Talk:Peter A. McCullough/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2021

Change "misinformation" to "information" throughout — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmccull975 (talk • contribs)

 Not done: the sources appear to describe the statements as false. Also, please sign your talk page comments with four tildes ~~~~ so people know who posted what. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 13:59, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2021

Banet claims are false and misleading. REMOVE: McCullough also made false and misleading claims about COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines. Pmccull975 (talk) 10:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2021

Statement on hydroxychloroquine is incorrect since my multidrug protocol was presented at the US senate and promoted thereafter. It became the standard for the "COVID-19 Home Treatment Guide." Remove the slanderous citation of the WSJ by Dr. Jha from my page. Remove the header "Misinformation" which is incorrect and not permissible on my page.

Correct citation:

McCullough PA, Alexander PE, Armstrong R, Arvinte C, Bain AF, Bartlett RP, Berkowitz RL, Berry AC, Borody TJ, Brewer JH, Brufsky AM, Clarke T, Derwand R, Eck A, Eck J, Eisner RA, Fareed GC, Farella A, Fonseca SNS, Geyer CE Jr, Gonnering RS, Graves KE, Gross KBV, Hazan S, Held KS, Hight HT, Immanuel S, Jacobs MM, Ladapo JA, Lee LH, Littell J, Lozano I, Mangat HS, Marble B, McKinnon JE, Merritt LD, Orient JM, Oskoui R, Pompan DC, Procter BC, Prodromos C, Rajter JC, Rajter JJ, Ram CVS, Rios SS, Risch HA, Robb MJA, Rutherford M, Scholz M, Singleton MM, Tumlin JA, Tyson BM, Urso RG, Victory K, Vliet EL, Wax CM, Wolkoff AG, Wooll V, Zelenko V. Multifaceted highly targeted sequential multidrug treatment of early ambulatory high-risk SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19). Rev Cardiovasc Med. 2020 Dec 30;21(4):517-530. doi: 10.31083/j.rcm.2020.04.264. PMID: 33387997. Pmccull975 (talk) 02:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. —Sirdog9002 (talk) 05:49, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.heartplace.com/dr-peter-a-mccullough. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. 76.198.24.189 (talk) 16:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.acc.org/membership/person?id=2e63f120-380a-47f0-ac43-d37f83c8bd18 and https://www.cardiometabolichealth.org/peter-mccullough.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. 76.198.24.189 (talk) 22:15, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Vaccination related quotes

I see direct quotes without any context. If those sources mention details like that those claims are contradicted by medical bodies, they should probably also be in context in this article. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 22:24, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I see that context was added. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 00:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

thank you 76.198.24.189 (talk) 17:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Removing the "Distinctions" section

Earlier, yesterday, I had removed the above-mentioned section because the awards don't seem that significant, and the source used to support this is a biography which I'm unable to ascertain the relation with the subject in terms of authorship (the fact that it is published on multiple different websites suggests it was made available by the subject himself). This was reverted, without a reason, by the same disruptive editor who was later blocked for edit-warring, and has now been tagged for relevance by the 72... IP who has been editing the article. If nobody objects within the next day or so, I'm going to go ahead and remove this (if I'm not pre-empted). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I struck out trying to find information on the significance of either of the awards. Anyone else try? 76.198.24.189 (talk) 05:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Beat you to it. I agreed with your original removal and thought it shouldn't have been reverted. Given the severe disruption/edit warring of that editor and the lack of objections, I think this is also supportable per WP:DENY. If someone is able to find details suggesting the awards are in fact notable, I don't particularly object to them being reinserted. Jr8825 • Talk 10:18, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Pseudoscience and unreliable sources

Pretty much this article right now. Any suggestions for what can be done? I'd be inclined to greatly cut down all of McCullough's quotes that are only reported by Fox News & The Federalist, why do the anti-vax claims warrant detailed coverage? Jr8825 • Talk 01:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I see RandomCanadian did this 1 minute before I left this comment. Nonetheless, I still think the coverage of his quotes is largely undue. Jr8825 • Talk 01:23, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jr8825: I saw your comment before removing one of the sentences. I'm not sure the others need to go too, because they're sourced to less dubious publications, but feel free to highlight any other sentences of dubious noteworthiness. Just before I saw your comment, I also tried reducing one of the existing paragraphs dramatically by summarising it (to avoid concerns about WP:PROSELINE and WP:RECENTISM). Feel free to improve on that or apply the same treatment elsewhere. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

This is a BLP not a MED article. The subject of this article is by far most noteworthy, as reflected in reliable sources, for the things he has said in front of cameras. Last week this article was missing the anti-vax category. His anti-establishment, pro-hydroxychloroquine, and anti-vax statements are the most noteworthy aspects of this biography and so coverage is due. 76.198.24.189 (talk) 02:23, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

The only thing that is lacking is secondary sources (so not talk shows, not opinion pieces, not transcripts of live TV) which discuss this person in this context. If they cannot be found, then both WP:V and, especially, WP:BLP, preclude us from writing about this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:57, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

What I did find is the article on SBM by Gorski, which does seem to be an acceptable source ([1]), coming from a reputable expert; although he concedes right from the start that McCullough is "someone [he] hadn’t actually heard of before". There is a significant amount of debunking though, if we need that, although addressing particular claims when they are not unique to this individual seems unnecessary, and we could settle for a summary instead. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:06, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

the article is much better than a week ago! 76.198.24.189 (talk) 04:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I think we need to be very careful about using terms like "pseudoscience promoter" or "anti-vaccination activist", both in the text per MOS:LABEL and as a category (per WP:COPDEF and WP:NONDEFINING). They're too often used as crude and lazy weapons to reflexively label and entirely dismiss somebody as a quack or a crank using sound-bites and snippets when more nuance may be called for. Making false or misleading statements might be a tactic of some anti-vaxxers, but need not imply that all who make false or misleading statements are anti-vaccine activists, nor that that they are even anti-vaccine. Criticizing government actions, or having medical opinions that are not exactly identical with WHO or CDC or FDA recommendations does not necessarily make one anti-vax (nor necessarily a conspiracy theorist, despite the popular opinion among many Wikipedians). The Washington Post describes McCullough's views as generally, that "vaccines really ought to be targeted to protect the highest-risk individuals." [2]. That doesn't sound very anti-vax to me, and I am very pro-vaccination (in case it matters, which it doesn't). And of course, I hope everyone realizes that one can reasonably be hesitant, skeptical, or even against novel mRNA vaccines, while still being very much pro-vaccination in general. In the uncertainty that defines the age of COVID, the bar for an encyclopedia branding someone as anything should be very high, even if a few opinionated but marginally reliable sources are sloppy or myopic with their language. I don't think any of the sources currently label McCullough as explicitly an anti-vaccination activist. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:23, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

My main concern in starting this thread was the extended quotes from sources listed as generally unreliable at RSP, which have now been removed. I also think it'd be better to summarise McCullough's views rather than quote them fully, particularly his fringe views, as we should be cautious about reporting them in too much depth/without contextual criticism, per the relevant sections on WP:FRINGELEVEL (we should clearly document their relative lack of acceptance, and weigh his scientific claims by how they're treated in peer-reviewed sources, not just news coverage/primary sources) and WP:PROFRINGE (I'm concerned about attempts to use this article to "artificially inflate the perceived renown" of McCullough so as to strengthen his claims). Personally, I think you're being generous in describing his views as "nuanced", "hesitant", "sceptical" – less flattering terms come to my mind – but of course both of our views are irrelevant here as we just need to follow what the sources say. I completely agree with your point about avoiding subjective characterisations/labels (the title of this talk page section was supposed to draw discussion, but obviously wouldn't be suitable for the page itself; some of his views are probably questionable science, rather than pure pseudoscience). Jr8825 • Talk 10:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

We agree the subject's views are oversimplified by the current state of the article. The paraphrase of the direct quote

"There is no reason right now—no clinical reason to go get vaccinated."

(emphasis added) to

...by disputing the necessity of vaccination to achieve natural herd immunity

and dropping the date of the quote (July 20, 2021) loses clarity that the quote is from summer 2021, after our most vulnerable are for the most part vaccinated. My read of the subject's view, what he was trying to say, was that we should let natural herd immunity take it from here with the kids. This is dangerous of course but that's what he believes. He is not blanket anti-vax; vaccination was one of his "4 Pillars" he presented to the Senate: see McCullough, Peter (November 19, 2020). "Dr. McCullough Senate Testimony" (PDF). 76.198.24.189 (talk) 15:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Professional attitude toward best practices in the COVID era

The subject himself explicitly distanced himself from best practices including placebos, double-blind testing, and formal clinical trials. Jha tweeted that McCullough favored the "art" side of medicine (anecdote, observational studies) as opposed to the science side.

The magnitude of the COVID-19 pandemic public health crisis justified compromises on best practices in medical research, McCullough told The Wall Street Journal.

References

76.198.24.189 (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

A brief paraphrase summary of the subject's own defense of their methods, drawn from reliable mainstream sources, will improve balance. 76.198.24.189 (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments? 76.198.24.189 (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

If it seems like the subject's methods in reaction to the COVID crisis are at times non-standard, it's because they are. He himself admits as much. I think to be fair in this BLP we can afford to briefly include his reliably sourced justification for his controversial approach. Thoughts? 76.198.24.189 (talk) 16:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

We don't need to go into too much detail about it. That would be WP:RECENTISM. If the subject continues his current behaviour, and there are more sources which surface about it, it will likely warrant further expansion. Otherwise, we should always strive to take a step back from current events if possible. As encyclopedia writers, we should be more interested in giving a dispassionate, short and concise account that in giving a laundry list of every objectionable thing this person has said or done during the pandemic. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

We agree we are not compiling a laundry list. The article is short with respect to page length guidelines. The content proposed above in this thread affords the subject a one-sentence summary of his defense of his approach to research during the COVID pandemic. The proposed content is a dispassionate neutral one-sentence summarization of the view he clearly expressed in two WSJ articles (and elsewhere). What do you think? 76.198.24.189 (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, it is short. It doesn't need to be much longer, either. You don't need to (and often times can't) write a huge article for every topic. Concise writing is almost always better. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Beware the urge of WP:RECENTISM

Recentism is a phenomenon on Wikipedia where an article has an inflated or imbalanced focus on recent events. It is writing without an aim toward a long-term, historical view. McCullough's recent comments regarding COVID-19 certainly deserve mention, but need not warrant extreme detail, so that content in the biography would look equally appropriate in 10 years as it does today. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:29, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Haha, or just steamroll ahead. Apparently McCullough did not exist before April 2020. Keep stuffing with factoids clipped from daily news and forget about writing a decent balanced encyclopedic biography. COVID-19 has affected the minds of everyone, infected or not. COVID over-coverage on Wikipedia is worse than Trump over-coverage. Gotta keep up with the daily news, junior reporters! --Animalparty! (talk) 21:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I and others have brought several new reliable sources to the article, including one from 2002. Although late career, the subject is by far most widely noted for activities related to COVID. The article decently summarizes the breadth of available reliable sources on the subject. 76.198.24.189 (talk) 23:36, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

added sources from 2007 and 2008, thanks again 76.198.24.189 (talk) 00:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Fundamentally he is only notable because he is "the most highly cited physician on the early treatment of COVID-19"; so the focus on 'What he says about COVID-19' is not Undue JeffUK (talk) 17:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

This may be true on Wikipedia, but speaks to one of the fundamental flaws of Wikipedia. News spikes drive many articles, not scholarly editorial discretion. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:49, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

We do have WP:SUSTAINED and WP:BLP1E which should in theory flatten out the spikiest spikes; I don't know if you could make a case for deleting this article on the basis of notability, would be an interesting debate! JeffUK (talk) 08:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Texas A&M?

Independent citation requested for current position. Nineteen McCulloughs but no Peter in the Texas A&M directory. 76.198.24.189 (talk) 15:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

−

former professor. He was scrubbed[3][4] to no surprise. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

− Remove Texas A&M — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmccull975 (talk • contribs)

Sources for consideration

The 4 articles below might be relevant for certain information, perspective, or statements of opinion (e.g. McCullough's views), although vary in the outlandishness of claims made. The first 3 are from The Texan, a news website founded in 2019 by entrepreneur and former Texas State Senator Konni Burton (a Republican). The Texan was profiled in the Columbia Journalism Review in 2019 its staffers are admittedly conservative, and hence tend to cover areas of interest to conservatives. The Texan has been described as right and mostly factual with high credibility by Media Bias/Fact Check, and as right-leaning by AllSides. That it openly posts its code of ethics and list of corrections bolsters its reliability per WP:NEWSORG, while its relative newness, apparent scarcity of experienced journalists on its present staff, and potential partisanship may detract from reliability, although merely skewing right need not necessarily be problematic, no more so than sources that lean left. That that it focuses on Texas issues might make it appropriate for a Texas-dwelling cardiologist. The most contentious claims involve McCullough stating he contracted COVID-19 and recovered using a combination of hydroxychloroquine, antibiotics, aspirin, and vitamins, and that he also treated his elderly father with the combo and both avoided hospitalization. The last source is by Rebecca Weisser, former opinion editor of The Australian. She appears to be a far-right commentator, and science contrarian at best (titles of her other Spectator contributions include: "Ivermectin. It's as Aussie as Vegemite" and "FauXi’s health faucism" [sic]) and her views or assertions of fact should be treated with large grains of salt, but she does claim that McCullough was treated for COVID-19 by Thomas Borody. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:22, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• Roberts, Kim (July 31, 2020). "Baylor Cardiologists Support Hydroxychloroquine Emergency Use Authorization by FDA". The Texan. Archived from the original on April 16, 2021.
• Roberts, Kim (August 26, 2020). "Dallas Cardiologist Offers Guidance on Early Treatment of COVID-19". The Texan. Archived from the original on December 24, 2020.
• Roberts, Kim (November 3, 2020). "North Texas Doctor Recovers from COVID-19 Using Hydroxychloroquine". The Texan. Archived from the original on June 23, 2021.
• Weisser, Rebecca (31 July 2021). "Chronicle of a Covid death foretold". The Spectator Australia.

Thank you for your contributions especially to the pre-2020 career. Thank you for your efforts to locate additional sources. Sorry I'm not sure about the usefulness of any of the above batch. 76.198.24.189 (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

In terms of the subject's own views/opinions, he wrote a series of op eds in The Hill. 76.198.24.189 (talk) 20:15, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

More sources for the subject's own views/opinions, his podcasts: Dr. Peter McCullough at America Out Loud. 76.198.24.189 (talk) 16:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Early outpatient treatments

@Bearsfan101: Please see WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD. When material is reverted one is expected to attempt to seek consensus for it on this talk page rather than restoring it. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 00:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: Nearly 24 hours on, the only source for this paper remains the paper itself (although the text has now been expanded). I'm not sure that is an acceptable situation, especially on a BLP. Scientists (reputable and disreputable alike) publish plenty of papers; unless we have secondary sources which tell us why this one is worthy of mention, this remains run-of-the-mill, non-encyclopedic content. Should it just be removed? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:07, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

No objection from me for removal (or a short mention) without other sources... Although I did a quick search for secondary sources, it's not much but:

• https://boldly.cma.ca/blog/top-ten-most-read-covid-articles-in-2021-at-elsevier seems to be a CMA blog post listing it as widely read
• https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/letters_to_editor/the-assault-against-early-treatment-for-covid-19-how-one-congressional-hearing-speaks-volumes-about/article_33425ff2-3593-11eb-b0d2-cf1365831d45.html
• https://www.commonwealthclub.org/events/2021-07-14/early-treatment-covid-19-and-update-vaccine-safety (a type of archived conference press release?)

—PaleoNeonate – 00:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

All of these are at best dubious source: the CMA blog doesn't give much useful, other than that the paper was widely read. The Desert Review is an opinion piece (thus a primary source) mostly focused on the Texas senate hearings, seems to be promoting the use of hydroxychloroquine, and only makes a very brief mention of McCullough's paper; and finally the last one is, as you write, likely a press release and not independent. I don't think this collection of primary sources is enough to justify mention of the paper, unless there was additional reaction to the paper because of its recommendation of various untested medicines. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah... I removed it for now, —PaleoNeonate – 02:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I briefly summarized the August 2020 American Journal of Medicine paper in text. I agree there is no weighty independent coverage of the paper. I agree with our fellow editor Bearsfan101 that the paper belongs in the article, in some fashion - but not because of how medically significant it is (it is not!) but for how it helps readers understand how the subject got called to the Hill: he managed to publish a paper with no experimental results advocating hydroxychloroquine cocktails. The paper was clearly a key event in the subject's late career foray into infectious diseases/epidemiology and national exposure. The subject's presentation to the committee was drawn from the paper. I think we need to offer some kind of brief summarization of his ideas such as they are in order to explain the invite and the public conflict with Jha. I would like to discuss alternatives for how best to include this paper, ideas such as a brief summarization sufficient to offer insight to the invite from Johnson while at the same time making clear to our readers that the CONTENT is no way endorsed by WP. Not sure how to do this. I feel ignoring it/excluding it is not right either. What do you think? 76.198.24.189 (talk) 05:15, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Here is the primary source at issue:

* McCullough, Peter A.; Kelly, Ronan J.; Ruocco, Gaetano; Lerma, Edgar; Tumlin, James; Wheelan, Kevin R.; Katz, Nevin; Lepor, Norman E.; Vijay, Chris; Carter, Harvey; Singh, Bhupinder; McCullough, Sean P.; Bhambi, Brijesh K.; Palazzuoli, Alberto; Ferrari, Gaetano M. De; Milligan, Gregory P.; Safder, Taimur; Tecson, Kristen M.; Wang, Dee Dee; McKinnon, John E.; O'Neill, William W.; Zervos, Marcus; Risch, Harvey A. (January 1, 2021). "Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Infection". The American Journal of Medicine. 134 (1): 16–22. doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2020.07.003. PMID 32771461.

To illustrate the problem I am seeking collaboration on, last week this article read in part:

McCullough has been invited as an expert to a congressional oversight panel.

Unreferenced but certainly verifiable. I hope we can all agree this was non-neutral. That earlier version of the article admitted a naive reading of, "sounds like the subject is one of the most pre-eminent medical doctors in the United States, whose views were sought out by our leadership during a crisis" and the current article admits of the same reading. A more neutral summarization of the subject's day in the limelight must include more detail: It was November 2020, a different Senate than we have now. The invite was from a very particular Senator, Ron Johnson. The majority witnesses excluded actual expert witnesses, but thankfully the minority witnesses did not. Johnson knew exactly what the subject would say based on the August 2020 paper. In summary, a neutral telling of the Hill visit requires some context including a very brief summary of the ideas in the August 2020 paper. What do you think? 76.198.24.189 (talk) 14:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

In the August 2020 issue of the American Journal of Medicine McCullough and co-authors proposed an early outpatient treatment for those affected by Covid-19, a protocol of medications including zinc lozenges, hydroxychloroquine, and antibiotics.

76.198.24.189 (talk) 14:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@IP Your analysis doesn't seem wrong. The problem is that it appears to be your own original conclusions. Especially for a biography of a living person, Wikipedia requires verifiability, not truth. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

We agree the August 2020 paper is a primary source, and the above proposed content is a summarization of a primary source, but I feel it is a brief neutral summarization. We agree the paper has little or no support from secondary sources, but it does have crucial relationship to all subsequent events in this life. To clarify, please, at issue is including the August 2020 paper in some form, not an OR narrative. We are not prohibited from using primary sources, we are asked to be careful; in the context of this BLP this pub is justified as an important life event. Only the most senior researchers can hope to publish a paper with no results, he pulled it off. No one wants to shoe-horn pseudo into this article, but a biography of this subject that explicitly excludes this publication is incomplete and non-neutral. Comments? 76.198.24.189 (talk) 14:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Revised proposal:

In August McCullough and co-authors published an observational study advocating an early outpatient treatment for Covid-19, a protocol ("cocktail") of medications including zinc lozenges, hydroxychloroquine, and antibiotics, which McCullough described in his subsequent Senate testimony as "the first sequenced multidrug protocol for early COVID-19 at home."

76.198.24.189 (talk) 18:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I noticed that this was restored but with secondary source citations. Well done, —PaleoNeonate – 16:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your support for restoring this content with secondary sources including some rebuttals. 76.198.24.189 (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I removed the description of the back and forth starting with the publishing of his article advocating early treatment on AJM, criticism by his peers, and response by the editors[5] because it's not clear how WP:DUE it is without reporting by independent reliable sources. It is clearly a contentious matter. The secondary sourcing is not obvious to me. The information can be reinstated with citations to the independent coverage like the following paragraph of the section. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Independent, secondary coverage added, thank you. 76.198.24.189 (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I removed "In the absence of sufficient evidence of effectiveness, the National Institutes of Health made no recommendations for early, at-home, out-patient treatment for COVID-19, a situation McCullough described as "therapeutic nihilism" and tried to address" because it was cited to direct senate testimony (WP:BLPPRIMARY), The Ingraham Angle, and a letter to the editor (WP:BLPSELFPUB). Please only reinstate with citations to independent reliable sources supporting this. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

understood, thanks for the edit and the explanation at talk 76.198.24.189 (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I note that there is a constant theme of the use of Hydroxychloroquine as an early treatment for COVID-19 being discredited e.g. "...In July, after major studies found hydroxychloroquine was ineffective against COVID-19 and the Food and Drug Administration revoked its emergency use authorization (EUA), McCullough supported a second EUA.[20]". However there are many studies showing the exact opposite and they are not referenced in the article, e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7534595/?fbclid=IwAR0LD18IoQZ3umMSlIwDOCUORuXo8UsbsfMI36BPYFuLO6ExkZZbYbYGuZU - what is needed to get this inclusion/correction? The reality is the Hydroxychloroquine has been proven as an effective treatment in early stages of COVID-19. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calder2 (talk • contribs) 09:54, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Are you qualified to judge the quality of those studies? The sources we cite are qualified, and they are aware of those studies. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:29, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Loony fringe theories about hydroxychloroquine will not be presented in the Wikipedia as valid science, no, not when the bulk of scientific consensus continues to point out the serious issues with its use in covid patients. That you drilled down to a single paper written by 2 guys who specialize in orthopedics, not immunology or viral research, is not helpful to the discussion here. Zaathras (talk) 12:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Edit requests (COVID)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2021

Remove: COVID-19 misinformation. 74.111.98.147 (talk) 23:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: No rationale or clear request given; so I don't need to either. How convenient. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:21, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2021

Carolina.bonita1 (talk) 04:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

PLEASE REMOVE THIS WIKIPEDIA PAGE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_A._McCullough Dr. Peter McCullough is a very private person and wishes to remain private. Please delete all his information as soon as possible.

 Not done: Very recent strong consensus from the community was to keep this article. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@Carolina.bonita1: Are you SURE you want to keep pressing this matter and risk streisanding the information McCullough would dearly like suppressed? Even if the page were to be deleted at his request, it'd just end up being re-created, with pretty much the same sources and content, because McCullough is still notable per our definition given the extensive sourcing here. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 05:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2021 (2)

REMOVE THAT HE IS A SPREADER OF MISINFORMATION!! Wikipedia should not be the place to discourage QUALIFIED scientific opinions and discusssions. You can say that he is being accused of it by some publications and name the publications. 108.36.230.5 (talk) 13:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Fox News anti-vaccine misinformation

Proposed content:

A clip of McCullough from The Ingraham Angle was one of three examples of Fox News anti-vaccination misinformation content discussed in a segment on MSNBC's The ReidOut.

