• We deserve the truth about what happened on October 7
    Stories of atrocity on October 7 have been used to justify the ongoing assault on Gaza. But several of these high-profile claims have been found to be based on unreliable witnesses or even fabricated entirely. We deserve to know the truth.

    Nick BurbankFebruary 1, 2024
    Scenes of destruction in Kibbutz Nir Oz after the invasion of Hamas fighters on October 7, 2023. (Photo: Mishel Amzaleg/Israel Government Press Office)
    Scenes of destruction in Kibbutz Nir Oz after the invasion of Hamas fighters on October 7, 2023. (Photo: Mishel Amzaleg/Israel Government Press Office)
    In the immediate aftermath of the October 7 attacks by Hamas, narratives of atrocity dominated the news cycle. It is only now, four months later, that the events of that day are being clarified. The New York Times has reportedly pulled a high-profile podcast on the “weaponization” of rape in response to concerns of “major discrepancies.” Journalists are challenging state spokespeople, and researchers cross-referencing claims against the list of terror victims maintained by Israel’s own Social Security Administration have shown that several horrifying stories first responders and IDF members initially told reporters do not reflect actual people or deaths. The IDF itself has said it cannot confirm some of its own reporting.

    Nevertheless, these stories spread widely. The founder of Oct7FactCheck.com saw how they impacted his friends and family. People who had previously protested Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government were now insisting that “these people,” Palestinians in Gaza, were irredeemable. They cited the atrocities in the news as evidence.

    And yet, it has become apparent that many of the stories used to justify ongoing violence in Gaza are just that: stories.

    Advertisement

    Subscribe to the Mondoweiss YouTube Channel!
    Oct7FactCheck.com is a six-member research group known collectively as “Nick Burbank.” The group, comprising an Ivy League law student, a policy graduate student, two intelligence analysts, a U.S. armed services veteran, and a tech entrepreneur, began fact-checking these claims in November. Their goal was to identify where a given claim originated, who propagated it, and whether the evidence confirmed or refuted the claim. Their findings are shared in a living document that’s updated as new information comes to light. Thus far, the team has come to conclusions on 12 different claims and identified major discrepancies in another: claims of weaponized rape that were reported on but are now being re-investigated by the New York Times.

    To be clear:

    There were no babies hung on clotheslines. There were no babies beheaded or put in ovens, no pregnant women with their stomachs cut open.

    The sources responsible for those fabrications are cited in articles recounting the weaponized “mass rape” of Israeli women by Hamas fighters. Several stories shared by multiple outlets use these sources, raising open questions about the strength of this reporting. One January 19 Guardian article repeats the exact same language as an article published more than a month earlier on a different site. The New York Times article drew pushback on its reporting from the family of the victim they profiled, who argued she was not the victim of sexual violence; some of those family members have given new statements to the NYT.

    Over the last four months, claims about October 7 have influenced the public narrative. Stories of atrocity, sometimes cobbled together from unreliable eyewitnesses, sometimes fabricated entirely, have made their way to heads of state and been used to justify Israel’s military violence.

    As a result, 85% of Gaza is displaced. More than 26,000 Palestinians (including over 10,000 children have been killed), and nearly three times as many people have been injured. 70% of Gazan homes are flattened. Over 100 journalists have been killed. Every university in Gaza is now destroyed.

    One of the claims determined to be definitively true is that IDF friendly fire on October 7 resulted in Israeli civilian deaths.

    In the early hours of October 7, a deadly lack of communication made it difficult for Apache pilots and drone operators to distinguish targets, leading them to deputize civilians in the kibbutzim for target identification. But by noon on October 7, the Israeli military had issued a version of the “Hannibal Directive” (as reported to YNet, the second largest Israeli newspaper by readership, and translated by the Electronic Intifada). The Hannibal Directive is an order that allows Israeli forces to stop kidnappings at all costs, up to and including the death of the hostage if all else fails.

