Talk:Pierre Kory

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)

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)

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)

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)

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, 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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)