Excellent, *CLEAR* exposition of Omicron - UPDATED with Disclaimer

[UTUSN]

Last edited Mon Jan 24, 2022, 07:23 PM - Edit history (2)

(The link keeps starting 3/4 through, click back to the beginning)

*** ON EDIT: *** DISCLAIMER *** Hookay, judging from the Replies, the fellow has some downsides.
I'd never heard of him when I chanced on this vid, and in my limited unenlightened scope this presentation sounded very down to earth, knowledgeable, and science-logic driven. I know nothing about him, whatever he said about ivermectin or anything else. This video answered some questions and confusion I had on the topic and within that limit, still does. Anybody else can take it or leave it. ***

&t=1325s

[vanlassie]

1. I have found Mr Campbell to be very straight forward

and reasonable. I believe he attracted the attention of the loonies because he thinks there COULD be something to study with regards to ivermectin. He is strongly pro vax. He is a nursing professor.

[LisaL]

3. Omicron has led to increase in both hospitalizations and deaths in the US.

He seems to think that Omicron is somehow a good thing. Certainly not in the US.

[vanlassie]

5. In context, I am quite sure he is talking about the likelihood

that omicron is winding down the pandemic. He gives accurate hospitalization rates in the UK, US, and elsewhere almost daily. They are cut and dried. He is in the UK.

[LisaL]

6. If covid quit coming up with new variants like Omicron, pandemic would have ended much sooner.

Omicron is highly infectious and still deadly. It escapes both natural and vaccine induced immunity. In US hospitalizations and deaths are still very high. I really fail to see anything good about it.

[vanlassie]

11. You would agree that context is critical, wouldn't you?

Dr Fauci has made similar “positive”predictions or wishes out loud. In context.

[UTUSN]

8. Thank you.

[BannonsLiver]

22. Yes, I agree. He's not hair on fire like Ding is

[vanlassie]

24. Oh for sure. I have not read a lot of the comments- there are thousands daily.

But I think many became dissolutioned when
he wasn’t Kookoo for Ivermectin.

[BannonsLiver]

25. I don't agree with him on that

But unlike most Americans I can have principled disagreements with people, while also not feeling the urge to discredit everything they say because he said one thing I disagree with.

[vanlassie]

26. You don't agree with him on what?

As far as I have seen he thinks ivermectin may eventually turn out to be useful. He is not currently in favor of its use, but of investigating it. Reflecting a skepticism of big pharma’s hold on the market including what gets studied and what does not.

[rog]

2. He was called out by name recently ...

... by virologists at Columbia University, for operating far outside his wheelhouse. They did not spend much time on him, but very clearly implied that he did not know what he was talking about.

I followed him for a while, until his series of rants about ivermectin, and more recently his musing about getting himself infected intentionally. Not recommending for anyone else, of course ... just thinking out loud.

For me, grains of salt required.

I can link to the part of the discussion in question at Columbia, if anyone is really interested.

.rog.

[LisaL]

4. He also mentioned a ridiculous conspiracy theory as if it were possibly credible.

That somehow hospitalizations in the US are that high because government is paying for covid patients. So hospitals are admitting people and claim they are covid patients to make money.
All righty then.
In reality US if full of overweight people with pre-existing conditions. Which are getting seriously ill when infected with the supposedly "mild" omicron.

[vanlassie]

12. I am.

[rog]

17. Sorry I didn't get back sooner ...

This is an informal Q&A with Vincent Racaniello and Amy Rosenfeld.

I really tried hard to link to the exact moment when they name-checked J Campbell, but DU apparently won't let me do that. Here's the video ... you'll have to skip forward to 14:44 to hear it first-hand ... sorry.

Vincent Racaniello: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Racaniello
Amy Rosenfeld: http://www.enterovirus.net/ (scroll down a bit)

This particular discussion is rather free-form, but still interesting, but I thought this next one was totally fascinating. It's the latest post from these folks. Jon Yewdell appears brilliant, and quite engaging. He's definitely on the front line of scientists doing the heavy lifting. It's a lively discussion.

... Jon Yewdell returns to TWiV to discuss how antibodies are made, vaccination against SARS-CoV-2, antigenic variation of the virus, booster shots, and more.

These researchers don't talk down, so there is a lot I don't really understand. It's like being a fly on the wall at a bull session among professionals.

There's also the weekly Covid Clinical update series with Dr. Daniel Griffin.

https://www.youtube.com/c/VincentRacaniello/search?query=daniel%20griffin ... the latest is TWiV 856, Update #98.

This channel is new to me ... now on my subscription list.

.rog.

[vanlassie]

20. Thank you for taking the time

I believe the question posed to the expert was “Dr John Campbell said future variants that are more transmissible and pathogenic than omicron are not genetically possible. Is this true?” The expert dissed Campbell and did not answer. But what I have observed is that Campbell is quite consistent in referring to sources, and posting every source, and more important he uses language very consciously. In this link, at around 15.0, he says “it does not appear.”

He will say “it would seem… we think…. It MAY be… etc.”. Essentially his reports are a review of recent papers. Getting back to ivermectin, I suspect he thinks there is a push away from less expensive drugs towards more expensive ones which dictates which drugs get thoroughly studied. I am certain from personal experience that this is true.

Aside: That expert made me think of Grumpy Cat.

[Quixote1818]

15. You and I came to the exactly same conclusions about him.

I had been a big fan and then I noticed when he first started reporting that the Ivermectin trials showed little promise for benefit and started getting attacked by his audience, he seemed to cave to his audience probably because he likes the check he gets from Youtube every month. Because of this I lost all respect for him and stopped my subscription to his channel. He's just another sellout.

This fellow does a nice job debunking his BS on ivermectin:

[UTUSN]

7. *** DISCLAIMER *** Hookay, judging from the Replies, the fellow has some downsides.

I'd never heard of him when I chanced on this vid, and in my limited unenlightened scope this presentation sounded very down to earth, knowledgeable, and science-logic driven.

I know nothing about him, whatever he said about ivermectin or anything else. This video answered some questions and confusion I had on the topic and within that limit, still does.

Anybody else can take it or leave it.

[rog]

9. Fair enough ...

... I agree that he does aggregate some useful information. I still check in from time to time, but I think his vlog has changed over the last bit of time.

His PhD is in Nursing Education, if I'm not mistaken. Definitely not an MD, just to be clear.

.rog.

[BannonsLiver]

23. People don't like him because his hair isn't on fire.

[Quixote1818]

10. I used to like this guy until he claimed some of the new anti-viral drugs were just Ivermectin

re-packaged. Well, he was more careful in how he said it, suggesting the same mechanism with is totally wrong. He lies about his credentials. He is a nurse and not a doctor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Campbell_(YouTuber)


Here is the video and fact checkers flagged it as BS.

[vanlassie]

13. He said he is a doctor?

[Quixote1818]

14. He is a Doctor as far as having a Ph.D. in nursing education. But he isn't a medical Doctor

and kind of keeps that part quiet while leaving Dr. John Campbell up on his youtube channel. This gives a false impression he is more qualified on these issues than he actually is. He went onto attack BBC journalists who fact checked him as not being actual doctors and yet he gives himself a pass on that. So he is a hypocrite. It's okay he isn't a doctor and can make medical claims, but if you fact check him, he attacks you if you are not a Doctor. See here where he attacks the BBC's fact checkers for not being Doctors while not pointing out that he isn't a Doctor himself:

[vanlassie]

16. Since I started watching his daily posts several months ago,

he has referenced his profession as a long time professor of nursing many times. He does not claim to be a doctor. He may or may not be correct about ivermectin. The jury is still out, which he also repeats frequently. I have seen one rant. It was regarding the failure of medical policy to be used as he has taught for 20 years regarding aspirating the syringe during injections. He believes failure to do so could influence the number of cases of cardiac inflammation. I think unless one has watched at least a minimum of a dozen or so reports, it would be unfair to draw a firm conclusion as to where he is coming from. My opinion is based on watching a minimum of 30 or so.

[rog]

18. It may seem like a small thing, but ...

... I think there's a huge difference between referring to yourself as "Dr John Campbell", rather than "John Campbell, PhD". Both are correct, but I think the first is misleading.

But then it also irks me when nurse practitioners refer to themselves as "Dr". Yes, they are licensed to perform some of the same services, but they have neither the training, nor the expertise and experience of an MD.

.rog.

[UTUSN]

19. Since the thread has kicked up, I love calling Dr Jill BIDEN Dr & hate when Laura SCHLESINGER

calls herself Dr. - HAH!

*** Just letting off steam about when I post what I think is an innocuous thread/post and catch flak.

[intrepidity]

21. Well, just commenting on the content of this video

with respect to his quandary about whether to expose himself to omicron: I understand his rationale, that if he accepts the premise that it is absolutely inevitable that he will be infected, and that due to waning immune response over time, that it may *seem* prudent to be exposed sooner rather than later; however! that calculation ignores at least one important factor, one he even mentions in this video: that omicron has itself mutated to an potentially even more virulent/transmissible form (BA2), one that may cause even milder disease than current omicron (BA1) and that may thus soon overtake BA1 as the prevailing variant; so my question would be: why not wait for that, then?

(And all in one long-assed sentence!)

Of course, this completely ignores PACS (post acute covid syndrome), aka long COVID.

But overall, it's a discussion worth having, imho, regardless of who is presenting it.