This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Science and Academia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the science and academia work group. Australia Low‑importance Thomas Borody is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian What's this? at the National Library of Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance. Medicine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Skepticism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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) reply

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) reply

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)" reply

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) reply

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

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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