Talk:Thomas Borody

Considering that the US FDA has just 'approved' fecal transplants, a potentially revolutionary therapy, it is wrong to label an article on Tom Borody, who is a pioneer in this area, as being of "low importance." Additionally, to say that this is a "Start-Class" is misleading, as it really carries sufficient information to define the individual's notability at this point in time, IMO Trevmar (talk) 17:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Multiple issues, mainly failure to reference.

This article contains controversial claims and gives credit to the subject for work that other people are credited with in authoritative sources, these claims lack any references beyond the subject's personal website. For instance while he was a co-author on papers describing triple therapy he was neither first author nor senior author, yet the article says "is considered to be the first physician to successfully formulate the triple therapy". The language also obviously falls within scope of "weasel words".

I have deleted the unreferenced statements except the bit on fecal transplant, I found a lancet RCT with him as senior author, so have retained that statement and referenced.'

Deleted his current private practice details as they are not in any way linked to notability and read simply as advertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.145.75.22 (talk) 07:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

This mainstream media article from a recognised source credits him with discovering triple therapy - https://www.afr.com/policy/foreign-affairs/the-true-believers-backing-ivermectin-20210915-p58ryu

"He is confident the ivermectin triple therapy will be approved. In the 1980s, Borody discovered a drug cocktail that stopped over 900 people dying yearly from peptic ulcers. “We terminated that pandemic. From seeing three ulcers once a day, I see them once every six months now.” This is an analogous situation, he says, in that a triple therapy is again required.180.150.68.232 (talk) 10:33, 25 September 2021 (UTC)"

Extensive rewrites have removed all negative information and turned this into an advertising page

I am new to wiki and looking for advice, a single user "Dana c 83" has deleted all negative information including the "controversies" section, even where referenced, and included a long one-sided argument for ivermectin for treating covid supporting a fringe theory against medical consensus (which seems pretty tangential).

Should I simply revert to before this editors edits or what is the appropriate action here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.96.175 (talk) 01:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. Possibly an undisclosed WP:COI issue here. Alexbrn (talk) 05:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

This wasn’t a long “one-sided argument”, it explained the rationale for the use of the ivermectin based therapy with references (am happy to add more as required). Whereas this now seems a slanderous piece against what you deem to be a “fringe theory”. Dana c 83 (talk) 10:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Before continuing, could you please answer on your talk page about a conflict of interest. Thank you. Alexbrn (talk) 10:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay, so Dana c 83 is an ex-colleague. The topic of Ivermectin/COVID is well covered elsewhere on Wikipedia (e.g. we link to Covid-19 misinformation#Ivermectin — executive summary: no credible evidence of benefit. Refrain from using words like "slanderous" lightly as per WP:NLT they can get you blocked. For a biographical article like this all content must be sourced to good sources. Alexbrn (talk) 11:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Quite nice

Hmm. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)