    The order resulted in mass civilian deaths. Two personal accounts from civilians taken hostage on October 7 describe the IDF firing upon them while they were being kidnapped. In both instances, this resulted in the wounding or deaths of people they had been taken captive with, including one woman whose mother was killed. A similar report from YNet records the deployment of the Israeli Air Force to intercept 70 vehicles driven by Hamas militants as they returned to Gaza. The cars, some containing hostages, were destroyed before they could reach the border. An IDF military source reported that Israeli special forces were sent in the week after October 7 to recover bodies in this area. The number of Israeli dead found in these vehicles is currently not known.

    One of the most chilling descriptions of friendly fire occurred in Be’eri, a kibbutz heavily damaged by the events of October 7. There, IDF forces killed up to 13 hostages in a single incident when they decided to fire two tank shells into a house controlled by militants, fully aware that there were still living civilians held captive inside. The IDF fired on the house during an active hostage negotiation. There were only two survivors, one woman who miraculously survived the shelling and Yasmin Porat, who had been released during the negotiations prior to the tank shells being fired. The shelling killed her husband, who remained under the control of the militants.

    The aftermath of tank shelling looks very different from arson and small arms fire – there is more rubble, and less soot. In Be’eri, where fighting between IDF and militants was fiercest, homes were completely destroyed. Ha’aretz has reported that “half the damage” in Be’eri came from “munitions impacts,” the other half from “arson.” As a result, more than half of the 200 Israeli homes slated for demolition after the October 7 attack are located in Be’eri. In Nir Oz, where militants were not confronted by the IDF, houses were damaged mostly from arson.

    Families of the victims are now calling for an investigation into the military and police units who were present and into whether or not the shelling of the house was an implementation of the Hannibal Directive. But initially, the commander responsible for firing a tank into a house full of hostages, General Barak Hiram, was hailed as a hero. Under the heading “A General’s Dilemma,” The New York Times describes Hiram as “a rising star” before quoting him as ending an active hostage negotiation by saying, “Break in, even at the cost of civilian casualties.” Months later, additional reporting by the Times underscores the impact of the intentional use of IDF munitions by Hiram. This incident alone is responsible for 12% of the civilian casualties in Be’eri.1

    It’s no secret that Israel invests heavily in “public diplomacy,” known commonly as hasbara. The incredible violence of their military offensive relies on the willingness of nations to prioritize Israeli narratives over Palestinian lives and, in the case of the Hannibal directive, Israeli lives as well. Stories of irredeemable atrocity – regardless of their truth – are essential to manufacturing the acceptability of harming civilians and building support for the Netayahu-led destruction of Gaza.

    The small-t truth of these stories, the facts of what happened, is less important than the capital-T Truth these stories gesture to. In one example, a YouTube advertisement created by Israel’s Foreign Affair Minister begins with the words “We know that your child cannot read this” while rainbows and unicorns frolic to a lullaby. As the music grinds to a halt, the unicorns disappear and “Forty infants were murdered in Israel by the Hamas terrorists (ISIS),” flashes onto the screen” before urging parents, “Now hug your baby and stand with us.”

    Business Insider reported on the way this ad and others were being used to justify Israel’s offensive in Gaza as early as October 17. That video is unlisted now, but the claim continues to be repeated. On January 2024, yet another video recycling the claims of ‘beheaded babies,’ this one propagated by the online antisemitism watchdog CyberWell, gasps in horror at the idea of Israeli atrocity propaganda being corrected. A person, scrolling online past a video debunking this same story of beheaded babies says “What? How can they even say that?”

    This video does not defend the claim that babies were beheaded. It can’t. Social security records make this an impossibility. Instead, it appeals to the viewer’s sense of horror and outrage. While this specific instance may not be true, this advertisement gives the viewer permission to believe a broader, truthier accusation: that Israel’s enemy is so depraved that such a thing could have happened then and may happen again in the future.

