Talk:America's Frontline Doctors

Title
Anyone know why the article title is in black font? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rp2006 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because all its material was MOVED from an existing original article (per note in edit summary.) It is not a copy of anything on the web... at least not any more than was in the original Tea Party article. (I did not check.) BTW, additional info about the org - participation in the Capitol assault - seemed to mean the org deserved its own page, which is why I created this page by relocating EXISTING Wiki text here. How can it be an infringement? RobP (talk) 01:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Article is biased and includes false information
This protected page includes biased and false information and should be revised to be neutral and factual. Examples are the following: use of "right-wing" as a political label use of "alleged and unapproved treatments for COVID-19" is false (treatments that have been unfairly discredited are medically useful treatments) reference to Dr. Gold's participation in the "storming of the U.S. Capitol" is inapproriate and the word "storming" is also not factual. There are so many issues with this page, it should be fixed or deleted.

Yeah, my spider sense was tingling when I heard "Far-right" regarding Breitbart. How is this neutral in any way? For me Breitbart is pretty moderate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FairAndBalanced007 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia’s aim is to be accurate, which this article is. “Fair and Balanced” (yes, I noticed your ID) is a right-wing news slogan... meaning equal footing is given to BS. We do not allow that here. :-) I do agree that “Storming” isn’t a great description, but that IS the title of the article on the subject. I think “Insurrection at the Capitol” would be better, but I was voted down.   RobP (talk) 17:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I happen to agree that this page is biased. It should be neutral. The phrase "false claims" should be just "claims". They made claims. That is all the reader needs to know. Keep it neutral. Lillabeile (talk) 21:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

You’re joking
This is the most slanded page on here. Djsnit (talk) 12:35, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Slamder is oral, and needs to be untrue. So you are doubly in error. Otherwise, I’m sure you are brilliant. RobP (talk) 14:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2021
The whole write up is opinionated and has little validity 2600:387:0:80D:0:0:0:4A (talk) 00:51, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. Living Concrete (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement with incomplete backing data.
"America's Frontline Doctors is an American right-wing political organization known for spreading misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic"

The references used to label the doctrine of this organization is not from a confirmed source (i.e. trusted publishers, medical journals) and not proven under legislative declaration (i.e. declaration in court) Links from another second hand news company or a Op-Ed article are not valid arguments or proof of declaration.

This needs to be reviewed and corrected by including relevant references if found, removing the statement or replacing with something like "organization known for opposing to the current COVID-19 pandemic measures implemented and used in America and around the world." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.6.146.5 (talk) 06:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2021
Change "America's Frontline Doctors is an American right-wing political organization known for spreading misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic.[1][2][3]" to "AFLDS is a non-partisan, not-for-profit organization. They help to amplify the voices of concerned physicians and patients nationwide to combat those who push political and economic agendas at the expense of science and quality healthcare solutions." Change "Founded by Simone Gold and promoted by the Tea Party Patriots, it has opposed lockdowns and social distancing mandates during the COVID-19 pandemic by citing alleged and unapproved treatments for COVID-19." to "Founded by Simone Gold, AFLDS is committed to maintaining the physician-patient relationship in the face of government encroachment by speaking up against medical discrimination. They oppose lockdowns and believe in safe and effective, over-the-counter COVID preventative and early treatment options should be made available to all Americans who need them. They support a number of prevention and early treatment protocols, which are based on peer reviewed research including https://rcm.imrpress.com/article/2020/2153-8174/RCM2020264.shtml, https://c19hcq.com/, https://c19ivermectin.com/, https://covid19criticalcare.com/i-mask-prophylaxis-treatment-protocol/i-mask-protocol-translations/ to name a few." 2601:14E:8001:4490:20CD:2BF4:9224:88BD (talk) 20:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

capitol attack and political ideology
A couple constructive criticisms. First, I think this article gives undue weight to the actions of two of its members regarding the 2021 United States Capitol attack. Giving a devoted section titled "Participation in 2021 United States Capitol attack" implies the organization itself was a participant, primary player, or maybe even an organizer, which does not appear to be the case. That the section is almost entirely about Simone Gold seems somewhat off-topic, better summarized in a single sentence and relegated to Gold's article, in keeping the scope of this article primarily on the organization. Secondly, the term "right-wing" is used in the lead but poorly defined and contextualized, seemingly based on association with or references by other organizations or people. Having a press conference "streamed" by Breitbart News, or praised by President Trump, does not itself make an organization right-wing (not everything must be politicized; I wish US journalists would realize this). However, the in-depth sources below give good background on the history and origins of AFLD, including its apparent emergence from the conservative Council for National Policy, which can be used to better bolster the "right wing" assertions. The Washington Spectator might be a source of uncertain reliability, but it is cited by the Time article. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:32, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Request for semi-protection
This article is attracting attention from many anonymous users who change it according to their beliefs, without honouring Wikipedia's code giving information in an impartial and sourced manner. I kindly request that this page is semi-protected. --RockyMM (talk) 16:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Firstly, we have WP:RPP as a process for that. Secondly, I don't think it qualifies for semi-protection at this specific moment, because usually it's only done if there is a large, concentrated, short-term surge in disruptive edits by anonymous users. That was just one. ViperSnake151   Talk  20:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2021
FORMER president Donald Trump 67.175.52.73 (talk) 14:06, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:09, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for speedy deletion
This project page may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a page that serves no purpose but to disparage or threaten its subject or some other entity. This includes libel, legal threats, material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person, or an article about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced, where there is no neutral version in the history to revert to. See CSD G10. If this project page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with the given reason for deletion, you can click the button below and leave a message explaining why you believe it should not be deleted. You can also visit the talk page to check if you have received a response to your message.

