To: Les H who wrote (47526 ) 9/8/2025 3:05:30 PM From: Les H Read Replies (1) | Respond to John Campbell, anti-mRNA vax youtuber had been debunked a long time ago. He's not even a doctor or a researcher. He's a nursing teacher. Like many of the anti-vax proponents, he's one of those that hawk alternative cures or monetizes disinformation through social media platforms.Campbell's claim: Campbell suggested that the number of UK COVID-19 deaths had been grossly over-counted by the mainstream media. Citing data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS), he highlighted a figure of 17,371 death certificates that listed COVID-19 as the only cause of death.BBC's debunk: The BBC reported that the ONS immediately corrected Campbell's interpretation, calling his claims "factually incorrect and highly misleading". The ONS clarified that the official COVID-19-related death toll at the time was over 175,000, and that 140,000 of those listed COVID-19 as the underlying cause of death.Response: In a subsequent YouTube video, Campbell appeared to respond to the BBC's fact-check, but he did not retract or apologize for his original video. More or Less debunked a video in which Campbell incorrectly claimed that excess deaths in the UK were higher among people who had received a COVID-19 vaccine. Campbell's claim: In his September 2023 video, Campbell used statistics to argue that excess deaths were more prevalent in the vaccinated population.BBC's debunk: The More or Less program demonstrated that the figures Campbell used actually showed the opposite. They also noted that Campbell, a retired nurse educator, was not a statistician.Response: After being contacted by the program, Campbell removed his video and conceded that he was not a statistician. More or Less editor noted that Campbell transitioned from initial informational videos to amplifying misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic. His videos have been criticized for promoting false claims, including: Suggesting COVID-19 deaths were overcounted. Spreading false claims about ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment. Making misleading statements about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. Misrepresenting scientific studies to support false conclusions. Fabricated origin: The term originated in anti-vaccination circles and has been promoted through anecdotal stories and misinterpreted research.No scientific support: There is no credible evidence from cancer registries, clinical studies, or biological research to support the theory that COVID-19 vaccines cause cancer or make existing cancers more aggressive.No biological mechanism: The mRNA in COVID-19 vaccines works by teaching the body's cells to make a protein to trigger an immune response. It cannot enter the cell's nucleus or alter a person's DNA, so there is no mechanism by which it could cause cancer.Misinterpreted data: A 2022 animal study that showed one mouse developing lymphoma after a high-dose vaccine injection was widely misinterpreted as "proof" of turbo cancer. However, the study authors stated that their findings were "largely misinterpreted," and noted the high-risk strain of mouse and the massive dosage used.Delays in screening: A more plausible explanation for any increase in late-stage cancer diagnoses following the pandemic is the disruption of healthcare services. Many people postponed routine cancer screenings during the pandemic, leading to later diagnoses when the cancer was more advanced. No DNA alteration : The mRNA in the vaccines does not enter the nucleus of the cell, where your DNA is stored. This means it cannot alter your genetic code.Rapid breakdown : The mRNA from the vaccine is temporary and is broken down by the body shortly after delivering its instructions to create an immune response.No evidence from trials : Large-scale clinical trials and long-term monitoring have not found an increased risk of cancer from the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. Delayed screenings : During the COVID-19 pandemic, many people postponed routine cancer screenings due to healthcare disruptions. This has resulted in some cancers being diagnosed at later, more advanced stages, which creates the illusion of "faster-growing" cancer.Coincidence, not causation : Attributing cancer to the vaccine is an example of the post hoc fallacy. As millions of people were vaccinated, it is statistically certain that some would later be diagnosed with cancer, which is a common disease.Misinterpreted data : Misleading reports have used misinterpreted data from adverse event reporting systems, like the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), to make false claims. These systems accept any reported event, and an event report does not mean the vaccine was the cause.
