Talk:Marilyn Gladu

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marilyn Gladu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304045200/http://www.elections.ca/content2.aspx?section=can&dir=cand%2Fcanlim&document=index&lang=e to http://www.elections.ca/content2.aspx?section=can&dir=cand%2Fcanlim&document=index&lang=e

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Marilyn Gladu page edits

 * What I think should be changed (format using textdiff): textdiff Please add "Subsequently, the American Journal of medicine confirmed that the treatment was effective The American Journal of Medicine Now Recommends HCQ for COVID19 | Principia Scientific Intl. (principia-scientific.com) to the end of the sixth paragraph of Marilyn Gladu's page's "career" section.
 * Why it should be changed: The American Journal of Medicine did eventually change its recommendations to include HCQ as a treatment for COVID-19.
 * References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): https://principia-scientific.com/the-american-journal-of-medicine-now-recommends-hcq-for-covid19/

Q2893471 (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I would strongly oppose adding this line. I took the time to read the article cited by Principia Scientific International, which is McCullough et. al's "Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Infection" from the American Journal of Medicine in 2021. It is a review paper and does not make any recommendations on medical treatments for COVID-19. Review papers synthesize previous findings and publish them as alternatives to consider during clinical trials in the future. Basing health decisions on a review paper is irresponsible at best and fatal at worst. Further, Principia Scientific International is a pseudo-scientific lobby group from the UK that originally focused on climate change denialism. It is not a legitimate or peer-recognized body, as evidenced by their lack of understanding of what a "review paper" is. Adding this line would amount to retroactively validating the reactionary comments of an uninformed politician. HamOntPoliFiend (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this input, I accept your conclusion. Q2893471 (talk) 23:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)