Talk:Pierre Kory/Archive 1

Archive 1

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because according to Wikipedia:Notability (academics):

• 2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level: search on "President's Award".
• 4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions: Author of a textbook in its 2nd edition.
• 6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society: search on "medical director".
• 7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity: search on "controversy" - he has been quoted in the New York Times, AP News and MedPage Today.

Magnovvig (talk) 21:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Nuked Edit

Alexbrn just deleted my updated intro. These were my updates:

Pierre Kory is an American critical care physician and member of the FLCCC who gained attention during the SARS-CoV-2pandemic for advocacy of non-standard treatments of COVID-19. During his US Senate testimony in early May of 2020, Dr. Kory advocated for the use of corticosteroids in the treatment of critically ill COVID-19 patients. These statements were controversial at the time as they were made prior to the recommendation by leading world health organizations such as the NIH, who seven months later in November 2020 updated their guidelines to include corticosteroids. Dr. Kory again made controversial statements during Senate testimony in early December of 2020 for advocacy of ivermectin, particularly for characterizing it as "miraculous".

In early January of 2021, Dr. Kory and colleagues from the FLCCC were invited by the NIH to present data supporting ivermectin for COVID-19 treatment to the NIH treatment guidelines panel. A few weeks later in late January 2021, the NIH relaxed their recommendation on ivermectin from a negative "recommend against the use...except in clinical trail" to a more neutral "recommend neither for nor against...due to insufficient data", giving health care providers more discretion in off label use like in other understudied treatments such as monoclonal antibodies. Since Dr. Kory and the FLCCC began public advocacy of ivermectin, its prescription rate in the United States has increased and some reports of "poisonings" have been published. In early March of 2021, the journal Frontier in Pharmacology removed a meta analysis review article on ivermectin by Kory el al, after the article passed peer review, for the paper's "unbalanced or unsupported scientific conclusions". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.116.234.137 (talk) 07:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Please do not add original research to Wikipedia; your content was not supported by relevant sources. On a minor note, also don't use WP:HONORIFICs like that either. Alexbrn (talk) 09:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn: Yes will remove honorifics. Thanks. What specifically was original research? To avoid another edit war, let's find consensus on the relevant sources for the contentious parts of the article. I'm assuming you dispute relevant sourcing on meeting with NIH board and corticosteroids? Do these meet standard?

Kory meeting with NIH guidelines board: https://lymediseaseassociation.org/covid-19-and-lyme/flccc-alliance-response-to-the-nih-guideline-committee-recommendation-on-ivermectin-use-in-covid-19/

Kory and FLCCC corticosteroids, April 2020: https://www.evms.edu/pulse/archive/physicianssaytreatmentcankeepcovidpatientsoffventilator.php

Kory and FLCCC have published MATH+ and corticosteroids steroids on their website and in medical journals well before their widespread use. Such citations are most relevant and should be included to establish timeline.

https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/MATH-plus-Rationale-Journal-of-Intensive-Care-Medicine-Dec2020.pdf, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33317385/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.116.234.137 (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

None of those sources are suitable. Neither is adding original research comparing ivermectin and monoclonal antibodies (e.g.). This article is not a coatrack for ivermectin quackery. Alexbrn (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Interesting statement. With your bias now abundantly clear, it appears facts and science on this issue don't interest you? I'm not here to debate the merits of Ivermectin. This is an article about a person and you are using this platform to push your POV and misrepresent the views of this person. Hack away. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.116.234.137 (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn Can you explain how all of the above is original research and why the sources are not suitable? You haven't addressed the request for clarification posed above. For example the following does not seem to be original research to me: "In early March of 2021, the journal Frontier in Pharmacology removed a meta analysis review article on ivermectin by Kory el al, after the article passed peer review, for the paper's "unbalanced or unsupported scientific conclusions" Tcx64 (talk) 16:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say "all" of it was WP:OR some was; other stuff was bad in other ways. But in general, I gave up responding when the IP descended into personal attacks. Alexbrn (talk) 16:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Understood. I assumed you meant "all", but fair enough. In that case, would you care to elaborate? At any rate, I'm interested in the topic and the article seems to be lacking some context. The "unproven" description of ivermectin as a treatment for Covid19 may or may not prove appropriate in the long run, but the meta-analysis seems noteworthy given that there are no large clinical trials. Do you think the fact that it was removed means the event of publication and removal itself, including the information that it did pass peer review, warrants excluding the event from the article outright? Tcx64 (talk) 16:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

This article should be about Kory, not ivermectin. In fact a version of that meta-analysis did eventually get published in a (low-quality) peer-reviewed journal[1] but since we have multiple high-quality sources saying ivermectin has no good evidence of benefit as a COVID medicine, or even that such use is implausible, we follow those high-quality sources. There's a good overview of the situation here.[2] Alexbrn (talk) 16:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Point taken, more of a question for the ivermectin article or covid/ivermectin sections themselves. The above article seems pretty informative, though I'm concerned that some of the data out of Peru is being ignored in these articles which argue against ivermectin as a possible effective treatment. Perhaps because they are not clinical trials? At any rate, will delve into the Wikipedia pages articles more specifically about ivermectin Tcx64 (talk) 16:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Problematic reference

The reference from associated press is being used in a way more authoritative manner than is called for, it makes no attempt at disclosing why his critics opinions are valued higher than his. Their places of employment are listed which are universities, but Pierre Kory himself worked at a university, so it really seems nothing but bad faith unfounded bashing from the reporters side. If it is solely an opinion piece the intro of this article is nothing but a trolling campaign against a licensed medical professional.

I second this. I called for a revision that included that actual transcript of what kory said, instead of an article talking about the transcript, an article out of oxford university, and a article from the medical database upToDate, and I was told they weren't good sources. So the editors working this page prefer two sources, one from AP News, and one from New York Times, over those three sources. There does seem to be an agenda here.

I've posted it on the admin board for defamation, hopefully they can ban some users. ColourScreen (talk) 15:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:BLPN isn't an 'admin board'. As for bans, throw words like 'defamation' around too often, and we might well see one. This is a content dispute. One concerning a controversial issue, and given the specifics, one subject to Wikipedia:General sanctions/COVID-19. I'd recommend a lot less invective, and a little more effort being put into finding a solution through the processes laid out in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

(And as an aside, can new contributors please read Wikipedia:Signatures - it is difficult to follow a thread if one doesn't know who is writing what). AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Signatures added. Thank you. MsSMarie (talk) 18:00, 13 June 2021 (UTC)MsSMarie

I've posted a comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine regarding the dispute here, asking for help. Hopefully we can get some input from people familiar with the subject matter, and also familiar with the best way to resolve the issue. I'd strongly advise meanwhile that people stop edit-warring, before it results in blocks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Stop being evil

How would you feel about if the article on Edward Snowden made only references to the governments side of the story, calling him a liar spewing unproven fact? For the love of god and democracy recognize that health institutes of the united states government are not any more trust worthy than any other branch of government, not more than the intelligence agencies not more than the federal reserve, it is perverse to be basing an article in it's entirety on journalists blindly trusting unelected government officials, while discarding all opinion from far more independent, licensed medical professionals with PhDs. If you are gonna dedicate an article to fraudulently decrying professional researchers who happen not to agree with unelected government. Please at least allow them to be properly cited for the opinions that they hold. The journalist who published that damn article in associated press are god damn worthless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColourScreen (talk • contribs) 12:57, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Stop being paranoid. Wikipedia has rules, such as WP:RS, and if you ignore them, you will be reverted. That is all this is. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:59, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Deletions

Can you make up any reason this one sided ridicule against Pierre Kory has a place here? Surely people in support of him are just as important as government institutions with unelected members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColourScreen (talk • contribs) 13:45, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Read WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Strong objects over deletions

Notfrompedro has deleted a paragraph letting users know about Kory's second senate testimony. It seems inappropriate to omit this information considering this testimony is arguably the most controversial thing Kory has been involved in. The information existed inside a section titled 'controversies' and was entirely relevant. Notfrompedro made no attempt to discuss deletions on the talk page, even though a discussion had been started the previous day.

Notfrompedro also deleted other sourced information relating to Kory's testimony about corticosteroids. I object to this removal as well.

Here is what was deleted:

Following Kory's testimony, corticosteroids became standard of care for Covid 19. Kory sees this development as vindication for his recommendations.

In December 2020, Chair of the US Senate Homeland Security Committee Ron Johnson used a Senate hearing to explore unproven treatment options for COVID-19. Pierre Kory claimed that “Ivermectin is highly safe, widely available, and low cost.” Kory, also claimed that ivermectin was "miraculous" and a "wonder drug" to be used against COVID-19. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MsSMarie (talk • contribs) 18:30, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Those removals look wise. We should be using secondary sources rather than, as editors, picking novel material that we might personally think is "controversial". Sticking to secondary sources will help achieve WP:NPOV. Also agree with AndyTheGrump there is too much edit-warring (for which there has already been one block). Alexbrn (talk) 18:36, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Yup. I get the distinct impression that some contributors here think that Wikipedia dispute resolution involves endless removal and reinsertion of content. Sometimes disputes are ultimately settled as a result of such actions - but only because people behaving that way get blocked, and can no longer participate. This article is five months old, and there is no urgency to settle arguments over content today. What is needed is more input from others - which I have already asked for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

If it is this edit my edit summary stands clear. The two references in the first paragraph don't even mention Kory so the interpretation is WP:SYNTH as is the second because the editor who added it make personal interpretations of a primary source. We don't need to "let users know about the testimony" as the article isn't about the testimony it is about Kory himself. Infodumping a bunch of stuff from a primary source without any secondary sources to show it is even notable enough to have a subsection is POV-pushing. Notfrompedro (talk) 18:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Also can we knock it off with the Gish gallop? There is no reason to start a new sub heading every time you want to make the exact same argument. Whether or not it is your intention you are creating the false impression that nobody is answering your questions which isn't true. Notfrompedro (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I do not think my arguments are the same. I am working very hard to find a consensus on this article. I am confused why you deleted the link to Kory's senate testimony? MsSMarie (talk) 19:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)MsSMarie

I have explained it three times now. The article is not about the Senate hearing it is about the man so this is undue weight. You also need reliable secondary sources for interpretation of the hearing which you don't have. The first paragraph had two references that don't even mention Kory so your interpretation was original research. Now please actually read some of these guidelines that numerous editors have given you numerous times. Notfrompedro (talk) 19:23, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I feel that your aggression is uncalled for. And yes, I have read the guidelines you keep sending. Primary sources are allowed, it is down to common sense whether to use them or not. This article may be about the person, but that section was about the senate hearing, and no source seems more relevant than the senate hearing itself. You act frustrated but remember that there have been over 15 editors that have tried to make changes to this page since June 1, and you (Notfrompedro), Alexbrns and two other editors have reverted every single change back. Instead of listening to the opinions of others you four are deleting. If this about fairness and consensus, why not try to understand the alternative point of view rather than insisting repeatedly that I don't understand yours? MsSMarie (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2021 (UTC)MsSMarie

I'm not being aggressive I'm just reiterating what you are forcing me to reiterate. We have had this same conversation multiple times. WP:PRIMARY says a bit more than "use common sense" that particular sentence actually says "Deciding whether primary, secondary, or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages." The main part of WP:PRIMARY says reliable secondary sources should be used and to a lesser extent tertiary sources and primary sources. Consensus requires using the talk page and the guidelines. You keep pushing the exact same edits again and again without listening to what others are telling you. Wikipedia is not about "fairness" it is about verifiability. Notfrompedro (talk) 20:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] Applying that common sense requires experience. One side here has experience with writing Wikipedia articles, and the other side consists of a lot of new editors trying to WP:RGW. Decisions are not made by WP:!VOTE, so there is no point in bragging about the number of editors on your side. You cannot make consensus go your way by adding more people who do not know what they are talking about, nor by whining that your unconvincing reasoning has not convinced anyone, but only by actually giving convincing reasoning. This requires that you try to understand what would be convincing.

What you call "aggression" is frustration caused by obnoxious hordes of people who demand, ad nauseam, in virtually identical way, in several Talk pages at once, that Wikipedia must agree with their opinion, which they all got from the same echo chamber. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:15, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I object to your characterization of me as "obnoxious". I have been very civil and polite. Furthermore, I am not "bragging" about how many editors are on my side, I am pointing out that there is no consensus here. You have agreed that wikipedia has left primary sources up to the judgement of the editors. You feel that I do not have good judgement on this matter. Can you explain to me then, according to your judgement, why korys senate testimony transcript is not relevant to the section on his senate hearing? MsSMarie (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)MsSMarie

I think it is safe to say that when a random contributor arrives at an article, changes the word 'unproven' to 'proven', and takes no further part in any discussion, [3] they will have little bearing on subsequent consensus. And the same can be said for many of the other non-constructive edits. This isn't a numbers game. It is about coming to an agreement compliant with the policies and guidelines which have evolved over the many years that Wikipedia has been in existence. And as for Kory's testimony, we aren't going to quote all five pages of it, so whether any of it gets quoted at all is best determined by looking for evidence that secondary sources consider specific parts of it of significance. Secondary sources, not contributors trying to impose their personal interpretations of what matters. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I am not arguing that we should quote all five pages of it. I am just arguing that it should be listed in the sources for context if people want to look it up. MsSMarie (talk) 22:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)MsSMarie

The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide a summary of accepted knowledge about topics, not provide a "looking up" service. Alexbrn (talk) 04:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Request for more primary and scientific sources

Alright, I see that this is a very contentious topic, so why don’t we go right to the primary sources? For example we have an article from the NYT talking about what Kory said, when there is an exact transcript of what Kory said. We don't need to use secondary sources at all in this case.

I also propose we take out the emotionally charged words, such as the word “escalating”, which has negative implications. I am not entirely sure why the word escalating is included here when Kory himself did not talk about a specific dose of corticosteroids at the May 2020 Senate hearing. Here are Kory’s exact words:

“...The 2nd factor is these same health societies dissemination of recommendations against the use of corticosteroids in COVID-19. We want to immediately call the worlds attention to this tragic error, based on the following emerging data…”

I have linked the transcript of what he said .

Here is my proposed edit:

On May 6, 2020 Kory testified before the U.S. Senate about standard care of practices for SARS-CoV-2. Kory brought up three points:

1. “The fact that nearly all national and international health societies such as the WHO, CDC, ACP, ATS, and many others have issued treatment recommendations focusing almost solely on “supportive care only” strategies, things like Tylenol for fever, gentle hydration/nutrition then oxygen or a ventilator to support breathing.”

2. “The 2nd factor is these same health societies dissemination of recommendations against the use of corticosteroids in COVID-19. We want to immediately call the worlds attention to this tragic error.”

3. “The third alarming factor we have witnessed, many of us firsthand, is the increasingly widespread insistence within institution, medical journals, and health societies that any proposed medical therapies for COVID-19 only be given to patients who participate in clinical trials.”

Kory also recommended that patients receive methylprednisone, ascorbic acid, heparin, and oxygen support within 6 hours of entering the hospital.

Perhaps unrelated to Kory’s advice, a study out of Oxford University recommended the use of corticosteroids for severe cases of Covid 19 in June of 2020. As a result, corticosteroids are now part of standard care for the treatment of severe Covid 19. As of June 12, 2021 the medical advisory site UpToDate includes this passage on corticosteroids for the treatment of Covid 19: “We recommend dexamethasone for severely ill patients with COVID-19 who are on supplemental oxygen or ventilatory support. We use dexamethasone at a dose of 6 mg daily for 10 days or until discharge, whichever is shorter. If dexamethasone is not available, it is reasonable to use other glucocorticoids at equivalent doses (eg, total daily doses of hydrocortisone 150 mg, methylprednisolone 32 mg, or prednisone 40 mg).”

In December 2020, Chair of the US Senate Homeland Security Committee Ron Johnson used a Senate hearing to explore unproven treatment options for COVID-19. Pierre Kory claimed that “Ivermectin is highly safe, widely available, and low cost.” Kory, also claimed that ivermectin was "miraculous" and a "wonder drug" to be used against COVID-19. Video footage of his statements went viral on social media, receiving over one million views as of 11 December, 2020.

//End

Does anyone have issues with any of this before I post this? Let's work it out : ) But I think it’s important that we try to stick to primary sources. I feel like news articles ABOUT the sources are really confusing the issue here… MsSMarie (talk) 06:43, 13 June 2021 (UTC)MsSMarie

Wikipedia policy is that articles are based on secondary sources, with a limited role for any primary sourcing. If something primary is not discussed in secondary sources it is likely WP:UNDUE, and its use risks engaging in original research which is prohibited by policy. Even more strictly, primary sources for medical content is nearly always considered unreliable per WP:MEDRS. I would oppose any use of primary sources when secondary ones are available. Alexbrn (talk) 06:50, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I reviewed this policy, and since they define secondary sources as those that interpret the data, UpToDate would be a secondary source since it interprets the studies. Also the article out of Oxford University would be considered a secondary source. The policy suggests that it should be down to an editors judgement whether a primary source is used, and it seems that since we quoting him directly, we should include the actual transcript of what he said as a reference so it can't be taken out of context. It seems common sense that this is a necessary primary source in this situation. Also, Wiki policy states that for Living Persons editors are to strictly adhere to neutral point of view, probably for legal reasons, so it would make sense to take out any emotional or framing language like the word "erroneous" or "escalating" .MsSMarie (talk) 17:25, 13 June 2021 (UTC) MsSMarie

Neither the Oxford press release or "uptodate.com" source is usable, per WP:MEDRS, and also apparently make no mention of Kory so this would be WP:OR again. "Escalating" and "erroneous" are factual descriptions from the sources, and NPOV means sticking to what sources say. If anything Kory has said has WP:WEIGHT it should be easy to find a secondary source referring to it. Some of the things he said have attracted such attention, and so are covered. Alexbrn (talk) 07:21, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Kory argued that corticosteroids should be used to treat covid. They are now used to treat Covid 19. That is why the uptodate article is relevant. This is completely and directly related to what he said. There is no original research here, that is directly what he is claiming, and I am just citing evidence that his claims had merit. Can you explain why you think uptodate and oxford are not good sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MsSMarie (talk • contribs) 07:34, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

If it's true "This is completely and directly related to what he said", there will be a source making that connection which is usable. If that's just your thought then this is WP:OR. In general, every source in this article should, at the very least, mention Kory. Alexbrn (talk) 07:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Are oxford and uptodate not allowed on wikipedia? I couldn't find anything in that link you sent me that explained that. It is not correct that every source in an article has to mention the subject of the article, as long as they are relevant based on common sense. Why are you saying that? MsSMarie (talk) 17:24, 13 June 2021 (UTC)MsSMarie

Alright, how about this: I won't include the quote from uptodate, I will simply include the sentence "corticosteroids are now part of standard of care." Then I will simply cite the uptodate article. I think this is better anyway. MsSMarie (talk) 08:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)MsSMarie

Per your concerns I have taken out the upToDate quotes. I have also linked it together with Kory's belief that it is vindication from the new york times article. Therefore it connects the primary source to the secondary source. MsSMarie (talk) 17:24, 13 June 2021 (UTC) MsSMarie

Using a source that states that "We do not use ivermectin for treatment of COVID-19 outside of clinical trials" as evidence of 'vindication' for Kory's promotion of said drug for treatment is inadvisable, to say the least. As for Kory's own 'beliefs' regarding vindication, they are of little relevance unless the medical community shares them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:23, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

The sentence that you are referring to is not about ivermectin at all, it is about corticosteroids. Keep in mind, Kory was in front of the senate twice: once about corticosteroids, and once about ivermectin. In this section I focus on the first senate hearing where he talked about corticosteroids. This hearing was controversial at the time, but following the hearing corticosteroids were widely adopted as standard of care. That is why I included that uptodate article.

!!!!I have not made any claims about ivermectin, and will not do so. I have simply stated that he talked about it. That sentence was not about or related to ivermectin. MsSMarie (talk) 18:42, 13 June 2021 (UTC)MsSMarie

Whatever. The source doesn't mention Kory. It cannot be cited as vindication for anything Kory said, about anything. That is WP:OR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:45, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: I've already explained that more than once but that editor just seems to ignore it and then jump to another venue claiming their points were never answered. It is making it very difficult for me to WP:AGF as I keep having to have the same conversation again and again. Notfrompedro (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

There has been a change in consensus regarding corticosteroids. Kory's points were controversial at the time, but are not controversial today. I was trying to demonstrate that. Would you be more comfortable if I included the New York Times quote on the topic: "In June, Oxford posted a preliminary report for its Recovery trial of more than 6,000 patients who received either standard care or dexamethasone, a steroid similar to the ones that Kory and other I.C.U. doctors had been advocating. At least when administered to patients who were already on oxygen or ventilators, the drug saved lives. Kory sees, in the Oxford results, a story of triumph." . It feels very important to show that the Kory's statements are not controversial in the medical community today MsSMarie (talk) 19:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)MsSMarie

I've already explained that on my talk page so yes you have discussed these edits with me. We discussed how you keep using your own interpretation of the New York Times article. As I told you on my talk page similar to is not at all the same thing as claiming "Kory's recommendations later became standard of care" which you are repeatedly doing. Nothing in the NYT article claims Kory's suggestions are now standard care. Until you can find reliable secondary sources that explicitly make that claim you cannot put that in the article. Notfrompedro (talk) 19:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I believe I deleted the source you objected to on your talk page, which was from Kory's own website. We are discussing a totally different kind of source. Would you be more comfortable with the sentence: In a trial from Oxford University a corticosteroid called dexamethasone is credited with saving thousands of lives. Since the New York Times writes: "In June, Oxford posted a preliminary report for its Recovery trial of more than 6,000 patients who received either standard care or dexamethasone, a steroid similar to the ones that Kory and other I.C.U. doctors had been advocating. At least when administered to patients who were already on oxygen or ventilators, the drug saved lives. Kory sees, in the Oxford results, a story of triumph." MsSMarie (talk) 19:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)MsSMarie

Your suggestion is WP:SYNTH as I have already explained to you. You are trying to create a larger implication of vindication when that isn't what has happened. Notfrompedro (talk) 19:12, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

It feels very important to make note of the fact that Kory's original testimony regarding corticosteroids is no longer controversial. Corticosteroids are not controversial in treatment of Covid 19. Perhaps the issue is that we have this testimony in the wrong section? It was controversial at the time, but since it is no longer controversial maybe we should move that to a different section? MsSMarie (talk) 19:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)MsSMarie

Find reliable secondary sources that explicitly claim his testimony is no longer controversial. Notfrompedro (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I found this in MedScape on Dec 21, 2020: "The physicians have been promoting their MATH+ protocol as a way to improve survival from severe COVID-19 since the spring, and this is the first time their protocol and any results have been published in a peer-reviewed journal." MATH+ protocol at the time were based on the recommendations from the first senate hearing. The medscape article mentions that the protocal is still controversial, however it goes on to say: "The physicians (Kory+) have continued promoting the protocol in the summer and fall, even after the RECOVERY trial showed dexamethasone treatment decreased mortality in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 and the WHO and other organizations started recommending the drug."

Based on this, would you be comfortable with the sentence: "Although Kory's recommendations are controversial they were published in the peer reviewed journal, Journal of Intensive Care Medicine, on December 21, 2020."

MsSMarie (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2021 (UTC)MsSMarie

No I wouldn't be comfortable with that. The article is titled Doctors Publish Paper on COVID-19 Protocol; Experts Unconvinced and you believe this corroborates your belief that supports Kory's care regimen? You admit the article days the protocol is still controversial so to attempt to use this to claim his testimony is no longer controversial would be a huge leap in original research. Notfrompedro (talk) 20:35, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I did not suggest writing that the article was no longer controversial in Dec. 2020. It was. I have suggested simply putting that it was published in a peer reviewed journal (which it was). MsSMarie (talk) 20:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)MsSMarie

A couple of comments ago you said "It feels very important to make note of the fact that Kory's original testimony regarding corticosteroids is no longer controversial" and then I said you needed a secondary source for that claim and you provided this. If they are unrelated then why was one a reply to the other? The article you want to use outright says experts are unconvinced so unless your purpose in adding it is to further strengthen the argument against his regimen I am puzzled why you want it added. Notfrompedro (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Today, as of June 13, 2020, Kory's recommendations regarding corticosteroids are no longer controversial (as reflected on UpToDate). This medscape article was published in Dec, 2020. At the time, the recommendations were controversial. I was pointing out that he was at that time published in a high quality peer reviewed journal. This lends credibility to his position. MsSMarie (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2021 (UTC)MsSMarie

Yes you keep saying that but you have yet to provide reliable sources independent of Kory that say his recommendations are no longer controversial. Lots of papers are published. Some get retracted. Some are proven flawed. Publishing a single paper six months ago is not evidence that his position was correct. Once more,000 you need reliable sources independent of Kory that claim his position is correct. Notfrompedro (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

We don't have to editorialize what it means to be published in a peer reviewed journal. We can let readers decide themselves. We should simply state that Kory's MATH+ approach was published. MsSMarie (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)MsSMarie

I agree with others we really need better sources. AFAICT the claim Kory's earlier recommendations are no longer controversial is untrue. While there is now some support for the use of corticosteroids in the treatment of patients with severe or especially critical COVID-19, the opposite is true for patients without severe disease, where there's some limited evidence of harm and definitely no evidence of a benefit (e.g. the WHO's recommendations [4] or [5]). Kory's earlier recommendations don't seem to have been anywhere this cautious, the opposite in fact recommending them as an early intervention. So it doesn't seem Kory has been vindicated, it seems likely he was wrong and recommending potentially harmful treatments. This is no different from if someone says "every American should be taking vitamin D supplements", they aren't vindicated because there's evidence a small subset of Americans do benefit from vitamin D supplements. Nil Einne (talk) 13:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Nil Einne Can you provide me to a link where Kory said we should be using corticosteroids as early intervention? I didn't know he said that. According to his senate testimony, he is simply arguing that we use them. MsSMarie (talk) 14:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)MsSMarie

@MsMarie: if you want to change this article, you really should be reading it and it's sources. This link is already there [6].

This is pure OR so unrelated to anything which should be in the article. But since you're such a fan of primary sources feel free to read Kory's testimony document itself [7] where it's easy to see Kory recommendation at the time was for methylprednisone (along with heparin and ascorbic acid, neither of which there's any evidence even know AFAIK) within 6 hours or admission to hospital with the claim made This “window for intervention” in COVID-19 appears to be wickedly short and fleeting, it will require all the hospitals and health care systems to be prepared to implement the protocol, quickly and without hesitation. No mention of any assessment of the severity of the disease.

Earlier, they mention how someone else recommended it for anyone beyond mild. They also quote someone recommending longer treatment, but the WHO for example specifically only recommend 7-10 days and no long term regiment. In the same section, there are also bombastic claims quoting other people (from Facebook!) about "Lots of codes, intubations and death" and it being a "game changer" mirroring I think their later claims on ivermectin, implying a remarkable benefit. (Let's ignore even at the time there was an obvious flaw in that story i.e. we suddenly had a lot of patients of this new disease, for 2 weeks few of them recovered enough for discharge, then we introduced some new treatments and at some unknown stage finally we had a fair few well enough for discharge. My cat seems to have concluded in a similar fashion that going out the front door means I will feed them.....) But this goes against the current evidence. E.g. the much touted RECOVERY trial (who's results showing benefits are not without controversy) showed roughly 17% reduction in 28 day mortality overall. Great sure, but not the game changer Kory was touting it to be.

Actually despite Kory touting it as greatly reducing the need for ventilation, in fact it was patients on ventilators who had the greatest benefit with 1/3 reduction, and those with oxygen only 1/5 reduction. (The 17% comes as there was no benefit to those not on oxygen.) Those results should probably also be put in perspective, e.g. as our article says "The researchers estimated that treating 8 patients on ventilators with dexamethasone saved one life, and treating 25 patients on oxygen saved one life". In terms of likelihood of needing ventilation and length of ventilation, there doesn't seem to be good evidence to now.

