I was very late to the thread, so I am posting these notes separately.
There seems to have been an assumption that the piece in the British Medical Journal related to the British situation but not the U.S., but Leemon McHenry is a bioethicist and Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at California State University, Northridge, in the United States.
The coauthor, Dr Jon Jureidini, is a child psychiatrist at the Women's and Children's Hospital, Adelaide {Australia} where he works with ill and disabled children and their families. He heads the University of Adelaide's: Critical and Ethical Mental Health (CEMH) research group within the Robinson Research Institute, and the Paediatric Mental Health Training Unit.
Their book "The Illusion of Evidence-Based Medicine: Exposing the crisis of credibility in clinical research" was published some time ago. Amazon has the "Illustrated Edition" (June 22, 2020), so it is odd to find a recycled article in the current issue of the BMJ.
Dr. John Campbell (Darryl's link was to his blog) is a controversial figure:
"John L. Campbell is a British YouTuber and retired nurse educator who has posted YouTube videos and spread misinformation on his Dr. John Campbell channel commenting on the COVID-19 pandemic. By January 2022, his videos had been viewed more than 429 million times."
Dr. (Dr.?, PHD?) Campbell due to my wife I watched from time to time early in the pandemic when he went over the case numbers, transmission rates, hospitalizations, from world wide statistics. That was pretty non-biased and his "your old Junior High School teacher " demeanor was addictive and soothing.Then he went wacko for some reason and thus became dead to me. Too bad.
Wow! This guy seems credible on the surface but... wow! My mouth is hanging open. Words fail me and that is rare.
Fortunately for all of us, the CDC and FDA override this ...person...
I listen to the FDA and CDC and am going to get a 2nd booster soon.
Interesting post. Just got back (today) from my three-month visit with my oncologist. He no longer wears a mask during our consultations, but asked me whether or not I wanted him to. I told him I didn't care. At the end of the visit, I asked him if I should get the Covid booster. He said, let's test your antibodies (which will be available in a week or so). Question: Does the level or antibodies present have much to do with T-cell activity? My last antibody test several months ago showed a high level, but is that meaningful? Secondly, you seem to discount Dr. Campbell as an outlier in the scientific community (dated work, etc) but he does make a point when he questions how much testing the FDA has done. Both Moderna with their younger population and Pfizer with their 64+ don't seem to have done their homework. Last week, when Moderna stock went down to 125 a share. I asked my wife to buy some, but she wanted to wait. as of today, it's about 180 and climbing.
Could there possibly be a connection between the price of Moderna stock and their rush to get out a booster without sufficient testing?
In the post about the reliability of scientific publications, I recall that not too long ago, one would read a publication only to learn later that the study had been withdrawn. Sloppy editing, friends publishing the work or associates? There used to be a government website that listed the reported income sources of many physicians. You would be surprised how many of our trusted doctors in crease their earnings through lecture or provide testimonials for our drugs fir companies. My dermatologist actually gave me the name of an international journal in which one can self-publish. Success in academia is, unfortunately, based on publish or perish, something I learned in grad school many, many years ago.
Wouldn't it be nice for big pharma when we are told that we will all need yearly boosters? That would be a cash cow. I still may buy Moderna at 180 a share!
I tested CoV antibodies at LabCorp six months after a full Moderna dose and they were still above the upper testing limit of 2500. However, the disclaimer is that there’s not been enough testing to determine how protective the reported number is. I took it as better than worse, and am postponing a further booster for now.
I followed Dr Campbell during the pandemic, and thought he was legit— mostly in his interpretation of publicly available data. He had some very good insight on the association of non-aspirated mRNA injections and myocarditis SE’s.
If you have natural immunity, that is proven to be far more powerful and long-lasting than any of the toxic jabs.
How so? The only two friends that I have who were not vaccinated both got covid. One of them can hardly taste or smell and it's been over a year. The other has problems with his memory that he swears are from the covid. I know three friends who got covid but were vaccinated (four if you include my brother in law). None of them have confided any long term complaints.
Science seems pretty solid. Unless you buy into the mRNA mutates DNA thing. One of my non-vaccinated friends (the guy with the memory issues) saw that on youtube so he decided it was true and didn't want to have his DNA tampered with - true story
If we are going to post anecdotal evidence, I can say that ALL of my un-vaxxed friends either did NOT get Covid or got a mild version. I am 67 yo, un-vaxxed. I spent a lot of time looking at all the evidence I could find ( both pro/con vaxx) and I can say that based on my research, the single most important metric for your health with Covid is Vit D3 serum levels. If you get above 50ng/ ml the data suggests that the death chances go to statistical zero. Do a search for it and you will find the studies. That data is from big studies from 3 different countries. The CDC and the FDA , unfortunately, are heavily influenced by Big Pharma. I have been involved in clinical studies, one published , and I can tell you from personal experience you should keep a skeptic's mind on anything from CDC and FDA.
My point is that everyone's experience is different. I prefer to look at the facts - and, yes, this requires me to assume that there is some reliable data source. The U.S. government is about as good as it gets for me. Trump said it was an emergency and started vaccine development. Biden also thinks it is a real threat.
The last two presidents, the CDC, most countries, the FDA, and the WHO are all aligned on this issue and their information likely beats out my own studies and guesses and N of 1 stuff, and the pretty presentations and ramblings of guys who broadcast on twitter or youtube.
But to each their own, own of my unvaccinated friends got the vaccine and now masks up when he leaves his house. The other one didn't make any changes (subsequently came down with covid a second time! Related, who knows, N of 1).
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. When it becomes an issue is when the health of my family is impacted by the actions or non-actions of others.
As an aside, I started masking over 2 years ago and haven't been sick since. One of my friends told me that even without covid, he's going to mask up every time he goes shopping because for the first time in his life he hasn't been sick for over a year.
So, whatever stance the powers that be has, I'm going to continue masking up when I go to certain high-risk places. If a for-profit company makes money selling me a vaccine, well, the flu vaccine is also for-profit, many anti-vaxxer books are for profit. I listen to the anti-capitalism sentiment about Moderna and Pfizer with interest but in reality, I am not going to abandon capitalism.
I am all for profit: confirmed capitalist. What I am not for is when the desire for a profit outweighs the general good of society. I am also not for at-profit companies being held harmless for the damage their products can cause and for the self same companies lobbying to keep the full data on adverse reactions out of public view . That happened. So, I remain a sceptic. You do you, I'll do me.
Would you please be kind enough to tell us your bio. Age? Location? When diagnosed? Treatment(s)? Treatment center(s)? Scores Psa/Gleason? Medications? Doctor's name(s)?
ALL INFO IS VOLUNTARY, but it helps us help you and helps us too. When you respond, you might want to copy and paste it in your home page for your use and for other members’ reference.
sure: I am male 67, PSA has been high ( low 6's) but stable for 10 years . primary said to just monitor it during that time, so I did. Last blood work ( 2 months ago) it jumped to low 8's. Got referral to urologist and explained my symptoms ( difficult night time urination, some mild ED , more frequent urination during daytime ..) . He has scheduled a MRI with biopsy. Also doing a 4K test. That led me to doing a lot of research on what I can do to prevent and/or treat possible PCa. I found this group. Reading here is helpful. Need anything else?
Follow up on my other post: I immediately went into a 'health food mode' after got the blood work back. Changed my diet to include less meat, dairy but more fish, fruit/berries and veges, drank more water , stopped smoking cigars and drinking bourbon ( ouch!) and started using some supplements that target prostate function. Within a week my nighttime difficult urination disappeared. Daytime frequency was reduced. My mild ED was improved ( YAY!) . Now I need to find out if I have PCa. Not looking forward to the biopsy but that is the only way ( according to the urologist). Any advice is appreciated.
lastly , my urologist said " You are one hard headed SOB. You should have come in years ago when your PSA jumped to 6. You should not have waited" I just love these MDs and their bedside manner.....
Thank you for you quick and detailed replies..... Good idea to copy and paste your replies in you home page for future use by you and other members. You have come to the right place for information and guidance. Nothing wrong with being a hard headed non smoking, drinking SOB. Get yourself a GOOD medical oncologist if indeed you test positive for Pca (hopefully not). Stay well and keep well. Keep posting here in HU.
Agree about Vitamin D. There should have been an international effort to increase vitamin D levels.Another point. By the time the cytokine storm phase arrives the virus is almost gone. The vasculitis and pneumonia that can follow are sterile inflammation. The pneumonia is actually an organizing pneumonia rather than garden variety ARDS, which is why it responds to steroids, unlike ARDS.
One of my defenses is avoiding seed oils which are highly pro inflammatory
And pervasive in ultaprocessed foods and fried foods.
I may have had a light case of Covid before my first vax-- it was a fluish feeling for a couple of days and some red spots on my upper arm, but I didn't get a PCR test then because they were hard to come by.
Yep, looks like he's had some misleading comments on his videos. Although I haven't really had a look in any great depth - just skimmed over it quickly. Looks also like people have used them to their own means - not him personally. One vid he admitted and apologized for. Didn't check if it was still available. I might look a bit more in detail just out of interest. To be honest I've seen worse, but still you're right to point it out.
So then, what is it with "The illusion of evidence based medicine" that you are unhappy about? Is it anything particular in there? I'm guessing that you think we should ignore this because of his Covid vids, maybe? Is that right? If not can you say what bits you are unhappy about? I'm not defending him, just would like to take a look myself.
Do you have a link that shows the data re Covid vaccine being a killer ???? You are saying that CDC ignored data and knowingly advised a vaccine that kills as many as it saves? I think you'll agree that if I shouldn't believe the CDC, I shouldn't just believe someone here or a youtuber who contradicts the CDC?
A look at Europe may help you to get further info to the COVID situation. In Italy, especially in the City of Bergamo, they were early 2020 at limit to handle the coffins. In the meantime 80 % received 2 vaccines and 65 % of the Italiens have the booster. Since the vaccinations of BioNTech/Pfizer and Moderna are available, the situation has significantly improved. Since in the US only around 66 % have a second vaccination, the fall 2022 will probably be a problem again.By the way, in Europe only a very, very small minority has still reservations against the mRNA vaccines.
Interesting replies to your post. It’s hard to think and vocalize outside the box without being canceled. What is the science if the science isn’t questioned and scrutinized? Science is ever evolving. Sadly if you question the science and it doesn’t fit the money-train narrative you are ridiculed into obscurity.
Yep, it doesn’t take long for people to start circling the wagons, does it?There is some decent science papers and a lot not so decent. You get the gold standards in the mix at the top, but these require funding. So you’ll probably see them wrt drugs and the likes. There are also limitations with these studies, but doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do them.
To me, I think an issue is that there’s a lot of studies out there that are of a poor standard. It would be interesting to know how many are/are not, but o bet the poor ones are high. People, in general, will not know what they are reading and rely on the abstract. IMO, the majority of these papers look on the surface to be quite credible but just aren’t.
You’ll get people read them and read a different one saying the exact opposite the next day. One day avoid dairy, next day dairy is actually protective. People will read these and decide to act on them. They’ll literally read the effect of selenium on PCa, for example, and go out and start taking selenium because it looked like a good outcome. They’ll probably take a high dose, because ‘more is better’, right?
I’d be very careful what you read and how much weight you put behind it.
To me, and other no doubt will argue against it, a better approach is to look for a more holistic strategy than a single silver bullet. I personally try to target inflammation.
Get lots of exercise, a diet that suits your body type, good sleep, limit stress and try to support your immune system. These are things you can control and there are NO downsides to doing them, regardless if you believe it will have an effect or not.
Wikipedia has not given good evidence that John Campbell spread misinformation. They give references 3, 4, 5 and 6. All of these references look dubious to me, being news articles and other non peer reviewed articles. Those articles don't give references for their information..
With regard to the fourth vaccine video, John Campbell doubts whether a fourth vaccine is justified for young fit people in the US. In the second part he agrees that a fourth vaccine may be justified for vulnerable people proposed by the UK. The third part of the video is mainly about excess deaths in Australia not attributed to Covid. He said the results are interesting but this was for the Australian government to investigate. All this looks reasonable to me. I guess drug companies might want young fit people to have a fourth vaccine.
In my experience John Campbell summarises peer reviewed papers in his u-tube videos. He mainly states the findings of the reports but occasionally gives his views. He often says don't take my word for, check the references. Sometimes viewers point out mistakes in his presentations. He then points out these mistakes in his next posting.
Many of us give our opinions on this forum not peer checked) as I have here. Perhaps I have made mistakes. Is this spreading misinformation?
There was a pro-Ivermectin post yesterday that seems to have been withdrawn. I was going to respond to it with the following. Out of sheer laziness, you got it instead.
....
Coincidentally, in today's New York Times:
(Might be the last word on that topic, although I doubt it.)
"Ivermectin Does Not Reduce Risk of Covid Hospitalization, Large Study Finds
“At some point it will become a waste of resources to continue studying an unpromising approach,” one expert said.
The anti-parasitic drug ivermectin, which has surged in popularity as an alternative treatment for Covid-19 despite a lack of strong research to back it up, showed no sign of alleviating the disease, according to results of a large clinical trial published on Wednesday.
The study, which compared more than 1,300 people infected with the coronavirus in Brazil who received either ivermectin or a placebo, effectively ruled out the drug as a treatment for Covid, the study’s authors said.
“There’s really no sign of any benefit,” said Dr. David Boulware, an infectious-disease expert at the University of Minnesota.
The researchers shared a summary of these results in August during an online presentation hosted by the National Institutes of Health, but the full data set had not been published until now in The New England Journal of Medicine.
“Now that people can dive into the details and the data, hopefully that will steer the majority of doctors away from ivermectin towards other therapies,” Dr. Boulware said.
For decades, ivermectin has been widely used to treat parasitic infections. Early in the pandemic, when researchers were trying thousands of old drugs against Covid-19, laboratory experiments on cells suggested that ivermectin might block the coronavirus.
At the time, skeptics pointed out that the experiments worked thanks to high concentrations of the drug — far beyond safe levels for people. Nevertheless, some doctors began prescribing ivermectin for Covid-19, despite a warning from the Food and Drug Administration that it was not approved for such use.
Around the world, researchers carried out small clinical trials to see if the drug treated the disease. In December 2020, Andrew Hill, a virologist at the University of Liverpool in England, reviewed the results of 23 trials and concluded that ivermectin appeared to significantly lower the risk of death from Covid-19.
If larger trials confirmed those findings, Dr. Hill said in a presentation at the time, “this really is going to be a transformative treatment.”
Ivermectin’s popularity continued to climb in the pandemic’s second year. The podcaster Joe Rogan promoted it repeatedly on his shows. In a single week in August, U.S. insurance companies spent $2.4 million paying for ivermectin treatments
But not long after Dr. Hill published his review last summer, reports surfaced that many of the studies he included in the analysis were flawed and, in at least one case, alleged to be fraudulent. Dr. Hill retracted his original study and started a new one, which he published in January.
On their second review, Dr. Hill and his colleagues focused on the studies least likely to be biased. In that stricter survey, ivermectin’s benefit vanished.
Still, even the best studies on ivermectin and Covid were small, with a few hundred volunteers at most. Small studies can be vulnerable to statistical flukes that suggest positive effects where none actually exist. But larger studies on ivermectin were underway at the time, and those promised to be more rigorous.
In Brazil, researchers set up a clinical trial known as TOGETHER in June 2020 to test Covid patients with a number of widely used drugs, including ivermectin. The treatments were double-blinded, meaning that neither the patients nor their medical staff knew whether they received a Covid treatment drug or a placebo.
In one round of the trial, the researchers found promising evidence that an antidepressant drug called fluvoxamine reduced the need for hospitalization by one-third. The researchers published their results in October in The Lancet Global Health.
