Talk:Peter A. McCullough/Archive 2

Article is Pejorative and Impugns Character
The Peter McCullough bio is pejorative, because firm conclusions surrounding COVID-19 treatments are still yet to be known. To lock the article from softening the claims, such as "McCullough has promoted misinformation about COVID-19 ..." instead of allowing "McCullough has promoted alleged misinformation ..." closes all arguments in a specialized field wrought with controversy and produces an effect that Wikipedia is not neutral and apolitical. In the same scope, "... and contributed to COVID-19 misinformation" should read "... and contributed to what was considered COVID-19 misinformation" and instead of "... public statements contributed ..." it should be "... public statements may have contributed to the spread of COVID-19 misinformation."

Also under the heading, "COVID-19 misinformation", "McCullough testified before a committee of the Texas Senate in March 2021, posted to YouTube by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, in which he made false claims about COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines, including that people under 50 years of age and survivors do not need the vaccine and that there is no evidence of asymptomatic spread of COVID-19." There is a single citation without consideration of other specialists who have suggested that the focus of treatment should be on the elderly and infirm, as outlined in the Great Barrington Declaration, which although controversial, lends doubt to the statement, "... which he made false claims about COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines, including that people under 50 years of age ...", which should instead read, "... which he made controversial claims about ..."

In the spirit of Wikipedia's commitment to neutrality (NPOV) in an ongoing series of events, this article should be modified. And it is too strong in the effect that it implies that practicing physician Dr Peter McCullough is a liar, something which could have legal ramifications. It is not in Wikipedia's interest to be eliciting preventable lawsuits. --LarryS 19:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If you have reliable sources that support the changes you'd like to make, feel free to present them. The Great Barrington Declaration is not reliable, and even if it was, citing it in an article about Peter McCullough would violate our policy against synthesis of information across sources. If you want to provide reliably-sourced support to the notion that Dr. McCullough isn't promoting misinformation, you will need to find a source that talks about him specifically and says that he's nto spreading misinformation; it's not sufficient for Wikipiedia's purposes to just find things that provide vague general support to his ideas.
 * Also, please be aware that our policy against legal threats is taken very seriously; don't throw implications of legal action around lightly, or you may be blocked from editing. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia:No legal threats: "A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat. Wikipedia's policy on defamation is to delete libelous material as soon as it is identified." --LarryS 20:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LarrySimpsonus (talk • contribs)
 * Lawyering about legal threats really doesn't help your case at all. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 20:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * My only interest is in the credibility and success of Wikipedia and no legal threat was made or intended. LarryS 23:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LarrySimpsonus (talk • contribs)
 * We don't kowtow to anti-intellectualists, so we will never have the sort of credibility you envision. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 23:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I wonder why "disputing the necessity of vaccinations to achieve herd immunity" is titled "misinformation". There is no covid-19 vaccine herd immunity nowhere.Tsabarn (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Probably because we here on wikipedia rely on the sources to determine what is and is not "misinformation," not our personal opinions. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 21:32, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi folks, I just read the biographical page and this talk page, and I must agree with those above who object to the way McCullough's claims have been portrayed here. Before I modify the page, I will read more on this, but I strongly recommend changing the title of the section "COVID-19 misinformation" into "COVID-19 controversy". I base this on my preliminary examination of one of the claims that has been called in the page "misinformation", namely that asymptomatic Covid-19 positive people appear to be non-contagious. I found the Chinese study that is cited in reference 25 (US cardiologist makes false claims about Covid-19 vaccination). It indicates that (and I quote that study): "Results of virus culturing and contract tracing found no evidence that repositive cases in recovered COVID-19 patients were infectious, which is consistent with evidence from other sources. A study in Korea found no confirmed COVID-19 cases by monitoring 790 contacts of 285 repositive cases6. The official surveillance of recovered COVID-19 patients in China also revealed no evidence on the infectiousness of repositive cases7. So, as reference 25 indicates, this does not mean that no asymptomatic person could conceivably transmit Covid-19, but between these three studies, which must cover well over 1000 contact cases (one of them documents 790 contacts; I haven't checked how many cases the two other studies document), not a single case of transmission was documented. Note that the Chinese study cited by reference 25 included nearly 10 million people! So, by any scientific standards, this claim made by McCullough can be considered to have been tested and validated. Of course, this doesn't mean that with new variants it would remain true, but when McCullough made it, it seems that it reflected current scientific knowledge. Also, please note that following medical authorities set up by governments is not necessarily an optimal procedure because such bodies are not completely independent in the sense that they may very well experience political pressure, and in any case, in science, majority has never been a safe guide. I mention this because I am a research scientist, and my involvement in several controversies (unrelated to the Covid-19 pandemic) has taught me this all too well. If and when I modify the biographical page, I will cite primary scientific literature to support the claims. But in the meantime, it seems safe to conclude that the section heading should be changed from "misinformation" to "controversy". Michel Laurin (talk) 21:50, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You're not going to be able to use your interpretation of primary scientific literature to undercut specific identifications of misinformation in secondary sources - that would be original research. - MrOllie (talk) 22:22, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That is exactly what I plan to do; cite original research. I plan on summarising what has actually been found. Perhaps you did not take time to read carefully what I wrote above? Also, note that primary sources are closer to facts than secondary sources. The latter include more interpretation and less data. You seem to think the reverse. Michel Laurin (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy thinks the reverse in all circumstances.  —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 22:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I read your message carefully and observed that your plan is at odds with Wikipedia's policies. Please take the time to read WP:NOR carefully, as well as the policy links embedded in Jéské Couriano's message. This will save you a lot of time synthesizing primary sources to make a contribution that will be rapidly reverted because it doesn't meet Wikipedia's policy requirements. MrOllie (talk) 23:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That is exactly what I plan to do; cite original research. does not bode well for your Wiki-future. Zaathras (talk) 23:22, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, obviously, I have trouble making myself clear. I mean that I will cite primary literature, not present my own (unpublished) research. The sources that I plan to use are of the most reliable kind. But if you don't think that the primary literature is best, then, this does not bode well for Wikipedia! Michel Laurin (talk) 23:35, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Right, and we're telling you that you can't cite primary literature to undermine the conclusions of a secondary source. Wikipedia has different practices than what you may be used to in other sorts of academic writing. Primary sources are not considered the most reliable sources here, especially in the medical realm. MrOllie (talk) 23:47, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:Village pump (policy) seems to be a very interesting read in light of this, as well as the rest of the section it's in. —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 00:31, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Jéséké, for this last link, which is indeed highly relevant and useful. I have long disagreed with Wikipedia's explicit preference for secondary, as opposed to primary, sources. This probably reflects my own experience as a research scientist. All too often, the secondary sources that have presented my own work, and that of my colleagues whose work I know well, have distorted it, sometimes rather strongly (notably by transforming a fossil into an ancestor, even though I had explicitly told the journalist that there was no reason to think that it was, for instance; that's a major curse of paleontological news coverage). Concerning the most relevant topic here (Covid-19 pandemic and associated research and controversies), and specifically, the references that are used to justify calling McCullough's stance as "misinformation", I see a major problem. Papers published in newspapers (or their on-line version) are mostly written by journalists who know the topic only superficially and who may be subject to strong editorial pressure, especially on such a touchy societal topic. Another type of secondary literature is the textbook, but on topics like Covid-19, textbooks are obsolete long before they are published, given the speed at which research progress. But this is my last post here; I have had it! My own readings of the sources cited in the biography, and of the sources cited by these sources, raise major doubts about the reliability of this page. Unfortunately, by comparing what truly independent journalists published on other topics (like Anne-Laure Bonnet and Patrick Lancaster on the Russo-Ukrainian war) with the coverage in major news outlets in "developed" countries has shattered my previously very good opinion of these media (I also have been to both Ukraine and Russia several times, including in the Crimea, which gave me another independent source of information; not that this matters here, apparently), and here, I find another such example. But you (meaning Wikipedia globally, not the few people who expressed their views above) seem to consider these secondary sources more reliable or balanced than research papers; I disagree strongly with this assessment, so I will now leave this page and work elsewhere, where my efforts to find reliable information will hopefully be better appreciated. But poor McCullough... Poor Wikipedia readers... Over and out! Michel Laurin (talk) 07:43, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

His work exposing COVID 19
He shown COVID 19 origins date back to 2015. 24.178.36.80 (talk) 13:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * To whom he shown? Please supply reliable source. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Work Calling for answers from international health agencies, regulatory authorities, governments and vaccine developers
This preprint with Cullough and 50+ authors should be added in the refs; he is not spreading misinformation here but asking for answers on three fundamental points: 1) SARS-CoV-2 phase 3 trial exclusion criteria, 2) Will serious adverse effects from the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines go unnoticed? and 3) Unanticipated adverse reactions to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines --- https://doi.org/10.22541/au.162136772.22862058/v2 94.35.26.236 (talk) 22:57, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Peter McCullough - World Council for Health
I forgot to add.... World Council for health calls for Global removal of covid-19 vaccine. With over 3.5 million injuries and over 40,000 deaths directly related to the covid-19 vaccine these estimates are grossly underestimated according to World Council for Health.

Please see my other suggestions for edit.

Peter is not guilty of spreading misinformation about covid-19 vaccine.

If you don't remove this false accusation it would mean that you would have to also put the same exact false allegations and outrageous claims on your Wikipedia page for the World Council for Health.

Please update your information to be accurate immediately, look on the World Council for Health website and obtain the news release for yourself. 216.170.174.123 (talk) 06:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * We dont take much notice of things randos say on the internetz. -Roxy the grumpy dog . wooF 06:03, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * OP formally alerted to AP2 and COVID sanctions. —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 06:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The World Council for Health looks like nonsense to me. They partner with known fringe organizations like the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons and do not strike me as a reliable source of information. I'm definitely going to dispute the 3.5 million injuries and 40,000+ deaths claim by the OP. Furthermore, Peter McCullough is not on trial here. We simply reflect what high-quality sources of information say about the misinformation and disinformation he spreads. There is no current Wikipedia page for World Council for Health. I'm not sure it's notable enough to merit a page. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:50, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no current Wikipedia page for World Council for Health &larr; there is now. Bon courage (talk) 16:13, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * With more than 170 organizations partner alliance you say it's not notable enough... surely a low profile, I wonder if this will be the OMS of the future ...?!?
 * [restate: "if this will be what OMS shold have been..."] 94.35.26.236 (talk) 23:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Dr. McCullough is right. All of the evidence demonstrates this.
Please stop promoting slander against Dr. McCullough. You do not have evidence to support what he's saying is wrong or misinformation. 172.87.11.215 (talk) 21:26, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Sure we do, it's in the article. Click on the little numbers. MrOllie (talk) 21:28, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If you're going to complain we don't "have evidence" then you should probably educate yourself on how Wikipedia works. —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 22:30, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 November 2022
Remove your false information relating to covid19 propaganda and Dr Peter McCullough. He has been thoroughly vindicated. Wikipedia continues to spread false covid19 information. 165.228.76.143 (talk) 05:01, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Bon courage (talk) 05:11, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

"Former" cardiologist
There are reports that he has been decertified. Would it then be more accurate to describe him as a former cardiologist and physician? 114.198.27.19 (talk) 02:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)


 * We'd need sources for that. —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 18:29, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * the IP address is probably referring to this: https://rumble.com/v1qipd7-dr.-peter-mccullough-loses-medical-license-over-covid-3945.html and this: https://www.lifesitenews.com/episodes/medical-establishment-threatens-to-revoke-dr-peter-mcculloughs-license-over-covid-stance/ - certainly not what I'd call reliable sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:44, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Peter McCulloch “misinformation “
There is disagreement amongst physicians about the correct way to handle COVID and at what age group the risk:benefit criteria fails with vaccines. To say giving emergency-use vaccines to extremely low risk patients fails the risk:benefit criteria is scientifically correct. I am a physician. To call this “misinformation “ is incorrect. Sincerely concerned physicians using well-established science who have challenged what the CDC is saying, have been threatened and silenced. That is why you are unable to hear dissent. At a minimum you should say “alleged” misinformation, and comment that many physicians and scientists disagree, because that is the truth. All patients, both Democrat and Republican, lose when experts and doctors are silenced. 47.137.163.58 (talk) 06:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "threatened and silenced" -- a wild claim. Any evidence for it?  You'd think the media would love it...  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The silencing must have happened fairly recently, because he appeared on Dr. Drew and on The Shannon Joy Show last August. Either that, or those silencers are pretty ineffective. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:28, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

