How you can spot scientific misinformation on social media

Scientific misinformation is harmful during the Covid pandemic. Here I describe six misinformation tactics and how you can spot them before you decide to circulate them.
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 Intro
0:44 The dangers of scientific misinformation
1:47 The context of social media
2:55 Categories of misinformation
3:10 The first category: deceptive representations
3:40 Tactic 1: Publications in bogus (predatory) journals
8:07 Tactic 2: Obscuring retractions
9:07 Tactic 3: Impersonating peer review
10:52 The second category: manipulating the message
11:18 Tactic 4: Science by press release
14:26 Tactic 5: Oversimplification and amplification
17:37 Tactic 6: Stealth agenda-driven pseudoscience
20:01 Concluding remarks
▬ Disclaimers ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
This video is for educational purposes only.
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. 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.
▬ Additional resources ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
- Pubmed pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
- Web of Science (subscription-based) webofknowledge.com/
- Scopus (subscription-based) www.scopus.com
- Stop Predatory Journals predatoryjournals.com/
- Santa Clara seroprevalence study from Stanford (version 1 ) www.medrxiv.org/content/10.11...
- Professor Andrew Gelman's analysis of the seroprevalence study (version 1) statmodeling.stat.columbia.ed...
- Professor Jeffrey Morris's analysis of misinformation regarding Israeli data and vaccination efficacy www.covid-datascience.com/pos...
- Dr. Susan Oliver's discussion of misinformation on ivmmeta • Fake ivermectin meta-a...

[@hassankassem7017]

I've been screaming out for content like this (whilst attempting to combat misinformation myself often without the industry skills or knowledge!). Thanks for putting in the time and effort - Keep up the great and much needed work!

[@williamverhoef4349]

Likewise. And my comments on John Campbell's videos are now being removed. It seems he does not like valid criticism.

[@hassankassem7017]

@ COVID-19 itself is said to increase risk of heart problems, that would have something to do with why the vaccine might. So you're at risk regardless

[@williamverhoef4349]

@ Tony Lin has posted no videos for 3 months. Is he still alive? Do you have a link to the video where he claims what you said he claimed. As a technician, he does not seem particularly qualified to speak about virology, immunology, vaccinology, and infectious diseases. Do you also take you car to a carpenter when you need it serviced?

[@williamverhoef4349]

@ "American heart assoc - and uk confirm 125% increase in heart attack risk post jab" Actually, I think is was "more than double the risk of a cardiovascular event over the next 5 years" The claim was that the risk increased from 11% to 25% after the vaccination . But the claim has been fact-checked and found to be incorrect. It was based on a poster presentation at a cardiovascular conference. This means it was not considered to be good enough for an oral podium presentation. And i was also produced by a person who has a long record of spreading pseudoscience about diet about which he sells books and sells supplements. In other words, he is what is know as a 'grifter'. His paper has not been peer-reviewed. In fact there is no paper at this point in time, just an abstract. The extract has an "expression of concern" label on it because of the inaccuracies found within it. That doesn't look good.

[@williamverhoef4349]

@ I will need a link before I respond because I am almost certain you are mistaken.

[@tommymoore5099]

The scary part of this is you have a few thousand subscribers and the largest purveyors of mis/disinformation have hundreds of thousands/millions helping them spread their dangerous alternative facts. Keep up the good work, you seem like a very good teacher and I learn a lot from your concise presentations and natural ease with presenting it.

[@strikemike61]

He only has a few 1000 followers is because he is a paid plant to try and debunk other peoples theories that challenge the narrative.

[@69birdboy]

Ask the British medical journal about the lack of oversight and transparency. So do one about misinformation

[@Backtothescience]

Thanks for this video. You have made so many great points. It is really concerning when people who should know better spread misinformation uncritically. (And, of course, thanks for the plug. I really appreciate it.)

[@porscheoscar]

You guys need to form a network of credentialed KZbinrs. For instance here in NY the NYU Langone Hospital System have a channel on Satellite radio called Doctor Radio. The only guests allowed on air are doctors and scientists with relevant experience in the area they are speaking about. Everyone stays in their lane and doesn't start opining on topics they aren't specifically credentialed for. Physicians speak about medicines, scientists speaking about clinical trials and nurses speak about nursing practice. KZbin needs something like this. Maybe like a green checkmark that denotes a graduate degree in the topic being discussed.

[@Backtothescience]

@@porscheoscar that is a great idea. We just need to convince KZbin.

[@Lourens551]

This guys university is funded by merck, pfizer, gates foundation. He is a big pharma voice piece to those challenging their narrative. Follow the money!!!!!!!

[@porscheoscar]

@@Lourens551 the day you are diagnosed with cancer, dementia or heart disease...the next day you'll be demanding the covid vaccines and medicines "funded by big pharma, the Gates foundation, and major universities". You'll quickly forget all about Ivermectin, z pack, hydroxy chloroquine and zinc supplements.

[@MarcosElMalo2]

@@Lourens551 Oh, Clint. Did you even watch the video? Did you know there are even easier ways to suss out dodginess? For example, when a commenter or poster of information reveals themselves to be a conspiracy nut, we can ignore them. They’ve invalidated their opinions by revealing that they’re mentally damaged people.

[@douglasdippold8235]

Please make this type of video (along with videos debunking specific misinformation) the focus of your channel. It would be a tremendous public service.

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

I plan on it! I'll still e making bioinforamtics videos, but it does appear that there is a need for this kind of educational content.

[@JK_JK_JK]

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg Still waiting. What is the Covid-related mortality for non-elderly persons with no comorbidities?

[@renaissanceman21c]

Dr. Tucker-Kellogg, thank you for this video. As a fellow doctor, I was appalled at the suppression of the scientific voices at the beginning of and during the pandemic. There were so many people with little or no scientific background who mindlessly uttered the mantra of “we’re just following the science.” These people were just regurgitating phrases that had been pounded into their minds day after day, week after week, and month after month by unscrupulous news organizations and politicians who also had little or no scientific background. I noted that the majority of people who said, “We’re just following the science” were some of the least scientific people I had ever seen. Science would do itself well not to entangle itself with politics, lest it be hijacked, distorted, and manipulated for those who have a political agenda. Thank you for giving a clear, concise, and objective presentation of the scientific method. I hope that enough people see this. With a proper understanding, hopefully enough people will come to realize the difference between science and political manipulation/propaganda.

[@danzel1157]

Excellent talk, and much needed. Thank you.

[@stevenrunge]

Very interesting that your example of obscuring a retraction is the first video recommended to me by KZbin in the sidebar.

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

The magic of KZbin!

