Talk:John Campbell (YouTuber)


Treatments for COVID-19: Current consensus

A note on WP:MEDRS: Per this Wikipedia policy, we must rely on the highest quality secondary sources and the recommendations of professional organizations and government bodies when determining the scientific consensus about medical treatments.

  1. Ivermectin: The highest quality sources (1 2 3 4) suggest Ivermectin is not an effective treatment for COVID-19. In all likelihood, ivermectin does not reduce all-cause mortality (moderate certainty) or improve quality of life (high certainty) when used to treat COVID-19 in the outpatient setting (4). Recommendations from relevant organizations can be summarized as: Evidence of efficacy for ivermectin is inconclusive. It should not be used outside of clinical trials. (May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, July 2021, July 2021) (WHO, FDA, IDSA, ASHP, CDC, NIH)
  2. Chloroquine & hydroxychloroquine: The highest quality sources (1 2 3 4) demonstrate that neither is effective for treating COVID-19. These analyses accounted for use both alone and in combination with azithromycin. Some data suggest their usage may worsen outcomes. Recommendations from relevant organizations can be summarized: Neither hydroxychloroquine nor chloroquine should be used, either alone or in combination with azithromycin, in inpatient or outpatient settings. (July 2020, Aug 2020, Sep 2020, May 2021) (WHO, FDA, IDSA, ASHP, NIH)
  3. Ivmmeta.com, c19ivermectin.com, c19hcq.com, hcqmeta.com, trialsitenews.com, etc: These sites are not reliable. The authors are pseudonymous. The findings have not been subject to peer review. We must rely on expert opinion, which describes these sites as unreliable. From published criticisms (1 2 3 4 5), it is clear that these analyses violate basic methodological norms which are known to cause spurious or false conclusions. These analyses include studies which have very small sample sizes, widely different dosages of treatment, open-label designs, different incompatible outcome measures, poor-quality control groups, and ad-hoc un-published trials which themselves did not undergo peer-review. (Dec 2020, Jan 2021, Feb 2021)
Which pages use this template?

Last updated (diff) on 13 May 2025 by GreenC (t · c)

New Study shows that Campbell was right

Media report: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAdYo0EJvkU The study (Journal International Journal of Cardiovascular Research & Innovation, Open Access) https://cardiovascular-research-and-innovation.reseaprojournals.com/Articles/myocarditis-after-sars-cov-2-infection-and-covid-19-vaccination-epidemiology-outcomes-and-new-perspectives 2001:4DD5:71B9:0:18D3:518:E692:EBE3 (talk) 22:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Several things. 1) It doesn't mention Campbell, so it doesn't really matter if you think this study confirms any claims of his in regards to this article. 2) A single study doesn't disprove dozens of other studies and systematic reviews of the scientific literature. 3) It appears the main author of this is Peter A. McCullough, a known promoter of various forms of medical pseudoscience. SilverserenC 22:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The whole authorship is basically a who's who of people associated with McCullough from the last 5 years of pseudoscience. From sunlight therapy for cancer, through the whole range of HCQ and IVM and beyond. Koncorde (talk) 22:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Dr. John Campbell"?

Any idea why he named his YT channel with a doctor title? NSX-Racer (talk) 13:13, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

because he has a doctorate. Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay, the Ph.D from Bolton, right? I asked because such a title and our German title "Dr." are not really the same. NSX-Racer (talk) 13:32, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, it is (just as in the UK) shorthand for "Doktor" (academic title), he just uses the long hand version. Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who do you trust? Wikipedia or John?

John Campbell's wiki page has made me question the trustworthiness of Wikipedia. The way the page is written is very suspect and seems to be completely targeting him. He works with a host of highly knowledgeable medical professionals and has in-depth discussions with them on a variety of important topics that are otherwise hidden by governments and the mainstream media. He is very passionate about the health of the general public and unravelling the truth. Misinformation... who is spreading it? Watch John's videos for yourself and make up your own mind! Especially watch the video where he talks about the claims the BBC made about him: 'John gets 'fact checked' by BBC' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bza1gAc8sOA Also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPLqm1BBwss where John explains his belief in Ivermectin and justifies based on A LOT of official research. Ivermectin is now being researched as a cancer treatment by various US states so surely that also says something???

You need to talk to the RS we use. Note, cancer and COvid are not the same.Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia. - Walter Ego 15:16, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They call him "antivax", an expression invented by vaccine promoters that doesn't even fit if you read Wiki's own definition of it, as Campbell is pro many vaccines, has taken COVID shots himself and only later spoken out against this particular vax. This entry is obviously biased, I guess a paid script. ~2026-50415-6 (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You guess wrong. try WP:RS, reliable sources. - Walter Ego 16:31, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Campbell_(YouTuber)