53 Comments

Congratulations on your badge of efficacy!! 🏆

"When you are slandered by the propagandists, that means you are the good guy, even though the menticided public believes the opposite. In Upside-Down World, persisting in seeing things right-side up—despite the incessant, relentless, never-ending gaslighting—means you have valiantly guarded your most precious possessions: your integrity and your sanity." (https://margaretannaalice.substack.com/p/letter-to-a-mainstream-straddler)

Expand full comment
founding
Jan 6·edited Jan 6

Well, there is another way to look at this. If only registered users can edit, then register. Gather and direct the necessary resources, and fight the edit battle in a documented and publishable way that shines appropriate scrutiny on Wikipedia.

They are taking money claiming to provide a benefit of objectivity and vetted content. Where there is apparent fraud and collusion to defraud by shill editors, they should be exposed in a reasonable factual way with demands they act according to their fundraising claims of truth and objectivity.

These editors have names. They can be confronted directly as a part of this process. They have neither qualified immunity or guaranteed anonymity where served process is involved. There are many ways to turn up the heat on liars and sycophants who are acting in bad faith to the economic benefit of Wikipedia under the aegis of Wikipedia's policies and permissions.

Wikipedia can't have it both ways. Truth wins out, but only if credible credentialed responsible others make the effort to force the issue.

Build a coalition with other shared voices to create a team around the mRNA scandal to do this battle and prevail with facts on a continuing ongoing basis, as that is what it will take. There is good way and a great need to build such a shared team among the cohort interests WCH shares in common with like others.

In sum, the decision to not respond is itself a decision to fail to act responsibly when you otherwise have the data, the expertise, the credentials and, as advocates collecting money, the duty to do something constructive about the significant and perversely influential Wikipedia problem.

Where some see a badge of honor, I instead see a most unfortunate badge of indolence and abandonment.

WCH says it is in the business of doing better. Do so. Please.

Expand full comment

Doesn't Tess's article do just what you suggest? We have to pick our battles, and, instead of spending time, money and energy on directly confronting the power narrative, they have done so by creating an alternative view and practical resources which support those of us harmed by the medical/industrial/pharmaceutical complex. Far better to support the creation of a better way than to be diverted by the powers that be to fight them on their own ground.

Expand full comment
founding
Jan 6·edited Jan 6

That's all and good, but that's not the battlefield that matters most.

The corrupt and sycophant editors have rarely been more indefensibly and demonstrably wrong than on this general topic. There is a cardinal conflict to be confronted in the Wikipedia space.

The medical editing and gatekeeping corruption present in the Wikipedia process has been an existential problem for them for some time. This endures because of money, perverse organization and the demands upon greater minds and voices who otherwise stay busy, see patients and practice the medical arts and associated sciences.

The battlefield in is the editing process, exposing, besting and flushing the corrupt gatekeepers and holding Wikipedia true to its word.

Attack the protagonists where they are the most vulnerable. They can dissemble and distort for hire because they hide under the mantle of authority acceptable to Wikipedia. For that to change, Wikipedia apparently must learn the hard way that granting such authority to shills and sycophants of external financial interests is a most unacceptable thing for Wikipedia to authorize..

It takes a uniquely positioned and credible cohort team of physician and medical processionals to successfully support a thrust like this. They don't have to do it, per se, but they need to create a clearing house of evidence that emboldens the talents of others to lead the charge and conduct the battle in the Wikipedia jungle on Wikipedias stated terms and conditions directly targeting the editors who are caught in lies and prevarications.

There comes a time to put the clever to the meat and make a proper stew.

Expand full comment

It's not worth the effort! Thinking folks KNOW it's all S--T!!

Expand full comment

Trouble is, non thinking people use it, and there are a lot of them 😉.

Expand full comment

I used to as well - before I began to notice a number of highly inconsistent statements there. Mainly, people I knew were honest and trustworthy were being slandered. Good doctors were being vilified. So everyone has to learn for themselves. It's difficult to overcome millions of dollars of propaganda.

Expand full comment

Re-read the article, it explained how the policies are slanted against primary sources in order to give cover for slanted editors. When “Health Feedback”, a known propaganda organ, gets veto power over cited facts then you will lose.

Expand full comment
founding
Jan 6Liked by World Council for Health

I am very much saddened that Wiki can be so cruel. I have on several occasions donated £20 to keep Wikipedia going. Based on what Wiki is showing about WCH I will not be funding them any more. I want to do more to put things right. Hard to know what though.

Expand full comment

They lost their minds long long ago = do not support them1

Expand full comment

It's been like that for a while tho. Some people even call the Wiki the CIA's library.

I have noticed that Children's Health Defence is treated in the same way. When you Google them, the first thing it brings up is the wiki page with a warning and labelling them as an anti vaccine disinformation spreader. Then you have to scroll down down down sieving thru all the negative information against them.

And it's so bad when the message pops up on Wiki asking you to donate for their survival. They have been already pampered by the puppet masters. Why do they still want to squeeze money from the end users?

Expand full comment

I think the donations thing is to give the illusion that they're still independent.