[@donmcleod8307]

Thank you for your generous diligence

[@twigmore4436]

Thanks for the straight forward manner of presentation and examples of the problems laypeople will have with claims to scientific authority being shared through social media. I appreciated the emphasis on peer-reviewed literature, and the psuedo-science publishers/predatory journals, as well as the links to sites that sources can be checked through pubMe, scopus, or predatoryjournals. Thanks for all of that.

[@FriendlyPharmacy5]

You are doing important work - much appreciated.

[@Backtothescience]

I think you do great work as well. Your videos always stick to the facts and avoid the hype.

[@FriendlyPharmacy5]

@@Backtothescience Oh wow, thank you so much.🙌

[@FriendlyPharmacy5]

You have a channel! Subscribed😊

[@barryhamm3414]

@@Backtothescience Thank you so much for reminding me of Friendly Pharmacy. I've now subscribed and clicked the bell notification icon.

[@Backtothescience]

@@FriendlyPharmacy5 you're welcome, and thanks for the sub. It means a lot to get one from someone I respect.

[@trishcusworth4950]

Thank you for your information. We all need educating on this topic.

[@anilmaxkarande-zn2hf]

Superb! Thanks you for your hard work. Its enabling me to discuss and guide people in the right direction.

[@francisleesc]

Thank you Prof Greg for effort in stamping out misinformation. 👍👍👍👍👍🙇‍♂️🙇‍♂️🙇‍♂️🙇‍♂️🙇‍♂️

[@MrArdytube]

Thx for the information on Simpson’s Paradox. This seems particularly convincing to people…. I did not know it had a name

[@mark140363]

Wise words indeed. Thank you.

[@msives]

Brilliant and much needed.

[@mimo8936]

Thank-you much appreciated.

[@jonathanport5002]

Great video professor.

[@Lrover16]

Canadian Biochemist here in Brazil...also looking forward and alarm is indeed set.

[@namtaru7086]

Thanks a lot. This was good.

[@cloud2discokaraoke17]

Thank you Greg. Very well explained.

[@hughbassoon]

Thanks so much

[@Bb5y]

Wow. Thankyou. I wish I’d found your site months ago. Thankyou sir.

[@JohnFreshley]

Loved that, Greg! I plan to share broadly.

[@ninayashaa]

That was amazing thank you

[@Flyfish325]

Have you tried the CRAAP test. Yup it legitimate, developed by librarians to spot misinformation. The CRAAP test is a test to check the objective reliability of information sources across academic disciplines. CRAAP is an acronym for Currency, Relevance, Authority, Accuracy, and Purpose.[1] Due to a vast number of sources existing online, it can be difficult to tell whether these sources are trustworthy to use as tools for research. The CRAAP test aims to make it easier for educators and students to determine if their sources can be trusted. By employing the test while evaluating sources, a researcher can reduce the likelihood of using unreliable information. The CRAAP test, developed by Sarah Blakeslee[2] and her team of librarians at California State University, Chico (CSU Chico),[1] is used mainly by higher education librarians at universities. It is one of various approaches to source criticism.

[@bruceironside1105]

Thank you.

[@davidjensen9773]

Absolutely love this video. Thanks so much. I came to you from The David Pakman Show. I also listen to Skeptics Guide to the Universe. I think you’d be an awesome interview on that podcast also

[@projectmoon13]

The best course I ever took was the “Stanford Learning Technique.‘it’s designed to teach you how to learn. What to pay attention to. How to organize your time, how to take notes. All kinds of amazing things. There is no topic to learn, only how to organize your life, by understanding what is going on. The class should be taught to every person alive! This is exactly like that. Keep teaching people how to learn. Great job. Great video.

[@WillNewcomb]

Thank you. I've been following some medics on KZbin for 18 months and eventually have become wary of at least one. As a result I've stopped watching and sought alternative authoritative sources. Even with your recommendations is still bloody difficult to spot misinformation in the short term but I'll try using your suggestions. Thanks.

[@plancksepoch3040]

Good video, thank you for providing intelligent counterpoints to my views.

[@sherrybonnett4827]

Good one! This empowers people to assess for themselves. Misinformation can come from any source, including our trusted health authorities and also independents. Thankyou for sharing your views, to help people discern for themselves.

[@alunjones3860]

I admit I've yet to watch this one yet, but I definitely will. It's the misinformation pushed by trusted health authorities and the mainstream media, which concerns me far more, than a few people posting silly things on social media. I already have a fair idea about what to look out for but want to learn more. A classic one is x increases the risk of dying from y by a large percentage, which makes it seem as though x is very dangerous, but if the risk of dying from y is low, then perhaps x isn't so bad. Of course this example highlights the difference between absolute and relative risk.

[@garthforbes2017]

Thanks again! Great content and very helpfull.

[@adamaprimo9023]

Very useful video. It seems to me that following the money is also a way to spot bad science.

[@pip1723]

Great video very informative .

[@mukluck]

I cannot thank you enough for doing this! I've liked, subscribed, and I'm sharing this information. Please keep making videos to help combat misinformation.

[@matta.747]

I’ve really enjoyed this quirky little play on freedom of speech and endorsement of science Good work!

[@jsvideos2261]

Please make a video about different vaccine types (inactivated virus, protein subunit, mRNA, viral vector) and what is known about their effectiveness, possible side effects and long-term safety, etc.

[@clairelariviere3122]

If I’m not mistaken there is already sound research and doctors on KZbin explaining these.

[@steelcom5976]

I always wanted to listen to a data scientist. Thanks so much!!!!

[@aislingquinn7673]

Thank you so much for this excellent explainer.

[@happytrails.]

Thanks for this video! I was aware of some of these, but not all. It helps rule some things out. Still I'm relying on figuring out who to follow to interpret studies into normal people speak, and trying to guess at their bias, their agendas, and whether or not they have the expertise to explain it accurately.

[@MegaTrivial]

Try NIH, maybe it won´t lie to you!

[@FalconFlyer75]

This really needs to go viral

[@WeePatchesOfLove]

Thank you in advance for video.

[@Spiun666]

This is amazing work. Thank you so much.

[@Spiun666]

And thanks for linking to other great resources debunking important misinformation!

[@PsychedelicChameleon]

Thank you for using pictures of the characters from "The Simpsons" cartoon to illustrate "Simpson's Paradox", that is so funny!

[@Backtothescience]

Looking forward to it. It is at a very convenient 9.00 am in Sydney.

[@barryhamm3414]

Or 08:00 here in Brisvegas

[@Backtothescience]

@@barryhamm3414 what time is dawn at this time of the year?

[@barryhamm3414]

@@Backtothescience Here it’s a bit before 05:00. Normally Queensland is 20 years behind Australia but during the summer it's 20 years and 1 hour.

