Talk:Paul E. Marik

Some information is undue

The article has two paragraphs out of four, containing isolated events and recent events that are in the news. The information in these paragraphs (they are the last 2 in the article) are sourced well (except for the WAVY-TV piece which leans more into poor source territory, in my opinion) but they violate WP:BALASP. I suggest we either expand the whole article so that these 2 paragraphs do not stands as the 50% of the material, or summarize their information to keep the essential and leave out the details. Forich (talk) 20:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

There's not much secondary coverage of the guy, so Wikipedia needs to base itself on what there is. If there's more, great! expand away ... Alexbrn (talk) 20:43, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Status quo destabilizer undue to be in the lead

The lead currently finishes with this sentence: Marik has called himself a "status quo destabilizer". If one follows the trail of references to this fact it ends up in the way Marik signed a guest post in the website EMCrit. Reading further into it, one finds that EMCrit is a blog in which the owners say they "post a full ~20-minute podcast. In between, the site gets filled with blogposts, links, and EMCrit Wees (minature podcasts)". So, Marik submitted a guest blog post in this informal casual internet thing, he signed it with "status quo destabilizer" and now we use it in the lead on his Wikipedia entry? Imagine if Barack Obama had signed a blog post somewhere like "frustrated basketball player" and someone dared to add that to the lead to his Wikipedia, it is likely not due. Please, either remove it entirely or place it in the body of the article with some more context.Forich (talk) 18:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree that adding context (as secondary sources describe it) or moving the quote out of the top would be better for MOS:LEADREL. Llll5032 (talk) 19:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• I suppose the test is not whether or not Wikipedia editors reckon it's apt, but whether an author in a reputable publication (JAMA!?!) thinks it is. Alexbrn (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Is another test whether, once the context is added, it sounds like it belongs at the top? Llll5032 (talk) 05:01, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, that's partly a style question. It sets the overall scene nicely I think in a not-too-contentious way - if it's how the guy likes to refer to himself AND has been picked-up by a good source, then what's the issue? Should we be calling him a "fringe doctor" (per Business Insider[1]) instead? (Add - though looking at the lead we should probably be saying that Marik is a prominent exponent of treatment misinformation wrt COVID-19.) Alexbrn (talk) 05:09, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the top needs more information, probably about both FLCCC and the Marik protocol. I think the quote would fit well in that context. Llll5032 (talk) 05:33, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn and Forich, I added to the top. Llll5032 (talk) 18:57, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I disagree that the inclusion of "Marik has called himself a "status quo destabilizer" is partly a style question. We have MOS:LEADBIO clearly pointing that The lead section should summarise the life and works of the person with due weight. Then, we are directed to WP:WEIGHT, saying Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3]. The sentence in which we added a playful/irreverent self-description used by Marik in the signing section of a blog post, can not be justified by "well, one Reliable Source picked up that he called himself like that and considered that it described him well along with a context of him being criticized for recommending an unproven treatment for sepsis". For me, there are only two ways in which this sentence can be DUE for the lead:

• There is a definitive biography of Marik, in which the biographer repeats the self-description of "a status quo destabilizer" as a good overall depiction of the subject
• There are many RS that acknowledge and validate the label as a fair representation of Marik's life/work

If neither of these conditions are met, I stand by my point to move the sentence out of the lead. I am not opposed to having it in the body, it expands on understanding better the controversy on his proposed treatment for sepsis.Forich (talk) 20:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm somewhat surprised that anti-fringe editors are supporting inclusion of a self-applied label from a physician who spreads misinformation regarding ivermectin. The tone of this article, and talk page comments, is quite different from similar ivermectin proponents Peter A. McCullough and Pierre Kory. Isn't it standard procedure to at least slap on Category:COVID-19 misinformation to all who misinform? Curious. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Your WP:POINT ? Alexbrn (talk) 06:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Why not simply say that you disagree to its inclusion, instead of posting such strange arguments? Also, no BLP is particularly examplary to be a template for the others... —PaleoNeonate – 06:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent about the quote in the lead. It could both sound promotional or damning. It might also be considered unnecessary trivia... —PaleoNeonate – 06:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Moving the quote out of the top could be the right compromise. Llll5032 (talk) 00:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I think it's best in the lede as setting the scene. If something could be found to replace it with a similar purpose, then okay. But until then it's good. Alexbrn (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Further developments

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hospital privilege suspended, apparently.[2] Alexbrn (talk) 17:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

And he sued the hospital: www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/95725 Interesting to see that whenever Ivermectin pops up in a Wiki article, the same editors have to comment on it with non-neutral words like "erroneous". One of Wiki's founders saw it coming and doesn't trust what he created anymore: youtu.be/l0P4Cf0UCwU Otaku00 (talk) 10:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

If Qanon's your thing, fine; just don't expect it to get traction here. Wikipedia goes a different way, prizing accepted knowledge rather than crankery. Alexbrn (talk) 12:21, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

My thing is a neutral viewpoint and coverage of a wide range of facts, and it was Wiki's co-founder's thing, too - not partial knowledge. Just look how you pointed at the Ivermectin profits without mentioning those of Biontech that are way bigger. Otaku00 (talk) 12:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Non-neutrality

There's a difference between saying "The CDC and NIH don't believe this, and a recent poll says that 95% of doctors don't believe it, and also shows that the 5% of doctors who DO believe it also believe that hurricanes are caused by malicious Martians" and saying "discredited". The former is a fact, that latter is a conclusion drawn from the fact. GIVE me that fact, and I WILL draw that conclusion, but DO NOT tell me what conclusion I SHOULD draw. Take for instance text in the article as of the date of this my talk-page post: "is a co-leader of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), which has misleadingly advocated for the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin to treat COVID-19". Ummm, the use of the word "misleadingly" is absolutely not permissible by Wikipedia's standards, although the well-sourced clause that immediately follows (as of the date of this post) "against the advice of leading health agencies" is totally permissible. Writing "Almost all doctors and health-agencies are convinced beyond doubt that this is false and that the methods used to argue for its allegedly being true are disreputable, underhanded, and fallacy-ridden." is justified, but writing "This is false." is a heinous disregard for neutrality and "fact-only" writing. Give me facts, and let me draw the inevitable conclusions therefrom. Don't give me the conclusions that I should draw. If you don't argue fairly, you're only convincing people of the OPPOSITE of what you'd like them to believe, because they see the lack of neutrality in your methods and simply choose against YOU.2600:8804:8800:11F:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 04:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

You have it completely wrong. WP:NPOV requires the wrong things are described as such according to the WP:BESTSOURCES, and WP:ASSERTED as such. A significant minority of doctors are wrong/quacks. Marik's medical versions of "Martians cause hurricanes" are treated accordingly. Alexbrn (talk) 06:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "wrong things". Do learn logic! 2A02:8070:4780:8360:EC2C:C94C:4D54:D891 (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

You are wrong. And you are in the wrong place. This page is for improving the article. Go to a forum. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:00, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Latest Data Ignored

Hi dear Wikipedia users, I need help including the latest peer reviewed data, which are now numerous. On some claims deemed controversial here by biased and outdated sources that can give Covid patients better options to improve outcomes. I know articles like these are constantly monitored to make sure it stays within the realm of reality, but over protection to the point of censorship in unwarranted and against website rules.--134.79.160.199 (talk) 04:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Andrevan. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Andre🚐 04:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I have posted a response on my talk page, but can respond here to continue. Feel free to check there anytime. thank you for the advice.--134.79.160.199 (talk) 04:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Sources are required. So far as I'm aware Marik's quackery is still quackery. Bon courage (talk) 07:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Where are the sources for misleadingly? If the sources say incorrectly maybe we should insert that word. The man is entitled to have one unusual belief. By your definition that would make the majority of the world quacks as they believe in a being in the sky. Best to avoid the use of the word quack, hearing it a lot lately, overuse may lead one to quack like a duck. It is also not a matter of belief but based on studies that show some effectiveness. Science does not care about opinions.--134.79.160.199 (talk) 22:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

2 of the sources linked in the sentence now use the word "misinformation" to describe these claims, I don't particularly have a problem with "incorrect" or "erroneous" but it is medical misinformation. Andre🚐 23:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

That is true, but misinformation-ally sounds odd. Maybe.--134.79.160.199 (talk) 23:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Like to mention all, my debate is not directed at any of our hard working administrators and users but the general atmosphere of editing these topics lately. To say the word mislead has a connotation that says the doctor lied which is not even implied by any of the three citations. So I agree any of those words used in the links themselves are fine.--134.79.160.199 (talk) 23:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Except, it is - misinformation implies being misleading. If it said "dishonesty" that could be a step too far. All the rubbish about ivermectin being a COVID treatment is misleading: that's just the reality as reflected by the sources. Bon courage (talk) 00:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

How much of it is misinformation? Maybe one can say the early studies were low cost and had errors so they are not reliable, so to support them would not be correct. Hence, I included the agreed word "incorrect" before it was changed again. I am seeing this on entire areas of Wikipedia, where those that handle articles and articles themselves are stuck on information from early 2021, almost like a time bubble. Government websites and articles are using that word less and less. Only Poynter backed fact checkers keep using it. Some of them were found to be in conflict of interest in regards to some corporations like J&J. If there is an emerging science backed by studies why not list that? Ivermectin has already been used as a Covid treatment in many countries including the US. The FDA says its use should be allowed but only in clinical trials. Certain terms and framing in this article either must be updated or overhauled to reflect current reality. I will list an example of a sentence that may need change here to get approval before changing the article to avoid constant reverts by other users. Have already found hundreds of new peer reviewed scientific papers that in majority from the government health agencies themselves. I propose a collaborative team effort on this issue, thank you all.--134.79.160.199 (talk) 00:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Nope, this is just B.S. Ivermectin isn't used for covid period and does nothing for covid. Andre🚐 00:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, based on your detailed response, I think that settles the issue. The amount of data and facts presented here convinces and inspires. One last thing, if I am in a debate, and I cuss, use words like crap, quack and B.S., does that not violate the hierarchy of disagreement? If I put a 'am part of the Cabal' tag on my profile, would not that encourage conspiracizing? Just thought I let one know.--134.79.160.199 (talk) 01:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, I am not sure how to respond to the threat of a block so will drop the issue if asked. Think of the thousands that can still be saved if people were not bought. So might approach from another angle in the future with new reliable sources anyone can easily find. Thank you for making me feel welcomed.--134.79.160.199 (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

The hierarchy of disagreement holds that responding to tone is very low in the hierarchy. Calling something quack or B.S. is just a byword for a descriptive concept which you have failed to rebut: debunked, faux-science info and claims of information that is not substantiated. As far as the cabal. Are you, by any chance, referring to the thing on Wikipedia that is and has always been a joke, and refers to the ridiculous claims that editors make before or when they are blocked for disruptive editing such as going around on talk pages saying that Ivermectin has already been used as a Covid treatment in many countries including the US. The FDA says its use should be allowed but only in clinical trials. Certain terms and framing in this article either must be updated or overhauled to reflect current reality. I will list an example of a sentence that may need change here to get approval before changing the article to avoid constant reverts by other users. Have already found hundreds of new peer reviewed scientific papers that in majority from the government health agencies themselves This is pretty much purely false and not substantiated so please cut it out and drop the dead horse. Andre🚐 02:40, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

(Repost from talk page) I am not spreading any claims, just facts from the FDA and other articles on Wikipedia. Like the Ivermectin and Covid article which at the top of its talk page there is an information box that says the data is "inconclusive." For Hydro- it says it can actually have a "negative" effect which I agree with as I have read the papers, it is their words. I am not a proponent of any treatment that may or may not work, my problem is the request for better grammar. You are just piling on accusations without merit. This discussion was never about any claims just two things and please read carefully; a call to update the doctors article with newer reliable 2022 sources and to change a charged term into a neutral one, again I.E. "erroneously" written by an administrator by the way, which is already in another Wikipedia article called Ivermectin and Covid. Surely, this can't be so hard.

(Response to talk page) Firstly, my intention is not to rebut anything and agree in regards to official health standards there is no issue to call it misinformation. For the hierarchy the point is not to use demeaning terms to describe someone then claim to use a neutral term to describe their stance when the said term is not neutral. Secondly, the whole cabal thing comes off as smug which I accept is a joke. I have read many articles that it has been used in other countries, for example India, are you saying all these countries are lying? And yes many early Ivermectin studies lacked funding and some are still inaccurate. I remember reading on the FDA website that they are against the use of animal ivermectin and that human ivermectin should only be used in clinical trials to see if it works, are you saying they have changed that page? The rest I said was my concern with framing, terms and updating articles. One would think that is being constructive. I also said I found many sources but have to go through it. So will be more than happy to put in a soap box like a list of links. Therefore, more experienced users can verify them. How are any of the things I wrote false? By adding and changing the subject, issuing a warning how can anyone expect to think this is in good faith? Having a lively discussion and inviting others to evaluate the issue is good faith. You are so welcome.--134.79.160.199 (talk) 04:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

This is WP:NOTAFORUM. The English Wikipedia has an entire article on Ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic and there, as here, the accepted knowledge in quality sources is summarized. Absent any new sources I suggest we are done here. Bon courage (talk) 04:24, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Your are correct I have yet to post the sources mentioned. So until then, I concede and drop horse paste. Bon voyage.--134.79.160.199 (talk) 05:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Chest article update

In a now-deleted blog post from last year, allegations were made against the Marik Chest study. I reverted a recent edit linking to an April 5 press release from Marik's group. Marik's group cites an April 3 letter from the Chest editors regarding the results of their investigation. The letter states "This evaluation was not able to confirm nor fully refute the concern that was identified." The letter also states that they will be correcting the article methods section in two locations. I don't see any erratum appended to the study. My instinct is to wait for (1) the erratum to be published and (2) possibly independent coverage before updating this Wikipedia article. ScienceFlyer (talk) 16:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree with that approach. Bon courage (talk) 16:40, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

@Bon courage Update: The editor's note was published last year, but unfortunately the editor's note and any errata on the original article are paywalled. Assuming the editor's note is the same as the one contained in the letter posted by Marik, it would be a good idea to update the article to at least mention that it turned out the sepsis patients were not consecutive after all. ScienceFlyer (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I've rather lost the thread on what's what with this. Please go ahead and improve as necessary! Bon courage (talk) 20:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

New development

ABIM acts against Kory and Marik: [3] --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:59, 9 August 2023 (UTC)