On the word “threatened”, and, a process to revoke McCulloch’s certifications in internal medicine and cardiology has now been started by the American Board of Internal Medicine, and he says he understands that was under pressure from the Department of Homeland Security, which is very threatening indeed. We do not see here a case of professional misconduct, it is about a disagreement between professionals over the interpretation of medical statistics, and WP has little chance of establishing which side is correct. I guess we could find citations on both sides. I agree with Nomoskedasticity, there is no sign of McCulloch being silenced, but the effect of all this will be to silence the doctors who share his views, which is even more worrying. So I am with the IP physician who started the thread, but I would go further, I would prefer “allegedly incorrect information”. The word “misinformation” implies deliberate wrongdoing, and this is a senior academic. We can foresee a legal battle, and from that we may find out whether there was anything from McCulloch to justify the attempt to silence his side of the debate, but an encyclopaedia is not a judge. Moonraker (talk) 08:25, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, the repeated use of the word “falsely” must be wrong in a reference work. WP is here to give reliable information on notable topics, not to point a finger of vitriolic accusation at living people. Moonraker (talk) 08:30, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If calling something "false" is a "vitriolic accusation", then there is no point in doing any science or supplying any information on anything. Wikipedia can close shop. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:07, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * He said things that were false (including things that were dangerously false if people had believed them). How else are we supposed to word it?  "A number of his statements were diametrically opposed to truthfulness"? Black Kite (talk) 11:15, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

“Done to death”
, “done to death” can’t be said about my point on the word “falsely”. Per WP:BLP, to accuse a living person of acting “falsely” you need a citation for that to a RS, and even then it can still be defamatory, if the RS is defamatory. Let me take just one use of that word at random. The article now says

"“McCullough gave an interview in April 2021 to The New American, the magazine of the right-wing John Birch Society, in which he advanced anti-vaccination messaging, including falsely claiming tens of thousands of fatalities attributed to the COVID-19 vaccines.”"

This claim is cited from a statement in a sciencebasedmedicine.org article, The COVID-19 “Vaccine Holocaust”: The latest antivaccine messaging, by David Gorski, which reads "“Another example of this particular antivaccine messaging comes from a recent article in The Liberty Sentinel, “COVID vaccines killing huge numbers, warns leading doctor“. The doctor is someone I hadn’t actually heard of before, Dr. Peter McCullough.”"

That statement is supported by a link to an article (not I think an RS) in which Liberty Sentinel Staff summarize McCullough as saying in an interview: "”The COVID shot has already produced thousands of deaths and tens of thousands of hospitalizations, according to the federal government’s own data. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.”"

But this article links the interview it relies on, and in it McCullough does say “tens of thousands of hospitalizations”, he does not say “thousands of deaths” but “huge numbers of deaths”.

I see three points on this: (1) Gorski’s article is arguably an RS, but he does not accuse McCullough of claiming anything “falsely”. (2) There is obvious distortion here of “thousands of deaths and tens of thousands of hospitalizations” (a misquotation in a non-RS) into “falsely claiming tens of thousands of fatalities”. (3) In any event, to rely on this string of evidence at all means refuting a claim about federal government data.

I don’t think you would seriously defend this? Moonraker (talk) 03:19, 26 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Reviewing WP:BLP, it says “Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.” So I am going to correct it from the RS to read “including claiming huge numbers of hospitalizations…” Moonraker (talk) 03:34, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're presenting the whole story on that article. The article also says:
 * The list of bogus claims and errors only accelerates from there. [...] Here are just a few of the many bits of misinformation and disinformation spread by Dr. McCullough.
 * Basically, Dr. McCullough should have stuck to cardiology and renal disease, the two areas for which he was known prior to the pandemic that led him, as he characterized it in the video, to completely reorient the focus of his academic career. I guess the opportunity for grift and conspiracy theories was too much for him to resist.
 * ..someone like Dr. McCullough, who has an MPH in addition to his MD, should really, really, really know better. That he promotes antivaccine disinformation based on fear mongering about reports to VAERS of deaths and adverse events tells me one of two things. Either his MPH education failed him, or he’s lying. Take your pick.
 * If that's not enough to support the use of the word "falsely", then I really don't think your standard of evidence is reasonable. Your point about "tens of thousands of fatalities" is not unreasonable, as that claim is sourced from someone other than Dr. McCullough. But the answer is simply to remove the words "tens of", not to dispute "falsely". Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 03:37, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello. You have got here before I made a change, so let’s discuss it. A little ironically, Gorski is an oncologist, so one of his points also reflects against himself. As you say, he is very critical of McCullough, but he does not say “falsely”, and he also does not say “thousands of fatalities”, as McCullough also does not. He more politely suggests “either his MPH education failed him or…” I hardly think we can rely on a non-RS putting its own spin on an interview we can listen to. But my previous suggestion was wrong, I would now suggest (per Gorski) “including claiming huge numbers of deaths…” Moonraker (talk) 03:52, 26 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't think "his education failed him" is more polite, but sure, I don't have any objection to changing "thousands" to "huge numbers"; it's more vague but is essentially the same. You can go ahead and make that change as far as I'm concerned. Still think the word "falsely" is well-supported by the text of the article, though. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 04:02, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

, we clearly need to take out someone’s distortion of the sources. As an Admin, I do not see you adding back “falsely”, as it is contrary to WP:BLP. It’s one thing to be critical of someone’s professional abilities, quite another to make a claim of falsehood, which is dishonesty, that others can rely on. Gorski does not do that. Moonraker (talk) 04:15, 26 November 2022 (UTC)


 * In the section above, you say that The word “misinformation” implies deliberate wrongdoing, and as I quoted above, Gorski directly says that Dr. McCullough is spreading misinformation. So, yes, he does. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 04:22, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

A point that I missed,, is that so far as it is meaningful “huge numbers of deaths” appears to be correct, so it can hardly be definitely “false”. In any event, Gorski does not say that is “claimed falsely”. Moonraker (talk) 04:26, 26 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The subtitle of the article is The latest antivaccine disinformation consists of pointing to the large numbers of reports of death (and other adverse events) to the VAERS database. It’s nonsense. What do you think the article is calling "nonsense", if not the "large numbers of reports of deaths"? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 04:38, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "falsely" is entirely supported by the SBM article, especially "someone like Dr. McCullough, who has an MPH in addition to his MD, should really, really, really know better. That he promotes antivaccine disinformation based on fear mongering about reports to VAERS of deaths and adverse events tells me one of two things. Either his MPH education failed him, or he’s lying. Take your pick" Gorski uses data and reasoning to demonstrate that McCullough is spreading a false narratively about the vaccine and VAERS. He is falsely claiming that many thousands died from the vaccine. We aren't saying intentional, we aren't saying he knows better, but rather that he should know better, and that the claim itself is false. That's what our best available RSes say, per WP:MEDRS, WP:FRINGE, and WP:PARITY. —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 07:04, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * A point that I missed, Writ Keeper, is that so far as it is meaningful “huge numbers of deaths” appears to be correct, so it can hardly be definitely “false”. This is original research, which should never form the basis for the addition or removal of content on wikipedia. The Gorski article quite clearly demonstrates the claims themselves are false, and so we accurately report them here as false. Until such time you present an RS which directly states McCullough's claims are true, the rest of this debate/discussion is irrelevant/counting the number of angels on the head of a pin. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 07:44, 26 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Also, you are confusing misinformation and disinformation. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:30, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Moonraker, it's time to let it go. It is evident that your sense how that section should be rewritten is not going to gain consensus.  I wouldn't be surprised if other editors grow tired of responding to any continued efforts to push things in that direction.  Don't mistake silence for consent.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:30, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

When will you revise to a more neutral stance on COVID issues?
As more and more data comes out proving harm and deaths caused by the Vaccine and data is showing that the powers you rely on for this subject have been hugely false or corrupt...when will you revise this article for more balance? You simply state the CDC/NIH positions as fact when IN FACT they have been proven false. If you do not get more balanced, this info source could become more irrelevant and even legally liable for slander and propagation of false information. Many of your pieces on these truthful Doctors are in serious need of balance and attention by your editors or reviewers. Stop being one sided on these life and death issues. 2603:3015:214:C100:C1E7:2A73:5EA7:C746 (talk) 02:12, 3 December 2022 (UTC)


 * We will consider changing the article when you present reliable sources that support your claims, as always. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 03:08, 3 December 2022 (UTC)


 * There absolutely is not "more and more data...proving harm and deaths caused by the Vaccine". If anything, this article doesn't go far enough in describing how false McCullough's COVID claims are. For example, his latest insane whopper is claiming that the vaccine is contagious. &mdash; Red XIV (talk) 07:36, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Stop ranting about how we're wrong without actually backing up your argument with relevant high-quality sources. It makes you look like your opposition is based in politics and not policy. —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 07:38, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Style and tone
This entry is for a living person, but the style and tone are neither objective nor impartial. Using double-loaded phrasing as "falsely claiming," "debunked conspiracy theories" and the like to label differences of opinion by medical specialists with decades of experience does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for living persons. Inserting one's own opinion into the writing, and libeling such persons based solely on opinion pieces by journalists is both reckless and legally questionable behavior.

Entries like this can be written with a tone and style that do not convey bias, opinion, and an attempt to manipulate a reader's conclusions. Instead of loaded terms like "conspiracy theory," the correct (and ethical) style is along the lines of "his opinions about such treatments ran counter to those of many public health professionals and we're considered by many observers to represent a minority position."

Those who cannot write in this style, staying removed from an emotional, juvenile response, should probably refrain from editing such entries to avoid legal exposure and prevent damage to Wikipedia's credibility and brand.

Also troubling is that the entry states opinions several times without qualifiers, thus giving them the appearance of facts. Right from the jump, the writing makes statements such as "has spread misinformation" and "discredited treatments" even though no scientific consensus has been reached. In some cases, such as with childhood COVID mortality and ivermectin use, the statements are literally incorrect or incomplete. And reading the other topics here about censoring of opinions in light of what's dropped from the Twitter files of late is, frankly, a bit embarrassing.

There's really no excuse for this type of editorializing. Wikipedia has apparently fallen on hard times. I find it hard to believe that anyone can argue with sincerity that the style here is objective and evenhanded, because it is not. Injection of personal animus into what should be levelheaded writing not only is tiring to read (because one must spend extra time eliminating the unnecessary asides from one's analysis) but also lacks integrity. Writing should communicate, not create and sustain echo chambers. Stealthmouse (talk) 08:29, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * See WP:FALSEBALANCE. Wikipedia contextualizes fringe notions with a sensible, mainstream, framing. Bon courage (talk) 08:33, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think OrangeMike has it right on your Talk page. - Roxy the dog 08:35, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Who decided what is misinformation?
Who decides what is misinformation? 204.9.104.24 (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources. Zaathras (talk) 02:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Not an objective resource.
It is not up to Wikipedia to decide what is misinformation. By adding “opinions” about a subject, it automatically makes Wikipedia in its entirety, unreliable. 74.101.106.238 (talk) 14:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)


 * But it is... this IS wikipedia, so the users (editors) get to decide the rules. If you do not like that, you, as one single user, can propose a change. If it is widely popular, it might well be adopted. TY — Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 14:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Here is a good guide for 'reliable sources': Reliable sources/Perennial sources — Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 14:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * But we are totally correct about McCullough. - Roxy the dog 17:49, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 February 2023
Requesting the edit of the " During the COVID-19 pandemic, McCullough has promoted misinformation about COVID-19, its treatments, and mRNA vaccines.[4][5][6]" Based on several articles, but most notably is the recent article by the respected Wall Street Journal - "The Deceptive Campaign for Bivalent Covid Boosters", several of his comments that have been deemed as misinformation have been revealed to be truth by this article. The blanket paint brush of promoting misinformation is clearly doing the same thing of a blank brush of false claims toward him. Even the lawsuits against him from Baylor and those claiming false information have been dropped because of all of the recent information coming to light. 72.203.197.23 (talk) 19:32, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: McCullough is not mentioned in the article in question, so it cannot be used to invalidate existing statements. Primefac (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 March 2023
Dr McCullough was one of several doctors who promoted early treatment for Covid-19, rather than witing for a vaccine to be researched and developed. he saved many lives this way. 139.64.178.25 (talk) 01:06, 12 March 2023 (UTC)


 * McCullough pushed junk science, hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, which did not save any lives. This is addressed in the article. Zaathras (talk) 01:08, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * But the article has it wrong. Ivermectin is first of all an absolutely safe medication. It's used for over 30 years now and was given to people 4 billion times. Even the WHO lists ivermectin as one of the essential medications. Furthermore there are 95! studies confirming its good efficacy. "Ivermectin reduces risk for COVID-19 with very high confidence for mortality, ventilation, ICU admission, hospitalization, progression, recovery, cases, viral clearance, and in pooled analysis." 82% reduction in prophylaxis, 62% reduction in early treatment and 42% reduction in late treatment. See for yourself: Ivermectin for COVID-19: real-time meta analysis of 95 studies (ivmmeta) (c19ivm.org) 46.193.9.162 (talk) 13:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh gawd -- a self-published screed (no evidence at all of peer review) from the "Evidence-based Medical Consultancy" (https://www.e-bmc.co.uk/), available via Researchgate . Please do fuck off and stop wasting our time... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * . This is not an edit request, it's just a comment or complaint. It should have been reverted rather than answered. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:30, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Baylor's lawsuit vs McCullough
Needs to be updated to include the case dismissal with prejudice as reported on 2/1/23 by prnnewswire.com 2601:4C3:200:162E:E6DE:4CB8:24C2:FF4B (talk) 18:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Updated. Zaathras (talk) 03:47, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * FYI prnewswire is not a reliable source (WP:RS), as it is a WP:PRIMARY report that is not independent of the subject. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Misinformation
This article itself is full of misinformation and some rhetoric choices fringing on defamation:

E.g.: (1) "[H]e made false claims about COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines, including that people under 50 years of age and survivors do not need the vaccine and that there is no evidence of asymptomatic spread of COVID-19." People under 50 years of age surely do indeed have NO need whatsoever for Covid injections as the potential risk for such population is barely existant. Namely, under 40 if I remember corretly, people had more chances of dying or great harm of side-effects caused by the injections than of the disease itself. Besides, no one NEEDS a vaccine; one may choose the risks of the disease, which in the case of Covid and surely for this population are astonishingly low.

(2) "[H]uge numbers of fatalities attributed to the COVID-19 vaccines." This is a statistical fact. Normally, vaccines are removed from the marked after a few fatalities. The covid-injection victims count themselves in thousands of deaths, millions of other complications. This is truth, not misinformation!

(3) "[He h]as contradicted public health recommendations." This is, at best, opinion. Contradicting recommendations is not misinformation! Besides, the man's vast curriculum provides a much sturdier medical background than most people cited in the references of the Wikipedia page, which are mostly news' sites!

(4) "[D]isputing the necessity of vaccinations to achieve herd immunity." Again, a fact! Natural immunization has been found times over times more effective than artificial one.

Most examples of "misinformation" given in the article are pure fact! It is mind-blowing this has not been removed and corrected. 81.170.203.219 (talk) 13:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Your opinion on whether McCullough is correct is irrelevant. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and not on your opinion. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Remove Labeled misinformation Tag
As of July 2, 2023 released Pfizer documents( court ordered release) along with CDC statistics lend support Dr. McCullough initial statements of harmful effects on mandateded vaccines. 66.170.193.195 (talk) 15:47, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Link? Primefac (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Send us that link 67.22.173.172 (talk) 12:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 August 2023
During the COVID-19 pandemic, McCullough has promoted misinformation about COVID-19, its treatments
 * Edit Added:

Since the outset of the pandemic, Dr. McCullough has been a leader in the medical response to the COVID-19 disaster and has published “Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Infection” the first synthesis of sequenced multi-drug treatment of ambulatory patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 in the American Journal of Medicine and subsequently updated in Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine. He has dozens of peer-reviewed publications on the infection and has commented extensively on the medical response to the COVID-19 crisis in The Hill, America Out Loud, and on FOX NEWS Channel. Dr. McCullough testified multiple times in the US Senate, Texas Senate Committee on Health and Human Services, Arizona Senate and House of Representatives, Colorado General Assembly, New Hampshire Senate, Pennsylvania Senate, and South Carolina Senate concerning many aspects of the pandemic response. Dr. McCullough has had years of dedicated academic and clinical efforts in combating the SARS-CoV-2 virus and in doing so, has reviewed thousands of reports, participated in scientific congresses, group discussions, press releases, and has been considered among the world's experts on COVID-19. 65.25.249.199 (talk) 23:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * ❌ - Contradicts the cited sources. - MrOllie (talk) 23:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Some of the post above are statements of fact about things that Dr. McCullough has done. Statements of fact relevant to the COVID issue and McCullough should be included in the Wikipedia article about him.
 * Thanks. ChiliDogg17 (talk) 20:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Feel free to provide reliable sources that support the additions you wish to make. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Biased accusations without proof
Prove he is giving covid misinformation! PROVE IT BEFORE YOU LIBEL. 70.51.103.137 (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Following the statement "During the COVID-19 pandemic, McCullough has promoted misinformation about COVID-19, its treatments, and mRNA vaccines", there are 3 sources which can be viewed by clicking on the little blue 4, 5, and 6. Those sources all state that his claims are incorrect. Sources 27, 28, and 52 contain similar statements as to the veracity of his claims. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)My Talk Page 19:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Misinformation
Describing Dr Peter A McCullough as spreading misinformation regarding Covid vaccines is itself misinformation. I no longer support this website and have ceased all annual financial contributions. 194.223.16.64 (talk) 10:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * We the editors of Wikipedia wish you well in your future endeavours and are confident we can make do without your contributions. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Kind of snarky... ChiliDogg17 (talk) 20:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * More than someone deserves who tried to bribe Wikipedia into replacing sourced facts by their opinion. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:22, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure he did what you claim, but won't waste any time arguing with you about it. 2600:4040:7403:E200:95AF:430A:6F48:EB16 (talk) 20:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Remove statement, "McCullough has promoted misinformation about COVID-19, its treatments, and mRNA vaccines."
Remove statement, "McCullough has promoted misinformation about COVID-19, its treatments, and mRNA vaccines." It is becoming more clear that the U.S. government via social media networks and other ways tried to cover up issues and actually did concerning COVID-19 and censor the truth. It is clear that Wikipedia is taking part of the censorship/coverup also. Wikipedia's stance agrees with "Big Pharma." The truth which agrees with facts must be presented even though people do not like or want to hear it. A good example of Wikipedia's bias is shown by the article about Dr. Anthony Fauci. No negative issues were laid against him even though he contradicted himself, gave false information and helped fund the gain of function research in Wuhan, China. The bias of Wikipedia is evident in other ways relating to health related issues. WCarp (talk) 04:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Please, by all means, provide references/sources for your proposed changes. It's required. Primefac (talk) 08:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Primefac,
 * Thanks for your concern about keeping bias out of Wikipedia and for providing references/sources for proposed changes.
 * With that in mind, the information and link below provide relevant information about Dr. McCullough's COVID claims, which will help make the article more complete. Can you help incorporate it into the article or refer it to someone who can? Editing of this article is limited to a select group, apparently, so I can't make the changes myself. Thank you in advance.
 * The following, from a 2021 CNN article, says that Dr. McCullough was putting out misinformation when he said that getting the COVID vaccine does not keep vaccinated people from getting COVID. Several medical authorities claimed it did, but we now know that you can get COVID even if you get the vaccine. On this point, Dr. McCullough was correct about COVID, so it should be added to the article to make it complete.
 * From CNN.com:
 * "[Judge] Doughty summed up that in the viewpoint of the doctor, Peter McCollough, 'COVID-19 vaccines do not prevent transmission of the disease among the vaccinated or mixed vaccinated/unvaccinated populations, and that mandatory COVID-19 vaccines for hospitals do not increase safety for employees or hospital patients.'
 * Doughty – a federal judge in Louisiana who was appointed by Trump – cited those false assertions as a reason that it made 'no sense' for the agency’s policy to mandate vaccines without other alternatives."
 * https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/10/politics/judges-vaccine-culture-war-mandate-opinions/index.html
 * Please let me know if you have any questions.
 * Thank you,
 * Charles ChiliDogg17 (talk) 20:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not totally sure what you're trying to add to the Wikipedia article here, ChiliDogg17. My best guess is that what you're trying to say is that McCullough's claims aren't misinformation? If so, the CNN article does not support your case. It says in its own voice that McCullough holds fringe opinions about Covid-19 vaccines, and that he said falsely that the Covid-19 vaccines...do not prevent transmission of the disease among vaccinated people (emphasis mine), so it actually works against you. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * To be fair, they don't prevent transmission. However, I am unaware that anyone ever claimed that the vaccine would prevent transmission, only that it would reduce transmission rates (unless they were talking about complete herd immunity, such as that which eliminated smallpox). For example, the flu vaccine is around 60% effective at preventing transmission, so I would be surprised if it had been claimed that the COVID one was any different.  Also, the other part of McCullough's sentence ("mandatory COVID-19 vaccines for hospitals do not increase safety for employees or hospital patients") is clearly untrue. Black Kite (talk) 20:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Black Kite, thanks for your reply. Actually, major US medical authorities did say the covid vaccines would prevent the vaccinated from getting infected:
 * Dr. Rochelle Walensky, CDC Director, stated: "Vaccinated people do not carry the virus and don't get sick." She got some pushback from the medical and scientific community for this statement, but only because they said the risk is very, very small, but not zero. The data now show the risk is greater than they thought.
 * Dr. Anthony Fauci, NIAID Director, stated: "When people are vaccinated they're not going to get infected." (I'm trying to find the date he said this.) In "The Hill, 5/16/21, Fauci said that fully vaccinated people become "dead ends" for COVID-19. He explained, "So even though there are breakthrough infections with vaccinated people almost always the people are asymptomatic and the level of virus is so low that it makes it extremely unlikely - not impossible but very, very low likelihood - that they're going to transmit it." Of course, we now know they can get full blown COVID and transmit it.
 * Later, in early August, 2021, in an interview with Katie Couric (in an article by Tess Bonn on Katie Couric Media, 8/5/21), he stated that vaxxed and unvaxxed have the same level of virus in the nasal pharynx and "so you can make a reasonable assumption that they can be equivalent in how they transmit."
 * (As an aside, President Biden said, "You're not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations." Of course, he is not a medical authority, though he is informed by them about COVID.)
 * So at least 2 major medical authorities in the government, who are accepted by Wikipedia as authorities, stated either the vaxxed would not get COVID or they are very, very unlikely to transmit the virus. From what I have read, those statements are not now considered to be accurate.
 * As for the other part of McCullough's sentence ("mandatory COVID-19 vaccines for hospitals do not increase safety for employees or hospital patients"), I have not have a chance to look into that yet, and I do not assume anything. If you have any information you can refer me to about it, I'd be glad to read it.
 * Given that Dr. Fauci says the vaxxed and unvaxxed transmit the virus equally, then it could be that vaccinated medical staff present the biggest risk of transmission to patients. How is that? The sick unvaccinated person wouldn't go to work, while the vaccinated spreader who is asymptomatic would. That's something to think about.
 * Thanks,
 * Charles 2600:4040:7403:E200:570:4D11:F31C:B47D (talk) 07:05, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Writ Keeper, thank you for your reply. I'm not sure why you had difficulties understanding my point, but apologies if I was not clear. Nowhere did I say that the misinformation section is wrong. I'll give it another go.
 * I was writing about one specific claim that is not mentioned in the misinformation section. Dr. McCullough was accused of putting out misinformation when he said that getting the COVID vaccine does not keep vaccinated people from getting COVID.
 * I quoted the CNN article as evidence of the claim that his view was misinformation.
 * The CNN writer said it was misinformation, but now we know that vaccinated people get COVID, too. These are called breakthrough infections. It sounds like you still think this information is false, but it's widely accepted now.
 * Information that is factually correct, relevant, and in context should be included. We don't leave information out because someone is wrong about other claims or because we don't like him. I'm sure you see my point and agree.
 * Thanks for your time.
 * Chili Dogg 2600:4040:7403:E200:95AF:430A:6F48:EB16 (talk) 20:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You are drawing a fine distinction here, one that McCullough did not make. If he had said what you're saying rather than what he actually did say we might need to change the article. That's not what happened, though. MrOllie (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * MrOllie, thanks for your reply. Could you elaborate on what fine distinction you think I am drawing here? It's not clear to me from your response, and it would be helpful to know. Perhaps I am and I don't realize it, but I am unclear what it is you mean, so I don't know.
 * Regards,
 * ChiliDogg 2600:4040:7403:E200:570:4D11:F31C:B47D (talk) 07:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The opinions you are ascribing to McCullough do not match what he said. We take him at his word. And more importantly, the cited sources do as well. You can argue all you like that the sources were wrong to do that, but that is simply not going to matter because that is not how Wikipedia articles are written. MrOllie (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * MrOllie is quite correct (as is Black Kite); saying that getting the COVID vaccine does not keep vaccinated people from getting COVID is at best misleading. It is absolutely true that the COVID vaccines are not 100% effective at preventing any new COVID infections; it is trivially true that there are breakthrough infections. This is true of almost any vaccine; most vaccines do not confer the sterilizing immunity that such 100% effectiveness require. But saying that getting the COVID vaccine does not keep vaccinated people from getting COVID implies that the COVID vaccine does nothing to help someone avoid getting COVID, which is equally untrue. It *Does* keep vaccinated people from getting COVID, it just doesn't do so 100% of the time. This is why the CNN article calls it misinformation.
 * But regardless of this nuance, what you're proposing is what Wikipedia refers to as original research, which is not allowed as a basis for adding content to a Wikipedia article. You are saying that your own observations and conclusions are contradicting a reliable source, but your own observations and conclusions themselves are not reliable sources as far as Wikipedia is concerned. If you want to change this sentence, then you will need a reliable source that specifically asserts that Dr. McCullough saying "getting the COVID vaccine does not keep vaccinated people from getting COVID" is not misinformation. We have a reliable source that specifically notes that this was a false statement, and you will need reliable sources that specifically counter this if you want it to change in the Wikipedia article. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 21:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Writ Keeper:
 * You state, "saying that getting the COVID vaccine does not keep vaccinated people from getting COVID is at best misleading."
 * I presume that you would say at worst that it is a lie. Is that right? Of course, we both know that *some* vaccinated people get COVID. It sounds like you read the statement to mean that McCullough says that *no* vaccinated person gets any protection from COVID by the vaccine. Is that how you were reading that statement? I didn't read it that way. I read it to mean that vaxxed people could still get COVID, though the vaccine would keep some people from getting it. Some vaxxed people would get it, but not all.
 * Now, since we are talking about McCullough's view, I'll say that I haven't seen him explicitly say the vaccine doesn't keep *anyone* from getting COVID. You state that his claim "implies" something, so neither of us know exactly how he meant that statement. I am no McCullough expert, so maybe he has said that. If so, then based on medical authorities acceptable to this site, the statement would be false. That could be the case. I would have to research it to be certain exactly how he means it before I can reach a firm conclusion.
 * You state, "But saying that getting the COVID vaccine does not keep vaccinated people from getting COVID implies that the COVID vaccine does nothing to help someone avoid getting COVID, which is equally untrue."
 * Per my comments above, it depends how you read it.
 * Thanks for explaining the editing process on Wikipedia. I understand the process and the rationale for it, but it does have some issues. Say, *HYPOTHETICALLY*, that we all agreed that McCullough was right about a specific claim related to COVID. We researched it and found conclusive evidence that he was correct about that claim. We concluded his claim was factually correct, relevant, and in context. What then? Well, it wouldn't matter a hill of beans. We couldn't update the article with information that we all agreed was correct, relevant, and in context.
 * Why? Because the scientific authorities acceptable to Wikipedia, you, and probably most who would edit this page, would likely NEVER say publicly that McCullough was right about *anything*. Let's be real here. Even if they thought he was only 95 percent wrong and 5 percent right, they're not to mention the 5 percent. Could you imagine Dr. Fauci ever saying publicly, "Yeah, I hate to admit it, but Dr. McCullough was right when he said vaccinated people could still get COVID and transmit the virus." It ain't gonna happen!
 * The end result is that it is both a strength and a weakness; the latter because Wikipedia is beholden to whoever it considers authorities. Those authorities will sometimes get things wrong, but those who contradict the authorities will be written off here. Those who rely on the authorities can become resistant to listening to other voices. They can suppress them. (The authorities in power do the same. See Dr. Fauci's sending someone out publicly to shoot down the claim that COVID came out of the Wuhan lab, which claim is now fairly widely accepted.) Of course, the scientific community corrects some of its errors over time, but scientists are human, too, and those with power can be corrupted like anybody else.
 * OK, enough of that. I will do some research to see exactly what McCullough meant by his claim, per my comments above. Thank you for your time.
 * Regards,
 * Chili Dogg 2600:4040:7403:E200:570:4D11:F31C:B47D (talk) 08:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I know that with all the conspiratorial nonsense you just posted, this will almost certainly fall on deaf ears, but I will try once more: it doesn't matter what we as editors think. The article doesn't say this is misinformation because I, or any other Wikipedia editor, thinks that McCullough meant that the COVID vaccine is completely ineffective. The whole point of verifiability is that we don't make that call, because we are not qualified to do so; any random reader should not trust the opinion of someone pseudonymously named "Writ Keeper" than they should someone named "Chili Dogg". The only thing we can do do have even the beginning of reliability is to cite reliable sources for the information in our articles. So that's what we do. If you find yourself habitually unable to trust reliable sources, then I'm afraid you're not going to have much success editing Wikipedia.
 * I assure you, CNN also knows about the existence of breakthrough infections, and that vaccines are almost never 100% effective, and they aren't trying to hiding that fact. Yet they still saw fit to label that claim false, so we do too. The logic I gave above is an example of why one might draw that conclusion, but it's not *the* reason it's in the article; it's in the article because a reliable source indicated it as such. Reliable sources can still get things wrong, of course, but the way to address that is with other reliable sources, not with your own say-so. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 14:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Look, I’ve argued in good faith here. I’ve been civil, made rational arguments, provided references, and admitted when I didn’t know something. It’s a cheap shot for you to reply with name calling in an attempt to label and dismiss what I wrote. Personal attacks should not be part of the discussion. That said, I try not to worry about things I can’t control, and your poor behavior is one of those things. That’s on you and up to you to correct. However, I won’t reply to your future posts unless you behave decently and don’t resort to name calling.
 * You can spare me the lecture about how the editing process works. As I wrote in my previous post, I understand the process and the rationale for citing reliable authorities and not allowing “original research”. My point is that there are tradeoffs in relying on governmental bureaucracies as sources of information. Anybody who knows anything about history and government would see that point (Tuskegee experiment, forced sterlizations, etc). Scientists make mistakes, so we need to keep in mind the tentative nature of their conclusions, which often change over time. Of course, the fact that the most of the issues are scientific, and that others can test the validity of the government’s conclusions, does help keep the bureaucracies in their lane.
 * That said, there are still issues with the government bureaucracies. For example, early in the pandemic, some scientists alleged that the virus came from the Wuhan lab, Dr. Fauci did not task someone to *investigate* the claim; he told someone to publicly *refute* the claim, even though he had no proof of where the virus came from. (His email with the order has been made public.) The views of the questioning scientists were attacked by the authorities.
 * In addition, it’s an issue that some government medical officials, such as Fauci, went beyond advising our elected representatives and were widespread on media saying what he thinks the government should do in reaction to COVID, based on his high level of caution, a level that many others don’t accept. That included Fauci coming out in favor of forced (“mandated”) vaccinations, which is a controversial and debatable position. He was arguing that society should follow his level of risk acceptance, though it’s actually the job of elected officials to decide such policies in conjunction with their constituents.
 * Putting McCullough aside for the moment, it is clear that the CDC and other medical authorities underestimated the issue of vaccinated people getting COVID and transmitting it. The most extreme statement was from CDC Director Walensky on MSNBC in March, 2021 (link below): “Our data from the CDCs today suggests um you know that that vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don’t get sick, um, and it’s not just in the clinical trials, but it’s also in real-world data.” The increase was due to the later rise of the Delta variant, but we knew variants would come along and reduce the effectiveness of the vaccine, so she got out over her skis on that one. This info should probably be documented elsewhere on Wikipedia and not on this page. Maybe it already is.
 * https://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-director-data-vaccinated-people-do-not-carry-covid-19-2021-3?r=US&IR=T
 * https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/08/breakthrough-covid-19-cases-may-be-a-bigger-problem.html
 * As for McCullough, I know that most, if not all, of McCullough’s views on COVID are rejected by the scientific community. I didn’t argue against the points in the misinformation section already on his Wikipedia article. I merely brought up the issues of breakthrough infections and vaccinated people transmitting the virus, and McCullough’s views on these issues. After some more research, my conclusion now is that he expected breakthrough infections and transmission by vaccinated to occur, but for the wrong reason - that he thought the vaccines wouldn’t provide any benefit.
 * If I’m wrong, reply with arguments and evidence, and I’ll reply. Otherwise, I won’t care and I won’t waste my time. 2600:4040:7403:E200:D3E:FED:42EC:547D (talk) 18:17, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a pretty obvious WP:NOTFORUM violation. This isn't a place to debate whether the CDC was correct or not. MrOllie (talk) 18:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * OMG, a WP:NOTFORUM violation!! Egad! Uh, OK, thanks, MrOllie. 2600:4040:7403:E200:A93A:2A56:5A01:C970 (talk) 03:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/08/breakthrough-covid-19-cases-may-be-a-bigger-problem.html
 * As for McCullough, I know that most, if not all, of McCullough’s views on COVID are rejected by the scientific community. I didn’t argue against the points in the misinformation section already on his Wikipedia article. I merely brought up the issues of breakthrough infections and vaccinated people transmitting the virus, and McCullough’s views on these issues. After some more research, my conclusion now is that he expected breakthrough infections and transmission by vaccinated to occur, but for the wrong reason - that he thought the vaccines wouldn’t provide any benefit.
 * If I’m wrong, reply with arguments and evidence, and I’ll reply. Otherwise, I won’t care and I won’t waste my time. 2600:4040:7403:E200:D3E:FED:42EC:547D (talk) 18:17, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a pretty obvious WP:NOTFORUM violation. This isn't a place to debate whether the CDC was correct or not. MrOllie (talk) 18:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * OMG, a WP:NOTFORUM violation!! Egad! Uh, OK, thanks, MrOllie. 2600:4040:7403:E200:A93A:2A56:5A01:C970 (talk) 03:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a pretty obvious WP:NOTFORUM violation. This isn't a place to debate whether the CDC was correct or not. MrOllie (talk) 18:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * OMG, a WP:NOTFORUM violation!! Egad! Uh, OK, thanks, MrOllie. 2600:4040:7403:E200:A93A:2A56:5A01:C970 (talk) 03:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Bias with no evidence
Remove statement, "McCullough has promoted misinformation about COVID-19, its treatments, and mRNA vaccines. Irresponsible of Wikipedia. McCullough is a world recognized physician and expert. 47.160.81.186 (talk) 20:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia reports what reliable sources report. He is also a world recognized promoter of misinformation, as reliable sources clearly demonstrate. If you have a problem with the cited sources, point them out. If you have reliable sources to present, then present them. Simply kvetching about something you personally don't like isn't going to get any traction on any article on Wikipedia. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Question about footnotes
I have a question about footnotes. A paragraph in the section "COVID-19 Misinformation" refers to two interviews that Dr. McCullough gave, but the footnotes in that section (footnotes #24 and #30) do not have links to those interviews. Instead, those footnotes link to articles that refute his claims. Shouldn't those footnotes have links to the interviews that the paragraph discusses? I think that's how footnotes are normally used. Thanks in advance for any help. 2600:4040:7403:E200:A93A:2A56:5A01:C970 (talk) 03:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia prefers secondary sources (sources which discuss an interview) rather than primary sources (the interview itself). See No_original_research. MrOllie (talk) 03:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link about the use of sources. Primary sources are restricted out of concern for keeping out original research, but they are not completely forbidden.
 * In the paragraphs I referred to, there would be no issue of original research. The paragraphs could simply include links to the interviews alongside the existing footnotes, which contain the preferred secondary sources that the critique is based on. *Adding the links would not change any text in the article*.
 * A link to the interviews would allow people to read the interviews for themselves, without creating any original research. It would be nice to be able to access the information that is referred to in the article and that the secondary sources use. 104.234.53.98 (talk) 05:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * they are not completely forbidden A better statement is directly from the quoted rule: A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.
 * That is not what those interviews are. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:12, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the rule quote, Hob. The rule is straight from the horse's mouth, as they say. Applying the rule in this case, these two paragraphs may not include footnotes about the interviews referred to in this article.
 * Just to factually describe how the rule works here: we may add footnotes with links to articles that refute McCullough's claims in his interviews, but we may not add footnotes with links to his interviews to allow anyone to read them.
 * I think I got that right, but if anything in that description is factually incorrect, please let me know. Thanks! 2600:4040:7403:E200:C838:3C65:E889:69B2 (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * we may add footnotes with links to articles that refute McCullough's claims in his interviews Only if those articles are reliable sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:31, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Got it! I guess if I want to read what he actually said, I'll have to go find the interview myself. 2600:1700:D78:C880:F516:AFB0:9533:EE97 (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

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