Article archive / February 2022
Originally published: . Volume 13, No. 2. Source pages: 2.
I've followed four experts along the Covid trail. One of them is John Campbell, PhD, who trained nurses for much of his career. He has developed a very popular YouTube channel with over two million subscribers. It’s no wonder that he skyrocketed in popularity. His critical-thinking is on display and he expects you to use yours. He shows you the data that he has used to draw his conclusions, and is scientifically cautious about jumping to premature decisions. His prudent, thoughtful style syncs up nicely with his non-autocratic educational approach. For credibility alone, this would suffice. But Campbell can also be entertaining. With his understated comments, dry wit, and British accent, he sometimes points out ironies that are hilarious––if you're listening closely.
Last week he was targeted by a BBC reporter, who claimed that Campbell was spreading misinformation when he reviewed the data on number of Covid-only deaths compared to those with comorbidities. Among other criticisms, the BBC reporter said “It has become a weapon of the cruel and heartless to dismiss the deaths of the people we love.“ In his reply, Campbell pointed out that the reporter took everything out of context, misquoted him, said the BBC contacted him when they had not, and accused him of not caring about deaths. To that last criticism about heartlessness, Campbell told his audience, “The idea that I don’t take death seriously, is, well—." He then shared his feelings on the issue which is rare for him. "I’ve been sufficiently fortunate––indeed, or you could say immensely privileged––since I was 18 years old. The first person I looked after died when I was 18 years old. I remember, I’m not going to say names, but I remember the three people concerned. These things are branded and seared into your memory. I remember their diagnoses. I remember their approximate age. I remember their faces. I remember their names, when I was a first year student psychiatric nurse. I had these three deaths, patients during my care. And I’ve sat with patients many times as they’ve left this life, by the bedside, by the emergency trolley, on a bamboo platform in a refugee camp," he said. "The idea that I would take human death lightly or use it as a—you get my message, I’m not going to go on with that." It’s stunning and a little bit horrifying that today’s so-called journalists are no longer reporters, but rather try to police the avenues of information flow. They target individuals for their opinions. This could be the unfortunate outcome of a change in business models. Or maybe it’s in part due to an alliance between media and the big monopolies. Or perhaps it’s a simple result of the corrupting influence of power causing false moral superiority. The reporter feels the need to be the thought police and to help make other people's decisions for them. Having been raised in a newspaper family with classic journalism principles, individuals' opinions were not a target. The solution was clear. The answer to “misinformation” was always more information, more free speech, not less. The journalist’s job was not to police the information channels, but to enhance them. There is no middle ground. You either are supporting freedom of information or you’re supporting the cancel culture. It is the same in science. Albert Einstein even said it. "Science can flourish only in an atmosphere of free speech." He understood that something is "misinformation"––until it is not.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.