    There were very real atrocities that happened on October 7, including the killing of civilians in their homes and at a music festival and the taking of hostages, some of them children. But somehow, the clearest crimes committed have been crowded out of the narrative in favor of obscene, attention-grabbing lies. This re-telling of the day is disrespectful to victims and survivors alike and only increases suspicion as to what really happened. It is a narrative that only serves those in power and those seeking to justify the genocidal assault on Gaza, not those rightfully seeking answers.

    Notes

    1. There are varying accounts of the number of those killed in Be’eri across different sources: 97 per the New York Times, 86 per Ha’aretz, 77 according to Social Security Administration records (but this may exclude captives later killed), and 98 per Oct7map.com. 12% represents the lower bound of the percentage of those killed attributable to the shelling of hostages.

    BEFORE YOU GO – At Mondoweiss, we understand the power of telling Palestinian stories. For 17 years, we have pushed back when the mainstream media published lies or echoed politicians’ hateful rhetoric. Now, Palestinian voices are more important than ever.

    Our traffic has increased ten times since October 7, and we need your help to cover our increased expenses.

    Support our journalists with a donation today.

    https://mondoweiss.net/2024/02/we-deserve-the-truth-about-what-happened-on-october-7/

    https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/we-deserve-truth-about-what-happened-on.html
    We deserve the truth about what happened on October 7 Stories of atrocity on October 7 have been used to justify the ongoing assault on Gaza. But several of these high-profile claims have been found to be based on unreliable witnesses or even fabricated entirely. We deserve to know the truth. Nick BurbankFebruary 1, 2024 Scenes of destruction in Kibbutz Nir Oz after the invasion of Hamas fighters on October 7, 2023. (Photo: Mishel Amzaleg/Israel Government Press Office) Scenes of destruction in Kibbutz Nir Oz after the invasion of Hamas fighters on October 7, 2023. (Photo: Mishel Amzaleg/Israel Government Press Office) In the immediate aftermath of the October 7 attacks by Hamas, narratives of atrocity dominated the news cycle. It is only now, four months later, that the events of that day are being clarified. The New York Times has reportedly pulled a high-profile podcast on the “weaponization” of rape in response to concerns of “major discrepancies.” Journalists are challenging state spokespeople, and researchers cross-referencing claims against the list of terror victims maintained by Israel’s own Social Security Administration have shown that several horrifying stories first responders and IDF members initially told reporters do not reflect actual people or deaths. The IDF itself has said it cannot confirm some of its own reporting. Nevertheless, these stories spread widely. The founder of Oct7FactCheck.com saw how they impacted his friends and family. People who had previously protested Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government were now insisting that “these people,” Palestinians in Gaza, were irredeemable. They cited the atrocities in the news as evidence. And yet, it has become apparent that many of the stories used to justify ongoing violence in Gaza are just that: stories. Advertisement Subscribe to the Mondoweiss YouTube Channel! Oct7FactCheck.com is a six-member research group known collectively as “Nick Burbank.” The group, comprising an Ivy League law student, a policy graduate student, two intelligence analysts, a U.S. armed services veteran, and a tech entrepreneur, began fact-checking these claims in November. Their goal was to identify where a given claim originated, who propagated it, and whether the evidence confirmed or refuted the claim. Their findings are shared in a living document that’s updated as new information comes to light. Thus far, the team has come to conclusions on 12 different claims and identified major discrepancies in another: claims of weaponized rape that were reported on but are now being re-investigated by the New York Times. To be clear: There were no babies hung on clotheslines. There were no babies beheaded or put in ovens, no pregnant women with their stomachs cut open. The sources responsible for those fabrications are cited in articles recounting the weaponized “mass rape” of Israeli women by Hamas fighters. Several stories shared by multiple outlets use these sources, raising open questions about the strength of this reporting. One January 19 Guardian article repeats the exact same language as an article published more than a month earlier on a different site. The New York Times article drew pushback on its reporting from the family of the victim they profiled, who argued she was not the victim of sexual violence; some of those family members have given new statements to the NYT. Over the last four months, claims about October 7 have influenced the public narrative. Stories of atrocity, sometimes cobbled together from unreliable eyewitnesses, sometimes fabricated entirely, have made their way to heads of state and been used to justify Israel’s military violence. As a result, 85% of Gaza is displaced. More than 26,000 Palestinians (including over 10,000 children have been killed), and nearly three times as many people have been injured. 