[@Backtothescience]

@@barryhamm3414 lol.

[@hatoju]

Midnight here in Finland.

[@barryhamm3414]

Thanks so much for another excellent video. What I look for in YT videos and elsewhere are logical fallacies (eg ad homines), conspiratorial claims, claims that conflict with more authoritative sources, anecdotal claims and claims of causation when all that has been shown is a correlation. Please keeps making videos as they do much to hold back a tidal wave of false and sometimes dangerously false claims.

[@MrArdytube]

The disinformation reality is that it is seldom the case that people are intentionally spreading misinformation. They most often feel that they are gallantly correcting misinformation. Not only that, they often self righteously feel that they are correcting “misinformation” emerging from corruption and nefarious intent. Unfortunately, self righteous zeal is very energetic, convincing, and hard to displace

[@trp956s]

Great video. Have you tried Carl Sagan's bologna detector? It's a good general tool too.

[@petermorrall8337]

Thank you Greg, this is very helpful and pertinent given the spread of 'scientific' misinformation and misinformed supposed 'scientists'. For me there should be two caveats to your advice. First, the peer review system has faults; second, potential scientific positive paradigm shifts (in the Thomas Kuhn sense) may be stifled by the extant rules of scientific method.

[@BromanP47]

Another excellent video. Watched it all the way through. You are quickly becoming my most trusted outlet for information. Thank you! Because I know these videos take considerable time and effort to put together!

[@barryhamm3414]

Oh goody another video from G T-K, I can hardly wait.

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

This will be mercifully short (20 min)

[@hatoju]

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg Already waiting for a sequel.

[@alistairmackinnon4216]

Oh, like the modelling misinformation by Ferguson at the Imperial College?

[@RavikantRai21490]

Oh wow how did I miss out on this gem? The debunking of John Campbell brought my attention to you at first. And I'm so glad I did. Today I decided I'll view some of the other videos too. This is such a valuable gem of a video. I'll share this with my friends, also the anti-vaxxer friends who will still not change their stance anyway but hey, worth sharing regardless!

[@gkannon77]

Awesome info. As someone that can smell misinformation with surprising accuracy, but doesn't have the professional experience to rapidly disprove it, this is extremely helpful. My graduate degree was in Heath Science, and we didn't learn any of this. Just touched on the peer review process, not on bogus journals. Although I'd guess much of this wasn't pertinent when I was in school, like the amount of preprints coming out now. Glad you're willing to put in the time necessary to surmount Brandolini's law :) Keep it up!!!

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

Yeah, bogus pay-to-play journals are really a thing of the intenet age, since electronic publication is very cost-effective to scale. Bogus publishers typically produce dozens, if not hundreds, of "journals".

[@Marco-it2mr]

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg Let's be honest, Greg: we have plenty of "respected" journals of "respected" Publishers that have been throwing out a lot of, to put it mildly, very low quality research. We even have some journals that are in essence "taken over" by certain "interests", like Toxicology Reports (Elsevier). They may publish some good work on plenty of topics, but the nonsense they have done with COVID vaccines recently is a disaster. Not to speak of the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, which is essentially the premier outlet of papers from the IHU in Marseille (Didier Raoult et al). More from a personal perspective, I know of a whole range of *specialty journals* that have published hundreds of papers that violate decades of knowledge on the topic of their supposed field of specialty! One added me and a colleague to the Editorial Board to stop those papers, another journal decided to write an Editorial. Hilariously, in that same issue as the Editorial they published FIVE papers that committed several of the criticisms in that Editorial. Less funny is that this is now almost ten years ago, and that journal alone has published several hundreds of papers that committed those same flaws. It mirrors to some extent the experiences of people like Elisabeth Bik, who have found that it often takes many years to have *some* of the papers with clear evidence of figure problems corrected or retracted. And that's *some* of the papers, not nearly all, and some corrections involves tens of figures with supposedly "accidental mistakes". I hope we, the scientific community, will learn that we really must do better. It has become so important to just publish that robustness of findings has taken a backseat. /end rant

[@MarcosElMalo2]

@@Marco-it2mr Dude, I think you need to make a video on the topic of your rant.

[@Marco-it2mr]

@@MarcosElMalo2 Nah, I don't make videos.

[@LOLCoolJ]

Great video!

[@MrArdytube]

Looking forward Sadly, misinformation seems to be a more dynamic story And, perhaps that itself is a clue about misinformation… if a scientific story is provocative or outrageous…. Is likely also misleading

[@GrievenceCapitolist]

Intelligence is refreshing on KZbin . Thank you so much

[@captain_crunk]

Well done. This is the format you should go with in all future videos. Sans a music intro, there is no fat on the bone here, it's straight to the point. The vibe is absolutely perfect. Slam dunk.

[@angelinebriscoe-sperling8177]

Sorry I missed it this evening. I will watch( my) tomorrow. The best made plans of Mice and Man🤫

[@jeromesmith8306]

Generally, just work out who pays their salary - says a lot.

[@k.howard5927]

Good content

[@jonathanport7427]

I really enjoy your work on utube. Cherry picking from dubious sources and putting it over with verve and confidence. Thats what

[@jonathanport7427]

Others do

[@angelinebriscoe-sperling8177]

