Jump to content

Talk:Peter A. McCullough

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Arpowers (talk | contribs) at 04:14, 20 December 2021. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Misinformation

Why is the truth discredited as misinformation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.248.247.225 (talk) 10:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way to answer this question that will produce an acceptable answer for you, and will likely waste thousands of bytes of time and effort in replies. For the purposes of the article on McCullough, which is what this talk page is supposed to be used for, see the essay Verifiability, not truth; if reliable sources say that so-called "truth" is in fact misinformation, then we must give that information. See also Consensus for why we have decided here to include this information. If you have a substantive concern about the contents of this article, and not just throwing out vague "gotchas", then by all means feel free to ask, but otherwise I think this particular conversation is over. Primefac (talk) 11:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What if all the sources prove to be not only unreliable but also slanderous towards Dr. McCullough, ultimately proving that methods and processes of wikipedia fail at getting to the truth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2610:148:1F02:7000:45E5:1805:35FD:528F (talk) 14:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That would be terrible, but fortunately shows no sign of being the case here. MrOllie (talk) 15:19, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Minor point, but slander is spoken, you're referring to libel. Primefac (talk) 15:49, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree w this, he never supported misinformation. Article currently references CNN for this! Remove please, don't let Wikipedia become a political thing Andrew Powers (talk) 02:13, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should have a look at the archive, where this has already been discussed. If you find an actual reason why it should go which has not already been refuted, name it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:48, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:RSP CNN is an acceptable source, and we've consistently used sources on Wikipedia that have unambiguous biases (such as Ъ, The Nation, or Le Monde diplomatique). Attacking CNN based on it being biased is a nonstarter here as being biased is not in and of itself a disqualifying factor at all. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 13:31, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Calling something misinformation because a different scientist has said so is a game of "he said", "she said", let alone quoting news articles as sources. This man is still a scientist and cardiologist, what scientists do is question things. That's their entire job. Labeling his findings as "misinformation" because a different scientist has a different opinion or study with contrary result is utterly ridiculous. What we need in these times especially is studies on adverse events and the efficacy of vaccines. Say he's received criticism for his claims and findings for all I care, but don't nullify and invalidate his claims when there are dozens of other doctors who also stand for vaccine transparency and adverse event studies. Especially since the FDA and Pfizer have literally been sued for holding back information about the adverse effects of vaccines (https://phmpt.org/ or if this link doesn't work: "Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency").

In order to find out if this is 'misinformation' you'd need to know 'the truth' and in this case that's largely subjective because many case studies are still being done. Let alone the fact the vaccines are still in trial until 2023-2024. Uploading his findings is his job as a scientist, scientifically disproving it is the job of his peers. Even so, that's a back-and-forth. Labelling it as misinformation is, by its very definition, defamatory and an unsatisfactory conclusion of the argumentative nature which science has always had. As in, if a couple scientist didn't go against the grain and say the earth is in fact a 'ball' shape, we would all still believe the earth to be flat. Sodiumforsaltytimes (talk) 23:01, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just read Jéské's response about news papers, and while it makes sense, it's also incredibly ambiguous because of the very nature of quoting biased news. If you quote one news site that is against a scientist's finding, someone else can easily find a different newspaper that approves of his findings. See the issue here? It's awfully subjective and only based on what the majority of Wikipedia creators who read and edit the article think, rather than the actual truth. It is based on your belief systems, as you don't include or read his works or news approving of his approach or findings. Sodiumforsaltytimes (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't be "quoting" sources except as absolutely necessary in the first place, and quotes require attribution to the journo/talking head and (often) the outlet they uttered those words on. Do not conflate summarisation with quotation. And if you read further down the page, I am in favour of having a bibliography for them; the reason it doesn't exist yet is likely because WP:NACADEMIC were not the criteria used to meet notability. This does not make the lack of a bibliography for an academic any less irregular. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 23:15, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The 5.3.6 postmarketing experience pdf may be especially worthwhile to look at. As noted, the contents come straight from Pfizer and were confidential (as also noted in the report itself). It notes a multitude of adverse events related to the vaccine, miscarriages, and fatalities related to specifically the Pfizer vaccine after rollout. This is as unbiased as can be, as it's straight from their records. With that, I'm off. Try look at all sides, please. I don't know if you all know this, but the majority is not always right. Even when it comes to science; flat earth, heliocentrism, etc. Science is an ongoing, progressive branch. And new findings can upend old theories. There is thus no reason to call someone's findings 'false' or even 'misinformation', as they may have access to different data, information, and tools. Of course, the objectivity of the statement 'The court has determined xyz'. Is out of question. Sodiumforsaltytimes (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quotation is quite simply my reference to the footmarks. I am not sure what the issue is then though, cause you can still include the opposition's side and quote, footmark, or summarise those. Sodiumforsaltytimes (talk) 23:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but no. If a person is out there disseminating dangerous antivax hysteria, and the preponderance of reliable sources describe it as such, then that is what we go with. Fringe medical and scientific theorycrafting does not take place in an encyclopedia article. Zaathras (talk) 23:40, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And there's no chance the Pfizer PDF would work as a source for the claims you clearly intend it to, per WP:MEDRS. We're not going to look at "all sides" if one side is treated by credible sources as absurd or otherwise not worth the ink/bytes (see also: Sushant Singh Rajput murder conspiracy theories). Next you'll ask us to include the extinctionist perspective, I presume. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 23:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've hit a nerve. You won't use the data from Pfizer but CNN is a credible source.. How ridiculous. I enjoy your guessing games about my belief system, but I have to tell you're way off. Is the way you keep this site 'factual' by making personal attacks anytime you receive criticism or an opposing opinion? I've treated you with respect yet I get this shitty toddler behaviour back because you don't agree with me? Jesus Christ Sodiumforsaltytimes (talk) 02:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically, we can't use a "postmarketing experience PDF" from Pfizer, especially as concerns claims regarding human health. We require actual peer-reviewed scientific studies, per WP:MEDRS. This is something anyone who works in medical topics on Wikipedia would tell you flat-out, and it's something I'm aware of because I have to keep abreast of sourcing requirements given the help fora I frequent. You're comparing apples to oranges - by your words, you want to use the PDF for claims that would be affected by MEDRS, whereas CNN is being used to cite claims for the less-stringent WP:Biographies of living persons standard. There is no equivalence here. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 02:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CNN is not a credible source unless we can also use FoxNews, or basically any political (or religious) organization as credible. Andrew Powers (talk) 03:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The misinformation article reads like someone did a Google search for "refute McCullough" and listed the results. Imo any actual opinion on this should be determined based on direct links to peer reviewed research. If you are too busy for that, then simply remove the part of the article in Question. Andrew Powers (talk) 03:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok let's go through one of your sources:

Fact check... In that article, "McCullough, therefore, is right that Israel estimated the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine effectiveness at “only about 60 to 70%.” But that is still a substantial amount of protection — and McCullough neglects to mention the vaccine’s excellent ability to prevent the worst outcomes of COVID-19."

This is somehow promotion of misinformation by omission? The article refutes nothing he actually said.

Would you like me to keep going? Andrew Powers (talk) 03:53, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not particularly, no. Esp. when you misunderstand basic Wikipedia policies such as reliable sourcing, by saying silly things like CNN is not a credible source. Zaathras (talk) 04:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@zaathras the fact you list your pronouns on your Wikipedia profile tells me everything I need to know. Sure happy you're letting me know you're "he/him"! Guess the "woke" have taken over Wikipedia Andrew Powers (talk) 04:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2021

The article claims that Peter McClullough spread misinformation about COVID-19 and asymptomatic spread, this is false, even according to the CDC his claims are correct. This needs to be removed or at least have a footnote added that there does seem to be research supporting this claim.


https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/4/20-4576_article


https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32513410/ Lukifer23 (talk) 22:12, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Firefangledfeathers 22:14, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2021

Please remove the "opinion" that states Dr. McCollough is spreading "misinformation" or in the alternative prove that statement is truthful. Cite sources of information as well as scientific evidence relied upon to make such outrageous statements. 74.14.53.59 (talk) 13:44, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Primefac (talk) 13:44, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP, WP:WIKIVOICE issues

  • The source [1] for the claim "In July, in response to his promotion of misinformation about COVID-19, Baylor sued McCullough to stop him from associating himself with Baylor" does NOT say it was in response to anything he said; it said it was due to his alleged false claims of affiliation. Yes, the article says he spread "misinformation", but that would have to be stated separately, because right now it's making a false claim of attribution. Furthermore, my hunch is that BLP policies here would make it problematic to use the statement in Wikivoice. This guy probably has a hundred thousand more citations than any Wikipedia editor here, and if such a statement were to be included here in Wikivoice and without attribution (Attribution would mean we would write "Medpagetoday said "____"), my hunch is that it isn't proper. We would need an AAAS release or something from Nature (journal) to make such a claim like that (without attribution). So we need to either attribute it or remove it per WP:BLP in my opinion. 174.193.139.167 (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Same editor as prior IP here)...the other source making the claim (AFP fact check) is similarly problematic. For example, one of the refutations contains this statement: "Healthy people younger than 50 do not need a Covid-19 vaccine: FALSE" and it's followed by data that claim young people can die, but doesn't get into whether they are healthy or not. Uh, hello, stratification by health status? "AFP fact check" is published by the French government and governments obviously have an interest in promoting mass vaccination, so how reliable are they? They're not a scientific source, and this is a scientific claim. I don't think it's high quality (AGAIN, if the exact same statement were in some sort of scientific society press release, I WOULD NOT OBJECT). Many of the editors here seem to demand the highest quality sourcing, i.e. scientific sources, for science issues. Even setting aside the WP:BLP issues I've outlined here, I am requesting some consistency with regard to coverage of science on here. Whether covering covid "information" or covid "misinformation", only high quality peer reviewed pieces or mainstream scientific society sources should be used. If someone has over a hundred thousand citations, that definitely gives them some authority to only be refuted by their scientific peer level. Right now the sourcing doesn't cut it. 2600:1012:B015:1AB1:642E:2529:D814:9DC2 (talk) 18:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bump...editors used the discrepancy in coverage between mainstream press and mainstream science publications to attempt to suppress the lab leak idea on here, but are content with "misinformation" labels coming from extremely inferior sources for this article (from a scientific perspective). I think the inconsistency with which scientific authority is applied exists due to editor bias and that the ultimate effect is a dilution of the authority of Wikipedia as a repository of knowledge. 2600:1012:B058:F884:9016:4FDD:DE01:F0F7 (talk) 17:52, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Medpagetoday source says Baylor Scott & White Health sued former employee and cardiologist Peter McCullough, MD, last week, alleging that he illegitimately affiliated himself with its facilities when promoting controversial views about COVID-19.. Our article's summary of this source is accurate. As for your second paragraph, see WP:PARITY - we do not require 'highest quality sourcing' when answering fringe claims. - MrOllie (talk) 18:03, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That said, it's probably better to have those better sources, would you agree? Finally, can we still attribute those statements? Like "AFP factcheck said ____ "? Isn't that usually the way these statements are phrased anyway?2600:1012:B058:F884:9016:4FDD:DE01:F0F7 (talk) 18:06, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you have better sources that can support the text, feel free to provide them. We generally do not put in-text attribution on statements of fact, as that would (wrongly) suggest that that was an opinion held only by the attributed speaker. MrOllie (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. (Moved since I think I edited it right before you replied so you may have missed it): Also, "in response" is still different. Making a false claim of affiliation can get people in hot water anytime. Yes it says "when" but do we know if the lawsuit says that, or did the person who wrote the article say it? Did Baylor say "you shouldnt have done this when you did this"? 2600:1012:B058:F884:9016:4FDD:DE01:F0F7 (talk) 18:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We're not in the business of second guessing our reliable sources, they published it, so we assume they have checked it and spoken with whomever at Baylor to verify the information. - MrOllie (talk) 18:26, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"When" and "in response to" are different things. Yes, don't second-guess your source, but don't translate it improperly. Right now we attribute the lawsuit to his alleged misinformation and his alleged faulty affiliation, but the source only supports that the lawsuit was filed in response to his claims of affiliation WHILE he was going on his alleged misinformation rampage. "Correlation doesn't imply causation" is the informal way of saying it... 2600:1012:B058:F884:9016:4FDD:DE01:F0F7 (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
'When' vs.'in response to' is a Distinction without a difference. - MrOllie (talk) 18:39, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with MrOllie. The existing sourcing is sufficient for the article's claim, and I do not have any BLP or wiki-voice concerns. Firefangledfeathers 18:43, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think Baylor would not have filed the suit if he wasn't saying what he was saying about coronavirus, but WP:BLP is a Wikipedia policy that would trump what I think and what you just linked..."theyre seemingly different but they're not"...the Waukesha parade attack page was called a "crash" for a brief time due to BLP concerns, I thought those seemingly petty arguments were a high achievement on here? Actually, causation can be a HUGE deal; causal inference is an entire academic field relevant to any of these academic arguments about drug responses, especially with studies that aren't randomized controlled trials (oftentimes the case for these covid studies), if you said "in response to" and "when" was a distinction without a difference in some environments you would be laughed out of the room... 2600:1012:B058:F884:9016:4FDD:DE01:F0F7 (talk) 18:56, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good thing we're writing for a general audience and not for an etiology journal, then. MrOllie (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These are not esoteric concerns. If Baylor only referenced the affiliation concerns in the lawsuit, that "general audience" is getting the gift of misinformation from Wikipedia. Why do you think "medpage" didn't use attribution language? For the same reason BLP exists. How WP:BOLD to expose Wikipedia to lawsuits from a cornered doctor...not something we would want to see (not a legal threat, I genuinely don't want to see that happen lol). 2600:1012:B058:F884:9016:4FDD:DE01:F0F7 (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I read Baylor's filing in the lawsuit (even though we can't cite it as it is a primary source) and your concerns appear to have no basis in fact. MrOllie (talk) 19:28, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My concern was based on official Wikipedia policy, which is an abundance of caution around contentious statements about living people. I did not read the lawsuit yet, and so my concern was valid. Now that you've read it (thank you), the matter can be put to rest. BLP concerns about sourcing contentious statements have more basis in fact than anything on here, considering it's official Wikipedia policy. Anyway, have a wonderful day (no, really). 2600:1012:B058:F884:9016:4FDD:DE01:F0F7 (talk) 19:34, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I had assumed the filing would be private. Thanks for doing the heavy lifting that I shouldve done. 2600:1012:B058:F884:9016:4FDD:DE01:F0F7 (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2021 (2)

