CoVID-19 / SARS-CoV-2 Information and Questions

[GTBRMC]

I have watched hundreds of Dr John Campbell’s daily videos on COVID on YouTube since approx early Feb 2020 (I was tipped in Jan 2020 on COIVD from some of my contacts in China.) Campbell is a retired nurse with a PhD and a long career in clinical practice and medical education around the world. His COVID videos have been apolitical, fact and research based, focusing on educating the public, and otherwise very informative.

Has anyone else watched his videos?

Anyway, his reaction to the release of the initial batch of COVID vax data from Pfizer was revealing.

He was very direct and pointed in his criticism. Has anyone seen it? Anyone have any thoughts?

 

[Bruce]

@GTBRMC, I do not have time to watch the video but he has been associated with misinformation before.

What does the actual data say? Have you looked at it?

Covid: Posts claiming only 17,000 died of virus 'factually incorrect'

Facebook, Twitter and YouTube posts that vastly underplayed the number of UK Covid deaths have been condemned.

www.bbc.com

 

[Julian]

I have watched hundreds of Dr John Campbell’s daily videos on COVID on YouTube since approx early Feb 2020 (I was tipped in Jan 2020 on COIVD from some of my contacts in China.) Campbell is a retired nurse with a PhD and a long career in clinical practice and medical education around the world. His COVID videos have been apolitical, fact and research based, focusing on educating the public, and otherwise very informative.

Has anyone else watched his videos?

Anyway, his reaction to the release of the initial batch of COVID vax data from Pfizer was revealing.

He was very direct and pointed in his criticism. Has anyone seen it? Anyone have any thoughts?

Yeah....anyone who makes money off this sort of bullshit is despicable. He says the UK only had 17000 deaths due to Covid, and bases that off real data that 17000 death certificates in the UK listed ONLY covid. This is pathetic and laughable. He should be pointing out that no one dies from only covid and that those death certificates were clearly rushed and wrong. But instead he trumps up bullshit and gets millions of youtube viewers (making a fortune). Sad and despicable....but not surprising.

 

[tabbibus]

Yeah....anyone who makes money off this sort of bullshit is despicable. He says the UK only had 17000 deaths due to Covid, and bases that off real data that 17000 death certificates in the UK listed ONLY covid. This is pathetic and laughable. He should be pointing out that no one dies from only covid and that those death certificates were clearly rushed and wrong. But instead he trumps up bullshit and gets millions of youtube viewers (making a fortune). Sad and despicable....but not surprising.

People who use that argument are either despicable people trying to hurt others or ignorant. If you fancy yourself an expert, then probably you are simply misinforming people on purpose.

 

[GTBRMC]

Like I said, he has made hundreds of videos on this. Almost every day. I have watched probably a third start to finish. Thumbed through another third. He has made mistakes in the past. When he does, he corrects it in later video.

I asked if anyone had WATCHED his videos, not if anyone could Google an article or two calling out a specific comment or two.

His videos typically follow the same format:
1) he intros the topic of the day
2) he briefly cites the research on which he based his conclusions (many times he does not have a conclusion but discusses why he finds the research interesting)
3) he gives a quick synopsis of what is to follow in the video
4) he goes through the research in some detail… he points out credibility of research source, whether it peer reviewed, published or pre-published, etc

Assumptions & conclusion jumps are the enemy of science.

Beyond Campbell, has anyone looked into the focus of the video I linked… the Pfizer docs published?

 

[Bruce]

the Pfizer docs published?

Why not link to whatever documents that you are asking about rather than to a video from some pandemic profiteer?

Pfizer has published several times on their vaccine studies. Their publications in the New England Journal of Medicine document some of the largest vaccine studies ever with incredible evidence of efficacy and safety. There is recent evidence that very low dose vaccines were more effective in some age groups under 5 than others.

