-
@pierrekory “Consensus Ain’t Necessarily Truth – Behind the Curtain of the ‘Great Wizard of Oz of Encyclopedic Information’ aka Wikipedia”
Here is how they come to the editing process…in this case, describing Dr. Pierre Kory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pierre_Kory
The use of discretionary sanctions has been authorized by the Arbitration Committee for pages related to COVID-19, broadly construed, including this article. Please consult the awareness criteria and edit carefully.
The use of discretionary sanctions has been authorized by the Arbitration Committee
for pages related to articles about living or recently deceased people,
and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such
biographical articles, including this article. Please consult the awareness criteria and edit carefully.This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.
<div>If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page
</div><div>This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Science and Academia (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject COVID-19 (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject Medicine / Pulmonology (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you’ve come here in response to such recruitment, please review the relevant Wikipedia policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Wikipedia are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
<cite>Justus R. Hope (July 5, 2021). “Wikipedia and a pint of gin”. The Desert Review.</cite>
</div>
Treatments for COVID-19: Current consensus
A note on WP:MEDRS: Per this Wikipedia policy, we must rely on the highest quality secondary sources and the recommendations of professional organizations and government bodies when determining the scientific consensus about medical treatments.
<div>Ivermectin: The highest quality sources (1 2 3) do not currently support Ivermectin as an effective treatment for COVID-19. Recommendations from relevant organizations can be summarized as: <q>Evidence of efficacy for ivermectin is inconclusive. It should not be used outside of clinical trials.</q> (May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, July 2021, July 2021) (WHO, FDA, IDSA, ASHP, CDC, NIH)
Chloroquine & hydroxychloroquine: The highest quality sources (1, 2, 3 4) demonstrate that neither is effective for treating COVID-19. These analyses accounted for use both alone and in combination with azithromycin. Some data suggest their usage may worsen outcomes. Recommendations from relevant organizations can be summarized: <q>Neither
hydroxychloroquine nor chloroquine should be used, either alone or in
combination with azithromycin, in inpatient or outpatient settings.</q> (July 2020, Aug 2020, Sep 2020, May 2021) (WHO, FDA, IDSA, ASHP, NIH)
Ivmmeta.com, c19ivermectin.com, c19hcq.com, hcqmeta.com, etc: These sites are not reliable.
The authors are pseudonymous. The findings have not been subject to
peer review. We must rely on expert opinion, which describes these sites
as unreliable. From published criticisms (1 2 3 4), it is clear that these analyses violate basic methodological norms which are known to cause spurious or false conclusions. These analyses include studies which have very small sample sizes, widely different dosages of treatment, open-label designs, different incompatible outcome measures, poor-quality control groups, and ad-hoc un-published trials which themselves did not undergo peer-review. (Dec 2020, Jan 2021, Feb 2021)</div><div></div>
Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2021
Delete the word erroneous – author of this article is either biased or used erroneous erroneously. 2601:282:8280:1A60:6427:3ED2:C8CD:842C (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
No, I feel that this request was made in error. –Roxy <small> the grumpy dog</small>. wooF 21:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
<div>@Roxy the dog Well that’s awkward, I made the edit right as you replied above. My
reasoning was more along the lines that the word is there redundantly;
previous sentences already establish that he’s advocating for
“widespread off-label use of certain drugs”. My understanding of
Ivermectin is that it does work against COVID but at a level toxic to
humans. Taking “erroneously” out leaves us with “claimed that…”, which
takes out the potential OR out of the sentence. I would not object to
putting in “against scientific consensus” or something similar instead,
which backed up by the AP article cited</div><div>Ganbaruby! <small>(talk)</small> 21:36, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
The claim that it is a “wonder drug” that obliterates COVID etc, is
false as sources say. Wikipedia needs to be clear about that for
neutrality. This has been discussed ad nauseam already. Alexbrn (talk) 21:39, 7 July 2021 (UTC)What did they do to Dr. Joseph Mercola?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Joseph_Mercola
</div>