😂

Expand full comment
Jan 6Liked by World Council for Health

Outrageous, Tess, this the way the establishment, via censorship, 'brainwash' the masses. Don't be deterred you are winning along with the many thousands of doctors and experts slowly coming round. You and our organisation have and are playing a crucial role in promoting observed science and world statistics, not "The Science" nonsense. Plus you have brought together many of the honest great world minds which we, my family, are forever in your debt. Thank You so so much. Mike, Yvonne & Family x

Expand full comment
Jan 6Liked by World Council for Health

PS: As Margaret Anna Alice says (hasn't she been wonderful in her writings and poem), CONGRATULATIONS on your much deserved award. Apologies, I should have included that in my above message. All Our Love to You and all at The World Council of Health... Mike & Yvonne Daggitt & Family x

Expand full comment

Apologies, Tess, instead of "You and our organisation..." I missed out the 'Y' ie. it should have read 'You and Your organisation...' xx

Expand full comment

Wikipedia like msm, bought and paid for. It has not been a reliable source for a few years now. Delete, ignor.

Expand full comment
Jan 6Liked by World Council for Health

That's it, I'm boycotting Wikipedia!

Just wondered why the WCH doesn't contact Larry Sanger and ask him to remove all the bad information about the WCH?

I fully understand freedom of speech, and that if people wish to write untrue and bad notes about the WCH, it's their right to do so. Unfortunately, however, if the WCH is unable to go into Wikipedia to update their own information, then where's the freedom of speech and justice in that?

Expand full comment

It's not that straight forward, Daniela, bless you, Wikipedia are as 'Woke' as as they get and are part of the same 'The Science' orgs/establishment. They will only accept amendments that coincide with 'The Narrative'.

Expand full comment
Jan 6Liked by World Council for Health

I used to donate to Wikipedia every year ... now I donate to the Wayback machine instead 😄

Expand full comment
author

A wise decision!

Expand full comment

Wikipedia has always been an unreliable resource for information. Teachers for decades have told their students not to use them as a quotable source in papers. The page for Chiropractic is run by someone from Quackwatch, a notoriously anti-Chiropractic organization. The misinformation regarding anything “alternative” or antiestablishment is not surprising.

Expand full comment

Wikipedia likes to ask for donations as if they're still independent... Haha but I suppose it makes people think that it's not infested with intelligence running the show.

Jimmy Dore stated how he couldn't edit his own page too.

Donations please, for the undemocratic propaganda machine!

Expand full comment

"Wikipedia’s Smear Piece on WCH Represents a Badge of Honour"

Hmm... it is called "CIApedia"...

Expand full comment

Bye bye Wikipedia!!

Expand full comment

Congratulations!!Perfect article!!

Expand full comment
Jan 6·edited Jan 6

I used to help contribute to Wikipedia many years ago. I gave up when I came to logger heads with one of the editors - through that I discovered that this particular editor was very territorial about the pages they 'contributed' to and was well known amongst Wikipedia editors to be a gate keeper. This person constantly reverted the changes I made despite me and an MD (who alerted me to the changes on the page) both having experience and knowledge of the subject. This editor also brazenly threatened my membership saying that they could get me kicked out as an editor - that isn't something they had the power to do but I would imagine it would work on new folks who didn't know better.

It was a war of attrition that we ended up winning. Sort of. The article remains somewhat butchered but I managed (at least at that time) to keep the most important parts.

Years earlier I'd learned Wikipedia's supposed emphasis on primary sources was not remotely true when I tried (and failed) to edit a very clearly biased article. The page only had ONE source and that source? An opinion piece from a private website. Not even vaguely a news site, let alone a primary source. And yet, not only was this ignored but multiple editors ignored that it was opinion and nothing more - the bias was blatant.

It's been known for many years that Wikipedia has a massive bias issue, lack of proper citations and primary sources and gate keeping by a minority of 'power' editors. Despite Wikipedia's apparent emphasis on neutral language, primary sources, citations, and high standard, it is lacking all of these.

It's useful for some basic information, but nothing more than that. For shame. Because I had such high hopes for it when it first came out as finally a way to decentralise and democratise knowledge and information. Sadly, like so many things that start out with great hopes, it has been captured by corporate interests and personal agendas.

Truth And The World Of Wikipedia Gatekeepers

https://www.npr.org/2012/02/22/147261659/gauging-the-reliability-of-facts-on-wikipedia

(scroll down for written transcript)

The Covert World of People Trying to Edit Wikipedia—for Pay

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/08/wikipedia-editors-for-pay/393926/

(Both of these articles you'll note are old now - this was well known even back then and the issues have only grown worse.

Expand full comment

the scamdemic really exposed a lot of otherwise below the radar malfeasance.

I wasn't aware of the wikimedia CIA/MI5 management issues until I started researching medical topics in 2020 for my own health and safety. previously I happily kept my nose out of the realm of medicine except for herbalism, homeopathy, and other unapproved paradigms.

stopped reading wikimedia entirely once I became aware of their controllers. not even giving them clicks.

I was working for a Google subcontractor from not long before the medical martial law was announced, rating the accuracy of search results for specific search terms. back then, the focus was on accuracy of results and whether or not a result linked to some sort of extortion or scam. after the beginning of the martial law, the focus I was supposed to evaluate based on shifted to "trust and authority" of the sources of search results. and their ideas of WHO was trustworthy and authoritative was strictly limited to large corporate/government entities. especially wikimedia, the World Hoax Org, the Fooled and Drugged Admin, the Center for Death Commission, the Environmental Polluting Agency, etc. the fully remote work was easy and the pay was equal to my apple-certified technician position (3 certifications) at $14/hr, still under Google's minimum pay rate for actual employees, but adequate. however, I couldn't stand directly supporting the censorship machine and had to quit.

Expand full comment

Turn of the TV ,stop reading newspapers and get some protection from the fears they project,

Expand full comment

Thanks for taking the time to promote truth in the madness.

Expand full comment