I appreciate your video and any work that anyone is doing during these bad times. My one comment under your last video was that I appreciate discussion between opposite opinions on the cures available and an exchange of experience and knowledge. The problem for us all is that we are hearing different messages but no discussion. No matter what I have ever read or heard in my life, personal back biting in my private life or things I read, especially since this pandemic started was and still is, what advantage does the person have in doing or saying this. Also what evidence do they have to backup what they are saying. In Germany we have a saying: those who heal, are right. I find this also applies to many situations in medicine. How many times have medical people/ scientist been criticised and blacklisted for many cures and treatments only to find that their treatments are widely used at a later date. This is why I asked you personally to contact the many doctors who went against the advice of the WHO and many other institutions who advised, only to treat people when they were at a critical stage of Covit. Many doctors worldwide didn't accept this and used their medical knowledge to doctor people at many stages of the illness and they used many medications to do this and they saved many lives. I must add that IVM was only one of these medications used by doctors. They simply looked for anti-virals and anti-inflammatories components in their treatments. As I said before, I would not try to go into details about these things so I asked you personally to talk and interview these doctors to hear their reports on their frontline work from day one. I cannot find any reason for any doctor jeopardising their whole career and risking losing their position by doing this. What could anyone gain by this? And it has happened to many doctors and professors of medicine in many countries and I ask myself why is this happening. I know that no medical application can be used without telling all the side effects, but see that these things are being surpressed when information is being removed very often concerning the vaccine. The video about the group who reported in the Senate, who have been ignored and all the important people like the CEO from Pfizer and Anthony Fauci and 6 others just didn't turn up to hear the experience and find a way to help these people. Not alone is that bad enough in itself, but the video has been removed from KZbin. The vascular problems and deaths are being experienced after some vaccines, but scientists are afraid to publish these things because they are afraid of losing their jobs or grants for studies if they talk or report openly about what they are finding. Autopsies are not being done on the people who die. Right at this point in my life, there are two people in my private life in hospital seriously ill with thrombocytopenia which occurred shortly after their booster vaccine. It is impossible to speak to the doctors about this. Of course they are in a difficult situation but it is hard for the families. I would like to ask you personally what you see as a treatment for Covit? What would you expect doctors do if they use a medication that they see works but is not in the protocol given by people who are not frontline workers. From the very beginning I have missed radio and TV information about the importance of a strong immune system and methods to improve this. I myself was asked to leave a group for daring to bring the importance of Vitamins and fresh air and even mentioning the immune system in connection with Covit. They were the exact words from the administration of the group. I realised that day how ignorant people are of their own bodies and how easy it was to scare people to death because of this lack of information in the media. Look at the story of the German professor of hygiene in Germany, Prof. Wustrow. To Dr Campbell: I hoped you two would get together to clear up what the problem is and how it could be done better especially as many people really want to know , or any doctor from the group FLCCC to hear their story. Doctors on the frontline didn't have the time for long studies to be completed. This is also the argument of the fast distribution of the vaccines so why should it be denied the frontline doctors who had no official information how to prevent people going to hospitals at a stage when surviving was rare. Everything should have been discussed and exchanged where success was seen or experienced. Every piece of information should be and should have been gathered to be applied when otherwise death was the only outcome. A lot of things have been manipulated to the advantage of one or the other group. Many people like you are trying to clear things up, but your videos will not be removed, but many are so getting together should be the aim and many would appreciate that. The other propaganda going around is the anti-vaxer campaign. In my experience there are few anti-vaxers, but there are many who are just waiting for conventional vaccines because they are afraid of new inventions and prefer to take medication they have less problems accepting. I do think that that is the right of every human being and also a reason for getting all information available on these new types apart from the every day, every hour and even every minute hearing that the vaccines are safe and effective although with a vaccination rate of nearly 95 to 100% the infections and deaths are much the same as pre vaccine and Lockdowns etc are still on the cards two years after the very delayed warning about a pandemic. I hope I don't bore you with all my thoughts and once again, thank you for your part in giving useful information in these frightening times. I will not reread my comment so if anything needs clarification, just say. Good luck with anything you are doing 🍀

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

Thanks for writing all your thoughts out. I'm a scientist, not a clinician. I _wish_ ivermectin worked as well as its proponents claim it did, but there's no scientific evidence that it does, and plenty that it doesn't. Anecdotal experience, even a lot of it, doesn't become evidence. I wish I understood the motivations of people who conducted fraudulent pro-ivermectin studies, but I don't. What did they hope to achieve? Fame? Maybe they believed it did work, and they wanted to be the first one to show it scientifically. Why did Dr. Tess Lawrie, who has experience writing proper meta-analyses, get so attached to her own pseudo-meta-analysis that, by her own account, required her to break all the rules she knew? I have no idea. It is mystifying. I'm not in a position to reach out to every doctor using it, but I do know people in my circle who have had some experiences. My daughter was working with horses in Utah this spring, and the supply store where they would go to get apple-flavored Ivermectin paste for their horses had to impose a rule: you could only purchase Ivermectin if you showed a picture of yourself with your horse. The store needed that rule because people were taking the horse ivermectin for themselves. Dr. Yu's experience, that led him to make his own video, is also telling.

[@williamverhoef4349]

"what advantage does the person have in doing or saying this" A lot of the misinformation actually originates with antivaxxers (there are 12 notorious antivaxxers in the USA who are the original sources almost two thirds of all disinformation about vaccines on social media). These antivaxxers almost always sell supplements that earn them a great deal of money (the most notorious of those 12 antivaxxers in the USA has accumulated over $100 million dollars in the sale of useless supplements). Then there are those who make a small fortune out of their monetised KZbin videos. John Campbell has been conservatively estimated to earn up to $50,000 per month on his videos. He also has no real expertise in any of the subjects related to the pandemic and so is easily fooled by nonsense he finds on the internet. Needless to say there is no incentive for him to correct his numerous errors even though he has been informed of them by at least three people witjh the relevant expertise including Dr Greg Tucker-Kellogg and Dr. Susan Oliver. Sometimes the motivation is personal fame rather than personal fortune. Sometimes the motivation is the religious or political dogmatic beliefs of the person spreading the misinformation. "those who heal, are right" But this is incorrect. Or more correctly, it is often very difficult to say whether someone has been healed by the healer or if they would have recovered anyway. Early on in the pandemic people attributed their recovery to hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). Then it was shown by random controlled clinical trials that HCQ was ineffective. HCQ was replaced by Ivermectin (IVN). But now it has been shown that the trials that showed the most effect were fraudulent, trials that showed some effect were flawed, and trials that showed no effect were the most methodologically sound. It has also been shown that the maximum plasma levels achievable by IVN are at least 1000 times than needed to neutralise the virus. It does not work. So, you cannot rely on the personal anecdotes of patients and you cannot rely on the clinical experience of doctors. You must rely on the results of random controlled clinical trials properly evaluated and meta-analysed by those with expertise in clinical trial design. "scientist been criticised and blacklisted for many cures and treatments only to find that their treatments are widely used at a later date" This can happen but it is actually pretty rare for it to happen. It is actually called the "Galileo Gambit" for that reason: "they laughed at Galileo, but Galileo was proven correct". The subtext is "They are laughing at me therefore I am correct just like Galileo". Most of the time they have nothing like the expertise and expereince of Galileo let alone the evidence presented by Galileo for his idea. So, it is possible that some unknown genius knows something the experts don't but it is extremely rare. But, if the person can actually back up their claim with good reliable evidence, then, and only then, will their ideas will be accepted by science. "I cannot find any reason for any doctor jeopardising their whole career and risking losing their position by doing this" There are many reasons. One explanation is that, because of the lack of relevant expertise, they wrongly think that they are right, and they don't understand the reasons why they are wrong. When their errors are pointed out, they double down because self-defence is human nature and its embarrasing to put yourself out there and be proven wrong. So they don't think they are jeopardising their careers, they think they are enhancing their careers. And, in many cases, especially when what they say fits with one of the dominant political narratives, their careers are not jeopardised but are actually enhanced. There is also the profit motive. Five of the 12 notorious antivaxxers are doctors and many of them have given up practising medicine to make a fortune selling useless supplements. " a strong immune system and methods to improve this" You can "optimise" your immune system through diet and exercise, and avoidance of alcohol and smoking, but you cannot "boost" your immune system. In fact, a "boosted" or overactive immune system is the cause of auto-immune disorders. Supplements are useful only if you are deficient and cannot correct that deficiency with a proper diet. Much of pseudo-science or pseudo-medicine is based on supplements that do not actually help and that replace treatments that actually do help. "To Dr Campbell: I hoped you two would get together" Dr John Campbell has regularly stated in his videos that he would welcome the input of anyone who has found fault with anything he says. However, as I said before, at least three people with expertise in areas where Dr. John Campbell does not, have sent him links to their videos correcting his numerous misunderstandings and misinformation. He has completely ignored all of them. I might just mention here that John Campbell has the title of doctor because he has a PhD (doctorate degree) in nursing education. He is not a medical doctor, or a scientist. He has no understanding about clinical trail methodology or meta-analysis. This is why he gets so much wrong, though I am beginning to think there is more to it than that. Let's just say that $50,000 per month is a strong disincentive to admit you were wrong. "your videos will not be removed" Not they won't because they are full of accurate scientifically validated information. But neither have Dr. John Campbell's videos been removed. Despite all the misinformation he has been peddling over the past eight months, all he has gotten is one misinformation warning which he was freely able to dismiss in a subsequent video. Only the most egregiously false and dangerous videos are ever removed. In my opinion, the quality control is far too lenient. And, yes, I said "quality control" not "censorship". Frankly, the perveyors of misinformation and disinformation get their message out there to an extent that is way out of proportion to their worth. They are not been censored they are barely been held to account.

[@barryhamm3414]

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg Australian health authorities have been forced to restrict GPs ability to prescribe ivermectin and warn against ordering from foreign on-line suppliers. The rubbish spread by John Campbell has real world consequences. www.tga.gov.au/media-release/new-restrictions-prescribing-ivermectin-covid-19

[@Shelmerdine745]

How do you know they saved lives?

[@benedem4175]

@@williamverhoef4349 Interesting point about an overly boosted immune system can bring on auto-immune disease. Would this also apply to multiple boosts via vaccination?

[@indoorkangaroo3431]

Thanks for the easy to follow video along with good ideas and tools on double checking misinformation. It’s particularly hard as it seems these days that stuff can be thrown against the wall and stick way faster than it can be audited (or debunked). I found your channel after seeing Dr John Campbell appearing in my feed. Those videos certainly get my spider senses tingling yet look legitimate enough from first glance and even need to be watched before you can really tell what their idea is. Appreciate your work and thanks again.

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

Thanks for your support!

[@christophbugel7160]

I think one problem is that often people are not really all that interested in the "academic.." question of whether something is real vs misinformation. Instead of passionately arguing about whether some claim is solidly based or not, people often don't care. They are not interested in taking the time to try and find out. It seems people not only WANT to believe certain thingss, they actually have a NEED to believe certain things. Both people who consume and people who produce misinformation have an INTEREST to follow, and truth is not always their first priority

[@Draxtor]

Sam Seder and the Majority Report sent me. Thank you for your fantastic and much needed work!!!!

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

Thanks!

[@danzel1157]

Really informative. Thank you.

[@kaiserkabir]

Professor Greg’s analyses on medicines and clinical trials are considerably more robust than those of Dr. John Campbell. The latter has clearly gotten carried away with the early enthusiasm on Ivermectin and not revised his views despite research findings to the contrary. However, both Professor Greg and Dr. Campbell have done the world a huge favour by urging mass vaccinations, providing much needed aggregate data on patients, and above all providing hope. So, I shall continue watching both channels.

[@masonstorm1834]

Interesting video for the average person I’ll see if it does help identify untrustworthy sources. With the IVM meta analysis website I can see what you mean by there is no one taking responsibility for it so I wonder why this would be? When you say it’s a hot mess is there any examples of why you use this term do you have any specifics of why the information is looking fraudulent? I get that you can’t trust a website where you don’t know who the source is but your other comments need explanation as they are very vague.

[@KiwiRocketScientist]

So is the decision to avoid presenting age stratified data by Pfizer/CDC an example of Simpsons?

[@jeffbrunton3291]

Excellent, thanks. Hopefully Dr John will improve his sources

[@barryhamm3414]

@Maskie Man Convince my that the interview with Kyle was more than just an anecdote.

[@richardharvey1732]

Hi JB, you are not the first on this channel to respond to the valid criticism of Dr John, on many occasions he has published 'work' that is highly suspect, it usually looks to me as if he does so to bolster an opinion that he has already adopted, it is always quite easy to find others that make the same mistakes and issue the same errors, I assume that as soon as anyone tells me anything is true, unless it is a specific refutation of a common hypothesis I know they are trying to hoodwink me!, no 'real' scientist will ever claim to have found a truth!, while it is relatively easy to prove something is false it is impossible to prove anything is true!. Having said all that many times I find the reports that people like him use often contain items of reliable data that they have mis-represented, the facts can be true even when their conclusions are false, all I want is the facts, I will always draw my own conclusions if I can, if not I simply suspend judgement on that issue until adequate data appears. Even Donald Trump sometimes spoke the truth!. Cheers, Richard.

[@wyqtor]

@@barryhamm3414 One that was needed in an age when everyone speaking ill of the holy vaccines is demonized by the media and government. These institutions have turned COVID into a religion, and anyone bringing forward his doubts is treated as a blasphemer.

[@beachdancer]

Often a screenshot without a link. I take some of the words and do a search to try to find the source. I read the source rather than the social media claim.

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

What links did I miss? Happy to provide

[@beachdancer]

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg I was commenting on anti-vax posts... they are often screenshots without any link to check validity or context.

[@nmlynch94]

Thank you for this! I've seen graphs all over social media abusing what I now know is called Simpson's paradox. Usually some flavor of comparing absolute numbers of hospitalizations in vaxxed vs unvaxxed without adjusting for sizes of both populations. Does anyone have a concise way to explain this to a layman (like myself)? Telling someone they are abusing Simpsons Paradox probably won't be super helpful haha. I've been going with something like "if group A with 5 people eat 4 apples, and group B with 20 people eats 8 apples, we wouldn't say that you are more likely to eat apples if you belong to group B". Wondering if there is a way to explain it that will connect for more people.

[@alunjones3860]

It's quite difficult to explain it someone from a non-technical backgrounds. It also appears as though many health professionals don't understand this. They fail to understand risks and benefits of the jab depend on one's age and underlying health conditions. Many authorities were overzealous by giving it to everyone. A 12 year old boy has a completely different risk of getting sick from the disease vs suffering an adverse event from the prevention. Individualised care appears to have been forgotten in the name of attempting to keep the number of infections as low as possible, when the important goal should be to prevent serious disease, suffering, injury and death.

[@DrYanYu]

Another excellent video with clear, coherent information to help people counter misinformation. Great stuff!

[@curtbonelli7826]

Thank you for doing this. I am thankful for anyone who can help me understand all this. I am curious though whether you have an explanation for how well India has done with Covid. Was the ivermectin in the home treatment kits a placebo and it was the Tylenol and doxycycline that did the trick?

[@Marco-it2mr]

India did not do well - only if you look at the surface and don't understand the context. For example, India has a massive hidden COVID death toll - the best estimates are that actual COVID deaths are a factor seven HIGHER than the official death toll. We also have several states that did NOT use ivm in the home treatment kits, and did just as 'well' (or bad) as those that didn't. That said, the former states also are mostly those that took a more serious effort to find infections, do contact tracing, and keep proper records - that is, they may look 'worse' in the official numbers, because they were better at record keeping...

[@jonathanport5002]

@@Marco-it2mr good reply

[@OL-xs4rd]

Thanks for this desperately needed guide. Thanks also for engaging with the comments in a helpful way. Maybe the only good thing to come out of this pandemic will be a greater number of people who can read and understand science. We can begin to sort the good from the bad and hopefully identify the deliberate disinformation.

[@Doeyhead]

Thank you so much Professor! This is lovely work. Thank you for doing this. I watched Dr. John Campbell from the beginning of 2020 till around the Summer of 2021. I started to feel a bit uncomfortable with the big claims he was making. Then, his audience became more hysterical, and more conspiratorial. When he started making odd claims about ivermectin and leaving open ended questions about the FDA that came with a clearly conspiratorial answer, I began to raise an eye brow and eventually decided to unsubscribe from his channel. It's sad to see people grift towards a very crazy audience. I'm happy that you kept this objective and I look forward to more content on your channel. Cheers to you!

[@davidjuliesmiththomas7983]

It is you that has the problem, not John Campbell. Campbell is not infallible but he tends to follow logic. Having implicit trust in the upper echelons of the FDA is a big mistake on your part.

[@Doeyhead]

@@davidjuliesmiththomas7983 Dr. Campbell is most definitely a smart man, and when smart men make the mistakes I saw him making, he is either a liar or he isn't very smart. I can see the signs of grifting a mile away.

[@JasonUmbrellabird]

@@Doeyhead That's funny because I get the same feelings about Susan Oliver and this guy. Nothing at all sincere about them.

[@Doeyhead]

@@JasonUmbrellabird I mean, Susan Oliver and this dude don't do this for a living. Nor do they have audiences of left wing conspiracy freaks. The true answer is usually pretty boring, given the nature of these videos being sorta...boring, that's how I can determine they are probably true. They have nothing to sell and their subscriber vases are so small they are no subject to audience capture like Campbel. And since I made thus comment last year, John has gotten significantly worse.

[@garymelnyk7910]

Exactly as I feel. It’s veiled but still seeps through. There’s a theatricality and nastiness behind the plausibility.

[@WWK-f4t]

Comment for the algorithm. Sources linked in the description.

[@danferguson6647]

Superb video. As many people have said in the comments, there are probably lots of people like me with a semi-scientific background, but without the deep knowledge to be able to confidently refute misinformation that they come across. This video is very helpful in that regard. I have one suggestion - maybe a section (or future video) called something like "motivations". What is the motivation for people to spread misinformation? What do the people behind ivmmeta get out of it? The dodgy authors? The FLCCC people? Pierre Kory? Tess Lawrie? I think it is clear that it is all about KZbin dollars for Campbell.

[@petitio_principii]

If I'm not mistaken, google scholar will even return things from creationist sources. Or at least I believe it was that way some years ago. I imagine the process is or was mostly based on scanning their data for science-sounding patterns in the text, without any kind of human/bureaucratic filter, so virtually anything that would have a minimal semblant of scienceness, would end up being found there, if the SEO of the website is good enough. Can make it significantly worse than perhaps even more legitimate channels offering articles validating baseless "alternative medicine." During this pandemic, there had been quite a few "publications" around just mimicking the looks of scietific publications, but with totally bogus material, that one has even difficulty distinguishing from some parody, like a science version of "The Onion." Unfortunately I believe mostly weren't intended as parodies. There was one that was authored by an anonymous alleged group calling itself "the club of scientists," it made some bogus claims about the new mRNA immunizing technologies, where the respective v-word was always written between scare-quotes, as they/he/she argued such technologies were not really a v-word thing. (A word I'm not using myself because I fear Alphabet's technologies filtering bogus stuff from the internet can be very less than generous even when we're actually criticizing the bogus stuff.) The "style" of always using the scare quotes in all occurrences of the word (rather than replacing it for something else) is almost like a hallmark of parody texts, but, again, it didn't quite seem intended as a parody. Even though these days I can't discount that there would be those making it as a prank, blurring things further.

[@briandingle665]

Thank you...I have been struggling for three years with Dr. John Campbell's posts. I'm a retired internist and assoc. professor in Oncology at a Canadian university, with considerable experience in experimental design and clinical trials. Anti-vax sentiment during a dangerous pandemic can undermine professional care and treatment.

[@seanlo8330]

You should debate Martin Kuldorff or Jay Bhattacharia

[@angelapowell2366]

Been looking forward to this, thankyou for the explanations. I enjoyed your video on Campbell, the 'Japanese miracle ' and Ivermectin. Keep up the good work.

[@AustinNagy]

This is great content

[@slocan]

You can spot data mishandling, when the comment section is all positive!

[@derekpresland4029]

This is my second comment regarding this video. You explained the "peer review" procedure. It bothers me. I was of the opinion that it was the academic world that decided who was qualified to review a paper. It was carried out in a professional manner and the reviewers were reimbursed for their efforts. In the video you explain that it is publications that select the reviewers and it done on a voluntary basis, not comfortable with that. Commercial interests can come into play with this procedure.

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

Hi Derek, I may not have explained that part well. it's definitely the case that people in the academic world decide who is is qualified to review. The editorial boards of most good journals are made up of full-time academics. Those editorial board members (professors around the world) decide which papers get sent out to review, and who gets asked to review. As a professor, my job involves a mix of teaching, research, and service. Serving on an editorial board is considered service, so many universities value it on that basis (depending on the journal serving on an editorial board may also carry some prestige). There is debate in the academic world about paying reviewers (and editors) but so far not much of it. Generally, reviewers are expected to be expert in the subject area of a manuscript, so a big part of the job of editors is identifying reviewers with appropriate expertise. Reviewers who have ongoing or recent personal or professional relationships with authors are considered to have a conflict of interest and cannot review.

