Home Page
Home Page

Who The Hell Is Dr John Campbell? Part 1

by Chauncey Tinker – 5 Nov 2021

This little chap routinely appears in Dr Campbell's videos, is he encouraging children to wear masks?

A retired nurse teacher and A and E nurse (according to his own About page on Youtube) has shot to fame in the United Kingdom since 2020. He has amassed a truly staggering number of followers on Youtube - 1.25 million and counting (even just since I started writing this post he has gained 30,000 more). This is a very conspicuous achievement for someone who was virtually unknown to the general public just a couple of years ago, and particularly since the UK is a relatively small country with only 65-70 million people this is a very significant number of followers (although of course his followers don't necessarily all reside in the UK). When we consider that some of his recent videos on Youtube have had over a million views already, we start to realize that this retired teacher of nurses has quietly (and single-handedly it seems) become as influential as many mainstream UK media channels. Such has been the impact of Dr John Campbell's videos that even in the US mainstream media he has been noticed, here is an article from the New York Post (March 2020) (the numbers of followers have more than doubled since to the numbers mentioned above as well):

I first noticed Dr John Campbell's videos appearing in the right hand column when I was watching other videos related to COVID-19, and at first I paid little attention to them, because he seemed to be simply repeating the official line on issues such as the danger posed by COVID-19, the necessity for wearing masks, and the necessity for social distancing etc., all of which measures I had long since dismissed in my own mind as (at best) unnecessary measures. I was even beginning to feel a little irritated by the way his face kept popping up on my screen, having already dismissed his channel as a mindless propaganda vehicle. Gradually however I began to notice something surprising was happening - on some issues he was deviating quite significantly from the official line, and at this point I began to take an interest in his channel.

Some readers may be wondering why on earth I have written a post about this individual, but please bear with me because this story is raising a lot of important issues with regard to censorship on social media platforms and freedom of speech more generally, as well as more specifically related to COVID-19 and the jabs. I certainly don't want to promote his channel in any sort of uncritical way, please put your scepticals on before listening to his videos (actually especially these days you should probably keep your scepticals on all the time). I fear that he has far too much faith in official statistics on COVID-19 cases and deaths, even though in some of his videos he does make criticisms of those statistics. He also so far has been continuing to express the opinion that the COVID-19 jabs are effective, although recently he has been looking at the declining efficacy statistics (data that I think may eventually cause him to reconsider his position on the jabs as the picture becomes clearer over time). He has recently interviewed a young man who suffered serious adverse reactions to a second dose of the Pfizer jab (more on that in a moment). [Correction] He has taken a brief look at the Yellow Card and VAERS data in at least one video.[Correction]

The first issue where I noticed a serious deviation from the official narrative was on the subject of Ivermectin, a cheap drug that many believe is effective in combatting the virus. In this video he challenged the BBC on the subject:


The BBC has got a really good international reputation ... because it used to be a really good organization.

To begin with he draws our attention to the fact that this "BBC reality check" seems to be based on an article written by a student. He (the student) is apparently leading "a group of independent scientists". Dr Campbell is critical of the fact that the claims made in the BBC article seem to be based on research that is not even published let alone peer-reviewed (you can check for yourself - the article certainly includes no links to any research papers). Also he says that the group of scientists mentioned are effectively dismissing most medical meta-analysis studies done to date as "at high risk of bias" (not just the relevant ones on Ivermectin, he says they are talking about setting an entirely new standard for this kind of study).

Dr Campbell has interviewed Dr Pierre Kory, who according to Wikipedia is one of the bad guys "spreading misinformation" about COVID-19 and promoting the use of Ivermectin. Quote from the Wikipedia page about Dr Kory:

Kory erroneously claimed that the antiparasitic medication ivermectin was a "wonder drug" with "miraculous effectiveness" against COVID-19.

Seven months ago he discussed Ivermectin with Dr Tess Lawrie (for a second time):

For those of you not aware Dr Tess Lawrie is a doctor of medicine who founded the Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd. She is mentioned in the BBC article that Dr Campbell challenged in the first above linked video (just to be clear Dr Campbell did not challenge the second paragraph in this quote):

Dr Tess Lawrie - a medical doctor who specialises in pregnancy and childbirth - founded the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development (Bird) Group.

She has called for a pause to the Covid-19 vaccination programme and has made unsubstantiated claims implying the Covid vaccine had led to a large number of deaths based on a common misreading of safety data.

