-
Censorship and Covid-19 in the USA
updated 4 weeks, 1 day ago
2 Members
·
8
Posts
-
I’ll start.
“Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia but a re-education platform”
Proof: Gossipy criticism in its definitions of platforms that host freedom of speech.
Example:
BitChute
BitChute is a video hosting service known for accommodating far-right individuals and conspiracy theorists, and for hosting hate speech. The platform was created in 2017 to allow video uploaders to avoid content rules enforcement on YouTube, and some creators who have been banned from YouTube or had their channels barred from receiving advertising revenue have migrated to BitChute.Wikipedia
-
We should transition our search engine from Google to DuckDuckGo. Transition email from Gmail to Protonmail. Also transition our video viewing from Youtube to Odysee.com.
I have to admit that I was radicalized by NPR, but having post-vaccine inflammatory syndrome somehow cured me of that!
-
Thanks Square-James
I used to be IveyTech, but I killed the pen name. Colorado Public Radio does not answer my emails.
-
Choosing a team opposite the politics you hate, is not how Science is supposed to work.
Ivermectin vs. Anti-ivermectin…what futility in the human COVID-19 response to work together
1) Team Therapeutic Off-Label Real World Evidence Compassion (Team TOLRWEC)
2) Team Fact Check Kill Every Misinformation Stay Official (Team FCKEMSO)
During the COVID-19 pandemic, misinformation was widely spread claiming that ivermectin is beneficial for treating and preventing COVID-19.<sup>[15]</sup> Such claims are not backed by sound evidence. Ivermectin – Wikipedia <sup>[16]</sup><sup>[17]</sup><sup>[18]</sup><sup>[19]</sup><sup>[20]</sup><sup>[unreliable medical source?]
</sup> -
Censors must have freedom of speech without taking away freedom of others’ speech.
That would make them see a good example, make them no longer censors, and expose them as violating others’ rights.
Restore the rights of Dr. Joseph Mercola…because there IS a Bill of Rights.
Use it actively.
-
@pierrekory “Consensus Ain’t Necessarily Truth – Behind the Curtain of the ‘Great Wizard of Oz of Encyclopedic Information’ aka Wikipedia”
Here is how they come to the editing process…in this case, describing Dr. Pierre Kory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pierre_Kory
The use of discretionary sanctions has been authorized by the Arbitration Committee for pages related to COVID-19, broadly construed, including this article. Please consult the awareness criteria and edit carefully.
The use of discretionary sanctions has been authorized by the Arbitration Committee
for pages related to articles about living or recently deceased people,
and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such
biographical articles, including this article. Please consult the awareness criteria and edit carefully.This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.
<div>If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page
</div><div>This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Science and Academia (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject COVID-19 (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject Medicine / Pulmonology (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you’ve come here in response to such recruitment, please review the relevant Wikipedia policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Wikipedia are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
<cite>Justus R. Hope (July 5, 2021). “Wikipedia and a pint of gin”. The Desert Review.</cite>
</div>
Treatments for COVID-19: Current consensus
A note on WP:MEDRS: Per this Wikipedia policy, we must rely on the highest quality secondary sources and the recommendations of professional organizations and government bodies when determining the scientific consensus about medical treatments.
<div>Ivermectin: The highest quality sources (1 2 3) do not currently support Ivermectin as an effective treatment for COVID-19. Recommendations from relevant organizations can be summarized as: <q>Evidence of efficacy for ivermectin is inconclusive. It should not be used outside of clinical trials.</q> (May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, July 2021, July 2021) (WHO, FDA, IDSA, ASHP, CDC, NIH)
Chloroquine & hydroxychloroquine: The highest quality sources (1, 2, 3 4) demonstrate that neither is effective for treating COVID-19. These analyses accounted for use both alone and in combination with azithromycin. Some data suggest their usage may worsen outcomes. Recommendations from relevant organizations can be summarized: <q>Neither
hydroxychloroquine nor chloroquine should be used, either alone or in
combination with azithromycin, in inpatient or outpatient settings.</q> (July 2020, Aug 2020, Sep 2020, May 2021) (WHO, FDA, IDSA, ASHP, NIH)
Ivmmeta.com, c19ivermectin.com, c19hcq.com, hcqmeta.com, etc: These sites are not reliable.