[@derekpresland4029]

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg Hi Greg, thanks for your response, really appreciate it. If I understand you correctly the editorial boards that control the procedure for peer reviews are linked to to journals . I was under the impression that this procedure was controlled by the academic world without any sort of connection outside of it. You use the words "good journals" which I interpret as serious well respected journals, the lancet to take one example. Is there an organisation where journals are registered or verified in order to be able to carry out this very important work? How does this work on an international level? I am not fully up to speed on all this but I think I can see a difference between a paper produced for a PHD for example and the type of paper we are discussing here. My understanding is that a paper produced for a PHD must be defended before it is accepted. It can then be used as a reference or starting point for continued research. Really appreciate it if you could help me understand this better. I appreciate that a completely new dimension is added to a paper that is peer reviewed and an abstract on its own must be treated with caution. Many thanks.

[@derekpresland4029]

Hi again, I may be confusing journals with publications. Prehaps you can straighten me out on that point.

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

Hi Derek, I really appreciate your comments, and I might make a video or a playlist about models of scientific publication. Take as a counter-example a magazine like "Scientific American". It's a for-profit magazine, not a research journal. For publishers of _research journals,_ there are different categories of publishers, many of whom publish multiple journals (each of which has multiple articles). A traditional type of publisher is a professional society, which publishes journals like the Journal of the American Chemical Association, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, or the Journal of the American Medical Association. These tend to be academic or medical societies, functioning as publishers, in part to fund the activities of the society. These date back a long way: Isaac Newton published in the journals of the Royal Society! But such societies are not immune to political pressure: Isaac Newton was for a time president of the Royal Society, which he used to accuse his rival Leibniz of plagiarism. You mention The Lancet, which is a great example. It is relatively old (early 19th century) and started as an independent medical journal. But it grew in prestige, and is currently owned and published by Elsevier, a major scientific publisher. Elsevier has its own professional staff handling submissions to the Lancet, and handling all the paperwork of publication. The peer review process is still governed by an editorial board that is, hopefully, independent of the parent publisher. But Elsevier has also taken advantage of the name of the Lancet to expand the brand and create a family of journals under "The Lancet Group". So there are now journals like "The Lancet Haemotology". Quite commonly, if a paper is sent to the Lancet and "desk rejected" (meaning it doesn't even get reviewed) the editors may suggest another journal in the Lancet Group. There are similar publishing groups for other reputable journals like Nature, Cell, and journals under the Public Library of Science. At one point you comment "My understanding is that a paper produced for a PHD must be defended before it is accepted.". You are close, but it's more nuanced. A PhD is often book-length, and may be divided into several papers published in journals. The PhD itself needs to be defended, yes, but different universities have different requirements about whether the work of the PhD needs to be published in a journal before awarding a PhD. Because it takes much longer to publish papers in journals these days, many universities have relaxed the publication requirement to their students can graduate before their hair turns gray. This makes sense: if they required publication before graduation, there would be an even stronger incentive to publish in low quality journals that have shady review practices.

[@derekpresland4029]

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg Hi Greg. I agree it would maybe be a good idea to make a video explaining the procedure and definitions used for academic studies. With the covid situation all of a sudden everyone is an expert in the interpretation of scientific data I would go as far as include main stream media. How many times do we hear a news reader saying " a new study reveals ......" and of course because it is a study it must be true. As you mention money comes into this. When publishers of research journals require external funding it is bit of a red flag for me. When money changes hands something is expected in return. I think I can appreciate that the publishers linked to the most respected universities, Oxford and Cambridge, to name a couple in the UK are extremely professional, objective and unbiased. I think I can see a potential risk with smaller regional universities that often rely on local businesses for funding I am comfortable with what is revealed is correct bit concerned about what is not revealed. The saying " you don't bite the hand that feeds you" is something that is always in the back of my mind. I have discovered that you need to be careful with fact finders and look into their background. The same with think tanks. It would be good to know if I need to be cautious when I read that a paper is peer reviewed and printed. Again I agree that some form of clarity surrounding academic papers would be a good thing.

[@robinconnelly6079]

Very useful info. Certainty a good guide for unscientific minds. (except for the photos of those you oppose. Thats below the belt) One of the things you dont do, I notice, is to encourage people to go back to the bare data itself. That is where the truth is. You even subtly encourage people not to that with comments like "only an expert can interpret this data". I disagree I do have a scientific background and one thing I do know is that truth is out there and anyone of reasonable intelligence with access to all the data (including sources of bias and all the details that can skew results and so on) can find that truth. It takes a lot of work and mental discipline but the truth can be determined. Certainly with regards to Meta analysis of IVM etc. There are people that can't do this because they just lack the ability to be objective at that level, but for many, this is a reasonable achievement. What bothers me is the truth being shrouded behind "experts" And they all seem to disagree. I look at Dr Tess Laurie who owns a company specialising in Meta analysis. This is her specialised field. If someone from another field (such as bio-technology) came and told me i don't know what Im doing i would tell that person where to get off! That doesnt mean that it would end there. The next stage would be to take my opponent to the bare data and show them that my work was up to standard with a detailed presentation of how my conclusions were reached. 2+2=4. With openness to new data that could (though very unlikely) overturn my conclusions. That also doesnt mean shes right about Ivermectin. There are other scientists who critisise the Bryant MA vehemently. But how is it that after more than a year, the BIRD group has not backed down and apologised for being negligent? Surely, Tess Laurie would have realised that she had been a lazy thinker, neglected to screen the data properly, been drinking too much wine while in the job... ?? No. The war rages on. That's bizarre. Someone is wrong. Either IVM works or it doesn't. What you have presented here is helpful but it certainly does not determine truth (which can sometimes be stranger than fiction. Don't i know about that?)

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

First, thanks for watching. Regarding your comment of my including photos of specific misinformation sources. I disagree. You describe those pictures as of "people you oppose", but they are not. They are specfic cases of misinformation spreading by influential people. Those same people may at other times not spreading misinformation. I don't oppose them as individuals. But when their videos are articles are promoting misinformation, it's important that they be called out. It's not unscientific or unprofessional to do so. On the contrary; it's necessary. Regarding your later comments about expertise, I'm not sure where you got that idea. I never once said only an expert can interpret the data. In fact, my material is to help people without specialised training spot scientific misinformation and avoid becoming victims of it or, worse, inavertent spreaders of it. I always encourage questions and provide sources to data. So I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that I don't. If I've left out a reference please let me know and I'll provide it.

