Well, I've taken the time to watch through both 'debunking' videos. I have a couple comments.
Having been trained in experimental methodology and participated in many medical studies, including post analysis, I can both confirm that most studies are flawed in some way, and are usually biased right from the outset.
The first video does a fairly good job debunking the study used by doctor Campbell but actually doesn't debunk him. Yes, doctor Campbell does present a summary, rather than the original paper, but he doesn't misrepresent the paper or its conclusions.
Also in the first video, some weight is placed on the retraction of one paper but does little to discuss the validity of the retraction. There were accusations of plagiarism and data manipulation but it seems only plagiarism caused the retraction, at least from what is presented in the video.
In the second video, the presenter continually calls it the 'lie' of death reporting long before presenting any evidence. This is obviously a bias in his presentation. He then calls into question the honesty and honor of doctor Campbell, again, before presenting any information.
When he finally gets to presenting information, he continues to state that this information has always been freely available, completely missing part of Dr Campbell's point-the publicly flaunted data is not the accurate data, which is available. He also seems to say that this data 'has always been available', which we know it wasn't, which is why the FOIA was submitted. It would be more correct to say, the information is freely available now.
He also seems to miss the point that the narrative has been that the flaunted numbers were the accurate ones and that the FOIA data is the actual data, which partially vindicates those who were saying that COVID was not solely responsible for the flaunted numbers.
Lastly, the second video takes great pains to throw share at Dr Campbell for several 'distasteful' and 'disgusting' questions, which are actually valid questions, before touting more published information. Now, I will not name names but I personally know people who worked in health care who were watching people actively die of old age (which takes more than a week) who died at the start of a COVID infection in the facility who were labeled as a COVID death, sole cause. I also personally know people who were watching their family member actively die of cancer who had the cause of death listed as COVID, sole cause, and had the certificate corrected.
From this I know that some of the published data is manipulated.
A couple other points: when you start a discussion by bringing up someone's trade or training as to whether they should talk on a topic, you have already lost. It is known as ad homin, or, to the person. You are attacking the person, not the argument which means your have already lost the argument. If that was valid here in Nova Scotia, the chief medical officer wouldn't be a kinesiologist.
Secondly, it is widely known and more frequently being proven, that peer reviewed and published articles are both reviewed and published based on adherance to the common narrative, not on the factuality or reproducibility of the research.