Talk:Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (your reason here) --Ratagonia (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I looked this up to find out if this group was completely loony... this page does not provide this evaluation, but it could. Ratagonia (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance, because it is cited by many WP:RS as the leading group campaigning for the use of ivermectin against COVID-19 in the United States. Llll5032 (talk) 01:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

This group (FLCCC) advocates for more then just the use of Ivermectin. Your censorship of legitimate scientific references that support the efficacy of Ivermectin is biased and unconscionable. Any edit should present all valid information and not pass judgement on the source without having the academic scientific training. DrWDMcCoy (talk) 03:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


 * DrWDMcCoy, please review WP:MEDRS, which says what sources we can cite on a medical subject. Llll5032 (talk) 03:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I will review DrWDMcCoy (talk) 03:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, DrWDMcCoy. Especially WP:MEDPRI: "Primary sources should not be cited with intent of "debunking", contradicting, or countering conclusions made by secondary sources. Synthesis of published material advancing a position is original research, and Wikipedia is not a venue for open research. Controversies or uncertainties in medicine should be supported by reliable secondary sources describing the varying viewpoints. Primary sources should not be aggregated or presented without context in order to undermine proportionate representation of opinion in a field." Llll5032 (talk) 03:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: I have boldly removed the speedy deletion template and added some additional content. As I stated in my edit summary, this organization may eventually be merged into another article, but there is at least enough circulating press coverage to forestall an unscrutinized speedy deletion. If proponents of deletion wish to continue, please consider nominating via Articles for Deletion. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

The page on FLCCC employs references to articles on lack of evidence of efficacy for medicaments in order to say these medicaments are ineffective for treating COVID-19. Thus blatantly dishonest writing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Altamir.gomes (talk • contribs) 13:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Stance on vaccines
We currently say. I suggest we either: a) find a source that actually tells what is FLCCC stance on vaccines and use attribution; or b) remove/rewrite the section, because as it stands it seems like it falls under the issues stated in WP:Synthesis and WP:OR, in which we as editors try too hard to infer where they stand on an issue. It is a bit of a stretch to insinuate they are guilty of anti-vaxx because of something they don't say in their protocols. Forich (talk) 04:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Not explicitly antivax, but maybe de facto. Alexbrn (talk) 04:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Forich, the cited independent secondary source says: "The FLCCC Alliance says “vaccination is part of the solution” for ending the COVID-19 pandemic, although vaccines are not listed in its preventative protocol plan." This article accurately paraphrases it, which is the opposite of WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. Llll5032 (talk) 04:55, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I am adding the quote above to the citation to make this clearer. Llll5032 (talk) 05:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

The I-MASK+ protocol states: '' "The I-MASK+ protocol is a bridge to vaccines and a safety net for those who cannot or have not been vaccinated; or are vaccinated and have concerns regarding declining protection against emerging variants. Vaccines have shown efficacy in preventing the most severe outcomes of COVID-19 and are an important part of a multi-modal strategy that must also include early treatment. The decision to get a vaccine should be made in consultation with your health care provider." '' Source: https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/FLCCC-Alliance-I-MASKplus-Protocol-ENGLISH.pdf  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.21.233 (talk) 00:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Good quote, but it is a primary source. Forich (talk) 17:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * How about the coverage of this topic in Scientific American ?: Looks very NPOV and includes context, in my opinion.  Forich (talk) 17:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Based on the primary documents on the FLCCC website, the descriptions in both the Nextstar and the Scientific American articles sound factually correct to me. Vaccines are not in the FCCC's list of prevention protocols, but appear in their side-notes that are hidden in some views. Llll5032 (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2021
Change reuqirements to requirements. Tendermario (talk) 02:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅, and thanks. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:33, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

An FLCCC paper was retracted
I am not sure where in the current article structure this could be mentioned. Here's the language currently used in Pierre Kory: Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Settlement in case FSA vs FLCCC
Maybe someone could add this to the article (my English is not good enough for it): FDA Settles Lawsuit over Ivermectin Social Media Posts, Newsweek.com and FLCCC Alliance Statement on the Settlement Reached in Case Against DHHS for Telling the Public to “Stop it” Regarding Taking Ivermectin to Prevent and Treat COVID-19, FLCCC Alliance. Thank you! Schwäbin (talk) 18:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

AFLD & FLCCC
Whats the connection between "America's Front Line Doctors" and "Front Line Covid Critical Care Alliance"? Seems like there's some relationship or crossover involvement. Centerone (talk) 19:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)