Talk:Peter A. McCullough

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Peter A. McCullough article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 30 days

This article was nominated for deletion on August 25, 2021. The result of the discussion was WP:SNOW keep.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 8 July 2021 by reviewer Bradv (talk · contribs).

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Medicine: Cardiology / Gastroenterology Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Cardiology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Gastroenterology task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

COVID-19 Low‑importance

	COVID-19 portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Treatments for COVID-19: Current consensus

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

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

Which pages use this template?

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

Vaccine safety

Not a venue for random complaints on vaccinations. Zaathras (talk) 18:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Wikipedia used to be a trusted source of valuable information and has now valued narratives over facts by claiming Dr McCullough spread disinformation about Covid 19 vaccinations. Emperically, and with millions of valid data points and studies on millions of people, there’s no single medical vaccination that has cause more damage than these MRNA shots. Shame on you Wikipedia. 71.223.102.46 (talk) 04:50, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citation required. Bon courage (talk) 04:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Truth. Even the CDC has finally come out and admitted that the Covid mRNA vaccine causes cancer, heart attacks, and blood clots. It's also in Pfizer's 9 pages of side effects. Dr. McCullough had warned of this since the beginning. 47.202.69.50 (talk) 11:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citation required, again. And not a citation from a wackjob website. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree on this comment. It is sad that Wikipedia is not a source we can trust anymore.. 41.66.99.2 (talk) 18:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 April 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The information he shared has been proven to be correct, scientifically accurate and medically sound. The sentence including the word misinformation needs to be changed to information. I will be checking all sources related to him. 2603:7080:64F0:8100:B52C:8D12:A169:87A8 (talk) 09:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Do come back to us when you've got sources, something beyond an anonymous opinion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"false claims .... survivors do not need the vaccine"

Maybe some more nuance would be good? Ansgarjohn (talk) 13:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, we do not soft-sell fringe medical beliefs in this project. Zaathras (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

edit request on 15 August 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

32.221.75.9 (talk) 14:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add content

http://20.245.3.158/vaccine-fatality-of-captain-michael-f/ 32.221.75.9 (talk) 14:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done No reliable source, to consensus to add. Bon courage (talk) 14:21, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]