What the Wikipedia Does and Doesn’t Allow

[Edit – it looks like the wikipedia rats are still chewing on their final version of their cover-up article. This relates to the one they tried to keep up before I began pointing out their intentional errors.]

Please find my notes below as they related to the Incarnation Children’s Center article on the Wikipedia. It’s hardly worth trying to keep that page balanced, reasonable or attached to a notion of doctrinal fairness. It’s a losing battle. In fact, they’ll tell you they don’t allow certain points of view.

The founder of Wikipedia dislikes anything but pharmaceutical medicine:
Change.org/petitions/jimmy-wales-founder-of-wikipedia

Change.Org Petition to Jimmy Wales

Jimmy Wales, Founder of Wikipedia: Create and enforce new policies that allow for true scientific discourse about holistic approaches to healing.

Jimmy Wales responds:

No, you have to be kidding me. Every single person who signed this petition needs to go back to check their premises and think harder about what it means to be honest, factual, truthful.
Wikipedia’s policies around this kind of thing are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately.
What we won’t do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of “true scientific discourse”. It isn’t.

Lunatic charlatans, of course, who put Black Box drugs (those that have killed adults at normal, prescribed doses) into infants and children at ‘higher than normal doses,’ in experiments are… fine, apparently.

So, it’s not shocking that Wikipedia is not a true “encyclopedia,” but is a news information vendor with a strong editorial bias. Even the great Lynn Margulis can be defamed for what she thought, because it did not comply with the dictatorial medical ethos of today. Wikipedia/Lynn Margulis

But, on the Wikipedia page, a number of unmistakeable slights have occurred, and I’ll quickly ask after them, before I leave it to history.

The Wikipedia page on Incarnation Children’s Center states many things, and few to none of them are true. The page has singled me out as the best scapegoat to draw attention away from the decade or more in which the NIH used infants abandoned at NYC hospitals as experimental pin-cushions for already designed “Black Box” drugs. The article makes too many “mistakes” (libels) to fix one by one, so I’ll just do it loosely, and you’ll get the picture.

I (Liam Scheff) never published “The House that AIDS Built” on “my blog,” which was asserted. The first paper was published by Alberta Reappraising AIDS Society, and Altheal.org, respectively, two sites which I do not own, run or regularly contribute material to. The next reports were published by a variety of papers by other journalists, in the New York Press, UK Guardian, A&U Magazine, and the Associated Press did a national investigation, finding orphans being used in large numbers across at least 7 states.

In 2003-2005, I investigated the clinical trials at the orphanage by interviewing the doctor, Catherine Painter, and a dozen staff and children/teens from the orphanage: childcare workers, nurses and teenaged residents/ex-residents. All of this was published over three years in the New York Press, Guerrilla News Network (now defunct), and other journals. I was a contributor but not lead author on the “Hustler” article. The clinical trials were tipped to me by the aunt of two kids who were in an out of the place. I took the chance to search “incarnation children’s center” on clinicaltrials.gov – and there were dozens.

The VERA Institute was paid 3 million dollars to do nothing. They were forbidden access to medical records. They roundly admitted this. The AHRP criticized them roundly and took them to task in no uncertain terms for their duplicity.

The New York Times first “reported” (asserted) that there was “no evidence” of death – while having interviewed NO children, no parents, not the doctor who was running the place. Their article received hard criticism from members of the Alliance for Human Research Protection as a cover-up. A few years later, the Times changed their tune and reported that there were 25 deaths during the trials and 55 after. Then Tim Ross of VERA said that 29% of the over 500 children in trials had died in foster care. He said this in a report with WBAI in New York, with Rebecca Myles on air. I’d be happy to upload that for you.

The movie was not made by me, nor did I ‘mislead’ or ‘trick’ the BBC into making a movie. This assertion is an attack on an individual (me) and not about the center or the trials. As that is the case, it seems the article should take greater care to quote the various articles and sources on both sides of the argument, or make the trials themselves the center of the issue.

I had no contact with BBC. My contact was Milena Schwager; she was the director of the film. She took my research, shared it with the producer at a UK company, they checked it and because it was accurate – there were clinical trials going on in an orphanage – we had witnesses – family members, kids who were in and out of the place – and we had an entire body of NIH documentation about the studies with many drugs at once – Black Box labeled drugs plied into children – even infants. So, they made a movie. They sold it or had an agreement with BBC. Then the AIDS establishment’s media arm attacked, a few years later, and got the BBC to issue a kind of warmed over ‘apology’ for – and it wasn’t very specific, except that they didn’t like Dr. David Rasnick, because he’s on the ‘unfriendly’ or ‘discredited’ list according to the Wikipedia/major media managers, because he reads AIDS drug labels and doesn’t ignore their major toxicities.

The ‘alleged abuse’ was and remains the practice of inserting PEG tubes – or percutaneous endoscopic tubes surgically into the stomachs of children who cannot or will not take drugs. This is easily discoverable in the medical literature, it was validated by children, nurses and childcare workers from the orphanage, and the doctor who ran the orphanage described the process in detail, the audio of which is available here: http://aras.ab.ca/articles/icc/PainterInterview.html
It is a brutal practice accepted in the standard literature for “adherence.”

“The medical records of 17 pediatric HIV-infected patients, in whom GT was used to improve HAART adherence, were retrospectively reviewed for clinical and laboratory parameters.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10835093

And here:

The “controversial” position I take has nothing to do with the details of the trials. All of that is in evidence, and is, in fact, how this piece starts – by validating the major claim of the investigation: That orphans were being used in clinical trials.
If you wish to name the controversy in my position, it’s that I don’t believe (because of detailed evidence) that HIV tests are accurate. Period. That the drugs are toxic is available to be read in their package inserts. That’s not remotely controversial.

I will try to upload WBAI (New York Public Radio/Pacifica)’s news report on the issue. Hopefully – that is “non-biased” enough for you. (on edit – I don’t know how to upload an audio news report onto this site).
Liam Scheff (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC) Liam Scheff 3/2014

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s