3 ms·

Nah. He signal boosts all the worst conspiracies of the pandemic; "Pfizermectin", abuse of VAERS data, the Pfizer "whistle blower", you name it. While trying to

Nah. He signal boosts all the worst conspiracies of the pandemic; "Pfizermectin", abuse of VAERS data, the Pfizer "whistle blower", you name it. While trying to maintain the appearance of showing both sides neutrally and objectively. But look at his most watched videos and the comments on his videos. He's clearly playing into the anti-vax crowd, whether intentionally or not. I completely reject the notion that nurses are better equipped than doctors to interpret studies in this context; biology, pharmacology etc. In some practical applications of medicine, maybe.

robbiep 5y ago
There’s a reason why my nursing colleagues have a (relatively) high degree of vaccine hesitancy and are losing their jobs - a proportion of them are just not capable of understanding the science and think that their experience (and Facebook feeds) are worth more than actual data. All of my anti vax leaning social media content comes from those colleagues (although let’s be clear it’s a small percentage and like all broad sweeping statements it applies in general only)
- starkd 5y ago
  Not capable of understanding science? that's incredibly arrogant statement to make. Nurses study the science as part of their accreditation. I could just as easily say doctors are so busy treating patients and reading up on the latest CDC guidelines and bureaucracy they don't have time to read the latest science and explore any skepticism. But it's essential to science.
  - robbiep 5y ago
    And if i didn’t know so many of them I would agree with you. However after numerous experiences beginning with the midwife who explained to me that demonstrating the plantar reflex too many times would result in the child having a stutter. Just one example of 10,000, however it is by no means definitive of the profession - what you don’t see however is 10%+ of doctors refusing the vaccine or sprouting nonsense. I don’t know what exactly point you’re trying to refute - nurses are practical but a proportion of them have no scientific capacity. A proportion that is a logarithmic difference from their doctor or allied health colleagues. And I basically went to slightly less lengths to caveat this in my previous post, but apparently you’re a pedant
    - starkd 5y ago
      wow. It's almost like you meant to reply to some other post. That's not at all what this thread is talking about. Dr. Campbell was not a midwife. He was a teaching nurse. He's accustomed to reading these studies. Not sure how you equate him with anti-vax. He's adamantly pro-vax.
      - robbiep 5y ago
        And that is all irrelevant because I am not at all talking about whoever this Dr Campbell person is who I have never heard of until you brought them up in your earlier thread. My original post is completely seperate to any context of him and it should be read as such- but at least you’re finally becoming capable of parsing my posts
starkd 5y ago
The pfizer whistleblower was published in the British Medical Journal, not exactly a shabby publication. True or false, it was a news event and at least should be addressed. The fact that it's been largely swept under the rug is not a good sign for science, which is built on skepticism, not compliance. I am willing to dismiss the whistleblower as nothing but smoke, if someone answered it. So far, they have not. Which is telling. VAERS data is self-reported data, so it is far from conclusive. However, it was put there for a reason and shouldn't be ignored. It was put there to flag problems that need to be investigated. Pfizermectin is not a conspiracy. He's just noting both ivermectin and the pfizer therapeautic are both protease inhibitors. That's all he said. None of these are "conspiracies". So far, they are inconvenient truth assertions that a certain people seem to want to put down. We deserve, we are entitled to a fuller discussion than they are given.
- phonypc 5y ago
  The conspiratorial aspect of the whistleblower situation isn't that it happened. It undoubtedly did. It's making a mountain out of a molehill and implying that the larger body of vaccine safety/efficacy data is suspect because of it. Maybe he doesn't imply this in so many words, but look at the titles of all his videos on vaccines (nearly universally highlighting supposed negative aspects) and tell me that's not the angle he's trying to convey. "Pfizermectin" is absolutely a full blown conspiracy theory that contends Paxlovid is functionally the same as ivermectin and there was an effort by Big Pharma to suppress ivermectin while they developed an on patent alternative. He repeatedly emphasizes that ivermectin is cheap in his video. I can't put myself through watching any more of it, but I can only assume he doesn't mention that the required concentrations for ivermectin to display said protease inhibition aren't achievable in vivo.
  - starkd 5y ago
    "making a mountain out of a molehill" is not a conspiracy. I've noticed a long running trend with people calling something a conspiracy as a means to conveniently dismiss something they'd rather not bother with. The whistleblower was hired by the company pfizer contracted to do the trials as an auditor. Her very job was to audit the trials to ensure it was being done right. She claims she was fired for bringing it up. You don't see a problem with that? Why do they even have auditors? Dr. Campbell did say it was cheap, because it IS cheap. Why do you assume its something nefarious. He also didn't make any promises that it was a miracle drug, only that read a good study in which it demonstrated SOME efficacy. That can mean thousands of lives saved, if there is no other alternative. I think the number was 62% effectiveness, but i'm not sure. He gave the good and bad. That's the sign of a straight shooter. Someone who treats their viewers like adults that can make up their own mind.