For BLP reasons I have to greatly limit what I say but I think I can say that it's hard to read the current evidence and recommendations, and then read what Kory actually said back then and come to the conclusion what he said is no longer controversial.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:26, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Not misinformation about CV19

Kory is being discredited by editors whom have no experience of working with CV19 and/or Ivermectin. He is a leading physician in the field and has experienced what treatments work first hand. Studies from Peru and Australia back his claims. If you disagree then please state your credentials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.143.179.116 (talk) 09:04, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policies oblige it to follow reliable sources per WP:V. The (claimed) credentials of editors don't really figure. Alexbrn (talk) 13:38, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” How can a source that labels a claim “false” or “erroneous” on the grounds of unsufficient evidence be deemed by Wikipedia to be a “reliable” source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericlord (talk • contribs) 12:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” ← except in evidence-based medicine, it kind of is. The default assumption is of no effect, and that obtains until disproven by sufficiently significant results. The reputable sources are aligned in saying there is no good evidence ivermectin is a useful drug for COVID-19, so claims that is a miracle/wonder drug/obliterates COVID 19, etc., are misinformation, or, as the cited sources says, Kory's claims are "false". Alexbrn (talk) 12:57, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

OK ;-) Ericlord (talk) 13:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2021

change: "Kory erroneously claimed that the" to "Kory claimed that the" (unsubstantiated bias in use of a "fact" check so called. The issue is at worst not substantiated. Therefore the claim is not wrong. 73.45.100.126 (talk) 02:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – bradv🍁 02:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2021

This article claims definitively that Dr. Kory’s claims are erroneous, but provides no source material supporting that conclusion.

The article should read “Kory claimed…” 75.70.237.232 (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Unproven?

I am not sure on what basis the treatment is described as unproven, perhaps the organizations that describe it as such should be explicitly mentioned. There is a fine line between just following common practices and being all out evil and sinister. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColourScreen (talk • contribs) 05:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Per the cited source. This is an uncontroversial fact in RS (see COVID-19 misinformation#Ivermectin), and per WP:NPOV Wikipedia is obliged to be upfront about what is misinformation. Alexbrn (talk) 05:39, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

All of the counter-claiming studies that the media mill cites against him, study the effect of Ivermectin administered to people at least several days after first signs of symptoms, while Pierre has made public comments on Ivermectin mainly as preventative care and as medication administered at first sight of symptoms. It is disappointing to see a wikipedia article aiding in the smear campaign against an important public figure. ColourScreen (talk) 06:01, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows reliable sources. There is no question in them that claims of a "miracle drug" are bogus. Wikipedia cannot fix reality. Alexbrn (talk) 06:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

"Wikipedia follows reliable sources" then wikipedia is no better than a summery of the Big Pharma corrupted information in Big Media. The lazy nuance lacking wording "Kory erroneously claimed" could actually lead to thousands of deaths. Could help Big Pharma get away with an enormous scam. Wikipedia is worthless for people looking for the truth, your phrase "Wikipedia follows reliable sources" has really brought that home for me thanks. 77.96.81.172 (talk) 06:16, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

That's right: Wikipedia is nothing more than a handy survey and summary of what mainstream, established, reputable sources have published about a topic. That is a feature not a bug. Alexbrn (talk) 06:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Calling him bogus because he used the phrase "miracle drugs" is solely ridicule, Wikipedia should stop citing sources against him that don't disprove anything he has communicated. ColourScreen (talk) 06:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Calling the claim bogus, not "him". Wikipedia reflects what reliable sources say. They say these claims are false. Therein resides Kory's notability. Alexbrn (talk) 07:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I was paraphrasing for effect, I do not think any of the media articles are worth very much, as they don't seek any criticism of their quoted sources, but rather just repeat other media or national health agencies. As they are heavily single sided they don't really differ much from direct sources and shouldn't be used to support claims on Wikipedia. I think it would make sense to delete all references to the controversy on the page or the entire page until a clearer consensus is developed. ColourScreen (talk) 07:42, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

If it absolutely has to be "unproven" why on on earth won't you describe to what standard it is unproven? He has complained publicly that it would cost around 20 million dollars to prove to "Sufficient standards"(Perhaps paraphrasing)ColourScreen (talk) 13:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Bryant, Lawrie, et al, again

Perhaps it's just my interpretation, but the current controversies section gives the reader the impression that Dr. Kory is operating as a non-scientist, promoting ideas with zero evidence. This seems in stark contrast with his recent manuscript on Ivermectin being peer-reviewed and published by the NIH (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/). Most of the discussion here takes place after his hearing in December 2020 but before the manuscript was published, and the tone of the article seems to match this perception of him. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the NIH agreeing to publish this paper suggests that they agree the analysis is thorough. Doesn't that give his ideas more merit than is suggested in the article? The Wikipedia article for Fringe Science currently states: "Fringe science refers to ideas whose attributes include being highly speculative or relying on premises already refuted". I don't think a recently peer-reviewed article fits either of these criteria unless the NIH completely dropped its standards overnight. 98.113.91.134 (talk) 13:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

The paper was not "published by the NIH" and has been discussed at length at Talk:Ivermectin. Kory's ridiculous pronouncements about ivermectin are WP:FRINGE. Alexbrn (talk) 13:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Why the word "erroneously" should not be included in this article

We are using the word "erroneously" to describe Kory's testimony on ivermectin based on a single APNews article. The APNews article says: “We need to get much more data before we can say this is a definitive treatment,” and “We would like to see more data before I recommend it to my patients."

The important part of that statement: "we need more data". It's that simple. The source itself admits that there is pending data and conclusions can't be drawn. Therefore, we cannot as editors make conclusions about Kory's testimony or the drug itself. The word "erroneously" implies a conclusion. As another note, there are many clinical trials on ivermectin taking place right now, so the jury is still out on whether the drug is effective or not. Therefore it just doesn't make sense to be drawing conclusions. This goes towards NPOV.

To summarize the word "erroneously" 1. Misrepresents the source being used AND 2. Misrepresents the scientific consensus on Ivermectin (which is still still gathering data).

Does anyone have any objections to this line of reasoning? MsSMarie (talk) 05:40, 14 June 2021 (UTC)MsSMarie

See WP:PSCI/WP:GEVAL. By policy we need to make clear when fringe ideas are in play. Even with the source cited, if the view is that (as you put it) "conclusions can't be drawn", then a conclusion that is a miracle/wonder drug etc. is wrong, or "erroneous". I would not object to "wrongly" of "falsely" either. But Wikipedia cannot just put this misleading idea on the table and shrug. Alexbrn (talk) 05:54, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

WE are not saying the drug is "miraculous," we are quoting someone. Therefore we are not supporting a fringe theory. If you want to use that word, you should find a reputable source that actually says Kory's testimony is erroneous. As it is, you are falsely representing that source. MsSMarie (talk) 05:59, 14 June 2021 (UTC)MsSMarie

The source says that Kory's claim is "FALSE". Thus you appear to be unambiguously wrong about what it says. As I say, I would not object to using the word "falsely" if you think that's even more WP:Verifiable. Alexbrn (talk) 06:02, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

The full quote you are referring to is: "CLAIM: The antiparasitic drug ivermectin “has a miraculous effectiveness that obliterates” the transmission of COVID-19 and will prevent people from getting sick. AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. There’s no evidence ivermectin has been proven a safe or effective treatment against COVID-19."

APNews immediately qualifies their statement by saying "there is no evidence." This is extremely important context. They continue on in the article to quote numerous experts that say the data is not in. Therefore if you were to correctly characterize what APNews is saying, you would write that Kory's statements are "unproven". MsSMarie (talk) 06:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)MsSMarie

I'd prefer to WP:STICKTOSOURCE rather than try to whitewash it with a nonsensical argument. You appear to be engaged in WP:PROFRINGE advocacy here, which is unwelcome. Alexbrn (talk) 06:20, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I would prefer to stick to the source and not white wash it. The article says repeatedly that there is not enough data. Please properly interpret the source. MsSMarie (talk) 06:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)MsSMarie

No need for ingenious editorial "interpretation", when the source does it for us. It says Kory's claims are "false"; Wikipedia faithfully reflect that. Job done. Your argument appears to be "Kory might be guessing right, therefore he can't be said to be wrong". Please do not try to force your own beliefs into Wikipedia, but concentrate instead in making our articles a properly neutral reflection of what relevant sources contain. Alexbrn (talk) 06:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Please refrain from personally attacking me. I have been nothing but professional and clear about my motivations here. The suggestion that I have made here is just common sense. I hope that you can re-read the article and properly reflect it. MsSMarie (talk) 06:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)MsSMarie

You have not been personally attacked. We are well into WP:IDHT territory here but in any future engagements please show some courtesy to your fellow editors by properly WP:INDENTing posts: this page is enough of a mess as is, already. Alexbrn (talk) 06:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

When you accuse me of being pro-fringe or trying to force my own beliefs onto Wikipedia that is a personal attack. I am merely asking for the source to be properly represented. You seem to have read just the title of the article, and not read the actual article. MsSMarie (talk) 06:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)MsSMarie

You seem to have read just the title of the article ← and with that demonstrably false statement, in another un-indented comment, it is time to disengage. Alexbrn (talk) 06:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Kory's claims concerning ivermectin, the Wikipedia article Ivermectin#COVID-19 misinformation cites the response to a rejected paper on ivermectin authored by Kory. Said paper was rejected as containing "“a series of strong, unsupported claims based on studies with insufficient statistical significance, and at times, without the use of control groups.” [8]. This is arguably more relevant to this article than a debate about whether Kory's hyperbolae about 'wonder drugs' can be described as 'erroneous', since it concerns the scientific response to his actual claims themselves, rather than meaningless waffle. Science and medicine don't work via 'wonder drugs' or 'miracles'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with AndyTheGrump that a rejected paper is much more relevant (it feels so wrong to use the title of APNews article to reflect scientific truth). Why don't we agree to use the wording of those that rejected the paper? Such as "unsupported claims" or "insufficient statistical significance". I feel much more comfortable with this wording, and I know that the word "erroneous" is one of the most frequently changed elements on the page and we can hopefully avoid the back and forth. MsSMarie (talk) 07:25, 14 June 2021 (UTC)MsSMarie

Still no WP:INDENT. We could use both. The piece in the scientist says Kory's paper "does not offer an objective nor balanced scientific contribution to the evaluation of ivermectin as a potential treatment for COVID-19." Alexbrn (talk) 07:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

There. Alexbrn as you know, I am a new user, so I am new to formatting. If you would stop ascribing sinister motives to me, you might see that I am earnestly trying to resolve this issue without any animosity, and my lack of indenting is an accident, not intentional rudeness. Now, can you explain what you mean by include both? MsSMarie (talk) 07:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)MsSMarie

I mean would could expand upon the "erroneous" point using The Scientist source: per the two sources, Kory made false statements in a hearing, and he tried to publish unbalanced and subjective material on ivermectin in a journal. We could mention both things. Alexbrn (talk) 07:54, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

From reading the sources, I get the impression that the real issue isn't so much that the claims made by Kory at the hearing were 'wrong'. Rather, they were unscientific hyperbolae, unsupported by evidence. It was wrong to present talk about 'wonder drugs' as science in the first place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree "wrong" would be not quite the mot juste, but given the state of the science, to have asserted without qualification that ivermectin "has a miraculous effectiveness that obliterates the transmission of COVID-19 and will prevent people from getting sick", and to push that message, is ... "false", "misleading" ... these are words sources are using. Alexbrn (talk) 08:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

As before Alexbrn I continue to object to the use of the word "false" as it misrepresents the article. If you leave it in, you are not attempting to make any sort of compromise here, and it will leave the article open to edit warring. Best to choose neutral wording that accurately reflects the sources. We should call Kory's claim "unsupported by evidence". MsSMarie (talk) 08:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)MsSMarie

Wikipedia content follows consensus, rooted in the WP:PAGs. If edit-warring happens to try and go in other directions the solution is article protection and/or removing the problem editor(s) - as has already happened once to you. Alexbrn (talk) 08:33, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Let's not slip into personal attacks again. You were also blocked for edit-warring, and I think it's happened to a lot of frustrated editors. In my case, I am honestly trying to reach a consensus, so I hardly think I am a "problematic editor." You have refused to budge an inch. You also come back to the Pierre Kory page every day and make the SAME changes without considering anyone else's opinion. I have tried repeatedly to resolve the issues instead of dogmatically making the same changes. MsSMarie (talk) 08:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)MsSMarie

I have never been blocked for edit warring. I consider many opinions, as the burgeoning amount of text here shows. To repeat, we are obliged to follow the WP:PAGs and NPOV in particular is not optional. So, WP:PSCI and WP:GEVAL apply. It is not the aim to compromise between wrong editors and right editors. Alexbrn (talk) 08:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

It just mentioned on your talk page that you had received a three day ban for edit warring. I don't know how that works though. I'm going to leave it at this: many other editors have had an issue with your biased wording in this article. You have used the title of an APNews article to represent scientific consensus, and it doesn't even properly represent the views of that article. This is a misrepresentation of the source and misrepresentation of the scientific consensus. MsSMarie (talk) 14:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)MsSMarie

I think your report of what's on my user page is about as accurate as what you think is in the AP source (i.e. completely wrong). Alexbrn (talk) 14:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

[edit conflict] This is not about opinions. It is about rules. Demanding a compromise between the rule-based position of repeating what reliable sources say, and your own, not rule-based position won't work. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

You are no supposed to misrepresent the sources. That is in the rules. MsSMarie (talk) 14:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)MsSMarie

We are not misrepresenting them. That is just a misjudgement of yours. BTW, your messing with my indenting already demonstrates that you mistakenly think you know better how Wikipedia works than all the people who have been doing this for years. The same is true for the question of how to handle the sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

break

This is a response to Does anyone have any objections above. In the time it took me to write it, other contributions have been added, and somehow the edit-conflict mechanism failed, so I destroyed a lot of stuff and was reverted. Because of MsSMarie's failure to indent (I corrected the last one), I do not know who replied to what, and therefore I do not know where to put it, so I jsut add it at the end. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC) Of course we do. You do not understand how science works, or, more specifically, how scientists determine if a drug works. There are essentially two possible situations: Either

1. there is enough evidence for saying it works, or
2. there is not.

A third option does not exist. When a scientist says, We need to get much more data before we can say this is a definitive treatment, that means we are in situation #2. When they say, we need more data, that means we are in situation #2. Before any science has been done, we are in situation #2, and it stays that way until we know the stuff works. The null hypothesis can never be proven, only disproven, and therefore scientists go with it until it stops being viable. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry that my lack of indent caused you trauma. I agree the scientists require all the evidence to be in before they accept a claim. However, you will never hear scientists say things like "that is wrong" instead they will use wording such as "there is not enough evidence to support that claim". This kind of scientific wording is all I want. MsSMarie (talk) 08:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)MsSMarie

That's true, but when a medical assertion is made that is beyond that evidence we leave the realm of scientific query and enter the realm of quackery. So, for example, while it's true there not enough evidence to support the idea that squirting coffee up your bum cures cancer, people that say squirting coffee up your bum cures cancer, and making misleading statements. To be clear, Kory did not say in his testimony that "there is not enough evidence to support that claim", he made assertions about miracles, wonder drugs, saving lives and obliterating COVID. Sources have pointed out this was misleading, and Wikipedia is obliged to reflect that. If your bizarre line of illogic was adopted on Wikipedia, no type of medical statement would ever be false, except in the (vanishingly small) number of cases where that was provably so (see Hob Gadling's comment about about the null hytpothesis for why this would unusual). Alexbrn (talk) 08:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

So you're saying that Kory's testimony has gone too far into the realm of quackery to treat it with the proper scientific method? MsSMarie (talk) 08:35, 14 June 2021 (UTC)MsSMarie

I am responding to your general proposition about "scientists", with an example, and explaining why Wikipedia isn't going to be going with the whitewashed version of events you seem to be arguing for. Alexbrn (talk) 08:44, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, saying "this is wrong" is not against "the scientific method", of which you seem to have a particular, popular, but false image. Neither science nor any scientist is required to withhold judgement in all situations, contrary to what Mr. Spock said. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:58, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Opinion vs fact: "Kory erroneously claimed that the antiparasitic medication ivermectin was a "wonder drug" with "miraculous effectiveness" against COVID-19." How is this NOT an interpretation given the lack of citation? Where in the transcript of his testimony is the source or the evidence for this claims?

The citation is in the article body; I have duplicated it in the lede. Alexbrn (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Bryant, Lawrie, et al.

Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines Bryant, Andrew MSc1,*; Lawrie, Theresa A. MBBCh, PhD2; Dowswell, Therese PhD2; Fordham, Edmund J. PhD2; Mitchell, Scott MBChB, MRCS3; Hill, Sarah R. PhD1; Tham, Tony C. MD, FRCP4 https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/abstract/9000/ivermectin_for_prevention_and_treatment_of.98040.aspx Conclusions: Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally. You're going to lose to reality. Keep removing from here the people who can see. Stop going after the people who can see. Kory was right and is right at the 90% confidence level. These studies will keep coming out. Frontline doctors around the world don't care what you do here.

Low-quality journal (already discussed at Talk:Ivermectin) and so insufficient for biomedical claims, especially given the WP:REDFLAG flying for this topic.The source is not about Kory so irrelevant here in any case. Alexbrn (talk) 16:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

The journal is neither "low quality" nor is the the article "irrelevant". Bold claims don't create reality! Martin Sell (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

User conduct

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.

---

User Alexbrn behaves in a way as if this articles were his own property. He ignores discussions and arguments and way and again reverts to his version of the article! To all the users who want are more balanced and neutral article without judgments and qualification:

BE BOLD (this is a Wikipdia principle), write what you think is more neutral and don't wait until User Alexbrn accuses you of an edit war if it is he, who is starting an edit war again and again by just reverting every edits he doesn't like.

You should accuse HIM because it is HE who is starting edit wars again and again and don't be intimidated by his behavior!

Especially articles about living people must be as neutral as possible and free of slander and bad qualifications!

People like User Alexbrn destroy the once much better reputation of Wikipedia as a neutral and unbiased source! Don't let the destructive people here who want a hit piece against Dr. Kory and not an neutral article win !!!