Remove “Contributed to COVID-19 Misinformation”.

If there is absolute proof that he did so, it needs to be stated where he was wrong and what information was classified as misinformation on the page. Labels like these amount to slander and subjective deflection from the doctor’s actual contributions. Encourage independent research and not biased chastising of those who disagree academically with popular rhetoric on any given issue. It’s disingenuous and cowardly. 100.12.213.95 (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced and accurate. Zaathras (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update

The bio is incorrect. The articles that are referenced are either outdated or misinformation, spread false narratives, and recent studies, academic papers, and narratives support this. 2601:249:4002:1EA0:C504:193C:DC7F:D0A1 (talk) 03:35, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then you wouldn't mind showing us these correct and accurate reliable sources, right? —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 05:06, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

“Misinformation”

The first paragraph reduces this man to someone who has “spread misinformation.” That isn’t proven; it’s merely the claim of an as-yet unresolved lawsuit. Wikipedia is supposed to be free of politicization. Don’t be part of the problem, contributing to the mud-slinging and discord that is endemic to the current world landscape. You want my donation? Stick to the facts. If I wanted biased news, I would go watch Fox News or CNN. 24.60.157.211 (talk) 14:07, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's well sourced, just read the citations please. -Roxy the dog. wooF 16:11, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the citations (not all, but some) are mere opposite opinions or news reports. I remember the time when Wikipedia used mostly peer-reviewed papers as source for citations. There is a clear bias here in the selection of these sources. Chequeadorserial (talk) 09:19, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Be specific. Which sources are the ones that you consider unnacceptable? -Roxy the dog. wooF 10:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The citations are a bunch of media articles and "fact checks", not scientific studies. Besides the paragraph doesn't cite ANY claims at all, just says it is "misinformation". It is an obvious attempt to smear without having to give any specific claim. Wikipedia is garbage these days and not deserving of one cent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.23.88 (talk) 17:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is horribly biased as it randomly selects its sources without even weighting the quality of these sources and without verifying the validity of the claims made in these sources. If is cherry-picking to choose sides for one (debatable) position and to devalue the contrasting point of view.
E.g., McCullough is accused to have "contributed to COVID-19 misinformation". This phrasing already chooses a position and is not neutral. Neutral phrasing would say something like: The court judgment no. 'x' from 'y' came to the conlusion that McCullough spread COVID-19 misinformation". A neutral portrayal needs to precisely name who made what accusation about what and in which context.
Next, the essence of the four sources given is that "vaccines are a safer alternative for acquiring immunity compared to natural infection". That is not a proven fact but a biased claim, and scientific research includes contrary positions like stated in the study "Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections" (https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415). This study concludes that "natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity." That is not exactly surprising for an unbiased person as we all should be aware that in 2008 Nature published research on "Neutralizing antibodies derived from the B cells of 1918 influenza pandemic survivors" (doi: 10.1038/nature07231). This study concluded that "that survivors of the 1918 influenza pandemic possess highly functional, virus-neutralizing antibodies to this uniquely virulent virus, and that humans can sustain circulating B memory cells to viruses for many decades after exposure - well into the tenth decade of life." This indicates that natural immunity can cover the full lifetime of a human.
If Wikipedia consensus starts to choose sides, the concept of a NPOV has failed. The more controversial a living person is, the more restrained Wikipedia must become. asb (talk) 18:03, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the first paragraph, I had the distinct feeling that you should have a look at the archives and count the times this has been brought up and rejected. You should also have a look at WP:YWAB. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:23, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So you are implying that you want to consider research published in Nature as pseudoscience? asb (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Be specific; Which Nature paper are you referring to Hang on, I see its the one from 2008 that doesn't have anything to do with Covid, yes? Oh and OR Too. I can see you have a bright future here. -Roxy the dog. wooF 18:51, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It gets worse, goodness me. Your first supposed reference is a pre-print that hasn't been peer reviewed yet. How useful is that??? -Roxy the dog. wooF 18:57, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are doing here on the discussion page what I ask of the main article - weighting sources. E.g. the quoted source by Flora Teoh is an opinion of a single person with an PhD in Biological Sciences. The medRxiv is the result of a team of 10 researchers with dozends of papers published in this subject matter. The Flora Teoh piece is not peer-reviewed at all, the medRxiv is pending a peer review, for some strange reasons since four months. When I weight these two sources by the disclosed scientific credentials, it is not the medRxiv preprint that loses. Ymmv, but sources need to be weighted and must not only be selected so a particular agenda can be disseminated.
Regarding natural immunity, the misinformation claim in the main article is about "relative merits of vaccination-induced immunity versus "natural" (survivor) immunity", and the quoted phrasing is not limited to Covid. My point in this matter is that mentioning the existence and strenght of natural immunity must not be assessed as misinformation unless it is intended to foster bad science. The concept of natural immunity is older than Covid, so there is a reason why I have reference the Nature article from 2008.
Since the Surgisphere scam, which passed peer review in NEJM and The Lancet, we should be aware that the peer review procedure does not necessarily protects science from corruption and corporate propaganda. However, if Wikipedia requires peer-reviewed studies to balance opinions from fact-checking individuals, it is worth to consider Protective immunity after recovery from SARS-CoV-2 infection (https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(21)00676-9) which states: "Several studies have found that people who recovered from COVID-19 and tested seropositive for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies have low rates of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection." That is not so far away from what McCullough has said. asb (talk) 23:30, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR/WP:SYNTH was already mentioned, but it's a leap of faith to derive the length of immunity by comparing it to another virus that is not even of the same family (the effectiveness and length of immunity will vary a lot depending on the specific pathogen and vaccine)... —PaleoNeonate – 21:21, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Asb, there are no "sides" in the Covid topic.. Either one goes with scientific fact & accuracy, or one wanders in the fringes of conspiracies. Zaathras (talk) 21:54, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Claiming that a scientific topic can not have different sides, multiple facets, contrasting angles to look at, is so utterly anti-scientific as it can be. Claiming that there is only one truth is a religious cult and has nothing to do with science. Good luck with such an attitude, I am off at this point. asb (talk) 23:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good thing that nobody claimed that, then. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:43, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since WP is not a journal but tertiary and has guidelines like WP:MEDRS, this allows it to simply reflect the consensus via sources like official medical bodies instead of falling in WP:GEVAL reporting and uncertainty promotion. Those sources are also expected to update their recommendations and statements to reflect the results of the best current research and developments... —PaleoNeonate – 17:05, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2021

