“Most Biased Encyclopedia in History” | Wikipedia Co-Founder

I just discovered that Wiki considers NO right-leaning outlet “reliable.” Not Fox News Politics, The Daily Wire, the Daily Caller, the FDRLST, or New York Post. What DOES Wiki consider “reliable?” CNN, MSNBC, Jacobin, Vox, and Buzzfeed! Give me a break!

Wikipedia Co-Founder Condemns WIKI: “Most Biased Encyclopedia in History” The entire opening/interview starting at the 10:37 is HERE.

here is the hat-tip AMERICA FIRST REPORT:

….Sanger says he noticed a bias creeping in around 2006, particularly in areas of science and medicine. Around 2010, he started noticing that articles about Eastern Medicine were being changed to reflect blatantly biased positions, using “dismissive epithets” to paint this ancient tradition as quackery.

In 2012, evidence also emerged revealing a Wikipedia trustee and “Wikipedian in Residence” were being paid to edit pages on behalf of their clients and secure their placement on Wikipedia’s front page in the “Did You Know” section, which publicizes new or expanded articles — a clear violation of Wikipedia rules.

“It really got over the top between 2013 and 2018,” Sanger says, “and by by at the time Trump became president, it was almost as bad as it is now. It’s amazing, you know, no encyclopedia, to my knowledge, has ever been as biased as Wikipedia has been

I remember being mad about Encyclopedia Britannica and The World Book not mentioning my favorite topics, [and] presenting only certain points of view in a way that establishment sources generally do. But this is something else. This is entirely different. It’s over the top.”….

In 2007 a hacker and tech whiz named Virgil Griffith revealed that the CIA, FBI and a host of large corporations and government agencies were editing pages on Wikipedia to their own benefit (or the benefit of associates). Now Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger is reporting that the intelligence agencies are still at it, routinely editing pages relating to the Iraq War body count, treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and China’s nuclear program. In the video below Jimmy mentions Aaron Maté. Jimmy Dore interviewed him regarding this incident of the Syrian chemical attack (HERE), and the article can be found on Aarons GRAYZONE.

REUTERS (2007)

The changes may violate Wikipedia’s conflict-of-interest guidelines, a spokeswoman for the site said on Thursday.

The program, WikiScanner, was developed by Virgil Griffith of the Santa Fe Institute in New Mexico and posted this month on a Web site that was quickly overwhelmed with searches.

The program allows users to track the source of computers used to make changes to the popular Internet encyclopedia where anyone can submit and edit entries.

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.


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….

Here is HEARTLAND INSTITUTE’S quick noting of the bias:

Heartland Institute President Tim Huelskamp discusses Wikipedia bias.

No Pre-Licensing Safety Testing On All Childhood Mandated Vaccines?!

  • Really, the reason behind this post is something RFK, Jr. said in a townhall. He said not a single mandated vaccine for children have ever gone through  pre-licensing safety trials. I had no-idea. — RPT

Before getting to that however, Jimmy Dore leads the way:

The whole premise of the COVID vaccine mandates was that everyone needed to be vaccinated because that would stop the spread of the virus. But it turns out that the CDC knew from the very beginning that the vaccines didn’t prevent transmission, so there was no need for mandates at all. As Jimmy points out in this video, that didn’t stop CDC head Rochelle Walensky from lying about the vaccines’ efficacy so she could continue pushing mandates.

Kennedy pushes back against critics that say he has anti-vaccine views. During a June 23 town hall hosted by WMUR-TV, Kennedy said if he were president, he would mandate pre-licensing safety trials for vaccines and “allow parents to make of their minds about whether they want to use vaccines for their children.”

“What I’ve said is I’m pro-science and pro-safety and we ought to subject vaccines…to at least the kind of rigorous placebo-controlled trials that are mandated for every other medicine,” Kennedy told WMUR. (NEWSNATIONNOW)

Here is a helpful post via REDDITT:

Can anyone provide reliable sources substantiating RFKJr’s claim that “childhood vaccines are immune from pre-licensing safety testing”?

Any specific vaccines someone can list with supporting evidence that there were not placebo-controlled trails for? Is this really the case for all childhood vaccines on the vaccine schedule?

Here’s a link to the transcript from the All-In podcast [BELOW] where he mentions this.


your point of view specifically on COVID. My objective is not to vaccines. I’m not anti-vaccine. I’m fully vaccinated. My kids were fully vaccinated. I wish at this point that I had not done that because I know enough about them now, but my principal objective is that vaccines, the childhood vaccines are immune from pre-licensing safety testing. Of the 72, when I was a kid, I got three vaccines. My children got 72 doses of 16 vaccines. And the vaccines are the one medical product that does not have to go through placebo-controlled trials where you test and expose versus an exposed population prior to licensure. And there’s a number of historical reasons for that that come out of the kind of military beginnings. These vaccines were regarded as national security defense against biological attacks on our country. So they wanted to make sure if the Russians attacked us with anthrax or some other biological agent,


they could quickly formulate and deploy.