The authors are pseudonymous. The findings have not been subject to
peer review. We must rely on expert opinion, which describes these sites
as unreliable. From published criticisms (1 2 3 4), it is clear that these analyses violate basic methodological norms which are known to cause spurious or false conclusions. These analyses include studies which have very small sample sizes, widely different dosages of treatment, open-label designs, different incompatible outcome measures, poor-quality control groups, and ad-hoc un-published trials which themselves did not undergo peer-review. (Dec 2020, Jan 2021, Feb 2021)</div><div></div>
Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2021
Delete the word erroneous – author of this article is either biased or used erroneous erroneously. 2601:282:8280:1A60:6427:3ED2:C8CD:842C (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
No, I feel that this request was made in error. –Roxy <small> the grumpy dog</small>. wooF 21:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
<div>@Roxy the dog Well that’s awkward, I made the edit right as you replied above. My
reasoning was more along the lines that the word is there redundantly;
previous sentences already establish that he’s advocating for
“widespread off-label use of certain drugs”. My understanding of
Ivermectin is that it does work against COVID but at a level toxic to
humans. Taking “erroneously” out leaves us with “claimed that…”, which
takes out the potential OR out of the sentence. I would not object to
putting in “against scientific consensus” or something similar instead,
which backed up by the AP article cited</div><div>Ganbaruby! <small>(talk)</small> 21:36, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
The claim that it is a “wonder drug” that obliterates COVID etc, is
false as sources say. Wikipedia needs to be clear about that for
neutrality. This has been discussed ad nauseam already. Alexbrn (talk) 21:39, 7 July 2021 (UTC)What did they do to Dr. Joseph Mercola?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Joseph_Mercola
</div>
-
<b itemprop=”headline”> Wikipedia and a pint of gin
By Justus R. Hope, MD
<time datetime=”2021-07-05T16:31:00-07:00″>Jul 5, 2021</time>
Updated
<time datetime=”2021-07-06T14:33:05-07:00″>Jul 6, 2021</time>
</div><div>I became a Wiki editor a couple of weeks ago. Anyone can edit Wikipedia provided they follow the rules. One should not use primary sources. Instead, secondary sources are preferred. Translated, this means do not use sources that have not been widely read and reported for a long time and DO NOT use recent sources if they are not in the mainstream media.
Unfortunately, this means that published peer-reviewed medical journal articles will sometimes NOT be allowed, which means you, the reader, will likely get inaccurate or ONLY politically correct information.
This also means that someone’s Wikipedia page could contain unflattering and untrue information; in someone’s opinion it could be downright defamatory, and there is not a darn thing that can be done to correct this.
Allow me to illustrate a case in point. Dr. Pierre Kory has served as the Chief of Critical Care Medicine at a University Medical Center. This fact is accurately reported on his Wikipedia page. In addition, he published a book on Ultrasound and won a British Award for this. Again, this is also accurately portrayed on his page.
He testified at the US Senate about Ivermectin, and this is where the incorrect information gets written. The Wikipedia page reports,
“During his (Pierre Kory’s) testimony in December 2020, Kory erroneously claimed that the antiparasitic medication ivermectin was a ‘wonder drug’ with ‘miraculous effectiveness’ against COVID-19.[1]”
In support, 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.”
TrialSite News published an article debunking Beatrice Dupuy’s “fact check,” and this is what they wrote about her errors in the argument concerning Ivermectin and Dr. Kory:
“The AP, via author Beatrice Dupuy, indulges in both a straw-man argument and bait-and-switch tactic in its key finding; the former by asking whether Ivermectin is ‘miraculous’ (while a doctor may have used such language, common sense dictates that an inquiry more relevant to the public health would be whether ivermectin is ‘effective’), and the later by offering an ‘Assessment’ that answers a different question than the one in the ‘Claim.’