The subject of this article literally made MSNBC's highlight reel of anti-vax misinformation on Fox News. MSNBC is a unit of NBC News, a reliable source. This source is a secondary source, one news network's coverage of another news network's coverage. This source is NBC News identifying the subject's comments as a guest on Fox News as one of three clear examples of anti-vaccine misinformation content on Fox News. (The context for this montage was the day after Megan McCain's comment on The View that she was unaware of anti-vax content on Fox). Even were the source considered an expression of opinion, NBC News may be considered an expert observer of bias in Fox News coverage of issues, and the source is cleary identified in text so that readers may assess the biases of the source. Comments? 76.198.24.189 (talk) 20:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

MSNBC is not the same as NBC News, even if they might be owned by the same parent company. MSNBC's TV channel is pretty much a biased source (compare here with other well known outlets) and likely shouldn't be used, especially not when the only thing it is being used for is as a primary source on itself (i.e. "This was on MSNBC"). Additionally, a talk show is likely a primary source and shouldn't be used for content in a BLP. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

We agree MSNBC is a competitor of Fox and each has its own biases. We agree the source is a prime-time show on MSNBC. We are not prohibited from using sources with bias. Here the source is clearly identified in text as per guidelines for sources with possible bias. The above proposed content is not merely "this was on MSNBC," the point of course is it captures MSNBC's assessment that the subject of this article's comments constituted anti-vax misinformation. Perhaps you can suggest a re-phrase? 76.198.24.189 (talk) 20:55, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's worth mentioning The ReidOut or Reid herself, it's sufficient to state he made claims on television that were misleading and/or contradicted by scientific consensus. There are sources more authoritative to critique McCullouigh's views, and dozens of TV pundits with opinions: Joy Reid needn't be one of them. We should be clear and precise (but concise) when describing what McCullough said and why they are considered, false, misleading, or misinformation: The Ingraham Angle paragraph does this pretty well, but the previous paragraph is awfully vague: "highly critical of the actions of the US government and health agencies. McCullough also made false and misleading claims about COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines". Imagine someone reading this with no personal knowledge of anything that has happened in the past 2 years: Being critical of the government is not in itself misinformation, and "false and misleading" could be anything from "it was described on a Tuesday (but it was actually a Thursday)" to "COVID-19 came from 2-headed beings from Jupiter". WP:BLPSTYLE warns against using terms that lack precision. "False and misleading" is probably plastered across dozens of COVID-related BLPs right now. We owe readers more clarity. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

We agree the article already has multiple strong sources characterizing some of the subject's comments as anti-vax misinformation. However, we can anticipate this content will be challenged. The subject's comments are perhaps the most notable aspect of this subject, and this source speaks directly to that notability. This source is strong and clear. Would you support adding the citation, in support of the other sources, with no mention in text of Reid or The Reid Out, no further summarization in text? 76.198.24.189 (talk) 13:44, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

We agree the paragraph summarizing the fact checks, and the subject's issues with government agencies, need to be more clear in order to be neutral. 76.198.24.189 (talk) 13:44, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Additional summarization from reliable secondary sources has been added to the criticisms of NIH and FDA and to the false & misleading statements, thank you. 76.198.24.189 (talk) 20:02, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

McCullough also made CNN's highlight reel of anti-vaccine rhetoric on Fox News (after 4:17).

Revised proposed content

A topic sentence for the Fox News-related paragraph, a summarization across agreement of multiple reliable sources, add additional context for Fox News appearances, add additional reliable sources to contended article content:

McCullough contributed to anti-vaccination messaging by Fox News program hosts and guests.

Comments? 76.198.24.189 (talk) 21:49, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Can a person be misinformation?

I question the placement of McCullough, or any human, in Category:COVID-19 misinformation, on the grounds of WP:COPDEF, WP:NONDEF, and WP:BLPCAT. See also WP:OPINIONCAT. A statement or document may be misinformation; a person is not. While a person may be known for stating incorrect information, shoehorning humans into nonhuman categories seems like a way to skirt conventional categorization schemes, and risks unduly labelling someone. Not all traits, even traits people are strongly associated with, warrant categorization, which is why we don't place Mark Hamill, nor anybody else, into Category:Star Wars actors. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:59, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

So, let's remove this category and replace it with Category:COVID-19 conspiracy theorists. Zaathras (talk) 01:54, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

McCullough is certainly notable for his spread of misinformation about COVID. Whether there's a more aptly named category for it is a more annoying question, and one to which I'm not sure I have an answer to. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:31, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

On the question posed by the section heading, and on the issue of whether any human may be included in a "misinformation" category, please note that Category:COVID-19 misinformation already includes some biographies, as does its super-category, Category:Misinformation, and as does a sibling category Category:Fake news, so not convinced these categories are non-human. 76.198.24.189 (talk) 20:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

All of the above categories also inappropriately include people (as do countless others, but I can't fix all problems at once). "Related" categories are not the same as defining categories. We don't place William Randolph Hearst or Joseph Pulitzer into Category:Newspapers, nor Charles Darwin into Category:Natural selection, no matter how strongly they are affiliated. Wikipedians tend to become more careless with Wikipedia rules when the subjects are those deemed by society (or Wikipedia) as unfavorable, and conventions that would otherwise explicitly be WP:BLP violations are circumvented. Cateory:People who have disseminated misinformation would likely be deleted, so instead Wikipedians lump them into Category:Misinformation. Similarly, categories for ostensibly antisemitic people and organizations have consistently been deleted, yet Wikipedians like to sneak biographies back into adjacent "keyword" categories like Category:Antisemitism or Category:Antisemitism in the United States (or Category:Islamophobia in the United States in the absence of Category:Islamophobic people). Compare also the number of top-level biographies found in Category:Far-right politics in the United States to that of Category:Far-left politics in the United States. Many categories are in need of heavy purging. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

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)

 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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

WP:BLP, WP:WIKIVOICE issues

• The source [6] 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)
• (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)
  • 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

'When' vs.'in response to' is a Distinction without a difference. - MrOllie (talk) 18:39, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

Good thing we're writing for a general audience and not for an etiology journal, then. MrOllie (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

They're not the same person. 2600:1012:B058:F884:9016:4FDD:DE01:F0F7 (talk) 03:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Nor did I say they were. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 03:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Read: Wikipedia:Sockpuppeting. 2600:1012:B058:F884:9016:4FDD:DE01:F0F7 (talk) 06:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Too late, already blocked. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:39, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

 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)

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)

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)

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)

 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)

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)

 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)

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)

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

“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)

It's well sourced, just read the citations please. -Roxy the dog. wooF 16:11, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

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)

Be specific. Which sources are the ones that you consider unnacceptable? -Roxy the dog. wooF 10:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

So you are implying that you want to consider research published in Nature as pseudoscience? asb (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Good thing that nobody claimed that, then. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:43, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

• We don't need enlightenment there - it's the same off-wiki nonsense that has led to many of the edit requests above, and can safely be ignored. Black Kite (talk) 14:16, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oh I know, just curious if any of them will actually cop to it. Zaathras (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

• 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)

  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)

Misinformation

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

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)

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)

That would be terrible, but fortunately shows no sign of being the case here. MrOllie (talk) 15:19, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Minor point, but slander is spoken, you're referring to libel. Primefac (talk) 15:49, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

We actually can use Fox News as long as it's not their talk/opinion shows (though there is no ironclad consensus for their science or politics news). Care to try again? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 05:25, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Misinformation often works by cherrypicking like that. Climate change denial is about 100% cherrypicking. For scientists, honesty is very important, and for scientists, omitting crucial information like that is as dishonest as any lie. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@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)

Personal attacks are not a substitute for policy based arguments. MrOllie (talk) 04:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

That is an unfortunate direction you have chosen to take this, Mr. Arpowers. Zaathras (talk) 04:42, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

CNN/Fox is a false equivalence but also only a distraction, since the material is supported by a variety of sources. Other than reading those, I suggest to look at WP:MEDRS sources in relation to specific topics (i.e. if hydroxychloroquine is considered effective) and you may notice that those mainstream sources (that appear to meet WP:BLPRS and can be used to recall of current consensus by WP:PARITY) appear to get it right. Lastly, those sources only had to appeal to authorities like NIH themselves. If you believe that large medical bodies are all corrupt and promote false information, that's a conspiracy theory that WP simply cannot embrace... It is clear from WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE and WP:GEVAL that it would be inappropriate for the article to present a false balance of attributed claims (foo said this but bar said that, we can never know anything, etc). —PaleoNeonate – 15:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Expanding on introduction

The introduction section seems to try to highlight the alleged misinformation. First of all, misinformation can be definitively labeled when ground truth has been established. In this instance, that is not the case: an official narrative is not ground truth (no matter how much some people wish otherwise).

Second, the introduction section is clearly trying to bias readers' opinions with negative information so as to more easily dismiss legitimate claims that are made.

This bias need to be balanced by expanding on the fact that this is a highly accomplished and well respected researcher and clearly not someone whose findings can be dismissed because they do not agree with some users' beliefs. I have tried repeatedly to add verified information establishing credibility but it is being deleted in favour of the 'misinformation' narrative. Jaredwsavage (talk) 11:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I'm fine with that being in the lede, as long as it's explored in more depth later on in the prose (it's mentioned, but the details on it are a little skimpy). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 12:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

It is poorly sourced WP:PUFFERY. I wouldn't object to including more positive info where we can reliably source it, but a self-written author bio is not a usable source. You're also asking for a WP:FALSEBALANCE here. The majority of sources treat McCullough fairly harshly, so too will the Wikipedia article. Our job is to reflect reliable sources. - MrOllie (talk) 14:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

A peer reviewed journal is a poor source now? This explains a lot about Wikipedia's falling standards. Jaredwsavage (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Author bios are not peer reviewed, they are written by the authors themselves. MrOllie (talk) 15:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Are CNN articles peer reviewed? These seem to be allowed when it suits the leftist narrative. I find this childish. Jaredwsavage (talk) 15:22, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

'Peer review' is not the minimum bar for inclusion. CNN articles go through an editorial and fact checking process. FYI, you will get precisely nowhere on Wikipedia by sprinkling in incivility and personal attacks with your arguments. - MrOllie (talk) 15:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

And here comes the false equivalence again. If you have a beef with CNN or its reliability, take it to WP:BLPN or WP:RSN, but unless you can provide a more convincing rationale than "This outlet should die in a fire" you're not going to get anywhere with getting rid of it. (And for the record, we allow Fox News as a source.) The reason we're talking peer reviewed papers here is because that's the sort of thing you should be citing for claims involving papers he's written in academia. CNN is being used to cite a biographical claim that isn't connected to the papers he's written (indeed, we wouldn't use CNN strictly for WP:NACADEMIC-related claims since it's fairly useless as a source when it comes to writing about scientific papers and the workings of academia). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 19:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

The page being cited, uscjournal.com/authors/peter-mccullough, is essentially a curriculum vitae, and it not usable for anything in the Wikipedia. Zaathras (talk) 15:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

This page right now is the equivalent of McDonald's selling you their 100% white meat chicken nuggets without telling you that they fry it in refined rapeseed oil (canola oil). The unrefined version known as rapeseed oil is known to contain erucic acid, a known toxin. In order to be FDA-approved, they must decrease the amount of erucic acid present to below a threshold. Voila! Now it's called canola oil, don't look back!). Sure, it's below the FDA's known level of considerable acute toxicity, but over a lifetime is chronically exposing you to low levels of this known toxin. Leaving out potentially relevant information? I think so.

You too are leaving out valuable information that was shared nearly 4 weeks ago (yet wikipedia edits an individual's page after death almost immediately?). Regardless of what you personally believe about his prior "misinformation", you cannot deny that this OTHER information is supported by the broader scientific community, and he helped share it with 50 million people on that podcast. If you feel so inclined, glance at these articles, and we can have a discussion as to why they should or should not be included on his Wikipedia page, given his obvious importance in getting this message out to so many people.

Please refute how it's possible to read these articles and conclude there is no evidence that Peter McCullough is contributing VALUABLE, SCIENTIFICALLY SUPPORTED, and WIDELY ACCEPTED information to the community. If you disagree, you should probably have some good data to counter with before describing cohesive information provided by the Lancet, the CDC, NCBI, and MedRxIV as "fringe" science or "theorycrafting". I look forward to your response.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7762(21)00258-1/fulltext

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

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00648-4/fulltext

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7219423/

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.20.21267966v2#:~:text=Our%20study%20provides%20evidence%20of,CI%3A%2069.9%20to%2076.4%25) Calubara (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC) Calubara Calubara (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

We're not going to sift through your sources for you and try to guess your point. If you have a specific suggestion to edit existing text or contribute new text in the article, by all means do so. Zaathras (talk) 21:25, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to rescind the hostility with which I initially approached. You are not the object of my frustration, and I apologize. I'll review my resources and come back with something constructive to add to his page. I do believe Dr. McCullough is being generally vilified for being willing to question Big Brother, but Wikipedia at least gives us the opportunity to submit our proposals with evidence at a level that is feasible for the individual, and I'm grateful for that. Please accept my apologies. The internet has nearly turned my brain to mush, and I'm learning to not be such a trigger happy moron. Happy New Year! Calubara (talk) 10:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)CalubaraCalubara (talk) 10:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I might be able to save you some time (though not in the way that you had hoped): the sources you've provided are unlikely to be able to support any meaningful changes to this article (though to be clear, you're certainly still welcome to present your case on this talk page). I'm guessing you posted them in an attempt to support some of Dr. McCullough's claims about COVID, using them to prove that he's not promoting misinformation. However, none of these studies were authored by McCullough, or discuss him in any way. Thus, using them to support statements in this article will probably violate Wikipedia's policy against original research, and specifically the part against synthesis of reliable sources.

In this context, synthesis means using two different statements in two different reliable sources to come to a conclusion that's not directly supported by either source. If one source supports statement A, another supports statement B, and we think that A and B implies a third statement C, then you might think we could put statement C in a Wikipedia article, cited to A and B. But that would be synthesizing statements A and B into a new thing that neither A nor B directly support, which is what is prohibited by policy. For this article, we use sources that directly state that Dr. McCullough has spread misinformation about COVID. In order to introduce any statements to the contrary, it's not enough to cite sources that seem to provide evidence for his assertions; we need to cite sources that discuss Dr McCullough directly and say that his claims are not misinformation. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:03, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

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.

---

I just came upon this article and was highly surprised to find such non-encyclopedic and fundamentally biased content on Wikipedia. No matter your political background or position on vaccination, the requirements for labeling something 'misinformation' in encyclopedic content should be on the level of 'proven beyond a doubt'.

There are currently multiple countries and government agencies in the world, including in the Netherlands, Spain, Germany, England and Norway, actively investigating increased mortality rates following mass vaccination. Many countries are currently actively considering, based on scientific evidence from Lancet and British Medical Journal, only offering vaccines proactively to people with elevated risks, specifically the elderly, people with BMI over 30, and/or contributing factors such as asthma/COPD.

This is how science works, it is sort of 'discovered' along the way. Labeling badly verifiable claims as 'misinformation', and leaving the labels there as the claims turn out to be worth verifying, is in itself 'misinformation'.

Therefore the article is, in its current form, neither neutral nor encyclopedic, and merely promoting a non-scientific agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curry684 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a specific proposal of text that you would like to change? This isn't a forum for general discussion of the vaccination. MrOllie (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Fair question. Currently I would recommend deleting half the page (mainly sections containing the highly sensitive NPOV word 'misinformation') as most of that content has no scientific basis, or at least - no more than McCullough's own claims. Not being able to prove something's right doesn't make it wrong (Russel's Teapot). Curry684 (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

This page is quite well cited, and follows the citations well. I think it is highly unlikely you will get consensus for deleting half the page, or in removing the word 'misinformation', which is directly taken from the sources. Remember, WP:NPOV does not mean 'takes no position', it means 'takes the same position as the reliable sources.' - MrOllie (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Deciding that a source is reliable is, in itself, rarely a neutral action. I know first hand of several articles posted in Nature, Science, The Lancet and the BMJ that support McCullough's claims or at the very least support their potential credibility, which should on its own be sufficient not to use the definitive word 'misinformation'. I did a bit of editing on the page, changing it to 'controversial information'. That at least is correct and defendable until there is scientific consensus, which for the foreseeable future there will not be. Do not confuse a random article written by scientists with consensus. Anyone can get a scientific paper published containing unverified nonsense and it happens every day. That is why true science waits for validation before calling truth.Curry684 (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

See WP:OR. We can't use sources that are not about Malone to undercut reliable sources that explicitly label his claims 'misinformation'. That would be original research. Please read the talk page archives, this has been gone over again and again. - MrOllie (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I see you reverted the edit. I'll just take some screenshots for the next time I have to explain kids again why Wikipedia is not in any way a credible source for any kind of serious research and be on my way again. I have no interest whatsoever in reading the talk archives or improving content on Wikipedia. I didn't even know McCullough until 15 minutes ago, that's why I came here, I saw a highly biased and badly sourced article and felt obliged to improve the content in the little time I have to spare for it. Please leave the NPOV tag so at least people know the content is currently in terrible shape.Curry684 (talk) 21:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

POV tags are not meant to be used as badges of shame because you personally disagree with the content of an article. - MrOllie (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Do not confuse personal disagreement with general interest in correct and defendable science. I logged into Wikipedia for the first time in probably over 10 years just to be reminded within minutes of why I stopped contributing to Wikipedia. Wikipedia by design confuses majority consensus with factual correctness on every controversial subject, meanwhile forgetting that Galileo Galilei was at one point in time the only person on Earth thinking that Earth was circling the Sun instead of the other way around. Wikipedia would've crucified him for misinformation at the time because he had no credible sources. Which can be just fine, it's just neither objective nor encyclopedic.Curry684 (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Ah, the Galileo gambit. A classic. Also, you forgot about Nicolaus Copernicus and Johannes Kepler. - MrOllie (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

It's only a logical fallacy if you use it to support the notion that your idea is RIGHT because it is unique. It's not a logical fallacy if used the other way around to point out that someone is not by definition WRONG because the idea is unique. But never mind, pulling the logical fallacy card on that clarifies your intentions, I'll just log out again.Curry684 (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

To be honest I thought I was doing a good thing just leaving the label there because the article looked vandalized by pro-vax extremists, and needed repairs.Curry684 (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit request