The article was changed yesterday to remove "editor-in-chief" at "Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine" but he still is https://rcm.imrpress.com/EN/column/column171.shtml. Last edit is wrong so please update the article to reflect the truth. Burbujofeliz (talk) 17:28, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The lead does not need to cover that he's editor-in-chief of a non-notable journal. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not correct

He did not promote misinformation....wiki is wrong as usual. 2600:387:A:3:0:0:0:95 (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See the myriad other discussions on this page that discuss this. Wikipedia reflects reliable sources, basically. That's what they say. 2600:1012:B058:F884:9016:4FDD:DE01:F0F7 (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discredited

You let people discredit this professional. Then lock it so no one can change it. What a load of shite wiki has become 49.197.104.154 (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you think he's credible, what happens here shouldn't matter. Wikipedia has never been an "originator of truth" (it has always attempted to reflect the truth by relying on reliable sources for information). I see nothing wrong with your convictions, but don't think they're relevant here. The status quo in the article follows appropriate wikipedia guidelines and policy. Wikipedia just reflects what reliable sources say, and avoids primary sources. If McCullough is eventually vindicated by studies showing the "multi-pronged" approach could have saved many lives last year before the vaccines came out, or that vaccine-induced myocarditis is worse in the healthiest populations than covid is, then this page will eventually reflect that, believe me. Yes we all listened to the Joe Rogan episode too. 2600:1012:B058:F884:9016:4FDD:DE01:F0F7 (talk) 21:45, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is it that podcast that is driving all this disruption, or is it something else? -Roxy the dog. wooF 23:32, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and he makes an extremely convincing argument in favor of skepticism around these issues, and the implications are potentially very damning if he is right. Of course, it's all premature and inappropriate to be the basis to change the status quo of the Wikipedia article, because it's a podcast. But just FYI. He makes a very poignant point that hundreds of thousands died between when the vaccines became all but certain but not yet widely available. The implications are essentially abdication of medical ethics on a genocidal level, since allegedly nobody really tried to treat patients beyond ventilators. His claim is that the off-label drugs (the usual culprits) were never tested in conjunction with each other (to separately address the disparate effects of covid; thrombosis, inflammation, and something else) due to institutional incompetence, doctors' fear of getting covid, politicization of the drugs (the trump effect), and the promise of impending vaccines. I mean, that's the claim. So of course any study that only looked at IVM, HCQ, would fail to show an effect. That's why it's convincing, at least for me--I had never heard that argument before (convincing doesn't mean I necessarily believe it, as I've not yet seen no evidence, so I don't). It's definitely "fringe", but if you want the podcast's contents articulated, that's at least what I got from it. He's all in on this and is too authoritative and accomplished to simply go away, so might as well understand him--I think he'll be around for awhile. 2600:1012:B058:F884:9016:4FDD:DE01:F0F7 (talk) 00:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So was Andrew Wakefield. At least Wakefield had the balls to put his malpractice into writing and have it published in a journal, as opposed to relying on people who can charitably be described as agents provocateur. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 02:54, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They're not the same person. 2600:1012:B058:F884:9016:4FDD:DE01:F0F7 (talk) 03:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nor did I say they were. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 03:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
McCullough said he deliberately wanted stuff on the record, specifically, how doctors said the proper way to deal with sick patients was to wait until hypoxic and then send to the hospital. McCullough is far too knowledgeable to be dismissed as a hack, and while I thought his analysis relied on a lot of extrapolation, he demonstrated a meticulous understanding of the biology, and (in my opinion) may very well be proven right. Again, for the purposes of the Wikipedia article, which is what we should discuss on this talk page, he should rightly be described as a fringe loony, because that's what the RS say at the moment. 2600:1012:B058:F884:9016:4FDD:DE01:F0F7 (talk) 03:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make it more objective. Less soapboxy

Why does this article only state "misinformation" allegations? Are there no other notable contributions this doctor has made to the medical community? Or positive impacts he has had on covid response? Feels pretty biased. The article is clearly one sided. Keepitrealkeeptitfactual (talk) 05:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Make specific proposals, using reliable secondary sources, or you won't be taken seriously here. 2600:1012:B058:F884:9016:4FDD:DE01:F0F7 (talk) 05:25, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary Sources

I found two in about thirty seconds.

Where is this coverage? Seems misinformation is not all this doctor has contributed.

https://rcm.imrpress.com/article/2020/2153-8174/RCM2020264.shtml

https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(20)30673-2/fulltext

He has also published many journals in his field of cardiology. Cited thousands of times


https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/01.CIR.0000095676.90936.80

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa020233

Quite a few non “misinformation” related medical contributions.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2768602 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fromthecortex (talk • contribs) 06:29, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fromthecortex (talk) 06:20, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Youre going to get blocked for sockpuppeting. You need to undo the block on your previous account first. Go through the process and don't dig a hole for yourself. 2600:1012:B058:F884:9016:4FDD:DE01:F0F7 (talk) 06:28, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources aren't ideal. What I think could be done is we could add an H-index, which shows citation prowess. Dr. McCullough is HIGHLY cited, and I think there has to be a way to add H-index to the infobox. Science runs on citation count..it's the currency scholars use, and that alone will add quite a bit of dimension to the page, in my opinion. 2600:1012:B058:F884:9016:4FDD:DE01:F0F7 (talk) 06:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, stop posting from this account. Log into your old one and ask to be unblocked. Say you are learning and are new. Just stop posting from the new one. 2600:1012:B058:F884:9016:4FDD:DE01:F0F7 (talk) 06:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Read: Wikipedia:Sockpuppeting. 2600:1012:B058:F884:9016:4FDD:DE01:F0F7 (talk) 06:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Too late, already blocked. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:39, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let me play devil's-advocate here. As far as academics go, we do usually include a bibliography of papers they've published, and the fact there isn't one here may be more due to the fact they're more notable by standard methods rather than by meeting the specific notability guideline of WP:NACADEMIC (which, considering what the circumstances are, is hardly surprising). However, whether or not these papers are cited doesn't obviate the citations in re COVID misinformation, and it's that information specifically that's being objected to. Even if we did include papers he's (co-)authored - and we should probably have some sort of bibliography - it's not going to justify 86ing the stuff that's being primarily objected to by the drive-by partisans. Pretty much nothing's going to do that. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 07:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, don't 86 the misinfo stuff. But he said he's the most published author in heart/kidney interface, has an epi degree and expertise (a thorough understanding of attribution and causality), and is therefore EMINENTLY qualified in myocarditis/covid etc. issues, I'm sorry, but I find it extremely hard to believe he had nefarious intentions in "going rogue"...the financial and reputational costs don't add up...I think he genuinely thinks he is doing the right thing, and while he is definitely ruffling feathers and doing the "right wing media" circuit (probably because others don't want to risk the association), his lucidity and command of the subject matter makes him at worst an incorrect skeptic, not a conspiracy theorist, despite the language used in sources we use here. Because of his qualifications, I doubt there is a dearth of pre-COVID sources that cover his academic career and contributions to research and teaching. No, let's absolutely not jettison the recent stuff, as it's important, but let's try to use pre-pandemic sourcing for his distinguished career, which was apparently notable enough before the pandemic for an article (his H index is over 100)...Looks like my IP changed, I'm the IP 2600.....:F0F7 174.193.201.123 (talk) 19:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, in his field, he's notable. The only pre covid news story I found (using google news on mobile, so it might be limited) was a story where he's quoted as a member of the cardiology academic community: https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Health/MindMoodNews/fake-cardiologist-william-hamman-duped-real-doctors/story?id=12395288 I'm sure a deeper dive, using academic journals, can give a much better picture. My hunch is it's going to be very vanilla and boring. 2600:1012:B058:F884:9016:4FDD:DE01:F0F7 (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Separating “misinformation” from unknown and debatable points

This article blows right past the line between misinformation and current, scientifically debatable points. The overall impact of vaccination on children is not a matter of universal scientific consensus, especially when those 17 and younger have an infection fatality rate <0.003% per the CDC. Influenza is a greater threat to this age group in terms of fatality.