Quoting AP, ‘CLAIM: The antiparasitic drug Ivermectin ‘has a miraculous effectiveness that obliterates’ the transmission of COVID-19 and will prevent people from getting sick — AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. There’s no evidence Ivermectin has been proven a safe or effective treatment against COVID-19.’
The claim is about Ivermectin as a prophylactic to prevent getting COVID-19 illness, but the assessment’s language states that it is not an effective ‘treatment against COVID-19.’ Since prophylactic (prevention) is for the well, and treatment is for the sick, confusing these medical uses appears to be sloppy journalism or worse.”
What is truly troubling is that the Wikipedia editor considers this type of “fact check” by a non-physician a reliable source. What is even more troubling is that Wikipedia DOES NOT CONSIDER the American Journal of Therapeutics a reliable source. Their editors REFUSED to allow even the mention of Dr. Kory’s recent publication or Dr. Tess Lawrie’s recent publication in the same journal.
When I first saw Dr. Kory’s Wiki page, it read as follows:
“During his (Pierre Kory’s) testimony in December 2020, Kory erroneously claimed that the antiparasitic medication ivermectin was a ‘wonder drug’ with ‘miraculous effectiveness’ against COVID-19.[1]”
Since this was written in December 2020, MUCH MORE EVIDENCE has been published beyond Ms. Dupuy’s disputed fact check issued by the AP on December 11, 2020. We now have over 61 studies involving 19,432 patients via 578 authors.
That is more than a mountain of evidence. It is more like an encyclopedia of data comprising volumes and volumes of evidence. Included are 32 randomized controlled trials. Because many cancer drugs are FDA approved without a SINGLE randomized controlled trial, and many drugs are approved with less than 3,000 patients studied, the double standard is laughable.
Therefore, I changed “erroneous” to “controversial,” which is a more accurate adjective. I also added the newly published peer-reviewed medical journal studies by Dr. Kory and Dr. Lawrie. Finally, my edit contained these additional two sentences:
“However, in May of 2021, Dr. Kory published a narrative review in the peer-reviewed American Journal of Therapeutics entitled, “Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19.”[2] Subsequently, on June 17, 2021 Dr. Tess Lawrie published an extensive meta-analysis in the same peer-reviewed journal involving 24 randomized controlled trials and concluded that based upon moderate certainty evidence, Ivermectin was associated with a 62% reduction in COVID-19 mortality.[3]”
Following these changes, the senior editor “reverted” my edits, which is a polite way of saying he undid them. This senior editor describes himself as a retired computer scientist, and there is no indication of any medical training. Let us refer to him ASOP.
I received ASOP’s explanation, attached to my reversion, that the American Journal of Therapeutics was considered NOT RELIABLE, and he considered this medical journal a FRINGE source.
At first, I thought perhaps this was an isolated incident at Wikipedia. Then, I checked another page, the one on Ivermectin.
The Ivermectin Wiki page stated, “claims that Ivermectin is beneficial for treating and preventing COVID-19 are not backed by sound evidence.” Once again, they referenced a “fact check” page. Once again, I felt it was necessary to update their information.
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.”
Wikipedia reports that there are 41 million editor accounts, and some 127,566 are actively editing. Considering this, it is interesting that ASOP is the very same editor who reverted my edit on Pierre Kory and the same editor who recently edited the Ivermectin Wikipedia page. Wow! What are the chances?
I was curious. I checked his other editing activity, which is displayed on Wikipedia.
It turns out that he is also the same editor who manages the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 Vaccine Wiki page, and he is also the very same British retired computer scientist who edits the Big Pharma conspiracy theory Wiki page. He also edits the Spike Protein Wiki page.
Allow me to leave it to your imagination as to where he stands on these issues.
Hint: He is curiously aligned with Big Pharma, Big Vaccines, and Big Regulators in all of his viewpoints. To those who challenge him, he frequently threatens “sanctions” and barring from Wikipedia. One might think this fabled super-editor at Wikipedia, ASOP, has medical training or a degree in the life sciences. But no, he is skilled at computer code, and he, like many political pundits, is a skilled debater and wordsmith, but he has precious few skills when it comes to medicine.
Funny that this non-physician would be “the chosen one” to edit Wiki pages on vaccines, spike protein, and Ivermectin, out of the 41 million other potential editors, but perhaps there is a lot at stake here. For whom? And to undo an edit within 5 minutes on July 4th suggests an early warning monitoring system of nuclear proportions.
When reading the Big Pharma conspiracy theory Wiki page, one gets the impression that the pharmaceutical industry has never been involved in large scandals. One editor objected to the biased reporting,
“The problem I see with this is that the references appear to be rather one-sided on the issue, and particularly ignore the more recent well-documented scandals in the pharmaceutical industry which posit the potential question of whether there is widespread corruption involved in the government regulating bodies, such as the FDA.”
Another editor called ASOP out on his obvious conflict of interest. Let’s call this second editor, SENSE, who wrote,
“This article is absolutely disgusting. If you google “Big Pharma”, this is the first result that comes up. It’s as if all use of “Big Pharma” is somehow suggestive of a conspiracy regarding, of course, a very noble and honorable industry.” SENSE continued,
“Your history in this talk page strongly suggests that you might have a WP: COI (Wikipedia Conflict of Interest) regarding your connections to the medical industry.”
As a physician with decades of practice, recent widespread corruption is the rule, and lack thereof is the rare exception. When trying to help my friend survive Glioblastoma, I uncovered far more than I expected, and I felt everyone needed to know this alarming information. So, I wrote a book.
https://www.amazon.com/Surviving-Cancer-COVID-19-Disease-Repurposed/dp/0998055409
The medical-industrial complex routinely suppresses cheap treatments with repurposed drugs, and ASOP helps prove the very existence of what he is attempting and probably paid to discredit.
The WP: COI policy is stated as follows,
“COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. It undermines public confidence and risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals and companies being promoted.”
Wikipedia also has a noble policy of required disclosure, very similar to the medical journals. The problem is that just as in the medical journals, this disclosure relies upon the honor system, and as we have recently seen, often these go unreported,
Suppose you expect to read a Wikipedia article and come away with a comprehensive, scholarly, and exhaustive understanding of a subject. In that case, you may get it with topics about black holes, astronomy, and physics. You may also get it with ancient history. Wikipedia does a good job there. But if you are reading about any topic even vaguely related to cancer, vaccines, or the pandemic, where big money is being made, then forget it.
In particular, if you read any of ASOP’s Wikipedia pages, do not expect to find any encyclopedic reading. Instead, anticipate the party line of the FDA, the NIH, and Big Pharma. When it comes to peer-reviewed medical journals, Wikipedia believes them to be fringe if what they publish infringes upon Big Pharma and their brethren. However, an AP “Fact Check” by a non-physician TeenVogue journalist is considered solid evidence.
My advice is to stand with college professors everywhere, “Wikipedia is NOT reliable, and their information should be taken with a grain of salt and perhaps a pint of gin as well.”