robbiep 5y ago

There’s a reason why my nursing colleagues have a (relatively) high degree of vaccine hesitancy and are losing their jobs - a proportion of them are just not capable of understanding the science and think that their experience (and Facebook feeds) are worth more than actual data. All of my anti vax leaning social media content comes from those colleagues (although let’s be clear it’s a small percentage and like all broad sweeping statements it applies in general only)

starkd 5y ago
Not capable of understanding science? that's incredibly arrogant statement to make. Nurses study the science as part of their accreditation. I could just as easily say doctors are so busy treating patients and reading up on the latest CDC guidelines and bureaucracy they don't have time to read the latest science and explore any skepticism. But it's essential to science.
- robbiep 5y ago
  And if i didn’t know so many of them I would agree with you. However after numerous experiences beginning with the midwife who explained to me that demonstrating the plantar reflex too many times would result in the child having a stutter. Just one example of 10,000, however it is by no means definitive of the profession - what you don’t see however is 10%+ of doctors refusing the vaccine or sprouting nonsense. I don’t know what exactly point you’re trying to refute - nurses are practical but a proportion of them have no scientific capacity. A proportion that is a logarithmic difference from their doctor or allied health colleagues. And I basically went to slightly less lengths to caveat this in my previous post, but apparently you’re a pedant
  - starkd 5y ago
    wow. It's almost like you meant to reply to some other post. That's not at all what this thread is talking about. Dr. Campbell was not a midwife. He was a teaching nurse. He's accustomed to reading these studies. Not sure how you equate him with anti-vax. He's adamantly pro-vax.
    - robbiep 5y ago
      And that is all irrelevant because I am not at all talking about whoever this Dr Campbell person is who I have never heard of until you brought them up in your earlier thread. My original post is completely seperate to any context of him and it should be read as such- but at least you’re finally becoming capable of parsing my posts

starkd 5y ago

The pfizer whistleblower was published in the British Medical Journal, not exactly a shabby publication. True or false, it was a news event and at least should be addressed. The fact that it's been largely swept under the rug is not a good sign for science, which is built on skepticism, not compliance. I am willing to dismiss the whistleblower as nothing but smoke, if someone answered it. So far, they have not. Which is telling. VAERS data is self-reported data, so it is far from conclusive. However, it was put there for a reason and shouldn't be ignored. It was put there to flag problems that need to be investigated. Pfizermectin is not a conspiracy. He's just noting both ivermectin and the pfizer therapeautic are both protease inhibitors. That's all he said. None of these are "conspiracies". So far, they are inconvenient truth assertions that a certain people seem to want to put down. We deserve, we are entitled to a fuller discussion than they are given.

phonypc 5y ago
The conspiratorial aspect of the whistleblower situation isn't that it happened. It undoubtedly did. It's making a mountain out of a molehill and implying that the larger body of vaccine safety/efficacy data is suspect because of it. Maybe he doesn't imply this in so many words, but look at the titles of all his videos on vaccines (nearly universally highlighting supposed negative aspects) and tell me that's not the angle he's trying to convey. "Pfizermectin" is absolutely a full blown conspiracy theory that contends Paxlovid is functionally the same as ivermectin and there was an effort by Big Pharma to suppress ivermectin while they developed an on patent alternative. He repeatedly emphasizes that ivermectin is cheap in his video. I can't put myself through watching any more of it, but I can only assume he doesn't mention that the required concentrations for ivermectin to display said protease inhibition aren't achievable in vivo.
- starkd 5y ago
  "making a mountain out of a molehill" is not a conspiracy. I've noticed a long running trend with people calling something a conspiracy as a means to conveniently dismiss something they'd rather not bother with. The whistleblower was hired by the company pfizer contracted to do the trials as an auditor. Her very job was to audit the trials to ensure it was being done right. She claims she was fired for bringing it up. You don't see a problem with that? Why do they even have auditors? Dr. Campbell did say it was cheap, because it IS cheap. Why do you assume its something nefarious. He also didn't make any promises that it was a miracle drug, only that read a good study in which it demonstrated SOME efficacy. That can mean thousands of lives saved, if there is no other alternative. I think the number was 62% effectiveness, but i'm not sure. He gave the good and bad. That's the sign of a straight shooter. Someone who treats their viewers like adults that can make up their own mind.