Who is Declaring What’s Legitimate Information vs. Misinformation on Wikipedia?

Who is Declaring What’s Legitimate Information vs. Misinformation on Wikipedia?

Wikipedia purports to be an objective, non-biased online knowledge repository seeking to “create and distribute a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language.” Undoubtedly, that information should be truthful and as unbiased as possible. For those tracking the ivermectin studies during the pandemic, Wiki starts to look anything but unbiased. A casual perusal of “COVID-19 Misinformation” is a telling place to start. Under ivermectin, the Wiki authors dis the existing meta-analyses evidencing positive ivermectin findings. They argue that based on one analysis, the meta-analysis used at least in part by the World Health Organization to track ivermectin during the pandemic has “Serious methodological limitations” and thus casts doubt on that important work. The Wiki authors turn their attention on Dr. Pierre Kory and Paul E. Marik of the notorious Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), declaring that while their meta-analysis was initially accepted by Frontiers Media, it was subsequently rejected. But how come the Wiki authors didn’t share the truth that the meta-analysis was published in the American Journal of Therapeutics? Why would the Wiki authors exclude the BIRD Group ivermectin meta-analysis also included by peer-reviewed American Journal of Therapeutics? Why didn’t Wiki’s experts share with the world that the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel invited the same FLCCC group, that is the ones they lump in with cranks, cooks, and conspiracy loons, along with Dr. Andrew Hill, to share with the panel their findings? Or, for that matter, share with the world that just a couple of weeks after that meeting (again with FLCCC and Dr. Hill) that the NIH Treatment Guidelines Panel changed their ivermectin guidance from a negative (only for research) to a neutral position (not enough data to recommend against or for)?

Interesting how selective Wiki has become during the pandemic….while it was able to secure all content from the World Health Organization in a deal back in October 2020, the authors didn’t bother to share that that same global health agency (again the WHO) has been watching ivermectin carefully. In fact, Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove went on the record at a February 2021 media briefing that the WHO, at the time, had peered into the data associated with 1,500 study patients in 11 studies and that while there wasn’t sufficient data for them to make any recommendations, there was most certainly some promising trials and associated data. WHO emphasized that they would continue to monitor the situation. Why on earth wouldn’t that and all the rest above be mentioned unless there’s an explicit goal to completely discredit this possible therapeutic option, and the various researchers looking into the matter.

The point here is that the world’s communication channels, from the social tech giants such as Facebook and Twitter to fundamental knowledge repositories such as Wikipedia, exhibit an anti-ivermectin bias, by portraying the facts in a way that as it turns out becomes misleading by itself.

We ask the question, is it misleading to omit whole pieces of truth? We think it is. TrialSite was set up in late 2018 to track pharma studies with an aim of bringing more transparency to the whole clinical trials processes with a particular emphasis on the trial site. We appreciate pharma, the breakthroughs, and the medicines that many take for granted today. Patient/volunteer shortages are a continuous problem for clinical trials. TrialSite’s original premise, that more dynamic and participatory research—with greater patient engagement—could over time lead to an acceleration of key medicines. While pharma may think they are doing a good job of “engagement” with patients and the general public, we beg to differ. We think that true participatory research follows a formula starting with awareness-raising but must include research transparency and accessibility of information followed by bi-directional engagement.

Frankly, as the pandemic commenced, we had no interest in ivermectin other than finding it interesting that an existing repurposed drug could potentially help treat people. We knew that much research would proceed but what we didn’t expect was not only the incredible resistance to this research from all major media sources but also the open hostility directed at any group that publishes such findings. Wikipedia itself is a good example of lumping ivermectin in the misinformation campaign without any other factual points of view. This has led us to believe that perhaps regulatory capture reins in the age of COVID-19. Interestingly, among all the regulatory agencies Wiki offers as examples for regulatory capture, conspicuously absent is the FDA.


  1. I am in a position to choose Ivermectin at low doses for prevention.
    I may run out so will spread the dose. There is entirely too much funny business going on with IVM since it is generic and cheap. Not a good deal for Pharma – cheap?

  2. I’ve tried to edit Wikipedia to get a less biased result, but all my changes have been reversed.

    This seems like a clear case of regulatory capture; if someone has a lot of expertise in the buzzwords of being an encyclopedia editor, and they spend a lot of time on Wikipedia, generating reputation there, then their opinions tend to remain in the articles. But if a small-time player, like me, get on and adds something that is clearly a documented fact, it will often get removed. The justification for removal is often some arcane rule that is only applied to things that don’t agree with the main defender of the article’s status quo.

    I would not be surprised to find out that businesses, governments and NGO’s with an interest in spinning “the truth” had people on the payroll who’s job description included reigning-in Wikipedia articles.

    As a “call to action”, I think we all should spend a few minutes on these articles’ “talk” page, find out who’s been attempting to make the articles more balanced, and reinstate the changes that the regulatory capture authors have been rejecting. True, that you changes will also be reverted, but at least we can be a pain in the neck for the entities that are attempting to spin the truth towards their fiction.

  3. Here is a second glaring example of censorship by Wikipedia:
    We are approaching the 20th anniversary of the crimes of 9/11.
    Investigation of a crime must begin with a forensic investigation of the crime scene and of the crime itself (when video or audio recordings of the crime are available). The first task is to define WHAT the crime WAS.
    Example: Police arrest Joe for murder when he is found standing over a bloody corpse while holding a smoking gun. The prosecution falls apart when Joe’s defense attorney elicits the coroner’s testimony in court: “The victim died of stab wounds.”
    Two 110 story skyscrapers disappeared from the skyline of New York City on 9/11. Where did they go? What was the crime?
    Multiple independent lines of evidence, as assembled, documented and analyzed scientifically by a doctoral level materials scientist, prove that the towers turned to dust, steel and all, in mid-air at ambient temperature. They did NOT collapse. They were not blown up. They turned to dust in under 12 seconds each. This is FACT, not any sort of theory, conspiracy or otherwise. Hard, fully established, fact.
    Unavoidable conclusion: Since jet fuel fires do NOT turn steel and concrete to dust, planes hitting the towers are NOT what caused them to disappear.
    The brilliant scientist who carried out this forensic analysis of the crime (and published it at her own expense and risk) is nowhere to be found on Wikipedia, nor is mention of her 500 page, fully documented, forensic study. Furthermore, an acquaintance of mine wrote a detailed and fully referenced biography of her and entered it to a Wikipedia page he had created for this biography. The biography was immediately deleted from Wikipedia, and when he formally objected, he himself was banned for life from editing on Wikipedia.
    Inconvenient FACTS that don’t fit current acceptable political narratives are censored from Wikipedia. I do not support them.

  4. This is nothing new. PR companies in the pocket of Wallstreet (Blackrock, Vanguard etc) have decades of practice controlling the online scientific narrative. Wikipedia is relatively easy to capture. Quora is another good example. But it basically extends to every single online platform for public discussion including social media, newspaper comments sections, hundreds of fact-check websites. Thimerosal, mercury amalgam and autism, aluminium and alzheimers, parasites and cancer… there’s an endless list of examples.

    One of the things that surprised me most with this pandemic is the number of people “how could this corruption suddenly be happening so blatantly”. But of course it’s not sudden – these forces have had decades to strategise, organise and practice. And it’s always been this blatant… perhaps the only thing to have changed is the complete capture of google, youtube, facebook etc.

    Where does it end?

  5. Wikipedia has always been controversal on these kind of topics.
    But it’s also somehow uses a kind of majority vote.
    If the majority says 1+1=3, wikipedia will state as a fact that 1+1=3, even though scientific evidence suggests otherwise.

  6. please write about how Robert Malone, the INVENTOR of the Mrna vaccine technology has been REMOVED from the wiki mrna vacine page. They RE-WROTE history to remove him now that he is criticizing the vaccine and promoting Ivermectin.

