef4349]

Did you say 'intelligence' 😆

[@drdave34]

"offending my academic intelligence" lol

[@martifingers]

Positions proposed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. It would be helpful if you specified your disagreements. Ad hominem arguments ("just trying to get publicity") are usually avoided in academic discourse. I would have thought you would know that.

[@Account.for.Comment]

You forget /s. No one know if you really stupid or sarcastically portraying stupid.