So you're glancing at a Wikipedia article to jump to conclusions. I'm pretty sure OP is asking for information beyond what conclusions you can find by reading his Wikipedia article, otherwise OP wouldn't have bothered to make a post. Basically: how does what other people who are knowledgeable about vaccines square (or not square) with what what Campbell says?
i don’t give a shit he has a phd in nursing education and deliberately misleads people by calling himself “doctor” when he knows exaaaaactly what people will take from that while talking exclusively about medical topics
Having a medical education PhD probably makes him more qualified to discuss about public health than someone with something like an MD in family medicine, if we're going to split hairs over credentials. This isn't like some PhD in mechanical engineering speaking authoritatively about macrobiology without any investigation or background.
How much of the stuff he's said about things like Ivermectin is explainable due to misreading info and flawed preprints (a genuine mistake, and possible to conclude within the bounds of what's said about him on Wikipedia), or is he systematically ignoring information and skipping investigation (quackery)? He could still have become a quack, but you're really jumping the gun here with what you wrote.
deleted by creator
So you're glancing at a Wikipedia article to jump to conclusions. I'm pretty sure OP is asking for information beyond what conclusions you can find by reading his Wikipedia article, otherwise OP wouldn't have bothered to make a post. Basically: how does what other people who are knowledgeable about vaccines square (or not square) with what what Campbell says?
Having a medical education PhD probably makes him more qualified to discuss about public health than someone with something like an MD in family medicine, if we're going to split hairs over credentials. This isn't like some PhD in mechanical engineering speaking authoritatively about macrobiology without any investigation or background.
How much of the stuff he's said about things like Ivermectin is explainable due to misreading info and flawed preprints (a genuine mistake, and possible to conclude within the bounds of what's said about him on Wikipedia), or is he systematically ignoring information and skipping investigation (quackery)? He could still have become a quack, but you're really jumping the gun here with what you wrote.
deleted by creator