Note that this project page may be deleted at any time if it unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if an explanation posted to the talk page is found to be insufficient.

There is open and continuing dialogue on the advantages of maintaining good health (i.e., vitamin rich diet, maintaining good weight, exercise) in conjunction with use of the protocols adopted by a number of licensed medical doctors around the world. Please see the recent 5 hour conference held by Senator Ron Johnson on the harassment and intimidation of medical doctors who disagree with the use of vaccines, which are doubtful in their efficacy and are not accompanied by an data on long-term effects on human. Content neutral edits are appropriate, but America's Frontline Doctors is not a political organization. It consists of doctors who are offering alternative treatments which have been proven to be effective in improving wellness. Sources: Jan 25, 2022 Senante panel hearing on discussion go censorship from Big Tech and the mainstream media, pandemic response effect on children, and vaccine mandate impact on worker shortage,” the senator’s statement said. Sen. Johnson Johnson has hosted events featuring the testimonies of people injured by COVID-19 vaccines and has chaired Senate hearings on the suppression of COVID-19 treatments. Dr.LMW (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree. This is a well-known source of misinformation and disinformation that is well-known to those who subscribe to pseudoscience and anti-vaccine messaging. I certainly think an article covering what they do is warranted and notable. I do not think this page merely exists to disparage or threaten its subject or some entity. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 20:13, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That is just not true. The doctors in this group have excellent backgrounds in diverse medical specialties. They are researchers, practitioners and from multiple countries. The concerns they raise about the Covid protocols and government approaches were warranted. Their knowledge about vaccines was not conspiracy but rather scientifically backed with data and experience. In case you haven’t been paying attention look at the stats for how many young people have been dropping dead from cardiovascular accidents. Your stance is naive and blindly follows the government BS. Beh. 71.210.105.147 (talk) 02:03, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources disagree with you. According to Wikipedia rules, reliable sources win. Bye. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:28, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a lot of criticism but it does not appear to meet WP:ATTACK and the information is supported by acceptable sources. You could tag it but it'll probably be reverted.  The process would then be WP:AFD, but it will probably be kept unless the organization is argued to not be notable, lacking enough sources for coverage (WP:GNG, WP:NORG).  As for your arguments about their raison-d'etre etc, a minimum of non-self-serving WP:ABOUTSELF is possible, but also see WP:MISSION and WP:SELFPUB: the analysis should be from independent reliable sources.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 01:51, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2022
I request that the word "false" be removed from the phrase "false claims". As written, the article has an opinion. New information has already changed what we know about Covid and vaccines. Let's not call the claims false. They made claims. Period. Let the reader do research and make their own conclusions. Lillabeile (talk) 21:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with what you said about your "false" request. I find the AFLD Wikipedia page to be a grossly inaccurate.
 * Can anyone prove what these Doctors are advising is harmful? How come I have "Never" seen anyone dropping a lawsuit on any of these Doctors, have you? I have never seen any negative press on the real world results these Doctors are providing. If AFLD is harming even killing people, why is there no negative reporting of the protocols results of the AFLD.
 * I'm sure the doctors could provide numerius patient testimonies upon request.
 * You have the makings of a Consensus, as they requested. AWiseGuy (talk) 17:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hardly. The original poster never posted again. In any case, we go by what sources meeting WP:RS say. Doug Weller  talk 19:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2022
I would like to append heavily cited medical research with corresponding links to the actual statements and publications of this nonpartisan medical organization, which make it clear and objective that the current highly politicized claims of “false information” are probably false. 174.251.64.109 (talk) 06:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Harvard Doctor study agrees that COVID vaccines cause adverse reactions
Don't you think it's time you update your info? Even a Harvard Doctor's study backs up the AFLD regarding COVID vaccine risks. 24.88.113.14 (talk) 00:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't you think you ought to suggest exactly what should be changed, citing reliable sources? ~Anachronist (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC)