Talk:Pierre Kory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pierre Kory article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. The entire article relates to the following contentious topics:
|
 | There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the Wikipedia policies on canvassing and neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Wikipedia are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote. |
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.
- 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) - 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) - 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)
Ivermectin has been proven to be especially effective if taken during early stages of COVID-19
Being obstinate is not helpful. This is why wikipedia is not taken seriously. Post ALL the facts whether you like it or not, this is not supposed to be a forum for personal agendas and grievances. *telltruther* (talk) 12:04, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
- https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8312054/
- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166354220302011
- https://c19ivm.org/meta.html *telltruther* (talk) 12:05, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
- Honestly, I have no idea what you want to tell us with those three "refs". The first two dont comply with our guidelines on sources, and the last one is just wierd, I cant make head or tail of it. - Roxy the dog 13:25, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
- The last one is one of the misinformation sites, covered at Ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic. Bon courage (talk) 13:30, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
- There are a lot of sites that have been labeled as misinformation and are not. It's time to let it go *telltruther* (talk) 13:48, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
- WP:CGTW#14 strikes again. Bon courage (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
- There are a lot of sites that have been labeled as misinformation and are not. It's time to let it go *telltruther* (talk) 13:48, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
- The last one is one of the misinformation sites, covered at Ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic. Bon courage (talk) 13:30, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
- Honestly, I have no idea what you want to tell us with those three "refs". The first two dont comply with our guidelines on sources, and the last one is just wierd, I cant make head or tail of it. - Roxy the dog 13:25, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
It's not just COVID. Kory has gone all-in anti-vax for all vaccines.
Misinformation
This article appears to be a biased taken down of Pierre Kory with large amounts of misinformation. The writer cherry picks research to support their position and omits research contradicting their conclusions. For example, the write misleads readers and false accuses Kory of wrongly claiming that Ivermectin reduces viral load when in fact some peer literature does support this claims: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9262706/ 64.119.10.237 (talk) 01:26, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- On Wikipedia we are required to follow the cited reliable sources, not our personal interpretations of primary source medical studies. Also, kindly do not add your personal commentary into the article again. Thanks! MrOllie (talk) 01:34, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- This is not personnal comments. Ivermectine effectiveness against Covid has been scientifically proven in plenty of research. And you know it.
- Wickipedia is propaganda and they ask us money for it. Disgusting! ~2026-24053-5 (talk) 10:29, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
Category concern
is it really accurate to have him included in Category:American pulmonologists? Seeing as he is no longer a licensed medical practitioner, I don't think he can legally refer to himself as such. EllieDellie (talk) 22:55, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- That someone once fit into a category but does not anymore is not a valid reason to remove it - Robert Koch does not do medicine anymore either because he is dead.
- The question is rather: did he ever meet the notability requirements for the category, or does he only have an article because of his COVID misinformation? --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:56, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
Book
According to Google Books, Pierre Kory has published a book entitled "The War on Chlorine Dioxide." There is coverage from Wired and Propublica (with additional coverage from Mediaite). I'm debating about how this might be incorporated. ScienceFlyer (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2026 (UTC)