And that there’s a number of military vaccine at 200 million Americans with no regulatory impediments. So they call them biologics rather than medicines and exempted biologics from pre-licensing safety trials. I’ve litigated on the issue. Not one of them has ever been tested, pre-licensure against. So nobody knows what the, you know, you can say that the vaccine is effective against a target disease, but you can’t say that it’s not causing worse problems. Now, I’ll just summarize this story. In the vaccine schedule exploded in 1986, the vaccine industry succeeded in getting Ronald Reagan to sign a law. And my uncle was also, you know, a group that was pressured by Wyeth, which was losing $20 in downstream liabilities on every vaccine it made because of lawsuits for every dollar that it made. And they went to Reagan and said, oh, we’re going to get out of the vaccine business and you’re going to be left without a vaccine supply unless you give us full immunity from liability. And Reagan reluctantly signed that. And so today, no matter how good conduct, you cannot sue them. That caused a gold rush because now you’ve got a product that there’s no downstream liability.

You’re immune from that. There’s no upstream safety testing. So that’s a $250 million saving. And there’s no marketing or advertising costs. Because the federal government is going to mandate this product to 76 million American children whether they like it or not. And there’s no better product in the world. And so there was a gold rush. And instead of three vaccines, we quickly ended up with 72 and now we’re going to, toward 80 right now. And there’s no end in sight. And a lot of those vaccines were unnecessary. They’re not even for casual disease. It caused disease.

Here is the same topic on Bill Maher’s SHow:

Here is a great response in the same thread:

You have two separate questions:

Google “National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986” for the immunity from liability question.

For the question about safety trials not being placebo-controlled, read “Turtles All The Way Down – Vaccine Science and Myth”. There is no single document that says “you don’t need placebo control”, so finding the answer to your question requires drilling down into the safety studies of every childhood vaccine. In some studies, they have what they call a “placebo”, but it is simply the vaccine under test, missing only the antigen-producing element. The adjuvant (aluminum?) is still in the placebo, the preservatives are there, everything except the one item. You need to do a lot of investigation to find the pattern. The author of “Turtles….” has done that investigation for you, and it is fully referenced.

(edit) As an example of how much drilling down is needed to answer question 2:

Look at the MMRII FDA Freedom of Information Request – it is 215 pages.

The summary that references the above FOIA is (from Turtles)

The package insert for MMR II does not mention any safety trials. As with the polio vaccine (IPOL) described earlier, a FOIA request revealed that the vaccine was tested in the mid-1970s in eight small clinical trials.(Reference above) The control groups in all of the trials received either the predecessor vaccine (MMR), a measles-rubella (MR) vaccine, or a single-dose of the rubella vaccine. A total of approximately 850 children received MMR II. Some of the trials seem to have been randomized, but none were blinded. These trials, considered either singly or in combination, do not meet the current requirement of a Phase 3 randomized controlled trial, which might explain their complete absence from the package insert.

Here is the link to the website mentioned by RFK — click of pic:

Back in May this was published by EPOCH TIMES:

UK authorities are investigating an “unusual” surge in severe myocarditis which has hit 15 babies in Wales and England and has killed at least one, the World Health Organisation (WHO) has announced.

On Tuesday, the WHO issued an alert that there had been a rise in “severe myocarditis” in newborns and infants between June 2022 and March 2023 in Wales and England.

It said that this was associated with the enterovirus infection, which rarely affects the heart.

A UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) spokesperson confirmed to The Epoch Times that 10 babies have been diagnosed in Wales and five have been diagnosed in England.

The WHO said that “although enterovirus infections are common in neonates and young infants, the reported increase in myocarditis with severe outcomes in neonates and infants associated with enterovirus infection is unusual.”

Judge Blocks California’s [fascist] COVID ‘Misinformation’ Law


California Judge BLOCKS Law Punishing Doctors For COVID Treatment

A federal judge has temporarily blocked a California law intended to prevent doctors from spreading COVID-19 misinformation or disinformation to patients, finding that it is “unconstitutionally vague.” 

A group of five doctors and two nonprofit advocacy groups sued in November after California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed Assembly Bill 2098 into law the month before. ….


Newsweek Essentially Admits The Were Full of Shite!

(Language Warning) “We Betrayed Public Trust On COVID Purposely” – Says Newsweek

NEWSWEEK’S article (go to article for the many links in the text):

As a medical student and researcher, I staunchly supported the efforts of the public health authorities when it came to COVID-19. I believed that the authorities responded to the largest public health crisis of our lives with compassion, diligence, and scientific expertise. I was with them when they called for lockdowns, vaccines, and boosters.

I was wrong. We in the scientific community were wrong. And it cost lives.

I can see now that the scientific community from the CDC to the WHO to the FDA and their representatives, repeatedly overstated the evidence and misled the public about its own views and policies, including on natural vs. artificial immunity, school closures and disease transmission, aerosol spread, mask mandates, and vaccine effectiveness and safety, especially among the young. All of these were scientific mistakes at the time, not in hindsight. Amazingly, some of these obfuscations continue to the present day.

But perhaps more important than any individual error was how inherently flawed the overall approach of the scientific community was, and continues to be. It was flawed in a way that undermined its efficacy and resulted in thousands if not millions of preventable deaths.

We excluded important parts of the population from policy development and castigated critics, which meant that we deployed a monolithic response across an exceptionally diverse nation, forged a society more fractured than ever, and exacerbated longstanding heath and economic disparities.

Our emotional response and ingrained partisanship prevented us from seeing the full impact of our actions on the people we are supposed to serve. We systematically minimized the downsides of the interventions we imposed—imposed without the input, consent, and recognition of those forced to live with them. In so doing, we violated the autonomy of those who would be most negatively impacted by our policies: the poor, the working class, small business owners, Blacks and Latinos, and children. These populations were overlooked because they were made invisible to us by their systematic exclusion from the dominant, corporatized media machine that presumed omniscience.

Most of us did not speak up in support of alternative views, and many of us tried to suppress them. When strong scientific voices like world-renowned Stanford professors John Ioannidis, Jay Bhattacharya, and Scott Atlas, or University of California San Francisco professors Vinay Prasad and Monica Gandhi, sounded the alarm on behalf of vulnerable communities, they faced severe censure by relentless mobs of critics and detractors in the scientific community—often not on the basis of fact but solely on the basis of differences in scientific opinion.

When former President Trump pointed out the downsides of intervention, he was dismissed publicly as a buffoon. And when Dr. Antony Fauci opposed Trump and became the hero of the public health community, we gave him our support to do and say what he wanted, even when he was wrong.

Trump was not remotely perfect, nor were the academic critics of consensus policy. But the scorn that we laid on them was a disaster for public trust in the pandemic response. Our approach alienated large segments of the population from what should have been a national, collaborative project.

And we paid the price. The rage of the those marginalized by the expert class exploded onto and dominated social media. Lacking the scientific lexicon to express their disagreement, many dissidents turned to conspiracy theories and a cottage industry of scientific contortionists to make their case against the expert class consensus that dominated the pandemic mainstream. Labeling this speech “misinformation” and blaming it on “scientific illiteracy” and “ignorance,” the government conspired with Big Tech to aggressively suppress it, erasing the valid political concerns of the government’s opponents.

And this despite the fact that pandemic policy was created by a razor-thin sliver of American society who anointed themselves to preside over the working class—members of academia, government, medicine, journalism, tech, and public health, who are highly educated and privileged. From the comfort of their privilege, this elite prizes paternalism, as opposed to average Americans who laud self-reliance and whose daily lives routinely demand that they reckon with risk. That many of our leaders neglected to consider the lived experience of those across the class divide is unconscionable.

Incomprehensible to us due to this class divide, we severely judged lockdown critics as lazy, backwards, even evil. We dismissed as “grifters” those who represented their interests. We believed “misinformation” energized the ignorant, and we refused to accept that such people simply had a different, valid point of view.

We crafted policy for the people without consulting them. If our public health officials had led with less hubris, the course of the pandemic in the United States might have had a very different outcome, with far fewer lost lives.

Instead, we have witnessed a massive and ongoing loss of life in America due to distrust of vaccines and the healthcare system; a massive concentration in wealth by already wealthy elites; a rise in suicides and gun violence especially among the poor; a near-doubling of the rate of depression and anxiety disorders especially among the young; a catastrophic loss of educational attainment among already disadvantaged children; and among those most vulnerable, a massive loss of trust in healthcare, science, scientific authorities, and political leaders more broadly.

My motivation for writing this is simple: It’s clear to me that for public trust to be restored in science, scientists should publicly discuss what went right and what went wrong during the pandemic, and where we could have done better.

It’s OK to be wrong and admit where one was wrong and what one learned. That’s a central part of the way science works. Yet I fear that many are too entrenched in groupthink—and too afraid to publicly take responsibility—to do this.

Solving these problems in the long term requires a greater commitment to pluralism and tolerance in our institutions, including the inclusion of critical if unpopular voices.

Intellectual elitism, credentialism, and classism must end. Restoring trust in public health—and our democracy—depends on it.