Wednesday, January 6, 2010

Banned from telling the truth

Wikipedia: The Matrix encyclopedia

The Great Lie of Wikipedia: "the....encyclopedia that anyone can edit."
[This is a large web based encyclopaedia. Anyone can edit it in theory, but in practice Medical/Allopathic editors (most known as Physicians Wikipedians, 178 of them) will not allow any text critical to Allopathy or non-Allopathic thinking, delete any external links they don't like (eg: 1), as well as deleting or attempting to delete pages they don't like--in effect it should be treated as a Pharma shill. You can see the page deletion attempts here. All of the vaccine, disease pages and psychiatric drug pages (basically just an on line PDF of BNF) are written by Allopaths, and policed by Allopaths. The main Allopath dealing with vaccination is known as Midgley. All links to were officially banned after rfc, even to original Smallpox vax books. Now is on what is called a "spam blacklist" block. What are they afraid of? They are afraid of the truth on vaccination and the vaccine diseases.

[Harris L. Coulter, PhD is a medical historian and lecturer who has published in many areas including homeopathic medicine, cancer, and the dangers of vaccinations with two DPT vaccine danger classics: DPT Shot in the Dark with Barbara Loe Fisher, (which was instrumental in making the law compensating vaccine injuries) and Vaccination, Social Violence and Criminality where he commented : 'I came to the conclusion that this, DPT, vaccination is having a very long-term serious effect on the American population in the sense of being directly responsible for the epidemic of violent behavior we are witnessing in our society today.'
He earned his PhD in 1969 from Columbia University, NY, in a dissertation entitled Political and Social Aspects of Nineteenth-Century Medicine in the United States: The Formation of the American Medical Association and its Struggle with the Homeopathic and Eclectic Physicians. Coulter has been considered the leading homeopathic historian of the late 20th century.
His most significant body of work is his four-volume treatise on the history of Western medicine, Divided Legacy: A History of the Schism in Medical Thought, which details the two distinct schools of medical thought and practice since the times of Hippocrates to the present: the rational approach and the empirical approach and in which he documents the suppression of Homeopathy by Allopathy (rational approach).
He has served on numerous medical advisory panels and boards, and has given input about the conflict between the American Medical Association (AMA) and homeopathy. From 1965 to 1975, Coulter was the director of publications for the American Foundation for Homeopathy, and from 1983 to 1989, he served on the editorial board of the Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy. Coulter was also an advisory board member of the Campaign Against Fraudulent Medical Research. Coulter is fluent in German, French, Spanish, Latin, Russian, Hungarian, and Serbo-Croatian.
COMMENT: Appears to have (in 1994) a mistaken belief in the value of vaccines as preventives. The Rational approach would be Rational mind based people, while Empirical would be Feeling based people. Always follow feelings. You can tell his weight by the fact his page was removed from Wikipedia, and kept off by the controlling Allopaths: See]

Classic quote:
"Society today is paying a heavy price in disease and death for the monopoly granted the medical profession in the 1920’s. In fact, the situation peculiarly resembles that of the 1830s when physicians relied on bloodletting, mercurial medicines, and quinine, even though knowing them to be intrinsically harmful. And precisely the same arguments were made in defense of these medicines as are employed today, namely, that the benefits outweigh the risks. In truth, the benefits accrue to the physician, while the patient runs the risks."—Harris Coulter (Divided Legacy Vol 3)

In their own words (Allopath administrators and editors)

Baloney. It's not the criticsm we're suppressing, it's all the articles on whale are not acceptable. Tabeh.

The (un)acceptability of as an external link has been discussed on Talk:MMR vaccine, and I think nothing more needs to be said over here.

All I am doing is making sure your defamatory, confused and misinformed page does not get its traffic as a result of link placement in Wikipedia. I think an Alexa ranking of 1,000,000 a year is not very high and no sign that your page is notable. Today, 106,763 sites were getting more traffic than you.

This single user is the most tenacious anti-vaccine editor on Wikipedia, and has filled many articles with his choice anti-science on the subject of vaccination. Everything sounds nice and NPOV, but when the matter is investigated one encounters dangerous lunacy, notoriety and dishonesty. Viera Scheibner, for example, was touted (by another editor) as a scientist with scientific arguments against vaccination until it turned out she had not published more than one paper on a medical topic, was the recipient of the Australian Skeptics' "Bent Spoon Award" and was the subject of an article in Vaccine detailing her views and modus operandi. This has to stop.

I now remove links as "non-authoratitive" if they are full of Google ads or promote non-standard treatments. JFW | T@lk 15:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Now back to the actual discussion. This all started because Wikipedia has a policy (WP:NPOV) that states explicitly that not every minority view needs mentioning. You can say what you want, but most information on is not widely accepted. There is no reason to presume that the "external links" section of articles should not fall under the aegis of this NPOV policy. Hence, links have been removed. So far there has been no indication that this has changed, and I see no reason why we should suddenly be including links to whale. Sorry.

I didn't really know where to put this notice.... John (Whaleto) is now adding a "different" link to all of his articles (ex. [ref]). The link is, which is quite obviously a copy of the site, or a transfer of the contents to a different location. I seem to be on his radar now, so I'll go remove all the links I can find. -

Quacks [See: Quack/crank, 'Pseudoscience' & 'anti-science']

Viera Scheibner Notoriety established in the study kindly identified by other authors. Thankfully we are allowed to have articles on quacks.

"Viera Scheibner a notable vaccination critic and quack". --CDN99 15:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

My intentions were the same as yours (i.e. I agree alt. med. is pseudoscience); it's just that you had Category:Pseudoscience under Category:Alternative medicine, and vice versa. I changed things so that Cat:Alt. med. was under Pseudoscience, but not the other way around. You also had Cat: Professional CAM treatments under Cat:Alt med, and vice versa. But right now, Alt. med. is under Pseudoscience (alt. med. is a subsection of pseudoscience) and Fraud, and Pseudoscience is under Fraud. Things were just a bit mixed up.

Ad hominem was the main argument used to ban link [See: 'Conspiracy theory', Ad Hominem]:
I agree with that information about vaccines and their side effects should not be suppressed. However, the link is not an appropriate source for this information because of the competing extremist information and conspiracy theories as outlined on the RFC on Talk:MMR vaccine. As already reviewed by InvictaHOG, the commentary on Illuminati mind control, Jewish conspiracy, genocide via vaccination, Roman Catholics, psychic assassins, Mormons, Walter Cronkite, demons sacrificing girls for growth hormone, or links to alien implant removers distracts from the criticisms of vaccines and decreases the value of link.

"You are right about - the most important reason to reject it is because it is associated with paranoia. I don't believe that those with concerns about vaccination are necessarily paranoid and I don't think that they should be represented by a site which devolves into paranoia and name-calling." InvictaHOG 18:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

They even banned the use of the word Allopath!
I have asked you in the past to desist from labeling users or groups of users as "allopaths". This is inflammatory, not contributory to the discussion, and in plain violation of WP:CIVIL. You have now repeatedly done the same on Talk:Measles. I am uninvolved in that discussion but observe that you are making the same basic policy violations as always.

As for Whaleto, the fact that I warred with him in the past does not mean I am disqualified from blocking him for sustained and interminable NPA and CIVIL violations. I'm prepared to do just that until John learns that calling others "allopaths" is WP:NPA and offtopic.

No comments: