Talk:Peter A. McCullough

“McCullough has promoted misinformation about COVID-19, its treatments, and mRNA vaccines.[4][5][6]”

The citations provide no specific verifiable evidence of misinformation in McCulloughs statements. Elsewhere, there is no evidence the vaccines worked. As in provide immunity and prevent the transmissibility of COVID-19. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.103.116.196 (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

:We do not require citations to provide 'specific verfiable evidence' to your personal standards. They support the text of the article as required by Wikipedia's policies and that is enough for us. MrOllie (talk) 17:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

::Why shouldn't the line read: {{green|"“McCullough has spoken skeptically about the existence of COVID-19, its treatments, and mRNA vaccines.”}}? 2A0A:EF40:970:8401:CDE:A59B:ECA3:D35C (talk) 16:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

:::Because the sources tell us that he has promoted misinformation. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

::::Ahh, a "fact check" service that [https://www.allsides.com/news-source/afp-fact-check-media-bias shows bias] in selected topics. It was only four years ago that the leader of the free world told us that we were [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VArXfQU--LA "not going to get Covid if we've had the vaccination"]. "Misinformation" now, [https://www.nhs.uk/vaccinations/covid-19-vaccine/#:~:text=Information%3A,catching%20and%20spreading%20COVID%2D19 of course]. 2A0A:EF40:970:8401:44A8:19A:FA44:167D (talk) 21:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::His certification has been revoked for spreading disinformation. Your personal belief in that disinformation doesn’t change the facts. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::That looks like more of an indicator of AllSides being biased, rather than AFP Fact Check being biased. — Red XIV ^(talk) 14:31, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

::::those sources are wrong and there has been quite a lot of forth coming information about the effectiveness of ivermectin and other treatments. To preserve honest reporting and unbiased information, you should appropriately update this. 184.19.40.178 (talk) 02:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Wikipedia will follow the mainstream medical sourcing on this, which has not changed. We're simply not going to take the word of people who come to the talk page and claim that these 'sources are wrong'. MrOllie (talk) 02:53, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7534595/

HCQ is consistently effective against COVID-19 when provided early in the outpatient setting, it is overall effective against COVID-19, it has not produced worsening of disease and it is safe. 2600:1012:B1A8:F61:4CAB:FA58:3534:1DDC (talk) 05:41, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

:Science moved on from 2020. Bon courage (talk) 05:51, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

::That's not "According to NIH" either. SmartSE (talk) 09:47, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Quite: WP:MEDFAQ#PUBMEDRIGHT. Bon courage (talk) 10:50, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

A bit of a two-sided request. The first is that the parenthetical "the spike protein causes cell death" as an example of misinformation in the body is not really correct in context - many studies have suggested spike protein is apoptotic - just not widespread in the context of vaccination and it's limited by cell type, exposure method, etc. Not uncommon for vaccines to cause some local inflammation in general, just vaccines cause much less than the illness itself and have exceptionally low severe side effect rates. See for example the Nature review https://www.nature.com/articles/s41392-023-01580-8 on some in-context cytotoxicity results. I would suggest easier to just remove this "the spike protein causes cell death" phrase from the parenthetical examples of misinformation and leave the other two. The alternative is to clarify exactly what he meant by it and why it's wrong, which would work too but I really don't want to listen to him any more than I've had to, and not really Wikpiedia's job to primary-source-factcheck.

Also, the article perhaps does not explain enough the extent of his vaccine misinformation as to warrant license revocation, even though it can and should. E.g. it's not particularly radical to express disagreement with public health officials or not recommend COVID vaccine to people under 30 (e.g. I believe a CNN contributor Dr. Wen, a former medical director at planned parenthood, questioned some public health recs, and plenty of advisory board members have questioned vaccination in young people). Additionally, the general statement in the body that he claimed vaccines are dangerous is not very specific. These are not the reasons his license was questioned, and the only sentence in the body that reveals why is the statement that he was "falsely claiming huge numbers of fatalities attributed to the COVID-19 vaccines".

I think for his particularly egregious promotion of vaccine information, it is important to HIGHLIGHT WHAT HE DID THAT LED TO REQUESTS FOR LICENSE RECOVACATION, rather than equivocating it with other actions which are not anywhere near as egregious. I would add the lines "He claimed there is no reason for adults under the age of 50 to be vaccinated, in contrast with virtually all doctor advisory opinions" (https://factcheck.afp.com/us-cardiologist-makes-false-claims-about-covid-19-vaccination) and "he claimed vaccines had killed tens of thousands of Americans" (https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/features/113624) including by clear false misinformation exaggerating the body of evidence on cardiovascular conditions after COVID-19 vaccination (https://science.feedback.org/review/flawed-analysis-peter-mccullough-promote-baseless-claim-brain-blood-clots-112000-more-likely-after-covid-vaccine-than-flu-vaccine/), claimed effects on immune function (https://science.feedback.org/review/false-positive-hiv-tests-dont-imply-person-immunodeficient-contrary-claim-peter-mccullough/), and incorrect claims about a published article's data on vaccines in pregnancy (https://science.feedback.org/review/peter-mccullough-misinterprets-study-covid19-vaccination-pregnancy-study-shows-vaccines-safe-for-pregnant-women/)." Scienceturtle1 (talk) 12:31, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

{{edit extended-protected|Peter A. McCullough|answered=no}}

is it necessary to mention disinformation so many times? 68.59.149.162 (talk) 21:47, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

{{Edit extended-protected}}

• What I think should be changed (format using {{tl|textdiff}}):

His appearance and speech on May 2025 in the US Senate should be added at the bottom of the "COVID-19 misinformation" section, and it could go something like this:

In May 2025, McCullough testified before the United States Senate claiming that 73.9% of all deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic were caused by COVID-19 vaccines or related to them. He based such claims on a discredited scientific study, "A systematic review of autopsy findings in deaths after COVID-19 vaccination," which was heavily criticized for its methodological flaws.

• Why it should be changed:

It's a relevant appearance of the scientist where he also spreads misinformation about a topic listed in the article.

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

(These are the references about the falsehood of the article he cites to assert those claims)

https://factico.org/fact-checks/ciencia/estudio-concluye-autopsias-muertes-causadas-vacunas-covid-19-fallas-criticas/

https://www.factcheck.org/2024/07/flawed-autopsy-review-revives-unsupported-claims-of-covid-19-vaccine-harm-censorship/

Mllhnkz (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

{{reftalk}}