</div>
Fact Checking the Fact Checkers: The Case of Ivermectin for Publicly-Subsidized Research
-
WIKIPEDIA’S INTERNAL PATH OF NO RETURN (TO A RELIABLE ENCYCYCLOPEDIC BLOG)
HERE IS AN EXAMPLE OF CONFLICTS THAT ARE NO LONGER SOLVABLE, TOO MUCH GOSSIP…
Discretionary sanctions with the wording listed on this page are authorised for the following topic areas (the italicised link after each topic names the associated arbitration decision):
Pages relating to Abortion (Abortion)
All edits about, and all pages related to post-1992 politics of the
United States and closely related people, broadly construed. (American politics 2)
Pages relating to the Ancient Egyptian race controversy, and associated articles (Ancient Egyptian race controversy)
Pages relating to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related ethnic conflicts (Armenia-Azerbaijan 2)
Pages relating to Climate change (Climate change)
All edits about, and all articles related to, COVID-19, broadly construed. (COVID-19)
Any edit about, and all pages relating to, Complementary and Alternative Medicine (Acupuncture)
Pages relating to Eastern Europe or the Balkans (Eastern Europe)
Articles with biographical content relating to living or recently
deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently
deceased) of such biographical articles (Editing of Biographies of Living Persons)
The topic of Electronic cigarettes, broadly construed (Editor conduct in e-cigs articles)
Pages relating to Falun Gong (Falun Gong)
All edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them (Gender and sexuality)
All pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural biotechnology, including glyphosate, broadly interpreted (Genetically modified organisms)
Any edit about, and all pages relating to, the governmental
regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political
context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated
with these issues (Gun control)
Pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia,
Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related
disputes) for a trial period of three months and until further decision
of this Committee (Horn of Africa)
Pages relating to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan (India-Pakistan, motion)
Discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes (Civility in infobox discussions).
The topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. (Kurds and Kurdistan)
The topic of Landmark Worldwide, broadly construed (Landmark Worldwide, motion)
Pages relating to Liancourt Rocks (Liancourt Rocks)
Pages related to longevity, broadly construed (Longevity)
Pages relating to the Manual of Style and article titles policy (Article titles and capitalisation)
Pages relating to Muhammad (Muhammad images)
Pages relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict (Palestine-Israel articles)
Pages relating to Prem Rawat (Prem Rawat and Prem Rawat 2, motion)
All discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for
edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or
pricing from articles (Medicine)
Pages relating to Pseudoscience and Fringe science (Pseudoscience)
Pages relating to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour (Race and intelligence)
This includes restoring edits by banned editors in the Race and intelligence topic area (motion)
Pages relating to Scientology (Scientology, motion)
Pages relating to the Senkaku Islands topic area (Senkaku Islands)
Pages relating to the September 11 attacks (September 11 conspiracy theories)
Pages relating to the Shakespeare authorship question (Shakespeare authorship question)
Pages relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland (The Troubles)
Pages relating to Transcendental meditation (Transcendental Meditation movement)
Pages relating to Waldorf education (Waldorf education)Discretionary sanctions with the wording listed on this page were previously authorised for the following topic areas, which have since been rescinded or superseded by later cases (the italicised link after each topic names the associated arbitration decision):
Pages related to the Austrian school of economics and the Ludwig von Mises Institute (Austrian economics)
Ayn Rand and related pages (Ayn Rand)
Pages relating to Cold fusion (Cold fusion 2)
Discussions about the integration of Wikidata on the English Wikipedia (Crosswiki issues; expired by its own terms one year after authorization)
Pages relating to Gibraltar (Gibraltar)
Pages relating to Homeopathy (Homeopathy)
Any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task
Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any
process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed (Interactions at GGTF)
Pages relating to the Balkans (Macedonia); incorporated into the Eastern Europe discretionary sanctions by motion
All pages related to the Monty Hall problem, broadly interpreted (Monty Hall problem)
Pages dealing with transgender issues including Chelsea Manning and paraphilia classification (e.g. hebephilia) (Sexology and Manning naming dispute); superseded by the GamerGate decision (which was later superseded by Gender and sexuality by motion)
All edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed (GamerGate); superseded by Gender and sexuality by motion
Pages relating to the Tea Party movement (Tea Party movement)
The topic covered by the article currently located at tree shaping, interpreted broadly (Tree shaping)SOURCE: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions
Viewing 1 - 8 of 8 replies