The same is true for immunity derived from contracting the virus versus vaccination, and the role immune response in herd immunity. Analysis of these points is far from established science. The implication imparted from this article suggests that no immunity is derived from contracting the virus, that vaccination of 100% of all demographics is necessary, and that there are no identified side effects to the vaccine. These are all false. Apparently, suggesting any of these things to the affirmative is misinformation. 76.16.137.2 (talk) 16:06, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, maybe the moon landings were staged: it's debatable. Back to reality though: Wikipedia takes its cue for what is (or is not) "misinformation" from reliable sources. Alexbrn (talk) 16:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2021

There is no proof that Dr. McCullough contributed to Covid misinformation. There are no studies, cases, trials, citings or any other proof that anything that has been said is misinformation. He did clearly call out President Biden for not adhering to the FDA rules and laws around presenting a medication as safe without listing any possible side effects. 69.180.116.8 (talk) 20:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Please only use this template after consensus has been established for an edit. Alexbrn (talk) 20:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


He provided information about covid 19 through published studies of doctors all around the world. Not false information but scientific journals and studies done by the cdc, fda and so on 65.182.41.42 (talk) 20:47, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Firefangledfeathers 20:49, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OVERCITE in lede

It should be trimmed down to three sources or grouped, as it gives of an "axe to grind" aura currently. 2600:1012:B04D:C89A:8C64:F857:4742:EF7C (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fine just the way it is. Trim it down too much, and the fan club will come complaining about "OMG UNSOURCED LIBEL!!!" Zaathras (talk) 01:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2021

He has not spread misinformation and has the data to back up his findings, but it is being ignored and portayed as misinformation since his proven data is opposing the opinion of lord Fauci, the CDC, and FDA. Media outlets of all sorts push the opinion of the CDC, FDA and Fauci with no science or data shown to back it up. Peter McCullough is another victim of censorship to push a lie and false narrative. Majority of publishers and media are scared of the consequence for telling the truth in these times. Spineless cowards. Wikipedia appears no different and spreads the real misinformation from false narratives. 2601:501:101:2E0:286D:84CF:1A65:A1B9 (talk) 03:26, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —Sirdog (talk) 03:34, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The below should be removed. It is unproven that there was falsehoods and misinformation. If anything he promoted unpopular facts.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, McCullough promoted misinformation and falsehoods about COVID-19, the COVID-19 vaccine, and COVID-19 treatments.[4][5][6][7][8]

75.147.126.5 (talk) 10:42, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. There are five sources that support the statement, which means you would need at least that many in support and/or refuting those claims to even start a discussion about whether it's appropriate to keep or remove this content. Primefac (talk) 10:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The section stating that the Doctor contributed to Covid 19 misinformation is subjective, if not false. Please remove. 75.6.214.218 (talk) 22:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – bradv🍁 22:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remove political sources and their conclusions

This article is making use of biased sources (CNN?!) To draw a conclusion about the validity of scientific statements Peter has made.

We must remove this and any direct statements saying he supported bad science. Andrew Powers (talk) 02:10, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a source is biased (and it's debatable in CNN's case) doesn't mean we can't use it. We regularly use sources that have some sort of partisan slant, such as Deseret News or The Grauniad. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 02:15, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Arpowers:, your first edit in eleven years. @Tannerrv:, only your second in the last year. (The third reverter is indefinitely blocked, so a ping would be moot). Can both of you enlighten us as to what led you back to the Wikipedia at the same time to revert the same piece of text? Zaathras (talk) 14:14, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can add Sodiumforsaltytimes to that list (3.5 years), as well as a topic-area hop from Korean music to this. While I can see this article being in Arpowers' wheelhouse, Sodium and Tennerry both hopped topic areas (Kpop and New York State locations, respectively) to insert themselves here, which makes me think that these accounts may possibly have been compromised and aren't under the control of the people who originally registered them. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 23:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Or, applying Hanlon's razor, they all just listen to a podcast which spreads a lot of COVID misinformation and has been talking with McCullough recently. - MrOllie (talk) 00:23, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peter_A._McCullough&oldid=1061182421"