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 Journa...

Note:  If you need assistance with your subscription or would like to discuss a corporate subscription for more than 10 employees please contact us or use the chat (bottom right).

Personal
$5 / Month
Individuals at home that are reading our content for personal health care or other non-professional reasons.
Like a Starbucks a month
Personal - Single Payment
$50 for 1 Year
Individuals - reading for personal reasons who prefer to pay for one year in advance with no recurring billing.
18% discount to monthly
Professional
$12 / Month
Professionals from the healthcare industry who are subscribing on behalf of their company for work reasons.
Way better than coffee