If Wikipedia became obsolete because it suppressed the origin of SARS-CoV-2

[TheRealRestoreInc.]

<div>As with other theories about world-changing events, there is an “official” version brewing at Wikipedia about the origin of COVID-19. Right now they call it “investigations into the origin of COVID-19</div><div>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19

Will they at Wikipedia adjust their encyclopedia to the whims of the Chinese Communist Party? The investigation is, after all, stifled most by the CCP.

Perhaps the censorship has already begun…the NIH.gov website won’t let me in.

Hmm. We’re having trouble finding that site.

We can’t connect to the server at pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.

If that address is correct, here are three other things you can try:

Try again later.

Check your network connection.

If you are connected but behind a firewall, check that Firefox has permission to access the Web.

</div><div>

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32700664/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32768971/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33356661/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32387617/

Who is going to “authorize” the real truth, let alone the “official version”?

By quoting others of their choice, those at Wikipedia have lost their investigative edge. Now it has become what the minions most likely want to believe.

Who believes the direction of origin theory that deliberately implicates the medical arm of the CCP…because of the”most likely” approach to the origin?

Try Li-Meng Yan.

Tweets by DrLiMengYAN1

We have to have choices.

</div>

[TheRealRestoreInc.]

Wikipedia is being exposed for trying to keep ORIGIN in a can.

https://www.cnet.com/features/wikipedia-is-at-war-over-the-coronavirus-lab-leak-theory/

Excerpt:

“…The exclusion of the lab leak theory from Wikipedia predominantly rests on established guidelines. Chief among them is one known by editors as WP:MEDRS. It refers to the referencing of “biomedical” information on Wikipedia, stating sources must be “reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge.”

It’s the guideline that launched a thousand Talk page disputes.

There are two battalions here: One suggests MEDRS is the appropriate guideline when it comes to sourcing information around the origins of a virus, and the other argues it’s being wrongly applied. The guideline, as it reads, was established to prevent medical misinformation from being propagated through Wikipedia. Because millions of people turn to the site for health advice and guidance, it’s critical Wikipedia get this correct — publishing the wrong advice could have deadly consequences…”

[TheRealRestoreInc.]

Wikipedia’s Fragile Grasp of Medicine

“…This is an encyclopedia, not a science-journal monitoring center. When
we judge a source not good enough for inclusion in an article, there is
no compulsion to inform the publisher of the source of our decision…” —Hob Gadling (talk) 07:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AIvermectin

More excerpts from the Wikipedia Ivermectin Talk page:

Wow. Reading this section was disheartening, to say the least, but
reading the talk section about this section is much more so. Leaving
aside the question of which position on Ivermectin for either
prophylaxis or treatment of Covid19 turns out to be more accurate, the
tone of this section is blatantly propagandistic, which should be rather
the opposite of the style of writing used to address the factual basis
for claims of a given substance’s efficacy as disease treatment. The
section starts with (heavily politicized) assertions and conclusions
about Ivermectin and Covid19, then casts not only opposing viewpoints
but opposing evidence (and, whether one considers it high quality
evidence or not, said opposing evidence has been widely published in
relevant [and reputable, fwiw] sources, including a number of medical
journals) as, essentially, baseless conspiracy theories of the sort no
doubt common to the writers’ political opponents (yes, tongue firmly in
cheek here). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, one which I’ve usually
appreciated in the past for its even handed tone on biochem/small
molecule/drug articles when the ‘Research Directions’ section comes up.
This entry should be no exception, and its far from unreasonable to
expect editors and contributors to put aside their political motivations
and adhere to this standard. Even if we don’t admit that there is far
from consensus on this issue, we could write it in a much more factual
way, using neutral language (i.e. “Some clinicians have advocated for”
“various political figures have drawn attention to” “this evidence has,
as of X date, not been accepted by X, Y, Z”) instead of using words like
“erroneously” and “misinformation” and the like, which are claims that
are no different than the ones purportedly being “debunked”. This
section is really off on the NPOV, which given the importance of the
topic could possibly have serious (life and death) IRL consequences.
Truth is always important, but seems especially important here. As for
the data, a simple perusal of The Lancet, CHEST (one of the top
Pulmonary/Crit Care Journals) and even Nature should show that from an
clinical trial/research data perspective, Ivermectin efficacy is at
least an open question, nevermind its widespread use in actual clinical
practice in many different jurisdictions (which is EXACTLY how we landed
at using Dexamethasone for severe covid when existing “Gold Standard”
reviews of the evidence for/against corticosteroids in ARDS had created
doubt it would be of much use – fast forward some months, and now its a
Gold standard treatment for critical covid patients. Ditto IL-6
inhibitors like Toci – they were pretty fringe but achieved widespread
acceptance as part of the toolkit in no small part because some
clinicians experimented). This style of writing seems reminiscent of
mask wearing being dismissed as “ineffective” and ‘misinformation’
during the pandemic’s early days. Even the WHO made that mistake in
their public health advice. Please let’s remember that, not make the
same mistakes here, and keep the language measured and precise, instead
of strident. 108.175.233.87 (talk) 00:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn’t this count as a source? Meta-analysis of randomized trials of ivermectin to treat SARS-CoV-2 infection Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. Authored by

Andrew Hill – Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L73NY, UK
Anna Garratt – Department of Infectious Diseases, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff and Vale, University Health Board, UK
Jacob Levi – Department of Intensive Care, University College London Hospital, ULCH NHS Trust, London, UK
Jonathan Falconer – Department of Infectious Diseases, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, Imperial NHS Trust, London, UK
Leah Ellis, Kaitlyn McCann, Victoria Pilkington, Ambar Qav,
Junzheng Wang, Hannah Wentzel – Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College
London, UK

The 13th 4postle (talk) 13:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Here are 9! Double Blind Randomized Control Trials which suggest that Ivermectin has a positive effect in treating patients with Covid-19. How is this not considered “credible scientific evidence?”