Below the line a documentation of my talk with User Alexbrn which he repeatedly reverts. Ulmendorf (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

---

Do you have any idea what a neutral standpoint is? Martin Sell (talk) 16:58, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV for the policy, and specifically WP:GEVAL when it comes to quackery/pseudoscience. Alexbrn (talk) 17:14, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me that you engage in an edit war by reverting to YOUR version of the article, not me. The statement above about "quackery/pseudoscience" also seems odd to me, how do you know that for sure? Even if you were an expert, science is about discussion and not about just rejecting other view points! Ulmendorf (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV for the policy, and specifically WP:GEVAL. Wikipedia reflects reliable sources and calling a drug a "miracle cure" without miraculous evidence is quackery. Alexbrn (talk) 17:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

A closer view at the history of the article shows that you are over and over again reverting other users! YOU should be banned for that! This article is not yours so that you can decide what is in the article and what not especially since you restore your biased, not neutral view point! What do you think gives you this authority? Shame on you! Ulmendorf (talk) 18:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

So YOU decide what is a personal statement and what quackery? Are you a physician that cares for patients with Civid-19? Can't you see your arrogance and presumptuousness? Ulmendorf (talk) 18:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Why do you close this discussion? Why don't you answer my questions? Have you considered the possibility that you are wrong and people like Dr. Kory right? What if ivermectin is really a potent drug against Covid-19? What would you say if it turns out that many people died and will die from Covid-19 because they are preventented from getting a helpfull drug? And this may be the the case because YOU helped to suppress a discussion between physisians about what's best for their patients?

Have you ever heard that the tabacco industry suppressed informations that made clear how bad smokings is for your health. What if the pharmaceutical industry wants to suppress a penny drug like ivermenctin because the want so sell their drug Remdesivir which is more than 3000 US$ a dose?

What if you are part of these possible evil machinations that may kill many, many old, disabled or sick people who could have been saved by a cheap und potent drug?

Have you read the newest meta analysis which took many studies from all around the world to evaluate them? What if really 62 out of a 100 poeple could be saved but weren't because the discussion among physisians was suppressed? Here it is: https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/06000/review_of_the_emerging_evidence_demonstrating_the.4.aspx

It is no question that both facebook and youtube censored almost all statements about ivermectin that were not negative!

Could you live with the faxt that is partly YOUR FAULT that many, many poeple DIE a very cruel death by suffocation?

Why don't you answer Mr. Alexbrn? Ulmendorf (talk) 20:17, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ulmendorf: Your conspiracy theories are not appropriate for a factual encyclopedia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:42, 5 July 2021 (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 7 July 2021

Delete the word erroneous - author of this article is either biased or used erroneous erroneously. 2601:282:8280:1A60:6427:3ED2:C8CD:842C (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

No, I feel that this request was made in error. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 21:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: Well that's awkward, I made the edit right as you replied above. My reasoning was more along the lines that the word is there redundantly; previous sentences already establish that he's advocating for "widespread off-label use of certain drugs". My understanding of Ivermectin is that it does work against COVID but at a level toxic to humans. Taking "erroneously" out leaves us with "claimed that...", which takes out the potential OR out of the sentence. I would not object to putting in "against scientific consensus" or something similar instead, which backed up by the AP article cited. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 21:36, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

The claim that it is a "wonder drug" that obliterates COVID etc, is false as sources say. Wikipedia needs to be clear about that for neutrality. This has been discussed ad nauseam already. Alexbrn (talk) 21:39, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

RfC on first-ever “emergency” episode of The Joe Rogan Experience

A discussion is going on at Talk:The Joe Rogan Experience to include or exclude a statement on the “first-ever” “emergency” podcast. Input would be appreciated, thanks. SmolBrane (talk) 23:41, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Source for consideration

• Capuzzo, Michael (May 1, 2021). "The Drug that Cracked COVID". Mountain Home.

This is an in-depth profile of Kory and other ivermectin advocates. It is sympathetic and partisan to Kory, ivermectin advocates, and ivermectin users, but I think it may be usable for some non-contentious, non-medical claims like fleshing out biographical information, and perhaps for clarifying Kory's views (wrong or right, they are his views). There is of course much content that is not worthy of including in Kory's Wikipedia article, and medical information that the source is unqualified to weigh in upon. Mountain Home is a regional magazine established in 2006, owned and edited by the author, Michael Capuzzo, his wife, and others. It's not a personal blog, not a single-focus manifesto, but might straddle the lines between self-published source, questionable source and WP:NEWSORG. The non-contentious biographic info I'm interested in adding at this point are from the paragraph: "Kory is the son of two New York intellectuals, one a Jewish radiologist who survived the Holocaust, the other a French PhD linguist. He is a New York liberal... 'I'm a New Yorker," he says. "I tell it like it is.' " Kory himself has promoted the article, so even if it is a biased or non-neutral source, there is no reason to suspect the article is fictitious. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:04, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Definitely an SPS. Would agree that the biographical info about his parents is valuable. His opinion of himself as a "new york liberal," less so. People are historically very unreliable about what political affiliation they call themselves. And I would question whether such a fact is DUE. His parents are obviously due a sentence. But his political affiliation? Would probably need a secondary non-SPS for something like that... And/or frame it as an attributed quote: "Kory describes himself as a "New York liberal." I would leave out the "I tell it like it is."--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:16, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how claims about Kory's parents coming from a SPS, even non contentious ones, would comply with WP:BLPSPS. I mean even if it was Kory himself making the claims, it would still be claims about third parties since Kory is not his parents. But whatever apparent endorsement from Kory, this isn't even an SPS by Kory so the written or published by the subject of the article exception doesn't apply so it's a double third party for both the parents and Kory. Nil Einne (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Nil Einne, I think you might be confused about the usage of SPS here. It's SPS because it's self published by Capuzzo. Not because it's Kory saying things about his parents. SPS in this instance means little to no editorial oversight. It has nothing to do with primary vs secondary vs tertiary sources. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I think Mountain Home is more akin to an alternative weekly paper than what is commonly considered self-published on Wikipedia. It falls under no examples of self-published sources at WP:USINGSPS, and the author may not be the publisher. It's a legitimately published magazine, small but recognized, with an editorial board that includes (but is not exclusively) Capuzzo and his wife. He's indicated his wife is the primary publisher and editor, while he focuses on writing and journalism. Capuzzo also co-owns the small company that publishes Mountain Home. The close relation between author, editorial board, and publisher might raise eyebrows but need not imply the source is SPS or improper for all claims. In a similar (but not identical) situation, Steven Novella is a major blogger for Science-Based Medicine (SBM), of which he is executive editor on a three-person editorial board. SBM itself is entirely owned and operated by the New England Skeptical Society, of which Novella is president and co-founder. Yet despite the appearance of the potential for self-editing or self-publishing, there is consensus that SBM does not constitute a self-published source. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Animalparty, I guess I would differentiate between Mountain Home and SBM in that SBMs editorial board does include people unaffiliated with the NESS and not family with Novella. Is that true for MHs editorial board? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:58, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2021

The sentence in the first paragraph that says, "During his testimony in December 2020, Kory erroneously claimed that the antiparasitic medication ivermectin was a "wonder drug" with "miraculous effectiveness" against COVID-19.[3]"

Should be deleted. If allowed to stay, at best, it should read something to the effect of, "During his testimony in December 2020, Kory claimed that the antiparasitic medication ivermectin was a "wonder drug" with "miraculous effectiveness" against COVID-19. There is ongoing debate as to the effectiveness of the drug." MonikerJ (talk) 00:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. Please establish consensus for a change before using this template. Alexbrn (talk) 01:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2021

Please remove "erroneously" from his 'testimonial sentence'. The sentence of his testifying should not be editorialized If you desire to add a sentence with the claim of his error, and citing that source. that would be proper 143.131.14.76 (talk) 21:28, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2021

It’s important to note that Dr. Kory and his daughter both have since contracted Covid.

https://www.techarp.com/science/dr-pierre-kory-ivermectin-covid-19/?amp=1

PeterLisker@yahoo.com 69.118.88.203 (talk) 12:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Seems to be a blog, does not look like a reliable source. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:10, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Noting when someone gets a common illness is seldom constructive, also sourcing needs to be much better. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:12, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2021

The use of the word "erroneously" in the first paragraph is, in and of itself, biased. "Claimed" is sufficient on its own. 96.243.51.90 (talk) 02:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Please establish consensus for a change before using an edit request template. Alexbrn (talk) 04:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

As of now, there is no scientific consensus whether ivermectin is an effective treatment. (Well, unless you think that entire country of India, 1.3 billion people, are totally bonkers and use known-ineffective drug). IOW: we do not know whether claims that it's effective are erroneous. Therefore, keeping the word "erroneously" introduces bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.5.71.208 (talk) 02:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources disagree with you that there is no consensus. And large parts of countries becoming "totally bonkers" because they fell for propaganda has happened before. Do you need examples? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Why is it such a problem to remove personal bias input from Wikipedia info? I'm not an editor or writer. I'm an optician, but you guys have made it rather difficult to question or try to have anything fixed on here. I'm just someone who is fed up with biased and erroneous information, from places I should be able to trust. Just the facts please Kamies76 (talk) 11:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read these: WP:YWAB & WP:FRINGE. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

And perhaps you should ask yourself if you really know that the article is "biased and erroneous" or if you just arbitrarily decided to believe the place where you got another version of the same information, instead of the reliable sources Wikipedia is based on.

BTW, I deleted another text of yours further above because contributed absolutely nothing to improvement of the article, which is the purpose of this page. See WP:TALK and WP:SOAP. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:58, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2022

In the section "Medical education and career", please change "He did clinical rotations at the Weill Cornell School of Medicine" to "He did clinical rotations at the Brooklyn Methodist Hospital, an affiliate hospital of Weill Cornell Medicine" or for this to be removed entirely. As currently written, the article gives the impression that that Dr. Kory has studied at Weill Cornell Medical Center, which is not the case. SGU graduates were given the option to rotate through Brooklyn Methodist Hospital, which since 1993 is an affiliate of Weill Cornell but is not the same as Weill Cornell Medical Center . Furthermore, clinical rotations are not done at a "School" as the article suggests, but at the hospital itself (see the cited source, all options for rotations are hospitals and no school is mentioned) .

That his rotations were done at Brooklyn Methodist (as they were supervised by a physician at Brooklyn Methodist) is clearly stated further on in the linked source "Dr. Anthony Saleh, a 1985 SGU graduate, is the program director of pulmonary/critical care fellowship at New York-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital in Brooklyn, NY. He oversaw Dr. Kory during clinical rotations and keeps in contact with him to this day." . It is clearly stated that Dr. Kory conducted his clinical rotations at Brooklyn Methodist, not at Weill Cornell Medical Center. Though the source also seems to suggest that Dr. Kory was a student at Weill Cornell, this is clearly erroneous as he was a student at SGU at the time and could not be a student at both simultaneously, nor does he claim in his CV that he was a student at Weill Cornell . This is not an accurate representation of his credentials. Cryowizard1424 (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. You'll need to provide a source saying that is where he did his rotations. All of your original research is not suitable for use on Wikipedia. Also, do not remove another editor's talk page comments. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

The article that I have provided to use as a source for the fact that he did his clinical rotations at Brooklyn Methodist, is the same source currently cited for the claimed affiliation with Weill Cornell . If this source is not reliable then it should be removed entirely from the entry. Dr. Kory does not claim any affiliation (current or previous) in his CV . If Dr. Kory does not see fit himself to say that he rotated at Weill Cornell Medicine, I fail to see why it is relevant to include in the article. I apologize for deleting the previous comments! I thought I had to for my claim to get looked at again. Cryowizard1424 (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I've left this open for a few more days to see if there was any other input, and there was not. I'll answer the same way I did the first time, before you removed my response. From the cited source, his greatest achievement was meeting his wife, fellow graduate Dr. Amy Malik, while both were at Weill Cornell School of Medicine in New York City—he in his clinical rotations while she was a resident. What you're describing below is a lot of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. You need a source that explicity says where he was doing his rotations. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Pierre Kory got covid-19

Here is what he said after catching covid-19:

...

Pierre Kory, a Wisconsin physician and one of ivermectin's most vociferous promoters, testified at Johnson's hearing that if people took the drug they would not get sick. Eight months later, despite taking ivermectin weekly, Kory came down with COVID.

Undeterred, he has advocated for doubling the use of the drug to twice a week. A spokesperson for Kory did not respond to questions about whether he had been vaccinated prior to contracting COVID.

When later asked about his own case of COVID, Kory issued a statement. “The most important event that occurred between my testimony (at Johnson's Dec. 8 hearing) and my getting sick was the delta variant," he said, explaining that the variant floods the body with a much larger amount of the virus than previous versions of SARS-CoV-2.

https://eu.jsonline.com/story/news/2021/11/15/ivermectin-covid-sen-ron-johnson-medical-conspiracy-theory-aaron-rodgers-covid-19-pierre-kory/8473964002/

...

Pierre Kory, MD, one of the most vocal proponents of ivermectin, got COVID-19 in August (2021), despite taking the anti-parasitic medication on a weekly basis to ostensibly prevent the disease, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported.

Kory has since doubled down on the drug, urging that the prophylactic dose be increased to twice per week, according to the Journal Sentinel.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/95726

--91.159.191.233 (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Evidence is lacking for the purported refutation of Dr. Kory's claim in regard to the safety and efficacy of Ivermectin, contrary to a Wikipedia requirement.

The purported refutation is provided by a story written by a reporter for the Associated Press. A policy of Wikipedia requires citation to a peer reviewed article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. 2601:647:5C00:4CF0:2C98:DCCD:70C5:55D5 (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Expression of Concern about Ivermectin Systematic Review

I edited the following passage about an expression of concern about a systematic review of which Kory was lead author. Before my edit, the text did not accurately reflect the source material (the expression of concern). Alexbrn reverted my edit with the note: “fringey editorial waffle”

The term “fringey” is inapposite. I don’t know what “editorial waffle” means exactly and would appreciate an explanation. I have reverted the text to my edit and would appreciate discussion here if reversion is still desired.

If Alexbrn has a suggestion for alternative text that accurately represents the source material, please propose some.

I think the best course may be to simply delete mention of the expression of concern since it seems to be a relatively minor issue compared to the amount of text necessary to neutrally and accurately represent the expression of concern.

Text before my edit: In February 2022, the American Journal of Therapeutics issued an expression of concern against a 2021 systematic review of which Kory had been lead author. The notice said there were suspicions about the integrity of the underlying data on which the paper depended to show that ivermectin was a viable treatment for COVID-19.[19][20]

Text with my edits: In February 2022, the American Journal of Therapeutics issued an expression of concern about a 2021 systematic review of which Kory was lead author. The notice said there were unverified allegations about the accuracy of some of the underlying data on which the paper may have depended to show that ivermectin was a viable treatment for COVID-19. The investigation of the allegations is incomplete and inconclusive and the expression of concern explicitly states there is no implication that the methodology used by Kory et al. was incorrect

Source Text (the expression of concern): The Editor of the American Journal of Therapeutics hereby issues an Expression of Concern for Kory P, Meduri GU, Varon J, Iglesias J, Marik PE. Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19. Am J Ther. 2021;28(3): e299–e318.

The decision is based on the evaluation of allegations of inaccurate data collection and/or reporting in at least one of the primary sources of the meta-analysis contained in the article.1,2 These allegations were first made after the publication of this article.1 The exclusion of the suspicious data appears to raise questions regarding the ivermectin's potential to decrease the mortality of COVID-19 infection.2 Currently, the investigation of these allegations is incomplete and inconclusive.

This Expression of Concern does not imply that the methodology used by Dr. Pierre Kory and his collaborators was incorrect. The use of summary data published by others is a generally accepted approach in biomedical metanalytic research.1

The American Journal of Therapeutics is steadfastly committed to upholding truth in science and the highest standards in publication ethics. We will update our decision regarding this work should more information become available.

[20] Manu P (7 February 2022). "Expression of Concern for Kory P, Meduri GU, Varon J, Iglesias J, Marik PE. Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19. Am J Ther. 2021;28(3) e299–e318". doi:10.1097/MJT.0000000000001481. JustinReilly (talk) 19:21, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@Alexbrn JustinReilly (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@ScienceFlyer JustinReilly (talk) 19:26, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Adding editorial about one cherry-picked thing a source "explicitly states" is special pleading. In the light of the obvious research fraud in the underlying data ("clear and obvious unreliabilities" as an independent party put it) meta-analyses need to be amended; this is actually the point the Retraction Watch source, our secondary material, makes. If anything more is to be added here, it could be this. Alexbrn (talk) 02:10, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

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.

---

What does Wikipedia point to in order to back up it’s statement that Dr. Kory “erroneously claimed” ivermectin as a wonder drug…..? Wikipedia has long strayed from the great opinion-less information trove that it once was. I recommend you consider removing opinionated statements, claims, and stances from your website on every page. How does it feel to watch your website lose viewership ever so slowly as they realize you’re about as reliable as the public media outlets? 67.186.239.7 (talk) 06:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

When a sentence has those little numbers in brackets behind it, like, in this case, "[3]" behind the sentence Kory erroneously claimed that the antiparasitic medication ivermectin was a "wonder drug" with "miraculous effectiveness" against COVID-19, you can click on the number and the browser will go to the References section. Then you click on the link, and you get the answer to your question. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree that 'Erroneously claimed' should be edited. The link is from December 2020, an entire year old. The American Journal of Therapeutics published this article https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Ivermectin_for_Prevention_and_Treatment_of.98040.pdf I would submit that the AP News claim of 'erroneous' should be noted as the media report at the time and a second statement should be added referencing a new link to the June 2021 article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C4A:767F:D42D:10C5:9B66:E2CE:7EA3 (talk) 02:51, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Shonky papers based on fraudulent research reinforce, rather than contradict, the point. Alexbrn (talk) 06:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

The scientific consensus has not been kind to this AJT paper, and it is not held in high regard. Nor are its conclusions verifiable. it is not a reliable source, hence it has no bearing on how this article should be written. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I think we should add that the AJT article is not a reliable source. -Shibbolethink. However, I do not believe the description 'Shonky paper' should be referenced in this article as it is subjective and from an unreliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C4A:767F:D42D:8C7E:A44C:A54B:F5A7 (talk) 16:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

'Erroneously' is an improper word and goes against the Neutral Point of View WP:NPOV Wiki Guideline: Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts: If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements. Source "[3]" Kory erroneously claimed that the antiparasitic medication ivermectin was a "wonder drug" with "miraculous effectiveness" against COVID-19 is outdated and does not reflect the drug's status as being involved in dozens of clinical trials (for covid-19 treatment) as of August, 2022. Advise change of diction to retain NPOV. Claim of WP:BESTSOURCES does not apply as the best sources maintain that more data is needed. The drug in question 'ivermectin' is not recommended by the CDC, NIH, FDA, or WHO, but each of these organizations state clearly that more data is needed. Not being FDA approved does not qualify as 'erroneous'. Many medications are once not approved and then after trials complete the picture changes. The jury is still out. 'Erroneous' is improper diction. 'made a controversial claim' is much more in line with the work of a historian and encyclopedist.

The cited reliable source (which is green at WP:RSP) said Kory's claim was "False. There’s no evidence ivermectin has been proven a safe or effective treatment against COVID-19." Do any reliable sources contradict it? Llll5032 (talk) 02:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

The CDC official guidance found at (https://www.mass.gov/news/cdc-advisory-regarding-ivermectin), states the following: "The CDC emphasizes that ivermectin is not authorized or approved by FDA for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has also determined that there are currently insufficient data to recommend ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19." So, 'Insufficient data to recommend' is not a factual rejection of Corey's claims which are based on studies in ongoing research. NIH official guidelines, found at (https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/antiviral-therapy/ivermectin/) states the following: "Additional adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted trials are needed to evaluate the effect of ivermectin on COVID-19". Likewise, "trials needed to determine the effect of ivermectin on COVID-19" is not a proven refutation of Corey's claims, and does not merit 'erroneous' which means: incorrect. The FDA official statement, found at (https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19) reads as follows: "Currently available data do not show ivermectin is effective against COVID-19. Clinical trials assessing ivermectin tablets for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in people are ongoing." The research is ongoing according to the highest medical authorities in the U.S., nothing has been factually determined by any of the health agencies. A rewording of some sort is in order: disputed, unproven, claims currently under review, etc. Simple proof is to ask, "is it a fact that Corey's claims are false?"; the answer is No, it is not a fact. Michael T.M. Giambra (talk) 03:07, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Kory said ivermectin had "miraculous effectiveness" against COVID-19. The FDA (in the source you cited) said "Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19". The Associated Press said the FDA was right and Kory's claim was "false". So that is what the Wikipedia article should say too (again, per WP:BESTSOURCES), unless other reliable sources agree with Kory and disagree with the Associated Press and the FDA. Llll5032 (talk) 04:02, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I added a ref to PolitiFact, which agrees with the Associated Press. Llll5032 (talk) 04:23, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, per WP:SYNTH, we should generally stick to reliable sources that name Kory and quote his claims. Llll5032 (talk) 04:39, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Why would the NIH be conducting trials with 1500 people if they knew if was not effective? Your citation is from 2020. And is wrong in the first place: there is evidence. There is just not a regulatory medical institution that has approved it yet. The evidence is under review. You are watching science be tested before your eyes. It can not say erroneous. It HAS TO REFLECT that it is undergoing study. Kory was giving a medical opinion before congress, the truth is not yet known; don't act like it is. Michael T.M. Giambra (talk) 22:32, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

We often test things in clinical trials which have no evidence of efficacy. If someone claims they have efficacy without the evidence, that claim is erroneous. It is false. They are claiming something that is not currently true, no matter how much they want it to be true. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:11, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

What source did I give that was not reliable? What are you talking about? What do you not understand about the drug being under research? It's correct that the FDA hasn't approved it. Do you remember when they hadn't yet approved the vaccines? The article cannot say "Kory made incorrect claims", that is the wrong way of describing what is happening. Michael T.M. Giambra (talk) 22:52, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

covid19criticalcare.com is not a reliable source on wikipedia, even as a primary source. We do not trust it to accurately represent or convey even the testimony itself. We trust secondary sources such as those listed on WP:RSP for that. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:14, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Do you remember when they hadn't yet approved the vaccines? At that point, the consensus of medical experts was that the vaccines worked, regardless of their approval. We convey what is the consensus opinion of the medical experts as laid out in the best available sources, which are described in the first section at the top of this page. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:15, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Editors Llll5032, and Shibbolethink believe that 'erroneous claims' is the best and truest way to describe this event, despite the data being inconclusive. Neither the FDA, CDC, NIH, or WHO (links above) claim that Ivermectin is not effective, what they state is that they do not recommend it because more research needs to be done to convince them. The so-called fact check is outdated to clinical trials being ongoing. For Kory's claim to be 'erroneous' it means we would need to know for a fact that ivermectin is not a useful drug for treating covid. The truth is that we do not know that for a fact, and should therefore reword it to maintain true and neutral. Editors have asked me to convince other editors. They also removed my citation to clinical trials from the NIH for some reason. Using the phrase 'erroneously claims' violates WP:NPOV, as well as WP:WORDS. WP:LABEL, and WP:BESTSOURCES which is the NIH clinical trials which Llll5032 removed. Michael T.M. Giambra (talk) 03:29, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

In evidence-based medicine, the default assumption is of no effect and needs to be disproved by positive evidence. Reversing the burden of evidence is a hallmark of quackery. This is why reliable sources say that Kory's claims about ivermectin are false, and why Wikipedia mirrors that scientific view. (As it happens Ivermectin has now been well studied in any case, as covered in the Ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic article). Alexbrn (talk) 05:01, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia must tell readers about the uncertainty, that is the fact, not erroneous, plain and simple. What we know is that we do not know! 'Erroneous' says that we know of something that is not. It is under clinical review which may well determine some effect. When that happens, editing this wikipedia from 'erroneously claimed' to 'claimed correctly' will be quite awkward and will reflect poorly on Wikipedia for not presenting accurate and up to date information. I insist the readers know that it has not been determined that 'ivermectin has no effect', according to the highest authorities per WP:MEDRS. It has already been agreed in this articles Talk page under: Treatments for COVID-19: Current consensus: Ivermectin: "The highest quality sources (1 2 3) do not support Ivermectin as an effective treatment for COVID-19. Recommendations from relevant organizations can be summarized as: Evidence of efficacy for ivermectin is inconclusive. It should not be used outside of clinical trials. There you have it, Kory's claim is inconclusive and not factual incorrect because we do not have the results to the trials which U.S. regulatory agencies require. 'Erroneous' is way off the mark. Claims which lack consensus are not erroneous, they are yet to be determined. Michael T.M. Giambra (talk) 05:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Your personal "summary" of the situation is silly; no reputable medical sources would summarize the ivermectin/COVID situation merely as "inconclusive", and pushing unevidenced medicines with bold claims is what is called quackery. Kory's claims are obviously false and reliable sources say so. Wikipedia follows reliable sources not the ideas of editors, particularly WP:PROFRINGE ones. Time to drop the WP:STICK. Alexbrn (talk) 05:49, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I just want to add that it does not matter what U.S. regulatory agencies require. Scientific facts are not determined by agencies of one randomly chosen country. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:29, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Look, I genuinely don't mean this in a derogatory way, or as an insult. Truly. But, you are exactly what is wrong with Wikipedia. This kind of bravado, false certainty, and arrogance has no place in any endeavour seeking knowledge (or even just summarising knowledge). It is a task which requires openness and humility, intellect and discernment. You, my friend, judging from your responses to others, have none of those.

If you want to continue polluting, what perhaps is (or more precisely, was) the greatest repository of human knowledge - ever collated, feel free. Just recognise the damage it could do. VarezTico (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2022 (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.

NPOV, etc.

MOS:DOUBT: (1) “Stating” should be used instead of “claiming.” (2) “Scare quotes” should not be used. (I think Not using quotes is best, but If we want to use quotes we should use entire term in quotes in article including “advanced”)

Range of prices came from the already cited STAT article: “Kory has launched his own ‘advanced Covid-19 care center,’ with a ‘specialized focus’ on long Covid consultations. An online appointment with a member of his team costs $1,250, which includes an initial video visit and two follow-ups, while meeting with Kory himself costs $1,650.” JustinReilly (talk) 08:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

"claimed" is not a part of MOS:DOUBT, that appears to be your interpretation. MOS:DOUBT also says: Quotation marks, when not marking an actual quotation,[d] may be interpreted as "scare quotes"... In this case, we are marking actual quotations. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, MOS:DOUBT was an error, it was MOS:CLAIM Manual of Style: Words to watch: Words that may introduce bias: Synonymns for Said “Said, stated, described, wrote, commented, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate…To say that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying disregard for evidence.”

As I said, if we’re going to go with the quote, let’s go with the whole quote, ie the including the word “advanced.”

Also, I’ve explained the error about one appointment v 3 and you haven’t responded, just reverted.

I’m reverting 1 and 3 and changing 2 to included whole quote. JustinReilly (talk) 07:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

MOS:CLAIM does not say not to use the word "claim". It says, To say that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question. That is the correct word here, since the statement does not have any credibility. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

One of the cited sources used the word “tells,” the other used “claims.” Given those, I think that Wikipedia’s guidelines clearly favor the use of a neutral word like “stated.” Hob, curious why you say the statement does not have any credibility and do you have sources? Thanks.

Medpage: “He subsequently joined Aurora St. Luke's and testified in favor of ivermectin Dec. 8 at a second Senate hearing organized by Johnson. He then quit there, too, telling MedPage Today the hospital wanted to limit his freedom to speak.

“Kory said he was able to prescribe ivermectin at St. Luke's, but only after showing his data to the chief of pharmacy there.”

WaPo: “After his testimony attracted widespread attention, Kory said, his employer — Aurora St. Luke’s Medical Center in Milwaukee — tried to impose new contract restrictions that he claims would have interfered with his free speech. He refused to accept the restrictions and left. The hospital declined to comment.” JustinReilly (talk) 12:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I think it's actually NPOV to say "claimed" given that the statement has no credibility, it's just his opinion. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:33, 10 February 2023 (UTC)