70% of Gazan homes are flattened. Over 100 journalists have been killed. Every university in Gaza is now destroyed. One of the claims determined to be definitively true is that IDF friendly fire on October 7 resulted in Israeli civilian deaths. In the early hours of October 7, a deadly lack of communication made it difficult for Apache pilots and drone operators to distinguish targets, leading them to deputize civilians in the kibbutzim for target identification. But by noon on October 7, the Israeli military had issued a version of the “Hannibal Directive” (as reported to YNet, the second largest Israeli newspaper by readership, and translated by the Electronic Intifada). The Hannibal Directive is an order that allows Israeli forces to stop kidnappings at all costs, up to and including the death of the hostage if all else fails. The order resulted in mass civilian deaths. Two personal accounts from civilians taken hostage on October 7 describe the IDF firing upon them while they were being kidnapped. In both instances, this resulted in the wounding or deaths of people they had been taken captive with, including one woman whose mother was killed. A similar report from YNet records the deployment of the Israeli Air Force to intercept 70 vehicles driven by Hamas militants as they returned to Gaza. The cars, some containing hostages, were destroyed before they could reach the border. An IDF military source reported that Israeli special forces were sent in the week after October 7 to recover bodies in this area. The number of Israeli dead found in these vehicles is currently not known. One of the most chilling descriptions of friendly fire occurred in Be’eri, a kibbutz heavily damaged by the events of October 7. There, IDF forces killed up to 13 hostages in a single incident when they decided to fire two tank shells into a house controlled by militants, fully aware that there were still living civilians held captive inside. The IDF fired on the house during an active hostage negotiation. There were only two survivors, one woman who miraculously survived the shelling and Yasmin Porat, who had been released during the negotiations prior to the tank shells being fired. The shelling killed her husband, who remained under the control of the militants. The aftermath of tank shelling looks very different from arson and small arms fire – there is more rubble, and less soot. In Be’eri, where fighting between IDF and militants was fiercest, homes were completely destroyed. Ha’aretz has reported that “half the damage” in Be’eri came from “munitions impacts,” the other half from “arson.” As a result, more than half of the 200 Israeli homes slated for demolition after the October 7 attack are located in Be’eri. In Nir Oz, where militants were not confronted by the IDF, houses were damaged mostly from arson. Families of the victims are now calling for an investigation into the military and police units who were present and into whether or not the shelling of the house was an implementation of the Hannibal Directive. But initially, the commander responsible for firing a tank into a house full of hostages, General Barak Hiram, was hailed as a hero. Under the heading “A General’s Dilemma,” The New York Times describes Hiram as “a rising star” before quoting him as ending an active hostage negotiation by saying, “Break in, even at the cost of civilian casualties.” Months later, additional reporting by the Times underscores the impact of the intentional use of IDF munitions by Hiram. This incident alone is responsible for 12% of the civilian casualties in Be’eri.1 It’s no secret that Israel invests heavily in “public diplomacy,” known commonly as hasbara. The incredible violence of their military offensive relies on the willingness of nations to prioritize Israeli narratives over Palestinian lives and, in the case of the Hannibal directive, Israeli lives as well. Stories of irredeemable atrocity – regardless of their truth – are essential to manufacturing the acceptability of harming civilians and building support for the Netayahu-led destruction of Gaza. The small-t truth of these stories, the facts of what happened, is less important than the capital-T Truth these stories gesture to. In one example, a YouTube advertisement created by Israel’s Foreign Affair Minister begins with the words “We know that your child cannot read this” while rainbows and unicorns frolic to a lullaby. As the music grinds to a halt, the unicorns disappear and “Forty infants were murdered in Israel by the Hamas terrorists (ISIS),” flashes onto the screen” before urging parents, “Now hug your baby and stand with us.” