He constantly cherry-picks his information, misreads and deliberately misinterprets studies, and generally stokes the paranoia of the anti-vax crowd. He incessantly pushes the envelope right up to the limits of youtube misinformation guidelines, but still has had several videos taken down because of blatant lies. That he still has a channel is a testament to his cunning. He has millions of regular viewers and makes a bundle of cash on his youtube monetization.
I'm not going to report this post, but I sincerely hope it's locked.
One of his more recent posts used that very flawed Cochrane study on masks to fuel the anti-vax and anti-mask outrage. He was pushing hard on the notion that 'masks don't work'. The folks who did the study went so far as to issue a statement saying this is NOT what their study showed.
Here's a very good news report on that misinformation. You can still find Campbell's video on this if you want, but I'm not going to link to it.
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/masks-effective-study-respected-group-misinterpreted/story?id=97846561
Edited to add that when you actually look at the study itself, there is a LARGE alert at the top of the page ... it is a preprint, NOT a peer-reviewed study:
This is a preprint.
It has not yet been peer reviewed by a journal.
The National Library of Medicine is running a pilot to include preprints that result from research funded by NIH in PMC and PubMed.
Here is the link to the preprint.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7987002/
Just saw that there is now a peer-reviewed revision online.
Quote from the study itself ... Campbell ALWAYS fails to include this information.
However, several issues require close examination before CBD can be considered further or even explored as a therapeutic lead for COVID-19 (12). Although many CBD and CBD-containing products are available on the market, they vary vastly in quality, CBD content, and their pharmacokinetic properties after oral administration, which are mostly unknown. CBD is quite hydrophobic and forms large micellar structures that are trapped and broken down in the liver, thereby limiting the amount of drug available to other tissues after oral administration. Inactive carriers and formulation adjuvants have a significant impact on clinically obtainable concentrations. As CBD is widely sold as a preparation in an edible oil, we analyzed flavored commercial hemp oils and found a CBD content of only 0.30% in a representative sample (fig. S22). The purity of CBD and the chemical composition of the materials labeled as CBD are also important, especially in light of our findings suggesting that other cannabinoids such as THC might act to counter CBD antiviral efficacy. This essentially eliminates the feasibility of marijuana serving as an effective source of antiviral CBD, in addition to issues related to its legal status. Last, other means of CBD administration such as vaping and smoking raise additional concerns about potential lung damage.
Future studies to explore the optimal means of CBD delivery to patients along with clinical trials will be needed to further evaluate the promise of CBD as a therapeutic to block SARS-CoV-2 infection. Our animal studies provide preclinical support for evaluation of CBD as an anti–SARS-CoV-2 therapeutic agent in clinical trials. We advocate carefully designed placebo-controlled clinical trials with known concentrations and highly characterized formulations to define CBD’s role in preventing and treating early SARS-CoV-2 infection. The necessary human in vivo concentration and optimal route and formulation remain to be defined. We strongly caution against the temptation to take CBD in presently available formulations including edibles, inhalants, or topicals as a preventative or treatment therapy at this time, especially without the knowledge of a rigorous randomized clinical trial with this natural product (33).
= new reply since forum marked as read