The fact that Dr Campbell has been talking to Dr Lawrie at all is rather surprising considering the fact that Dr Lawrie, unlike Dr Campbell, is an outspoken critic of the mass jabbing program. Nonetheless they have a very civil conversation about the benefits of Ivermectin, setting an example for civilized debate that the mainstream media would do well to try to emulate.

Although Dr Campbell believes the jabs are good at protecting against COVID-19, he has been making a serious criticism of the way they are apparently often being administered. In my understanding (I have no medical knowledge I am just stating what I understand his position is on this) he is saying that the jabs ought to be injected into a muscle rather than into a vein. If the jabs are injected into the muscle (intra-muscular) then the injection stays initially in the arm according to Dr Campbell, whereas if the jabs go straight into the vein (intravenous), then the spike proteins immediately go into the blood stream where he says they can potentially do a lot of harm. Dr Campbell also talks about aspiration in some of his videos, and he expresses alarm at the fact that many of those administering the jabs don't even appear to know what aspiration is (you the reader may not know but those doing the injections certainly should know).

In this next video he interviews a young man called Kyle in Idaho in the US, who reports that he suffered very serious adverse reactions after a second dose of the Pfizer jab:

Kyle (who says he was a professional cyclist, suggesting he was very fit beforehand) describes being out on a bicycle ride when he started to notice his heart was racing in a very serious way, and the suspicion here is that he was suffering from heart inflammation. Dr Campbell says he suspects that Kyle's second jab may have been administered intravenously. Kyle says that he experienced a strange metallic taste in his mouth immediately after the second jab, which seemed to increase Dr Campbell's suspicion about the method of injection. Kyle says he only had a sore arm after the first jab, which seems to lend some support to Dr Campbell's theory. Kyle is now campaigning to raise awareness about adverse reactions to the jabs. Kyle says that the initial reaction of doctors was to dismiss his symptoms as a panic attack. He says his symptoms continued for days and he went back to the hospital, on this second visit he was diagnosed with pericarditis and arthritis, and he has continued to have serious symptoms for over 4 months. Whatever the truth about Dr Campbell's suspicions on the subject of the method of injection, what is also alarming to me is the reactions that Kyle describes that those who suffer adverse reactions are facing, including from medical staff. Around 29 minutes into the video Kyle mentions a support group React 19 that he has joined which raises awareness of adverse reactions. Kyle mentions that in this group of 5000 people 6 people he is aware of have committed suicide in the past month, and he says some of the families involved have had children die from myocarditis.

[Correction]As I mentioned above, he has taken a brief look at the Yellow Card and VAERS data in at least one video. He dismisses concerns about the numbers, saying that they are what you would expect considering the age of the people who were being jabbed first. What he didn't mention however is that many of those raising concerns about the adverse reaction reports think that the numbers of reports may be only a sub-set of the true number of adverse reactions experienced.[Correction]

He gets huge numbers of comments under his videos, and many of the comments are from people who share the concerns that many of us have about the safety and effectiveness of the jabs, and he does read some of these comments and respond to them, so maybe he will take a more serious look at the adverse reaction data before too long. Perhaps he might also be persuaded to take a look at the claims made by Professor Norman Fenton and Joel Smalley that I mentioned in the previous post:

The mere existence of Dr John Campbell's channel is creating a very significant problem for the social media censors. They have banned other commenters for promoting Ivermectin, yet they continue to allow Dr John Campbell to argue in favour of the drug - has his channel become too popular to gag? I think this highlights the difficulties in trying to silence those "promoting misinformation" while we are supposedly in the midst of a huge health crisis, when the truth about many aspects of the situation is still emerging.

I think it also highlights the difficulties of trying to silence dissent in Western nations that are used to enjoying high levels of freedom of speech, particularly when a commenter only partially deviates from the official narrative. Buy your popcorn folks, because as he continues to rapidly acquire more followers I think the story of Dr Campbell's channel is going to get very, very interesting - the suspense is killing me, will he get banned, or won't he? If he isn't banned from Youtube (and I certainly hope he isn't banned), then perhaps before too long the mainstream media will be forced into a more honest debate about many aspects of the COVID-19 response, because they will be forced to respond to the claims being made by Dr Campbell and those appearing on his channel.


From TCW:

The React 19 website:

What do you think? Please leave a comment below.

Please feel free to share this article on social media sites:

Tweet     Share on Facebook     Google Plus     Reddit     Tumblr