Talk:Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance

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.

1. 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)
2. 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)
3. 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)

Which pages use this template?

Last updated (diff) on 27 February 2023 by Sumanuil (t · c)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (your reason here) --Ratagonia (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I looked this up to find out if this group was completely loony... this page does not provide this evaluation, but it could. Ratagonia (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance, because it is cited by many WP:RS as the leading group campaigning for the use of ivermectin against COVID-19 in the United States. Llll5032 (talk) 01:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

This group (FLCCC) advocates for more then just the use of Ivermectin. Your censorship of legitimate scientific references that support the efficacy of Ivermectin is biased and unconscionable. Any edit should present all valid information and not pass judgement on the source without having the academic scientific training. DrWDMcCoy (talk) 03:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

DrWDMcCoy, please review WP:MEDRS, which says what sources we can cite on a medical subject. Llll5032 (talk) 03:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I will review DrWDMcCoy (talk) 03:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, DrWDMcCoy. Especially WP:MEDPRI: "Primary sources should not be cited with intent of "debunking", contradicting, or countering conclusions made by secondary sources. Synthesis of published material advancing a position is original research, and Wikipedia is not a venue for open research. Controversies or uncertainties in medicine should be supported by reliable secondary sources describing the varying viewpoints. Primary sources should not be aggregated or presented without context in order to undermine proportionate representation of opinion in a field." Llll5032 (talk) 03:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Note: I have boldly removed the speedy deletion template and added some additional content. As I stated in my edit summary, this organization may eventually be merged into another article, but there is at least enough circulating press coverage to forestall an unscrutinized speedy deletion. If proponents of deletion wish to continue, please consider nominating via Articles for Deletion. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

The page on FLCCC employs references to articles on lack of evidence of efficacy for medicaments in order to say these medicaments are ineffective for treating COVID-19. Thus blatantly dishonest writing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Altamir.gomes (talk • contribs) 13:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Stance on vaccines

We currently say The FLCCC has said “vaccination is part of the solution”, but COVID-19 vaccines are not listed in its preventative protocols. I suggest we either: a) find a source that actually tells what is FLCCC stance on vaccines and use attribution; or b) remove/rewrite the section, because as it stands it seems like it falls under the issues stated in WP:Synthesis and WP:OR, in which we as editors try too hard to infer where they stand on an issue. It is a bit of a stretch to insinuate they are guilty of anti-vaxx because of something they don't say in their protocols. Forich (talk) 04:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Not explicitly antivax, but maybe de facto.[1] Alexbrn (talk) 04:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Forich, the cited independent secondary source says: "The FLCCC Alliance says “vaccination is part of the solution” for ending the COVID-19 pandemic, although vaccines are not listed in its preventative protocol plan." This article accurately paraphrases it, which is the opposite of WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. Llll5032 (talk) 04:55, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I am adding the quote above to the citation to make this clearer. Llll5032 (talk) 05:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

The I-MASK+ protocol states: "The I-MASK+ protocol is a bridge to vaccines and a safety net for those who cannot or have not been vaccinated; or are vaccinated and have concerns regarding declining protection against emerging variants. Vaccines have shown efficacy in preventing the most severe outcomes of COVID-19 and are an important part of a multi-modal strategy that must also include early treatment. The decision to get a vaccine should be made in consultation with your health care provider." Source: https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/FLCCC-Alliance-I-MASKplus-Protocol-ENGLISH.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.21.233 (talk) 00:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Good quote, but it is a primary source. Forich (talk) 17:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

How about the coverage of this topic in Scientific American?:

Yet the groups promoting ivermectin do not appear to strongly support the COVID vaccines. The FLCCC says little about them on social media and writes in the current version of its prevention protocol that ivermectin is a “safety net” for those who are not vaccinated (although that protocol adds, “Vaccines have shown efficacy in preventing the most severe outcomes of COVID-19”). AFLDS founder Simone Gold, a doctor who was arrested for activities related to her involvement in the January 6 insurrection at the Capitol and is connected to a conservative political group, and Tess Lawrie, director of a company called the Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy and organizer of the BIRD Group, have even shared vaccine misinformation in videos online. And AFLDS also gives advice on vaccine exemptions on its Web site.

Looks very NPOV and includes context, in my opinion. Forich (talk) 17:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Based on the primary documents on the FLCCC website, the descriptions in both the Nextstar and the Scientific American articles sound factually correct to me. Vaccines are not in the FCCC's list of prevention protocols, but appear in their side-notes that are hidden in some views. Llll5032 (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2021

Change reuqirements to requirements. Tendermario (talk) 02:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done, and thanks. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:33, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

An FLCCC paper was retracted

I am not sure where in the current article structure this could be mentioned. Here's the language currently used in Pierre Kory:

In November 2021 the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine retracted a paper written by Kory, Paul E. Marik, and others. The retraction was triggered when it was found the paper misreported the mortality figures of people treated for COVID-19 with the FLCCC's "MATH+" protocol, falsely making it appear to be an effective treatment.

Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Settlement in case FSA vs FLCCC

Maybe someone could add this to the article (my English is not good enough for it): FDA Settles Lawsuit over Ivermectin Social Media Posts, Newsweek.com and FLCCC Alliance Statement on the Settlement Reached in Case Against DHHS for Telling the Public to “Stop it” Regarding Taking Ivermectin to Prevent and Treat COVID-19, FLCCC Alliance. Thank you! Schwäbin (talk) 18:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)