Wikipedia exposed as junk science propaganda platform for Big Pharma

Wikipedia
Source: NaturalNews.com
Sarah Landers
August 6, 2016

According to Bolen Report, Wikipedia is not a website we should be trusting when it comes to unbiased, accurate information. Wikipedia is an example of “skeptic” leadership – with the “skeptics” actually being an organized hate group that claim to be the sole protectors of intellectual truth.

“Skeptics” are in favor of vaccines, mammograms, pharmaceuticals and over-the-counter medication – and opponents of nutritional supplements, herbal medicine, massage therapy, energy medicine and homeopathy, as reported by Natural News.

According to research by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, “skeptics” believe that all vaccines are safe and effective – even those that have never been tested – and that all people should be vaccinated – even against their will. “Skeptics” also believe that that people of all ages can be safely given an unlimited number of drugs, including antidepressants, blood pressure drugs, diabetes drugs, sleeping drugs and pretty much everything else – all at the same time, as we have previously reported.

Wikipedia

Wikipedia is available in almost every language, and is presented as a seemingly friendly and reliable source of information. However, on closer inspection, the popular information site is full of errors, biased information and omissions – particularly around the subjects of health, environmental safety and agricultural sustainability. Wikipedia is pretty much run by the “skeptics.”

One of the main reasons that people are fooled into believing that Wikipedia is posting the truth, is the fact that it has a very high authority level in the Google search engine. This is surprising, since Google equates its ranking system with credibility, with more credible sources ranking more highly. Should Wikipedia really be appearing high on Google searches when the site can be altered by critics, liars and computer hacks?

Wikipedia claims to be run by volunteers, but it is actually edited by corporate-paid trolls – particularly on topics such as GMOs, vaccines, chemotherapy and pharmaceuticals. Many of the “volunteers” are actually paid by drug companies, food giants and the biotech industry to censor information that they would rather the public did not know, as reported by Celebrity Reputation.

Founder and ex-porn film giant Jimmy Wales is a key operator of the “Hillary Clinton Protection Network,” according to Celebrity Reputation, meaning that he goes to great lengths to alter or remove any negative information posted about Hilary Clinton. It is noteworthy that, “despite the steady wave of scandals that have begun to erode even the New York Times’ portrayal of Hillary Clinton, her image remains unblemished on Wikipedia. Since he first started editing her page in June 2005, Hillary’s ‘Wikipedia watchdog’ has been guarding against slanders, accusations, unfair assumptions, and distortions on the high-traffic, heavily footnoted, highly policed Hillary Rodham Clinton Wikipedia page.”

Combating this dishonest and unreliable information source

Wikipedia ranks highly on Google and that is a problem – because it means that it is one of the first links people will see when they are searching for information. However, Bolen Report suggests that there is in fact a way to take this dishonest website down. Wales will not reveal who contributes the real money behind Wikipedia – this is “hidden behind his U.S. Non-Profit (501) tax filing (form 990) Schedule B.” If a lawsuit was filed against Wikipedia that forced open that Schedule B file, it “would make it very clear that Wikipedia is NOT what it says it is,” according to Bolen Report. By U.S. law, a non-profit organization is not supposed to benefit any one individual; it is required to be “a corporation or an association that conducts business for the benefit of the general public without shareholders and without a profit motive.”

As noted by Bolen Report, “Wikimedia argues overall, though, that it is protected from liability by the Communications Decency Act (CDA), whose section 230 protects a publisher from liability for things said by other people on its electronic services until it is made aware of the comments. At that point it must take action or risk becoming liable.” Bolen Report plans to take action against the media giant and bring the truth out into the public eye.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources include:

BolenReport.com

CelebrityReputation.com

NaturalNews.com

TruthWiki.org

HuffPo Censors VAXXED Documentary Article & Blocks Writer Account After Discredited Science Troll David Gorski Hijacks Wikipedia To Trash The Film

HuffPo censorship

Source: NaturalNews.com
Mike Adams
April 19, 2016

In a stunning example of outright journalism censorship and medical totalitarianism, Arianna Huffington’s HuffPo content platform has gone “police state” on veteran contributor Lance Simmons. According to this article from Truth Barrier, Simmons has been an 8-year contributor to the Huffington Post, publishing over 200 articles through the content hub.

HuffPo had no problem with all 200 of his previously posted articles, but when he posted an honest, heartfelt review of the VAXXED documentary, he got targeted for censorship and had his account shut down by the Huffington Post.

As Simmons told Celia Farber of Truth Barrier:

I saw a premier of VAXXED the other evening and was so moved by the presentation and discussion that followed that I felt compelled to write a piece asking that we at least begin a serious national dialogue on the allegations contained in the documentary. I also drew attention to the spate of events that have unfolded over the past several years, where there has been a massive governmental failure to do its essential job which is to protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens.

