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.

The Incarnation Children’s Center Story

by Liam Scheff

We are in the 10 year anniversary of this story:

In 2004, I broke open the NIH Clinical Trial Scandal, the internationally-covered story of hundreds of New York City orphans used by government agencies and pharmaceutical companies in deadly AIDS drug trials.

In reporting this issue, I entered the orphanage where children were being used as guinea pigs, and over a period of several years, took interviews with mothers, children and childcare workers at the Incarnation Children’s Center. I also interviewed the medical director, and investigated the FDA documentation and published medical literature on the tests and drugs used, drugs which were often force-fed through nasal and gastric tubes to the children.

I reported several deaths in children, and although the mainstream denied that any deaths were due to drug toxicity, they admit that over 200 children died.

In 2005, the city of New York hired the VERA Institute to form a final report on the drug trials. VERA was given no access to medical records for any of the children used in trials. Their report was published in 2008.

They reported that twenty-five children died during the drug studies, that an additional fifty-five children died following the studies (in foster care), and, according to Tim Ross, Director of the Child Welfare program at VERA (as of 2009), 29% of the remaining 417 children who were used in drug studies had died (out of a total 532 children that are admitted to have been used). [LINK]

The WIKIPEDIA writers cover up all details, as is expected.