Talk:Pierre Kory

If this article is that important, then tell us what/who is "Turkia"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.235.59.138 (talk) 15:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

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?