 

[Jim_in_Delaware]

I have watched hundreds of Dr John Campbell’s daily videos on COVID on YouTube since approx early Feb 2020 (I was tipped in Jan 2020 on COIVD from some of my contacts in China.) Campbell is a retired nurse with a PhD and a long career in clinical practice and medical education around the world. His COVID videos have been apolitical, fact and research based, focusing on educating the public, and otherwise very informative.

Has anyone else watched his videos?

Anyway, his reaction to the release of the initial batch of COVID vax data from Pfizer was revealing.

He was very direct and pointed in his criticism. Has anyone seen it? Anyone have any thoughts?

The following are solely my personal thoughts and do not reflect those of my employer.

I watched the entire video and quite honestly it was a waste of 23 minutes.

He comes across as a thoughtful man, but he apparently has no idea what he is talking about in this video. While he may have a PhD in Nursing Education, it is clear that he knows nothing about the review/approval process of vaccines/drugs. There is a proverb 'A little knowledge is a dangerous thing', and that is certainly true in this case.

First off, information review by the FDA (and other foreign regulatory bodies) is proprietary information. In FDA's case, it is an exhaustive review of both the raw and summary data, often with requests for additional data. The review is done totally within FDA by their staff of MD and PhD reviewers. The sponsor of the vaccine or drug may choose to disseminate the information to the public, but FDA is prohibited from doing so.

Moving on to risk/benefit in the approval process, this again is something that he doesn't seem to understand. While each and every severe reaction and/or death is important, he fails to look at the benefit side of the discussion. Totally made up numbers, but if you administer 10,000,000 doses of a vaccine and save 20,000 lives (assumption of a 0.2% mortality rate), there is likely some acceptable level or risk (including death) from the vaccine.

The number of doses manufactured by Pfizer is indeed proprietary information, that Pfizer could choose to release to the public. It would not be proper for FDA to release this confidential company information. Rest assured, however, that the FDA reviewing offices would have it and it would figure into their risk/benefit analysis.

He also seems to suggest that Dr. Janet Woodcock has seen the internal data and if she states the vaccine is safe (again, keep in mind the risk/benefit that goes into this decision) that she is incompetent. I do not always agree with Dr. Woodcock's decisions, but I would never doubt her competency in her work at FDA. Dr. Woodcock's training is as a MD, she joined FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) in 1986, and became the Director of FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) in 1994.

Jim

 

[tabbibus]

I mean, but the immature teenager in me has to giggle at "woodcock"

 

[Julian]

Like I said, he has made hundreds of videos on this. Almost every day. I have watched probably a third start to finish. Thumbed through another third. He has made mistakes in the past. When he does, he corrects it in later video.

I asked if anyone had WATCHED his videos, not if anyone could Google an article or two calling out a specific comment or two.

His videos typically follow the same format:
1) he intros the topic of the day
2) he briefly cites the research on which he based his conclusions (many times he does not have a conclusion but discusses why he finds the research interesting)
3) he gives a quick synopsis of what is to follow in the video
4) he goes through the research in some detail… he points out credibility of research source, whether it peer reviewed, published or pre-published, etc

Assumptions & conclusion jumps are the enemy of science.

Beyond Campbell, has anyone looked into the focus of the video I linked… the Pfizer docs published?

Yup....he's made hundreds of videos.....and gets paid on views. He's laughing all the way to the bank. I watched 10 minutes and couldn't keep going.....not worth my time - he's an idiot......"Bless his heart". Oh wait.....no he's not.....he's a shrewd and cunning guy making a fortune (spinning crap that people WANT to hear/believe).

 

[GTBRMC]

Pfizer docs in question are the first release of the court-ordered release of docs from FOIA requests related to Pfizer’s data of the safety and effectiveness of their vaccine. The data that court order was issued after Pfizer & CDC initially proposed to release over many decades (75 years for complete data release).***

I am sure people here can Google it.

***This doesn’t ring any warning bells to any of the keepers of the flame on this subject here on this site?

Source for info about the court order and the Pfizer/CDC proposed release timing:

Why a Judge Ordered FDA to Release Covid-19 Vaccine Data Pronto

A group of scientists and medical researchers sued the FDA under FOIA to force release of hundreds of thousands of documents related to licensing of the Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine. Plaintiff’s attorney Aaron Siri, who is representing the group, explains the fight that led a federal court...

news.bloomberglaw.com

 

[GTBRMC]

Yup....he's made hundreds of videos.....and gets paid on views. He's laughing all the way to the bank. I watched 10 minutes and couldn't keep going.....not worth my time - he's an idiot......"Bless his heart". Oh wait.....no he's not.....he's a shrewd and cunning guy making a fortune (spinning crap that people WANT to hear/believe).

Watch several of his videos spread out over the last two years. Pick five at random. Or keep on your current position… speaking of “crap that people WANT to hear/believe.”

 

[GTBRMC]

The link to the documents Campbell was discussing was shown at 0:46 into the video I linked.

Federal court order (see attached)

There are many Pfizer docs, the source referenced has a nicely chronologically organized table of Pfizer docs, including some docs before the recent release: Pfizer's Documents - Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency

 

[Jim_in_Delaware]

Pfizer docs in question are the first release of the court-ordered release of docs from FOIA requests related to Pfizer’s data of the safety and effectiveness of their vaccine. The data that court order was issued after Pfizer & CDC initially proposed to release over many decades (75 years for complete data release).***

I am sure people here can Google it.

***This doesn’t ring any warning bells to any of the keepers of the flame on this subject here on this site?

Source for info about the court order and the Pfizer/CDC proposed release timing:

Why a Judge Ordered FDA to Release Covid-19 Vaccine Data Pronto

A group of scientists and medical researchers sued the FDA under FOIA to force release of hundreds of thousands of documents related to licensing of the Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine. Plaintiff’s attorney Aaron Siri, who is representing the group, explains the fight that led a federal court...

news.bloomberglaw.com

No, it does not ring any warning bells to me. I am not personally involved in the FDA review process, but I know a good deal about it, and have faith in the process. Much more so, than someone trying to read through 300,000 pages of documents, and cherry pick what they want from the documents. The reason for the court order was the shear volume of data, all of which would have to be review by hand, and redactions made to any confidential, proprietary information, by FDA's FOIA staff.

Here an interesting article, from MedPage Today, "FDA Begins Releasing Pfizer COVID Vax Documents — Court-ordered release runs risk of "cherry picking and taking things out of context"

The FDA reviewing offices have looked at ALL of the Pfizer data, IMHO, it is a joke to even assume that Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency will do the same.

Jim

 

[GTBRMC]

No, it does not ring any warning bells to me. I am not personally involved in the FDA review process, but I know a good deal about it, and have faith in the process. Much more so, than someone trying to read through 300,000 pages of documents, and cherry pick what they want from the documents. The reason for the court order was the shear volume of data, all of which would have to be review by hand, and redactions made to any confidential, proprietary information, by FDA's FOIA staff.

Here an interesting article, from MedPage Today, "FDA Begins Releasing Pfizer COVID Vax Documents — Court-ordered release runs risk of "cherry picking and taking things out of context"

The FDA reviewing offices have looked at ALL of the Pfizer data, IMHO, it is a joke to even assume that Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency will do the same.

Jim

Got it. So, 75 year time frame to answer a FOIA is good with you and, apparently, several others. OK.

Note: As I have said before, I am not anti-vax. My entire fam and I are vaxxed. Brother is ED doctor. Daughter is in mortuary biz. I am quite familiar with the ins and outs of COVID. However, confirmation bias cuts both ways. Questioning established understanding is part of science.

Carry on, all.

 

[Jim_in_Delaware]

Got it. So, 75 year time frame to answer a FOIA is good with you and, apparently, several others. OK.

Note: As I have said before, I am not anti-vax. My entire fam and I are vaxxed. Brother is ED doctor. Daughter is in mortuary biz. I am quite familiar with the ins and outs of COVID. However, confirmation bias cuts both ways. Questioning established understanding is part of science.

Carry on, all.

