Talk:Pierre Kory

Treatments for COVID-19: Current consensus

A note on WP:MEDRS: Per this Wikipedia policy, we must rely on the highest quality secondary sources and the recommendations of professional organizations and government bodies when determining the scientific consensus about medical treatments.

1. Ivermectin: The highest quality sources (1 2 3 4) suggest Ivermectin is not an effective treatment for COVID-19. In all likelihood, ivermectin does not reduce all-cause mortality (moderate certainty) or improve quality of life (high certainty) when used to treat COVID-19 in the outpatient setting (4). Recommendations from relevant organizations can be summarized as: Evidence of efficacy for ivermectin is inconclusive. It should not be used outside of clinical trials. (May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, July 2021, July 2021) (WHO, FDA, IDSA, ASHP, CDC, NIH)
2. Chloroquine & hydroxychloroquine: The highest quality sources (1 2 3 4) demonstrate that neither is effective for treating COVID-19. These analyses accounted for use both alone and in combination with azithromycin. Some data suggest their usage may worsen outcomes. Recommendations from relevant organizations can be summarized: Neither hydroxychloroquine nor chloroquine should be used, either alone or in combination with azithromycin, in inpatient or outpatient settings. (July 2020, Aug 2020, Sep 2020, May 2021) (WHO, FDA, IDSA, ASHP, NIH)
3. Ivmmeta.com, c19ivermectin.com, c19hcq.com, hcqmeta.com, trialsitenews.com, etc: These sites are not reliable. The authors are pseudonymous. The findings have not been subject to peer review. We must rely on expert opinion, which describes these sites as unreliable. From published criticisms (1 2 3 4 5), it is clear that these analyses violate basic methodological norms which are known to cause spurious or false conclusions. These analyses include studies which have very small sample sizes, widely different dosages of treatment, open-label designs, different incompatible outcome measures, poor-quality control groups, and ad-hoc un-published trials which themselves did not undergo peer-review. (Dec 2020, Jan 2021, Feb 2021)

Which pages use this template?

Last updated (diff) on 27 February 2023 by Sumanuil (t · c)

The CDC has quietly added Ivermectin as a treatment for COVID.

Please do not state that Dr. Kory was wrong about Ivermectin. 172.87.11.215 (talk) 21:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Source? Llll5032 (talk) 03:34, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you about Ivermectin and Kory in general but what u said here is not the case.as far as I can tell. You have a link? All I could find was their emergency warning from 2021.

https://emergency.cdc.gov/han/2021/pdf/CDC_HAN_449.pdf JustinReilly (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Kory “erroneously” claimed……

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The introductory paragraph states: “Kory erroneously claimed that the antiparasitic medication ivermectin was a "wonder drug" with "miraculous effectiveness" against COVID-19.” Why is the word erroneous even used to describe his statement? That is someone’s personal opinion, not a fact. -Below are two studies with more than 175 citations that provide research supporting the use of Ivermectin. There are more studies available. Even the CDC’s website claims that the studies they chose to cherry pick showed patients treated with Ivermectin had a lower risk of mortality (1.2%-4.0%). 2.8 more lives saved is significant. -One study claims “All patients in the ivermectin group were successfully discharged. In comparison the same for the placebo group was observed to be 93%. This difference was found to be statistically significant(RR: 1.1; 95% CI; 1.0-1.2; p=0.045).” -Whether people agree or disagree with Dr. Kory is irrelevant. There is data out there supporting his comments which means this article is erroneously claiming the doctors statements were erroneous.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33592050/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34265236/ WhowinsIwins (talk) 14:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2023

Obviously, Dr. Kory and many others have had extensive success using ivermectin and corticosteroids. The detractors of his documented successes are corporate hacks on the dole of big pharma. 96.28.179.219 (talk) 16:05, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NotAGenious (talk) 16:20, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

The most direct source is Dr. Kory's own book detailing his personal success as a doctor. That book is "The War on Ivermectin: The Medicine That Saved Millions and Could Have Ended the Pandemic. 2023" If it is you are trying to challenge a reliable source and a knowledgeable and successful Doctor like Dr. Kory, then please explain yourself. His successes are well documented and widely covered. I am not sure how you could possibly miss all of the extensive documentation in many books, published studies, interviews and articles. Seriously, how could you miss this? You can probably find a hundred articles and books and a hundred studies (at least). 96.28.179.219 (talk) 03:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, clearly I want my comment included that: "Dr. Kory and many others have had extensive success using ivermectin and corticosteroids. The detractors of his documented successes are corporate hacks on the dole of big pharma." 96.28.179.219 (talk) 04:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Haha! No. He is an outsider of medical science. Most doctors do not understand how to do medical studies. The goal of studying medicine is to be able to apply scientific knowledge, not to be able to generate it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

New development

ABIM acts against Kory and Marik: [1] --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Veracity of Pierre Kory page

This page about Pierre Kory reads like something out of communist Russia in 1980.

Pierre Kory *did not* promote misinformation during Covid.

Ivermectin is extremely effective against Covid viruses. Many studies support this.

This page looks like its been edited by Pfizer's marketing department. It's sickening. Does anyone in America tell the truth anymore??? Rjb555 (talk) 06:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

This whole page needs to be redone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjb555 (talk • contribs) 06:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

You are wrong. See Ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic for more info. Everything about ivermectin effects here is well sourced (to real science, not the batshit nonsense these ivermectin-boosters promote). Bon courage (talk) 06:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I would like to know who is funding you Bon courage? I see a common theme to your editing. 2A01:799:4EA:7500:B09D:B963:3C7D:878A (talk) 17:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

If one of your first responses to "someone disagrees with me" is "that someone was probably paid to do it", you desperately need to widen your horizon and learn how to take into account the possibility that you may be the one who is wrong. Until you can do that, you are not fit to take part in any argument. Please do not misuse this page as a forum. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)