The sentence 'Jha responded on The New York Times opinion page, "By elevating witnesses who sound smart but endorse unfounded therapies, we risk jeopardizing a century's work of medical progress"' is not reproduced in any secondary sources I could find. Per precedent, I don't think it is notable to be included here. "Newspapers print a lot of things" and that the NYT printed it is not sufficient to be in the article as they are Jha's own words. Pinging User:Drmies who is authoritative on this issue and User:MrOllie who is aware of this issue. Thanks. 2600:1012:B012:9D42:90A2:D1:49CC:387E (talk) 06:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:PARITY we can and should give Jha's response to the allegation. MrOllie (talk) 14:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Ha, I don't know how authoritative I am in any topic! Drmies (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2022

The jury is still out on who's opinion is correct. Time will tell. Seems like there is an alliance of over 500 doctors in Canada that share McCullough's opinion (His opinion is inline with over 500 Canadian doctors (https://rumble.com/vqx3kb-the-pfizer-inoculations-do-more-harm-than-good.html) I suggest changing the line that reads "During the COVID-19 pandemic, McCullough promoted misinformation about COVID-19, the COVID-19 vaccine, and COVID-19 treatments.[4][5][6]" to something like:

During the COVID-19 pandemic, McCullough has challenged mainstream COVID-19 vaccine, and COVID-19 treatments. 71.10.89.130 (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

"The jury" is not out. McCullough, by all intelligent and reliable measures of such things, is a promoter of covid misinformation. Zaathras (talk) 22:05, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, not that Rumble is in any way a reliable source regardless, but "500 doctors in Canada" sounds a lot less impressive when put in context: "99.5% of the over 92,000 doctors in Canada do not share Dr. McCullough's opinion". Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 February 2022

Your description of Dr. Peter McCullough repeatedly accuses him of providing "misinformation". Change "misinformation" to "information well vetted by many highly respected medical studies" Fortunately, the statements Dr. McCullough has made about how patients who receive early treatment with Hydroxychloroquine and/or Ivermectin have a 99.9997% of survival without being treated with Fauci's invention, remdesivir, which fills the lungs with liquid: the patients also never needed to be ventilated. 100's of studies worldwide now support the verity of his statements. I have most often found Wikipedia to be truthful and exact in their Biographical information and, therefore, request that this change be made ASAP in order to continue to shine as the top virtual encyclopedia. Thank-you! Windylan (talk) 08:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Primefac (talk) 08:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

The word misinformation accurately describes what he has said so it will stay. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 08:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 February 2022

Remove the word disinformation. I donated to you Wikipedia, stop defaming people. Be part of the solution, not the problem. You are part of the problem now. 2600:100E:BF1C:1CD4:BF06:6198:EE3A:45CF (talk) 05:48, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia works on reliable sources, as it always has. If you want to make changes, you will need to provide reliable sources that support those changes. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

• Also note that donating gets you no special treatment. We couldn't verify it anyway, but it wouldn't make any difference. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:48, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

  See also Bribe. Wikipedia is not corrupt. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Should facts be written under a 'COVID-19 misinformation' title?

DFTT
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Suggesting that healthy persons under 30 have no need for a vaccine is not a controversial opinion, and while it may contradict public health guidelines, I think a case can be made it's truthful. Something that is true shouldn't be put right below a 'misinformation' title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick3004 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC) Yes, yes it is, and opening with that makes your entire argument invalid. Primefac (talk) 11:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC) Anything that people dont agree on unanimously is by definition controversial in the context of COVID. However I would think when a quack or a person who is not familiar with sciences says something contrary to popular opinion that might be labelled as misinformation. However Dr McCullough is a long term Doctor and respected Doctor. I think the use of "misinformation" ( Since it implies deliberate) should be more restrained and maybe use a " contrary opinion " or something similar for people who know and have worked for Science a long time.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.233.55.2 (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC) Why? People like that aren't generally looking at Wikipedia; they're reading scientific literature. All this does is create a false equivalence. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 02:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC) The Wikipedia page is full of unsubstantiated claims and methodological flaws and as it is cannot be taken seriously. The "highest quality sources" on treatments referenced do not provide the best available information. Doctors who do not have proven record and competence treating and/or supervising treatment of COVID-19 outpatients and patients should not be presented as reliable sources of information. Altamir.gomes (talk) 11:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC) That was very specific of you. Now we know exactly what to change, since you pointed out all those erroneous facts and linked such wonderful reliable sources for the corrections. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC) For example, Harvey A. Risch, MD, PhD, surveyed the most successful doctors who treated COVID-19 and also demonstrated that several studies on COVID-19 treatment are junk science. Furthermore, he presented logical, consistent evidence that the Food and Drug Administration agency resorted to fraud and crime to block uses of medicines. This is publicly available information. There are verified records of doctors who treated successfully and early over 10.000 COVID-19 outpatients with a relative risk reduction of over 99 percent, which are by themselves compelling and reliable evidence. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention itself now recommends early treatment for COVID-19. Peter McCullough, MD, MPH himself never said that isolated drugs would treat COVID-19, but that combinations of medicines do. None of the references on the Wiki page, when put into context, can deny such claims as his as misinformation. I will, instead of showing direct references to such sources, patiently wait for someone to do something more than a pitiful research job. Altamir.gomes (talk) 16:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC) As pointed out by the rest of the faculty where he teaches, Risch isn't an expert on infectious disease. He doesn't meet your own standard (' Doctors who do not have proven record and competence treating and/or supervising treatment of COVID-19') MrOllie (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC) Harvey A. Risch has a BS in biomathematics and has also a PhD on modelling of infectious diseases and was elected to the Connecticut panel of specialists on COVID-19 shortly after the disease broke out. He reportedly does research on COVID-19 since early 2020 or earlier. Altamir.gomes (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2022 (UTC) And? The man holds views widely regarded as fringe, Zaathras (talk) 14:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC) Which critics of Mr. Risch sport arguments better than mediocre, poorly researched and unsubstantiated? Wiki pages invariably evolve to something useful, but we're not to a good start here. 191.22.3.28 (talk) 12:13, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 May 2022

Instead of saying "McCullough has promoted misinformation about COVID-19" (which is an opinion), this should state "McCullough has been acused of promoting misinformation about COVID-19" 2600:1000:BE06:282E:100D:38EF:4A13:C941 (talk) 15:33, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Per all the previous discussion on this talk page... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:40, 7 May 2022 (UTC)