My point was that ALL of the vaccine has been thoroughly reviewed by FDA. I seriously doubt the Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency will do this. My guess is they will cherry pick the data they want to feed the narrative they are trying to push. I see no real benefit to the public with them doing so.

The FOIA timeframe doesn't bother me either. Why should this FOIA request jump to the head of the line over other FOIA requests? A FOIA is not just printing and publishing documents. There is a review of the documents, often times done by several people, to make sure no proprietary confidential information is inadvertently released. FDA has few resources dedicated to this type of work, as most folks are doing much higher priority work.

Jim

 

[adrianp89]

My point was that ALL of the vaccine has been thoroughly reviewed by FDA. I seriously doubt the Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency will do this. My guess is they will cherry pick the data they want to feed the narrative they are trying to push. I see no real benefit to the public with them doing so.

The FOIA timeframe doesn't bother me either. Why should this FOIA request jump to the head of the line over other FOIA requests? A FOIA is not just printing and publishing documents. There is a review of the documents, often times done by several people, to make sure no proprietary confidential information is inadvertently released. FDA has few resources dedicated to this type of work, as most folks are doing much higher priority work.

Jim

FDA's handling of Oxycontin helped lay the path for a nation-wide opioid crisis. But yeah we can trust them to "thoroughly review" something with only a year of data. You cannot really be that naïve.

 

[Jim_in_Delaware]

LOL, not naive, but 35+ years of experience at the Agency goes into my faith in the review process, as I do understand the FDA review process for drugs and vaccines.

Do I trust the review process for the vaccines? Yes, I do. Me, my wife, and adult daughter are all vaccinated and boosted. We are just 3 of the approximately 217 million Americans who are fully vaccinated. There is more than a years worth of data and approximately 557 million doses of vaccine have been given in the U.S. alone. There is overwhelming evidence that the vaccine are both safe and effective, based on risk/benefit analyses. And I sure as hell trust the FDA review of the data over that of "The Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency", who have their own agenda.

Jim

 

[Julian]

Watch several of his videos spread out over the last two years. Pick five at random. Or keep on your current position… speaking of “crap that people WANT to hear/believe.”

I have no desire to fund a youtuber who clearly capitalizes on people's lack of understand of how medicine and healthcare works. I'm sure he sprinkles in enough truth to keep people watching - just not me.


This article published in the Lancet is far more interesting, although not unexpected as we knew excess death data would be the best way to determine the pandemic's impact....the problem being that it is a lagging measure (only done after the pandemic is over, or close to). So roughly 3 times the deaths world wide over current counts. Not surprising as many countries have poor tracking for cause of death statistics. That said, even the US data is undercounting the Covid death toll.

"Although reported COVID-19 deaths between Jan 1, 2020, and Dec 31, 2021, totalled 5.94 million worldwide, we estimate that 18.2 million (95% uncertainty interval 17.1–19.6) people died worldwide because of the COVID-19 pandemic (as measured by excess mortality) over that period."​

​

So some factual data that completely counters this nurse's opinion.

 

[GTBRMC]

LOL, not naive, but 35+ years of experience at the Agency goes into my faith in the review process, as I do understand the FDA review process for drugs and vaccines.

Do I trust the review process for the vaccines? Yes, I do. Me, my wife, and adult daughter are all vaccinated and boosted. We are just 3 of the approximately 217 million Americans who are fully vaccinated. There is more than a years worth of data and approximately 557 million doses of vaccine have been given in the U.S. alone. There is overwhelming evidence that the vaccine are both safe and effective, based on risk/benefit analyses. And I sure as hell trust the FDA review of the data over that of "The Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency", who have their own agenda.

Jim

I was not referring to that group in any way, other than they provided an organized table of the first release (approx. March 1, 2022) of documents from Pfizer in response to the court ordered compliance with the FOIA request.

 

[Jim_in_Delaware]

@GTBRMC, my post above (#537) was a direct response to adrianp89's post (#536) of my earlier post, as he wrongly calls me naive in understanding the FDA review process.

Jim