    1. All the more reason to get and use Ivermectin.
      Will it help? Not sure.
      Will it hurt? Probably not in normal dosing.

      Some of the so-called trials used toxic doses to destroy the uses of some drugs that were low-priced.

  7. As fast as you put accurate referenced information on the Wikipedia ivermectin site, it is taken down. You can go to Talk and look at the version (curr/prev) as it was before the guardian got at it.

    1. There is a big difference between wikipedia and wikileaks. Let’s hope they will never ever work together.
      And it’s indeed a good time for wikileaks.

  8. TsN can edit a Wikipedia entry, as can anyone else. All that’s generally required is a third party reference.

    Wikipedia may be a good place to collaterally debate pharmacologial and epidemiological issues in a non-adversarial manner.

    1. That’s what most people think, but once you actually try to do just that you quickly realize that the entire narrative about any early treatment for COVID is completely controlled by mainly 1 person backed by a few others. Any attempt to try and make the page for Ivermectin or any other early treatment less biased against it will be met by immediate removal.
      They have locked the pages now, so it is even more restrictive. If you want to have an idea of how these pages are controlled by a single person, just go to their “talk” pages. Like here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ivermectin

      1. I can’t comment on your specifics, because I don’t know what’s been posted that’s met with resistance. But, if you don’t fight back, then you lose.
        I did notice that the fact that NIH is neutral on Ivermectin is not mentioned in the Wikipedia entry. Maybe you should try to enter that and see if it’s rejected. That’s a well-respected source, so it would seem to be difficult to refute on the facts.

      2. Restrictive. Overly so, by Alexbrn (who scoffs at food sensitivity testing, kinesiology and eats processed foodstuffs such as sausage rolls and cake for lunch on his audax rides). My real world experience (first hand as a kinesiologist) shows 94% success rate. Kinesiology has been around helping people attain goals for 57 years, fixing issues that mainstream medicos can not fix. And therein lies the underlying problem: resistance to change/improvement. Alexbrn is, in my opinion, a *backward* thinker. Stuck in the ever-so-slow “past lane”. Society is progressing, due to public demand for improvements, whether Alex approves of it or not.
        Thank you for sharing this Wiki page Adriaan. Much appreciated. Cheers!

    2. I tried editing in Wikipedia once.
      An experiment in citizen journalism, I edited the entry for Alex Emerick Jones to include kind of a neutral description:
      “independent journalist/documentary film maker/ hosts radio program with guests from many different persuasions/topics include exposures of corruption, health choices, freedom precedence in constitutional law, world affairs, etc. Some guests have inside experience in business or government, for example revealing preciously undisclosed information on such topics as 9/11, history, secret government activities and health supplement offerings…

      What became of my citizen editing? Well, not “net neutrality” or unbiased “encyclopedic” information. Wikipedia made SURE that there was little to ZERO of Alex’s investigative reporting success and his repertoire with many of his interview guests. Wikipedia would tear apart TSN for having hosted and allowed people that dig hard and deep for a picture of the history of the homo sapiens species.
      Here’s what TSN has to consider, would a permanent smear help the cause?
      So far, Wikipedia is “hands off” of Trial Site News…because they haven’t discovered TSN yet. The hyenas of controlled information met the lions of investigative reasearch reporting with angry smears and resistance, re-editing my edits to a description that sticks to depicting exposure as conspiratory journalism, and they do not see themselvescas conspiring at all. They are “protectors” along the other groups of media around the world that are conspiring to remove information you “should not see” on the internet.

      “Conspiracy theorist”.
      That is Alex Jones in his entire purpose in this life?
      I think not.
      People reap what they sow, granted, but an encyclopedia should do better than that.
      What do you think of this entry?
      Is it entirely or mostly accurate? Is it a narrative that paintsca picture so that you cannot see what Alex prevented the U.S. from becoming (an information-suppressed state).
      Wait…the information-suppressed state is Wikipedia’s accomplishment

      Alex Jones became more resistant to imposed normalcy fighting back.
      Does Wikipedia become the Encyclopedia Britannica of the electronic media or does it have a hyena-like disposition?
      “Jones said he is “proud to be listed as a thought criminal against Big Brother””.

      Trial Site News is now in a mode of trying to uncover corruption, but it is still true to this description:
      TrialSite News is the only digital media dedicated 100% to transparent, independent and open coverage of clinical research trial sites and investigational staff around the globe. Based on a comprehensive global clinical research site data base, real time news feeds and industry network contributors, the company harnesses an intelligent aggregation

      and curation algorithm for timely, relevant clinical research site-specific news and events. The company also produces original content and contract research services. Its membership base includes research sites, commercial sponsors, patient associations and individual patients as well as private equity investors.

      We do not need Wikipedia.

      1. delete this. I just wanted you to read it. There is a movie, “Burn After Reading”…
        Burn After Reading
        Burn After Reading is a 2008 black comedy crime film written, produced, edited and directed by Joel and Ethan Coen. It follows a recently jobless CIA analyst whose misplaced memoirs are found by a pair of dimwitted gym employees. When they mistake the memoirs for classified government documents, they undergo a series of misadventures in an attempt to profit from their find. The film also stars George Clooney as a womanizing U.S. Marshal, Tilda Swinton as the wife of John Malkovich’s character, Richard Jenkins as the gym manager, and J.K. Simmons as a CIA supervisor. The film premiered on August 27, 2008 at the Venice Film Festival. It was released in the United States on September 12, 2008 and in the United Kingdom on October 17, 2008. It performed well at the box office, grossing over $168 million from its $37 million budget. Critical response was mostly positive, with nominations at both the Golden Globes and BAFTA awards.Wikipedia
        Director:Joel Coen, Ethan Coen
        Produced by:Joel Coen, Ethan Coen
        Writer(s):Joel Coen, Ethan Coen
        Starring:George Clooney, Frances McDormand, John Malkovich, Tilda Swinton, Richard Jenkins, Brad Pitt
        Music:Carter Burwell
        Cinematography:Emmanuel Lubezki
        Edited by:Joel Coen, Ethan Coen
        Production, company:Relativity Media, StudioCanal, Working Title Films, Mike Zoss Productions
        Distributed by:Focus Features (United States), StudioCanal (France), Universal Pictures (International)
        Released:August 27, 2008 (Venice), September 12, 2008 (United States), October 17, 2008 (United Kingdom), December 10, 2008 (France)
        Running time:96 minutes
        Country:United States, United Kingdom, France
        Budget:$37 million
        Box office:$163.7 million

    3. Here’s why Wikipedia is a poor scientific discussion repository:
      Ivermectin and COVID-19

      Ivermectin (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
      COVID-19 drug repurposing research‎ (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
      Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic‎ (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

      Ivermectin is the latest “miracle cure” being proposed for COVID-19, and these pages are running > 10,000 views/day. The NIH has recently issue guidelines that there is insufficient evidence to recommend for or against its use. Nevertheless, there is an increasing editorial push across multiple articles to boost it unduly. A quick way to get uo-to-speed quickly on the context is probably this news piece on MedPage Today. All of these articles could probably benefit from additional eyes from fringe-savvy editors. Alexbrn (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
      Pinchas Winston
      Not sure where, if anywhere, this belongs.
      Casimir effect
      Fringe Theory template
      Indigenous Ways of Knowing
      Need more eyes and comments about possible fringe archaeology at Iruña-Veleia
      Apollo 20 hoax
      What happens when a conspiracy theorist goes after a fake news site?
      Hezârfen Ahmed Çelebi
      Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay men
      Last edited 4 months ago by CommonsDelinker
      Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless otherwise noted.

      Privacy policy
      Terms of Use