My, admittedly somewhat exasperated, post, was in response to references to Dr. Campbell's recent video as contributing much to the ivermectin debate, if you can call it that.
What I got from that was that he sees the development of other drugs is largely motivated by the greed of big pharma, rather than to develop improved treatments. I, to an extent, disagree.
New drug development is a hugely complicated and expensive business, which is largely undertaken by the private sector, and sometimes collaboration with academic researchers. Such as the Astra Zenica collaboration with Oxford University. There is not infinite resource to do this, and probably other promising drug developments for quite different conditions will have had to have been de-emphasised for the moment. Somehow this work has to be paid for, with the prospect of an eventual recoupment, and dare I say even profit.
Ivermectin is another case in point, and would not have happened without big pharma.
I see him as a commentator, and educator, who has come to public prominence via. youtube, who must spend a great deal of time gathering information, filtering it, then presents his own interpretations of it. Much of it informative, some less so. This a useful thing to do, but there is a danger to the viewer in then jumping to one's own conclusions.
I do not follow him, just dip in and out occasionally. Frankly I don't have the time, or the interest, unless there seems to be some significant new development occurring.
Like it or not, a lot of the public debate is formed by personality politics. And any of us are entitled to form our own views of such personalities.
My minor quibble is that in presenting himself as "Dr." to which title he is of course entitled by virtue of his PhD. this may be misinterpreted by some who might think that he is a "medical doctor", as in the sort of person qualified to treat patients for conditions in their area of speciality.
His record is impressive. You can read it yourself, e.g. his profile at Bath University, John Campbell
I think that there is a place for all therapies, using generics, repurposed currently in-patent, and novel drugs, as and when rigorously constructed trials have delivered findings, initially preliminary of course. Meanwhile the use of Ivermectin as a short term treatment for symptomatic patients, and as a short term prophylaxis of their contacts, seems well worth continuing.
Although the UK has been pioneering in exploring other drug therapies, putting them into use, and continues to be so
However I do have my doubts about self-medication as a long term prophylactic. AFAIK that is not how it has been used in the past, for humans, so anyone doing so themselves I think is just as much venturing into the unknown as those of us being treated with new vaccines. Except that the vaccines are being subjected to rigorous scrutiny, and unexpected side effects emerge, long term efficacy etc. are constantly being studied.
Not so for those pursuing their own theories, e.g. self medicating long term with whatever dose of Ivermectin that they have decided to use on themselves as a human guinea-pig. Never mind evangelising to encourage others, family, friends, acquaintances etc. to do so as well.
Even worse would be to think that doing so is somehow an alternative to accepting vaccination.
Also, consider, what if such a person was to develop some mysterious condition, unrelated, or not, then present themselves to their GP. Are they going to tell them about their ingestion of Ivermectin, in case that might have some bearing on it. Or keep silent for whatever reason ?
What I got from that was that he sees the development of other drugs is largely motivated by the greed of big pharma, rather than to develop improved treatments. I, to an extent, disagree.
New drug development is a hugely complicated and expensive business, which is largely undertaken by the private sector, and sometimes collaboration with academic researchers. Such as the Astra Zenica collaboration with Oxford University. There is not infinite resource to do this, and probably other promising drug developments for quite different conditions will have had to have been de-emphasised for the moment. Somehow this work has to be paid for, with the prospect of an eventual recoupment, and dare I say even profit.
Ivermectin is another case in point, and would not have happened without big pharma.
I see him as a commentator, and educator, who has come to public prominence via. youtube, who must spend a great deal of time gathering information, filtering it, then presents his own interpretations of it. Much of it informative, some less so. This a useful thing to do, but there is a danger to the viewer in then jumping to one's own conclusions.
I do not follow him, just dip in and out occasionally. Frankly I don't have the time, or the interest, unless there seems to be some significant new development occurring.
Like it or not, a lot of the public debate is formed by personality politics. And any of us are entitled to form our own views of such personalities.
My minor quibble is that in presenting himself as "Dr." to which title he is of course entitled by virtue of his PhD. this may be misinterpreted by some who might think that he is a "medical doctor", as in the sort of person qualified to treat patients for conditions in their area of speciality.
His record is impressive. You can read it yourself, e.g. his profile at Bath University, John Campbell
I think that there is a place for all therapies, using generics, repurposed currently in-patent, and novel drugs, as and when rigorously constructed trials have delivered findings, initially preliminary of course. Meanwhile the use of Ivermectin as a short term treatment for symptomatic patients, and as a short term prophylaxis of their contacts, seems well worth continuing.
Although the UK has been pioneering in exploring other drug therapies, putting them into use, and continues to be so
However I do have my doubts about self-medication as a long term prophylactic. AFAIK that is not how it has been used in the past, for humans, so anyone doing so themselves I think is just as much venturing into the unknown as those of us being treated with new vaccines. Except that the vaccines are being subjected to rigorous scrutiny, and unexpected side effects emerge, long term efficacy etc. are constantly being studied.
Not so for those pursuing their own theories, e.g. self medicating long term with whatever dose of Ivermectin that they have decided to use on themselves as a human guinea-pig. Never mind evangelising to encourage others, family, friends, acquaintances etc. to do so as well.
Even worse would be to think that doing so is somehow an alternative to accepting vaccination.
Also, consider, what if such a person was to develop some mysterious condition, unrelated, or not, then present themselves to their GP. Are they going to tell them about their ingestion of Ivermectin, in case that might have some bearing on it. Or keep silent for whatever reason ?
