Talk:Peter A. McCullough

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.

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

Which pages use this template?

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

Vaccine safety

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Cardiorenal society

Dr. McCullough was not founder of the Cardiorenal society. I as a founding member invited him as a guest lecturer for the first program. In addition the society has been disbanded — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hszerlip (talk • contribs) 00:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

You would have to provide a citable source for this. Zaathras (talk) 03:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Noting that our (current) Ref #9 provides verification of his founder status. Primefac (talk) 07:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Retracted antivaxx paper

A paper by him, that made wild claims about vaccines, was retracted yesterday after criticisms. Sources:

• Orac (26 January 2024), Antivaxxers write about "lessons learned" but know nothing, Wikidata Q124630516
• Orac (20 February 2024), Cureus shockingly does the right thing and retracts an antivax review about COVID-19 vaccines, Wikidata Q124630454
• "Retraction: COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: Lessons Learned from the Registrational Trials and Global Vaccination Campaign". Cureus. 26 February 2024. doi:10.7759/CUREUS.52876. ISSN 2168-8184. Wikidata Q124673684.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

Ixocactus (talk) 17:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 April 2024

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

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