But he soon discovered that HuffPo is actually run like a Chinese gulag of censorship about vaccine truth. Writers aren’t even allowed to ask rational questions about vaccine safety without being severely punished by HuffPo:

It turns out that they pulled down the original piece and when I tried to rewrite it I was alerted that permission was denied to my account. I have made at least a half dozen attempts to reach someone at HuffPo to alert them that there was a malfunction and over the course of the last two days have not received one response. I even went so far as to email Arianna herself. It never crossed my mind that this might be some sort of censorship because it has never happened to me and the article, while provocative, is not beyond any bounds of journalistic or political propriety.

The Huffington Post, of course, is no different than the rest of the mainstream media when it functioning as a Ministry of Truth, censoring information that could help save lives while promoting pharma-backed vaccine propaganda that maims and murders children. I find it especially interesting that even as Arianna Huffington writes feel-good books promoting healing for humanity, her own editors silence writers who are also trying to protect the lives of children. Are those writers making such decisions under the direction of Arianna herself? If so, does she really condone the mass poisoning, maiming and medical murder of innocent children through a medical intervention that’s so unsafe, the U.S. Congress had to pass a special law granting the industry absolute legal immunity to lawsuits from children harmed by faulty vaccines?

If so, that would be a new low for Arianna, indeed.

Huffington Post editors may have been propagandized by the Wikipedia entry on VAXXED, written by internet science troll David Gorski

As it turns out, the Wikipedia page on the VAXXED documentary is a smear piece authored by none other than Dr. David Gorski, reports Natural News. “Wikipedia’s incredibly biased entry on VAXXED was written by none other than pro-vaccine shill Dr. David Gorski, notorious for his relentless and callous attacks on vaccine skeptics, alternative medicine, and its supporters,” says this article.

In addition to being a cancer surgeon with ties to the Karmanos Cancer Centers of Detroit — where Gorski’s colleague Dr. Farid Fata recently admitted to committing felony health care fraud and is now going to prison — David Gorski is also a discredited internet science troll who was outed after trying to hide his identity as “ORAC” for several years. Widely known as a sociopathic, vindictive purveyor of personal hatred and pharmaceutical filth, Gorski is infamous for publishing false and defamatory information about natural medicine and its advocates. With financial ties to drug research related to autism, David Gorski stands to financially benefit from children with autism, which may explain why he so aggressively pushes vaccines while fraudulently denying that they harm so many children.

Gorski is one of an ever-shrinking fringe group of Vaccine Holocaust Denialists who show increasing desperation as the truth about vaccines continues to emerge. The VAXXED documentary showcases CDC scientist and whistleblower Dr. William Thompson, who publicly confessed to committing scientific fraud at the CDC to hide links between vaccines and autism. Yet the Wikipedia entry on VAXXED, authored in large part by David Gorski, according to reports, deliberately misrepresents the subject matter and focus of the film, characterizing it as “anti-vaccine propaganda.”

The real propagandists, of course, are people like Gorski who practice their editorial hucksterism at Wikipedia to push out their own fraudulent propaganda, which they ridiculously label “scientific truth.” What Gorski never mentions in the VAXXED entry, of course, is that he wrote it and he also stands to profit from vaccine damaged children who have autism.

David Gorski and Arianna Huffington are not directly murdering children, but they are doing everything in their power to kill any truthful discussion about vaccine damage (that might save children)

As the truth about vaccines damaging children and causing autism continues to emerge, vaccine holocaust denialists like Gorski and Arianna Huffington are turning to more desperate, heavy-handed measures to silence filmmakers, censor internet journalism and attempt to prevent the public from gaining knowledge of just how much vaccines harm their children. In many ways, their efforts resemble the last ditch bunker-inspired propaganda of Adolf Hitler, who insisted on his “intellectual superiority” and righteousness right up until the day he finally put himself (and the rest of the world) out of his misery.

There is little question that people like Gorski will continue to aggressively push dangerous medical interventions that provably harm and even kill children… as long as he can keep getting away with it. Somehow, the wanton medical destruction of children seems perfectly aligned with his twisted psychopathy and deeply-rooted hatred for all those who promote healthy living. That Arianna Huffington is now joining the intense hatred of truth that has long emanated from the foul, dark corners of Gorski’s twisted mind is more than a bit alarming. Huffington is a democrat who claims to care for humanity while exercising compassion and empathy. So where’s her empathy on vaccine-damaged children? It has apparently been replaced by intellectual totalitarianism and a desire to destroy voices of dissent (which is similar to Gorski’s challenge of trying to destroy the voices, too, but in his case they’re the voices in his own head).

Wikipedia discredits itself by granting Gorski editorial control

As far as David Gorski goes, he seems wholly incapable of writing even a single paragraph without engaging in the deliberate, fraudulent misrepresentation of the facts. That he has managed to wrangle so much editorial control over Wikipedia is perhaps the most damning indictment yet seen about the editorial power structure at the online encyclopedia, where in some topic areas (such as vaccines and GMOs), the most psychopathic muckrakers seem to consistently rise to the top.

As a result, on certain topics, Wikipedia has become little more than a reflection of the derangement and mental illness that has infested the minds of its most powerful admins. While there are a great many dedicated and honest editors at Wikipedia, they do not possess the power craving and twisted fanaticism of people like David Gorski. It’s much the same in the political world, where the most insane criminal minds seem to rise to the top in almost every election (including the one we’re all enduring right now, come to think of it).

Continue Reading At NaturalNews.com

Blind Trust – Wikipedia’s Duplicitious Dealings & Scandals

“The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without evidence. Science is simply common sense at its best – that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
– Thomas Huxley

—————————————————–
By: Zy Marquiez
December 22, 2015

In previous a Breakaway Guide to Mainstream Media Manipulation & Propaganda, we showed how trustworthy downright deceptive the mainstream media can be.

Its rather unfortunate, because the majority of the populace shows blind faith in the media, but thankfully not everyone. A large portion of people have begun to unplug, as media conglomerates such as CNBC keep losing viewers , even though there is a growing number of people capable of watching TV. Quite ironic.

Moving on to another more subtle component of media, but nonetheless important, we will take a cursory look at Wikipedia.

There have been a few instances that took place in the past which made me treat information provided by Wikipedia in an askance way.  Coupled with this is the fact that there is a wide breadth of people that can access the website anonymously and how ‘precise’ those “edits” can be.

These handful of events that took place made me extremely convinced that at worst, Wikipedia is just another mouthpiece for the establishment.

This is just personal opinion based on nefarious dealings witnessed by myself and two other people as it was happening.  

However, to be more precise, what am going to show you is that Wikipedia’s reliability isn’t as ironclad as people give it credit for.

The latitude and scope of power that Wikipedia has been able to showcase in its growth is as resounding at it is precise. Such power has the capability to singlehandedly make or break any particular individual/corporation/idea in more ways that people could fathom.

Recently published by the Independent, a veritable cavalcade of folks/corporations were eviscerated by actions undertaken within the catacombs of Wikipedia.

Serious scamming of a colossal magnitude was running rampant behind the scenes in unprecedented ways.

It’s been a long suspicion of a few folks that Blackmail is merely the tip of the iceberg however. That alone though is still quite notable given the reliability deceptiveness that can be carried out on such a widely known/used website.

To elucidate further into what was taking place, please take a note of how scam/s worked as detailed by Jamie Merril & Jonathan Owen:

” The scam worked by targeting firms struggling to get pages about their businesses on Wikipedia. They were often told their articles had been rejected due to concerns of excessive promotional content – although in some cases the scammers themselves may have been the ones causing the articles to be removed.

According to a Wikipedia insider, at this stage the scammers would demand a payment of up to several hundred pounds to successfully “re-post or re-surface” the article, and in some cases demanded an on-going monthly payment to “protect” the articles. The fraudster  usually claimed to be a Wikipedia editor or administrator.”

If that’s not disturbing enough for what has been considered by some as the Encyclopedia Britannica of the interwebz, it gets better.

Furthermore, lets couple the above fact with a statement by Andrew Orlowski which he elucidates in his article at TheRegister:

There are serious questions to be asked, not only of Wikipedia’s community structures – which encourage and protect anonymous editing – but also of the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) itself. The charity has amassed assets of over $70m and a ready cash pile of millions of dollars, thanks to aggressive fundraising which suggests donors must pay to keep the site online (in reality, only around $3m is required to run the site every year). Yet the Foundation has little power to compel anyone to do anything: the community makes its own mind up. Neither seems able to bear much self-examination. [Bold emphasis added]

If that’s not enough to make someone downright outraged am not sure what is.

Trust is something that is often asked of us as individuals by society/corporations/institutions, but rarely earned by those very institutions that implore you at the outset. Events such as this are the exact reason why many folks are suspicious.

While anonymity can protect privacy, it can also be used as a weapon.

In this case we have seen what happens when one is behind the crosshairs of targeted bribery.

That doesn’t even begin to touch issues that Sharyl Attkisson spoke of in her Ted-Talks presentation about the deception within Wikipedia.

Author Phillip Roth reportedly went to edit information to correct a major fact error that pertained to one of his own characters that was cited on a wikipedia page, but as Attkisson relates:

“No matter how hard he tried, wikipedia’s editors wouldn’t allow it. They kept reverting the evidence back to the false information. When Roth finally reached a person at wikipedia, which was no easy task, and tried to find out what was going wrong, they told him he simply was not considered a credible source on himself.”

Ladies and gentlemen, case closed.

A place that doesn’t allow facts to be corrected, by people that created them, is no place that should be trustworthy.

When traveling the innards of the websphere, be mindful of information, no matter where it comes from. Including here. Do your research.

Ultimately what our mind hones in on, is our choice. Luckily for us, we still have one.

Do your research, check, recheck, and make the correct choice for yourself.

As Buddha once said:

“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who has said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.”

———————————————————-
Sources:

https://thebreakaway.wordpress.com/category/mainstream-media-propaganda/
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-04-24/cnbc-viewership-plunges-eight-year-lows
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/wikipedia-rocked-by-rogue-editors-blackmail-scam-targeting-small-businesses-and-celebrities-10481993.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/03/wikipedia_industrial_scale_smears_and_blackmail/
https://thebreakaway.wordpress.com/2015/12/07/sharyl-attkisson-astroturf-manipulation-of-media-messages/