[@clintonsimmonds3956]

Bla bla bla. Science element table Size,shape,surface, temperature, environmental, biology, structure, capacity,timing,lighting,speed, frictionless grabbing a drink and then execution of the evidence or feisability etc etc control systems for a sound of brain compatibility test and then emooltion displacement weight gain during the delivery date in accordance with efficiency of the next move important or not.

[@angelinebriscoe-sperling8177]

Looking forward to it. Would you also give us some information on why so much is deleted on KZbin. Some really important information is just taken down. Alarm set🎅

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

As far as comments go, I have no idea

[@angelinebriscoe-sperling8177]

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg no, not comments. All the videos that are removed I mean. I thought on research for misinformation you might know.

[@helmutsilver5006]

The only information I've ever seen 'taken down' was when fake doctor John Campbell spent a morning chasing my comments out of his threads which referenced the now well-established disproof of ivermectin efficacy against COVID. It seems his commercial interests with colleagues in the Ivermectin pushing crowd which seems intent on patenting 'Covid Formulas' based on Ivermectin must have clashed with the interest of free speech and free information and the revelation of established truth.

[@helmutsilver5006]

What's taken down?

[@thomasscream4179]

@@helmutsilver5006 That's probably not Campbell's fault. KZbin deletes most comments with links in them, and deletes C-word related comments seemingly at random, regardless of their alignment.

[@kevingraham236]

Thank you very helpful.

[@freegucci8139]

Hi Greg, Apologies if this is a question you've answered many times, but I would really value your reply. My father has gone down a long road of misinformation and firmly believes covid vaccines are ineffective, experimental and that Ivermectin is the miracle drug. Is there a collection of reputable studies that you refer people to about the effectiveness of covid vaccines? I really think a good case of scientific peer reviewed information would help him see out of his confirmation bias.

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

Oh man, this is all too familiar. Maybe drop me an email if you are comfortable? I think it kind of depends on exactly which road of misinfomration he's gone down.

[@freegucci8139]

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg Sure I think it would help if I were a bit more specific, just wasn't sure if you had the time! Will send you an email thank you!

[@freegucci8139]

@@ProfGregTuckerKellogg I sent it through to your business email! Hope that's the right one

[@nmlynch94]

@@freegucci8139 good luck! Please report back with how this works. In a similar situation, but in mine there is no way that a list of studies would get me anywhere. The material is too dense and they have already made their decisions about who they trust for medical info.

[@chchwoman9960]

I have only heard anecdotes about Ivm but I have also heard lots of silly comments about it, like calling it horse paste. The vaccines, while preventing serious illness, hasn't prevented covid to the extent promised either. As with most things, the truth us probably somewhere in the middle. I don't have to read anyone's articles to know this - we just need to watch what is happening, and noticing clear porkies

[@piktormusic2538]

Thank you sir. Folks like you, Dr. Oliver, Debunk the Funk and Rebecca Watson are heroes. Thank you for your efforts.

[@forestpepper3621]

We should not stop people from spreading recent announcements about science [or other subjects]; HOWEVER, it is important to state things accurately and not to exaggerate the status of such claims. Each person must judge, for himself, the trustworthiness of the source. For instance, there is a big difference in saying A) "This recent study has found that carrots cure cancer." and B) "The preliminary report suggests that carrot juice may slow brain tumors in petri dishes." The first statement is more exciting and will get the attention of more readers, and so popular news sources will often go with the more exciting statement (A) to get more advertising money. There is some value in unverified, preliminary reports. If witnesses spot something that looks like a large shark, then it's probably wise not to go swimming immediately, even if that initial report was wrong.

[@theviking2877]

when nurse Campbell opens his mouth

[@remi4378]

Good video. Can't argue with the data that shows the vaccine efficacy, as long as you trust the sources of that data (top-down, corrupt bureaucratic medical establishment with conflicts of interest). Accepting vaccine efficacy, isn't it still clear that there is major stratification within those who end up in hospital, regardless of vaccination status? For example, comorbidities such as obesity and diabetes, and most obviously age. Shouldn't this be guiding the vaccine mandates? For example, why coerce anybody under 18, who is healthy and has no major comorbidities, to get a Covid vaccine? And why not just have everybody's general health status evaluated and then decide whether they are exempt or not? That would give great motivation to unhealthy people to change their unhealthy habits. And if somebody's struggling with substance use/addiction, maybe they get an exemption because they'll definitely end up dead or in hospital if they're pushed out of society and marginalized. Basically, broad mandates make little sense as they displace or create new public health problems, and they're not justified by vaccine efficacy in many cases. Also, it's funny that the 100% efficacy rates shown in the chart are for such small numbers of severe cases, including 0.3 out of 100,000 for the 12-15 category. If someone presents that 100% figure by itself, are they engaging in "misinformation" as they are misleading people into believing they need the vaccine because it works so well, even though the risk of severe disease is tiny? This is still a good, informative video for everyone. Whatever your ideals, it's best to not be fooling yourself. Take a stand out of principle, rather than bad information.

[@JosiahFierce]

I really hope this video goes viral and people see it.

[@johnbowman476]

This is a good outline of a portion of the ways bad data is promulgated out there. I try to always go to the source data and analyze its validity. I would argue that beyond predatory journals there is the capture of the US federal regulatory agencies by big pharma with the leadership of said agencies engaging in conflicts of interest. Not necessarily legally but ethically. Then there is the problem of very little profit in drug repurposing with the biggest exception being viagra. This I believe was the single biggest failure point of the response to the Covid pandemic other than the choice of mostly funding a vaccine based strategy instead of an antiviral based response. From what I understand of science both the time required to produce a safe and effective vaccine and the fact that Covid mutated very rapidly made this strategy a poor first choice. You do a good job of presenting theoretical medical science, but similar to the bulk of theoretical physics today, I don't buy it until I see well designed repeatable experiments providing similar positive results. It's a shame it's so expensive to do the clinical trials and today in the United States they are being driven mostly by the profit motive

[@bobwilson9843]

who appointed you as the arbiter of misinformation?

[@robstorms]

Thanks much for this. Unrelated but disturbing to me is the unnatural quality of the audio. The gating ( or noise reduction) settings on the editor cut off slight portions of the beginnings endings of phrases and the room tone disappears completely when you are not talking. I don't think you need any audio processing like that at all and I find it distracting. Just my two cents

[@ProfGregTuckerKellogg]

Thanks. Working on that. I had left an expander on in OBS when I recorded it, which was a mistake.

[@prschuster]

Nice snapshot of John Campbell. Don't be like John Campbell.