well welcome to this talk it's nearly
Tuesday the 8th of November now I've
been getting a lot of questions from a
lot of people uh asking about this quite
a lot of concern it's an official
publication from the World Health
Organization
uh combating
um misinformation online
what is this going to mean and I'm also
going to tie this in with a completely
unrelated topic which is vested
interests in regulatory authorities but
just before we do that
um there's a lot there's a scam going
around
um someone's taken out an email and it's
called something like John Campbell
official now if it's got official in the
title it's not me now there is an email
you can contact me on it's here it's
that one and I'll put it in the
description now I do get a lot of
messages a day and I do try and answer
it most of them as many as I can just
run out of time basically so if I don't
answer quickly then my apologies I do
try and answer the ones I can but if
it's got John Campbell official remember
it's not me it's a scam and where I'm at
it while we're talking about scams
rather a pro well I won't say anything
there
um when we're talking about scams um
there's a people of Nick my picture
and they call it various John Campbell
type things but what they can't Nick is
this tick here so if there's a tick
there
that means it's from me if there's not a
ticket means it's not from me
now let's get straight on to this uh
here this article combating medical
misinformation
um now what's this going to mean for for
example this this Channel and the answer
is I don't quite know yet but I'm not
pretty I'm not very comfortable about it
at the moment
so um
the the World Health Organization here
Works uh with social media policy
departments to ensure the company
policy and guidelines for Content
providers are fit for purpose
it's hard to argue with that isn't it
who provide a helpful guide on how to
report misinformation online so if
there's anything that you think is
misinformation this can be reported to
YouTube and in fact any uh any of the
social media Outlets so helpfully the
World Health Organization provide uh
information on how to report uh
misinformation online
and here are basically all of the all of
the online uh
all of the online things that people use
very helpful of the World Health
Organization to put this in it's almost
as if they want to have an influence
over all parts of social media
but they helpfully put that in there
um so inaccurate information uh spreads
uh really quite quickly they're saying
making it more difficult for the public
to identify verified facts
verified facts
I suppose that's verified facts as
opposed to facts that aren't verified
but but there you go verified facts
um
hopefully it won't be alternative facts
uh but just uh facts
from one single Source the World Health
Organization
in all its brilliant people that work
there
and also our local Health authorities
now the thing that concerns me as a
starting point only uh UK NHS
organizations are being invited to
self-certify against the NHS standard
for creating Health content
now
I have worked uh for the NHS and in a
via education for the NHS buffer over 40
years but I am not the NHS so how this
is going to affect me I don't know will
I still be allowed to create content
will the content I have created be
allowed to persist it would be alarming
if it's not because I've done I started
doing contact I did all the anatomy
physiology or the pathophysiology of all
the disease processes how to recognize
all the diseases all the basic things
that everyone or the all the nurses and
doctors in the world need to learn when
they're starting training I covered all
of that and if that was taken down that
would be a Pitch because I do know it is
extensively used in Africa for example
um so hopefully they wouldn't tie that
with the same brush but we really don't
know at the moment because I am not the
NHS
um by uh completing the
self-certification process an NHS
organization Channel see I'm not an NHS
organization Channel
um I don't officially represent the NHS
so quite how this is going to affect us
we really don't know at the moment
and also um with this information here
which isn't where some of this come from
not entirely clear at the moment what's
going to happen on this
um
not entirely clear now
um let me sorry I wasn't showing you the
screen though this is the screen here
that we're looking at
just then so not entirely clear the
links are there if you can make clear
sense of this then then please do but
it's not looking it's not looking
good for people that aren't sponsored
working for official
organizations
um which will of course have an
authority an authority structure
and people in them have career
structures that they don't want to
jeopardize now whether it's whether
whether independent channels like mine
are going to be taken down or whether
they're going to be put down in the
algorithm is not yet clear not yet clear
so if it is that they're just being put
down in the algorithm I've never I've
never said this before I hate it but if
you are subscribed I've never said this
before I promise but if you subscribe
and hit that Bell icon you do get a
notification when I put a video up so
whether YouTube choose to put my videos
in that long list of sort of thumbnail
videos you get on the right of the
screen or not wouldn't matter
um do apologize for saying that but it
probably would it probably would help
and I've never said that before because
it's so corny
um but there you go I've said it now
I've said it now now
um this paper here is from the British
medical journal
so we're going to be using official
organizations fair enough so an official
organizations of course they have the
professional people in them of the
highest possible Integrity no
possibility of bias there whatsoever uh
we would hope in these official uh
organizations but the British medical
journal is a little more cynical than me
and they've done this article here from
FDA to mhrna are drug Regulators for
hire
um dear me what a cynical Bunch uh
British medical journal are really but
let's look at something about what
they're saying here and see if there's
anything in it
do check out the reference for yourself
Regulatory Agencies uh large proportions
of their budgets funded by the
institutions they are sworn to regulate
hmm
interesting so a large proportion of
their budgets are sworn by the people
they
um the the funded by the industry
they're supposed to be regulating now of
course
obviously this won't make any difference
will it they'll still be objective and
independent
um
so um U.S Food and Drug Administration
for example now what happened here
in the FDA
1992 before this it was funded by the
federal government I'm pretty sure or
individual states I'm not quite sure but
it was it was certainly uh publicly
funded the 1992 there was the
prescription drug user fee act which
allowed the industry basically to chip
into the FDA through user fees
now in 1993
these fees amounted to 29 million
dollars
in 2016
um this amounted to 884 million dollars
so that's what's five
for six years ago now
uh 0.84 of a billion dollars now this 65
of the budget is the current figure
don't know quite what it was then
now of course no one's saying that uh
880 million dollars will buy any
influence I mean it's only 0.84 of a
billion dollars
um so it's very kind of industry to to
supply the FDA with this the these uh
useful sums of money
and interestingly enough uh in the Food
and Drug Administration night this is
from the British medical journal
nine out of ten of its past
Commissioners between 2006 and 2019 went
on to secure roles linked with
pharmaceutical companies
interesting coincidence
um I mean no one's saying this would
have any influence of course it's just a
coincidence or people that happen to
work in that particular area
but nine out of ten well it's 90 doesn't
it but there you go
um now um European medicines agency
industry uh fees funded 20 of the
European magistration agency in 1995
2010 it was 75 today it's 89 of the
budget
so 89 of the budget but no no influence
on the professional discretion and
decision making of the individuals
concerned we would
hope
um veterans and Healthcare products
regulatory Authority in the United
Kingdom
86 percent of the funding comes from
pharmaceutical industry
are these the official bodies that we
want to adjudicate over what health
information we are given
over which drugs are good for us which
drugs are bad for us
is this really
who we want to make these decisions
given that the amount of funding they're
receiving
from uh what some people
some people might consider to be vested
interests
now I've got a table here and I know you
can't read this but um
TGA in Australia is 96 percent
of the budget
proportion of the budget derived from
industry
Europe is 89.
this actually seems to have gone up in
Europe
um I know 89 that's right
um UK uh 86
Japan 85 percent U.S 65 Canada 50.5
percent
so if you look at the Australian
government site here for example extreme
example but you can see that this has
got the Australian government logo
therapeutic Goods Administration all
looks nice and official
um there's the Australian government
flag on it I'm not picking on Australia
particularly
um or all of the agencies look nice and
official government registered but the
proportion of the TGA budget derived
from industry is a whopping in 96
percent
of course the UK is only 86 percent
funded
we're talking about large amounts of
money
which have no influence on decision
making
we would hope
and yet as these official agencies that
are going to decide what health
information
you and I are going to receive
if you're uncomfortable with this right
to your MP about it or something like
that
who funding
um
this is actually from the world economic
Forum Russell Brand wouldn't be happy
with this at all would it
um reject cookies
um
so that talks about
um the funding there
um a couple of links for it uh here
um
and just one thing that's interesting
there um again I'm sure there's no undue
influence but the second biggest funder
is the uh doctor I mean Mr Bill Gates
and Melinda Gates uh
Foundation nine point eight percent of
the whole budget
um and obviously that's not
we're not saying that's going to affect
who
impartiality
okay
um now um
whether to go I think it will but
because I mean I was just browsing
through the appendix of um book
published in 1948
so what uh what the author did was he
changed that to 1984.
the late and great George Orwell
now just a few just a few things popped
out at me and make of them what you will
it's just literature of course it's
fiction
it was expected that new speak would
finally have superseded old speak or
Standard English as we should call it by
about the year 2050.
kind of kind of jumped out at me
20 what 27 years let's hope it doesn't
get there before that
I kind of like old speak that's the one
I brought up with
um
the purpose of Newspeak was not only to
provide a medium of expression for the
world view and mental habits proper to
the devotees of insock
but to make other modes of thought
impossible
that is ominous
to make other modes of thought
impossible
and the other one that hit me was um
the C vocabulary was supplementary to
the others and consisted entirely of
scientific and Technical terms
it is resembled the scientific terms in
use today and were considered and were
constructed from the same Roots but the
usual care was taken to Define them
rigidly and strip them of undesirable
meanings
so uh
make of that what you will
and of course war is not peace freedom
is not slavery and ignorance is not
strength
so that's basically what I want to say
today now um I'm actually um going to a
bit of a gig uh next uh
next uh Monday
here it is I put the link in um oh
there's doctor assim look who here's the
brilliant cardiologist we interviewed
last week
now um the the links there this is has
big Pharma hijacked evidence-based
medicine with a question mark now I have
no idea that's why I'm going to the
conference I thought it would be
interesting I'm not actually speaking
but I've agreed to be on the Q a panel
so you want to come you can ask me any
question you like don't guarantee you'll
get a lucid answer but but there you go
if you're in the London area I think
it's about 11 quid just to cover
expenses
um and that's the nearest thing you'll
get to a commercial on this channel uh
remember if there's an email or there's
a
comment
that appears to be for me and it's
asking for money or giving Financial
advice it's not for me it's a scam
and we don't want scams do we thank you
for watching