In a new study published on Wednesday, the TOGETHER team reported on its ivermectin data. Between March and August 2021, the researchers provided the drug to 679 patients over the course of three days.
The results were clear: Taking ivermectin did not reduce a Covid patient’s risk of ending up in the hospital.
The researchers zeroed in on different groups of volunteers to see if they experienced benefits that others didn’t. For example, it might be possible that ivermectin only worked if taken early in an infection. But volunteers who took ivermectin in the first three days after a positive coronavirus test turned out to have worse outcomes than did those in the placebo group.
Dr. Hill was impressed with the results. “They have run a high-quality, placebo-controlled trial,” he said. He also expressed impatience with the New England Journal of Medicine for taking months to publish the results: “I don’t understand the delay with this trial from NEJM.”
Julia Morins, a spokeswoman for the journal, declined to comment on the delay. “We don’t comment on the editorial process, as it’s confidential,” she said in an email.
Dr. Hill has run his analysis of ivermectin studies again, this time including the new data from the TOGETHER trial. All told, his analysis included more than 5,000 people. And once more, he saw no benefit from ivermectin.
Still, there are several ongoing randomized trials of ivermectin, with thousands of volunteers, that have yet to share their results. The National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, which is part of the N.I.H., has for more than a year been running one closely watched trial of ivermectin and several other drugs for Covid patients. But it has yet to release results.
Dr. Sarah Dunsmore, a program director in the clinical innovations division at NCATS, said that researchers were analyzing the first batch of results on ivermectin and would release them in two to three months.
Dr. Boulware doubted that the additional trials would come to a different conclusion, since the TOGETHER trial was so large and carefully designed. “Rarely would you expect to find something different,” he said.
Dr. Paul Sax, an infectious-disease expert at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston who was not involved in the TOGETHER trial, shared Dr. Boulware’s view.
“I welcome the results of the other clinical trials and will view them with an open mind, but at some point it will become a waste of resources to continue studying an unpromising approach,” he said.
Carl Zimmer writes the “Matter” column. He is the author of fourteen books, including “Life's Edge: The Search For What It Means To Be Alive.” @carlzimmer • Facebook
A version of this article appears in print on March 31, 2022, Section A, Page 18 of the New York edition with the headline: Covid Study of Ivermectin Finds ‘No Sign’ of Benefit."
Dr. Hill is compromised, he did an about face for one reason, he was protecting his paycheck. The University of Liverpool (his employer) was given 40 million dollars from Unitaid four days before Dr. Hill did an about face on Ivermectin (coincidence?). The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation holds seats on Unitaid’s board and seats on the executive committee. BMGF has given Unitaid 150 million dollars over the years. BMFG is invested heavily in numerous big pharmaceutical companies. The primary purpose of Unitaid is to protect the patent rights and intellectual property of big pharmaceutical companies which BMFG holds an interest. Dr. Hill is also an advisor to Bill Gates and the Clinton Foundation. Gates uses Unitaid to fund his corrupt science to legitimize his policy directives to the WHO.
I have watched Dr Campbell throughout the pandemic. He has always seemed middle of the road to me. If you have watched his videos, he advocated for the COVID shots, he did seem to try to give both sides of the story as much as possible. He would talk about using supplements to help boost your immunity, and ideas such as getting sunshine..etc. Although I did not agree with 100% of what he said, he did seem to really try to put out as much information as possible and let you decide. In a time where it seems like everyone has an agenda I can appreciate someone trying to give the whole story. He seems lovely to me. Plus his British accent is kind of charming.
Content on HealthUnlocked does not replace the relationship between you and doctors or other healthcare professionals nor the advice you receive from them.
Never delay seeking advice or dialling emergency services because of something that you have read on HealthUnlocked.
Lutetium-177 Prostate Cancer Scan Results Video
Best Evidence So Far: Metformin Has No Benefit for Prostate Cancer
My path to Precision Medicine 
Alternative vs modern medicine 
