How Wikipedia transformed me into an evil person in just 4 days
Wikipedia isn't an objective source. I'm told that if you post anything, even a minor factual correction, if it goes against the false narrative, it will get reversed out immediately. Wow.
After I spoke out against the vaccines, Wikipedia totally changed my profile over time from a good guy into a menace to society.
The good deeds that were previously on my profile including having received a prestigious National Caring Award (presented by Senator Hillary Clinton in Washington, DC) and having founded a $75M charitable fund have been removed. The details of the removal are documented below.
Larry Sanger, the co-founder of Wikipedia, agrees that you can trust Wikipedia to reliably give you the “establishment point of view” on things. Start at 1:00. Kudos to him for speaking the truth.
Sanger was interviewed by Tucker Carlson on Fox News. It’s worth a watch. Larry is a good guy. He left Wikipedia 10 years ago. He admits, “They’ve completely abandoned the neutral point of view.”
Funny, you’d think CNN would carry this story too, but no such luck.
Mathew Crawford has been saying Wikipedia has been compromised for a decade:
"The more political the topic, the less reliable is Wikipedia." -Mathew's Law
In Wikipedia, there will never be a mention of my funding of fluvoxamine, a drug shown in a large Phase 3 randomized trial to reduce the risk of death from COVID by a factor of 12 which is better than any other drug. I appeared on 60 Minutes which acknowledged my role, but of course that doesn’t count! It doesn’t deserve a mention at all! Good Samaritans who attempt to set the record straight find their fixes immediately reversed by the higher level editors.
When I complained about how I was treated and presented them with scientific articles in support of what I had said, Wikipedia banned me from communication with any editors of the page. They said if I had a problem with their decisions, I could complain to another group which of course fell on deaf ears.
Learn more about the corruption of Wikipedia
Wikipedia watch has pretty much everything you’d want to know about them. It’s a fascinating read.
PLEASE DO NOT DONATE TO WIKIPEDIA
From the Wayback Machine, here is my profile on August 8. Note you’ll see the $75M charitable fund, National Caring Award and other nice things I’ve done. And it just said I made several claims, but didn’t say they were false.
Now here is my Wikipedia profile just four days later (which was the next time there was a snapshot). Now my claims are “false” and my $75M charitable fund is gone. My National Caring Award is still there.
Now here is my profile on Wikipedia today. Note that my National Caring Award is gone. My $75M charitable fund is gone. My Waldenstrom’s diagnosis is gone. Wikipedia does not link to the “unfounded claim” about fertility for anyone to verify and they don’t link to the Darkhorse video so that people can decide for themselves.
In short, Wikipedia is not an objective reviewer of facts. They will not provide links to anything they disagree with.
Why didn’t Wikipedia just obliterate me?
Some of my followers have ask why they don’t just remove my page entirely to make me “disappear.” For example, one of my Gab followers wrote: “@stkirsch I'm a little surprised they still have a page on you. Wikipedia scrubbed the page of E. Michael Jones' and Amazon delisted his books for not toeing their line.”
They don’t tell me, but I’m guessing because either (a) I’m already too well known and it would be weird if there wasn’t a page on me or (b) they are better off having a page that discredits me than having no page at all.
Because I’m a threat, it’s important to discredit me.
So it is MUCH better for them to have a page that can pop up in Google when you type my name that trashes me so that anyone who hears about my substack will go to Wikipedia and read about what a bad guy I am and then decide NOT to follow me since Wikipedia is such a trusted source.
Why I didn’t notice it until now
I knew Wikipedia was biased, but I thought their “point of view” was based on facts.
I hadn't realized that I was wrong until they manipulated my reputation to turn me into an evil person. Then it was obvious. It was super clear that they didn't care about truth or science. All the papers published in medical journals supporting what I said were ignored. They taunted me saying the only way to over-rule their imperial decision is a meta-analysis and systematic review on the spike protein being dangerous and then they said (effectively) "fat chance of that ever happening. So go away." In short, they stack the deck so you cannot win, even when you are right. I said if you are so damn confident you got it right, how about we bet $1M on it. They then locked my account so I couldn’t send them any more messages. Clearly, they don’t want to be challenged in a court of law.
Wikipedia is not objective
Any objective source would show the original claim (and providing a hyperlink to the original source which they never do) and it would cite scientific evidence that both dispute the claims as well as the science that supports the claim so that the reader can decide who to believe.
An objective source would not make an editorial judgement like claiming that I made false claims. Such claims would be noted, but the article would be neutral. An objective source would never render a verdict. This is an encyclopedia, not an editorial. They are supposed to be objective, not make judgments.
They aren’t objective, not even close.
I am not the only individual who has been attacked this way where they present only references supporting Wikipedia’s point of view. Here are some other evil people:
Pierre Kory: “During his testimony in December 2020, Kory erroneously claimed…”
Alex Berenson: “In 2021, Berenson tweeted that COVID-19 vaccinations had led to 50 times more adverse effects than flu vaccine. PolitiFact rated the claim "mostly false". The Atlantic called him "The pandemic's wrongest man", owing to his false claims of the vaccine's ineffectiveness.”
See how Wikipedia only cites sources that agree with their point of view? They They pretend that all other evidence just doesn’t exist. That’s not what an encyclopedia is supposed to do. They can’t hide behind community edits either since community edits to correct these problems get reversed by the editors who are higher up on the food chain.
Let’s take Berenson’s statement about COVID vaccines shown above. It’s in the section labelled “COVID-19 misinformation.” They don’t give a date for the statement. They don’t even link to the original claim! This is an encyclopedia?!?! You’ve got to be kidding me.
Here’s what the data actually says for ALL flu vaccines in 2019:
Here’s what the data says for the COVID vaccines in 2021:
Do the math. 848,965/9,572=88.7 more reports for the COVID vaccines. Last time I checked, 88.7 > 50, right?
It took me all of 2 minutes to verify the claim was correct.
So what do they do? They look for junk science that disputes what Berenson said since the actual data supports his claim (that fact will never make it into Wikipedia).
At the time he made it it likely was around 50X, now it is 88X. But it’s still true that there were more than 50X the adverse events reported. It is unassailable.
Instead, Wikipedia cited a “fact check” written by Tom Kertscher. Are you kidding me? I know Tom Kertscher. He “fact checked” one of my articles so I got to talk to him directly. He knows nothing about VAERS. He’s a sportswriter. I asked to debate him on the record and he refused. He hides in the shadows. He is afraid to be challenged. He wouldn’t let me record the conversation we had. This is the source that Wikipedia relies on and puts it on their page in such as way as to convey to the reader that all the credible sources dispute his claim and there are no sources that back it up.
I used to support Wikipedia. I will never support Wikipedia again.
The current Board of Directors and management of Wikipedia clearly do not care about objectivity. They are there to enforce their point of view on the world and create the appearance of objectivity.
PLEASE DO NOT DONATE TO WIKIPEDIA
They are now doing a fundraising campaign.
By donating to Wikipedia you are helping to promote the dissemination of information that is biased, unfair, and deliberately misleading.
The better alternative: Everipedia
Look at my profile here on Everipedia. It looks like my old Wikipedia profile!