Wikipedia and the Deep State
Wikipedia and the Deep State
Determined to Obscure the Truth
If you have ever donated to Wikipedia or consulted it on a topic of interest, perhaps you should heed the following. Wikipedia is not what it seems.
Allow me to cite the example of Pierre Kory’s Wikipedia Page which led to my awakening on July 4th, 2021, some three years ago. I had only recently donated money to advance the Wikipedia cause as an open online encyclopedia that all of us could contribute to editing. I was naive. And I was more than willing to show others how Wikipedia works, fairly and without bias, or so I thought at the time.
Dr. Kory contacted me and explained his dilemma. Wikipedia had published incorrect and incomplete information about him, and he wanted the page to be accurate. He could not get his Wikipedia Page corrected. So, I explained that I, like anyone else, could become an editor, and I would be able to get his page updated.
First, I applied to be an editor. The process involves applying with Wikipedia and then making some edits under supervision. I chose Wikipedia pages that interested me. For example, I picked the subject of Astronomy and made an edit on Mizar, a double star that has been used as a test of visual acuity for thousands of years. No problem. Edit made and added. I completed additional prerequisites.
Second, I attempted to change one word on Pierre Kory’s Wikipedia page. I tried to replace the word erroneous with controversial.
Third, I attempted to add a factual statement about Dr. Kory’s and Dr. Tess Lawrie’s recently published articles on Ivermectin appearing in the American Journal of Therapeutics.
I made the edits, and the new version of Pierre Kory’s Wikipedia page stood corrected, more accurate, and complete for all of 5 minutes. To my astonishment, my edits were overwritten within 5 minutes by an editor I affectionately refer to as ASOP.
ASOP, who has no healthcare expertise but is a Computer Scientist by training, undid my edit claiming the American Journal of Therapeutics is not a reliable source. Here is how I described it in 2021.
“I used my ability as a Wikipedia editor to update this article and add the Kory and Lawrie studies recently published in the American Journal of Therapeutics. I happened to do this during the afternoon on July 4th. Within 5 minutes on July 4th, 2021, an American national holiday, my edit was reverted. When I attempted to appeal, I was referred to the “Talk” page for Ivermectin. Again, I was confronted with previous explanations by the same now-familiar editor, the British computer scientist, ASOP, who argued that the American Journal of Therapeutics was not a “reliable source.”
I couldn’t help but wonder what blemish the American Journal of Therapeutics might have that precludes it from being a reputable source, but soon it became apparent that ASOP was not just another “volunteer editor” as we were told, but more likely a paid shill for Big Pharma.
My first clue was that he undid my edit within 5 minutes on July 4th. The second was that he was the “preferred” editor for other sensitive Big Pharma Wikipedia pages like the COVID-19 Vaccine page, the Big Pharma Conspiracy page, and the Spike Protein page.
Here is a reader’s comment from my original article, “Wikipedia and a Pint of Gin” which appeared in the Desert Review on July 5th, 2021. This comment echoes the party line which is that anyone can become a Wikipedia editor, and that editing is based upon factual information and not a matter of politics or bias.
“You don't understand what Wikipedia is. It's a collection of reliable sources, with prose to explain what those sources say. No one should be sourcing TO Wikipedia. They should be reading the article, then going to the sources Wikipedia uses and using those sources as their sources. The American Journal of Therapeutics is an obscure journal that doesn't seem to be cited frequently by others. There are extremely strict rules on Wikipedia about what medical articles can be sourced to, and AJT probably simply isn't good enough.”
The only problem with this argument is that Wikipedia accepts fact checks from fashion magazine writers like Beatrice Dupuy who they referenced as one of their sufficiently “good enough” sources for Kory’s Wikipedia page.
Hers is the source they used to support the statement that Dr. Kory’s statements were “false”. In “Wikipedia and a Pint of Gin” I wrote:
“Wikipedia cites an AP Fact Check article by a journalist, Ms. Beatrice Dupuy, who is not a medical professional to my knowledge. She has never served as a medical director of Critical Care or Pulmonary Medicine. I believe she has written for StarTribune and TeenVogue Magazine in the past. However, she is somehow sufficiently competent to call Dr. Kory's testimony “false.”
So, an AP “Fact Check” authored by Fashion Editor Beatrice Dupuy is good evidence and two peer-reviewed articles by world-class academic physicians published in the American Journal of Therapeutics are not?
However, the truth of the matter is that the CIA and FBI are linked by computers to Wikipedia to immediately edit anything having to do with their priority interests. And this has been known since at least 2007 according to this Reuters article which states:
“People using CIA and FBI computers have edited entries in the online encyclopedia Wikipedia on topics including the Iraq war and the Guantanamo prison, according to a new tracing program. The changes may violate Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest guidelines, a spokeswoman for the site said on Thursday.”
“WikiScanner revealed that CIA computers were used to edit an entry on the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. A graphic on casualties was edited to add that many figures were estimated and were not broken down by class.
Another entry on former CIA chief William Colby was edited by CIA computers to expand his career history and discuss the merits of a Vietnam War rural pacification program that he headed.”
However, the official position remains that such biased entries can be quickly corrected by any Wikipedia editor who produces factual sources. The 2007 Reuters article states:
“It violates Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines for a person with close ties to an issue to contribute to an entry about it, said spokeswoman Sandy Ordonez of the Wikimedia Foundation, Wikipedia's parent organization.
However, she said, "Wikipedia is self-correcting," meaning misleading entries can be quickly revised by another editor. She said Wikimedia welcomed the WikiScanner.”
Hmmm.
Another reader’s comment to “Wikipedia and a Pint of Gin” - which I suspect is more accurate - states:
“This is so very common with Wikipedia. I recently became interested in ozone treatment and looked it up on Wikipedia, just to find ridiculous unfounded criticism sourced to some biology graduate from Harvard making a living writing filler science articles that amounted to total garbage. The writer was a hack and obviously putting half-@zz effort into writing an article to supplement their income while trying to find a real job…the article was complete nonsense and the writer probably got the job writing filler garbage from somebody they met while going to Harvard.. very frustrating, but it was somehow being taken seriously as a factual reference. After reading through the reference article, I was once again reminded how bad Wikipedia really is… I had such high hopes for the Wikipedia resource back in the day.”
Have you ever wondered where Big Pharma and the CIA stand on the subject of Vitamin D?
Keep in mind that the Endocrine Society recently issued its new guidelines on Vitamin D. Recall that Dr. Paul Marik and other highly regarded scientists recently unearthed a mountain of evidence that shows how high Vitamin D levels are correlated with lower cancer incidence and mortality. I reference Dr. Marik’s book, Cancer Care and his enlightening interview with Jan Jekielek of the Epoch Times for the interested reader.
“Healthy adults under the age of 75 are unlikely to benefit from taking more than the daily intake of vitamin D recommended by the Institutes of Medicine (IOM) and do not require testing for vitamin D levels, according to a new Clinical Practice Guideline issued today by the Endocrine Society.”
Here is what the Vitamin D Wikipedia page has to say about cancer and Vitamin D.
“Vitamin D supplements do not alter the outcomes for myocardial infarction, stroke or cerebrovascular disease, cancer, bone fractures or knee osteoarthritis.[14][59]”
There you have it.
I wonder what the CIA or Wikipedia has to say about Ivermectin because we already know that Big Pharma is dead-set against it. Here is where a Wikipedia editor asked to include mention of Ivermectin’s use as a repurposed drug against cancer. And he was shut down. Here is the internal discussion between a volunteer editor requesting that a “senior editor” allow mention of Ivermectin’s potential use against cancer on the Wikipedia page.
“This very lengthy article is missing any mention at all of Ivermectin's possible cancer-suppressing effects.
Mention of some of the many promising lines of research to treat cancer should be mentioned. AP further states "some cancer researchers believe ivermectin could be promising when used in combination with other drugs and are conducting further studies." This sentence could be added here.
2601:19E:427E:5BB0:E287:9A23:4820:CC7C (talk) 13:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Undue; it's being researched (like most drugs) for pretty much everything. And will probably (like most drugs) turn out not to be useful. Bon courage (talk) 15:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Too premature.
In-vitro, we have already defeated cancer, so this doesn't mean anything.”
So, I am just curious. What is the party line on the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines according to Wikipedia?
“Research currently indicates that the rate and type of side effects are lower-risk than infection. For example, although vaccination may trigger some side effects, the effects experienced from an infection could be worse. Neurological side effects from getting COVID‑19 are hundreds of times more likely than from vaccination.[276]”
I guess that settles it - if you believe in accepting propaganda rather than thinking critically for yourself. Excess deaths around the world, turbo cancers, and sudden deaths are not even mentioned. According to Wikipedia, the COVID-19 virus is more dangerous by far than the vaccine. Hmmm.
So, if Wikipedia is so good at telling you what you are supposed to think, that is issuing propaganda, what positive use can it serve?
It can tell you if you are on point by how vehemently they oppose your particular narrative, especially if you have solid evidence to support your position. Without belaboring the details, I invite you to look up the Wikipedia pages on Climate Change, Chemtrails, Tucker Carlson, Joe Biden, Donald Trump, Gun Control, or any other issues, and you can see what the three-lettered agencies want you to know and not know.
As far as cancer and repurposed drugs and supplements are concerned, do not expect them to support your taking Vitamin D or Ivermectin for cancer. Nor should you expect them to let the cat out of the bag that conventional chemotherapy for Stage 4 cancers is unlikely to help. Or that the Metabolic Theory of Cancer as published by Dr. Thomas Seyfried fits the evidence much better than the Gene Mutation Model. For your best reference on Cancer and Repurposed Drugs, check out Dr. Paul Marik’s book, Cancer Care, soon to be published in a 2nd Edition. For an informative interview, watch him with Epoch Times Editor Jan Jekielek.
Stay tuned to Substack for the truth, as you will not get it on the most crucial issues through Wikipedia. And always consume Wikipedia with a healthy dose of skepticism and in some cases, an alcoholic beverage of your choice, like a pint of Gin.
Oh, I was certainly on to these frauds years ago when I read what they said about the most believed, most beloved scientist in the world, Dr. Michael Yeadon!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Yeadon
I might use Wikipedia for birth and death dates of people but not much else.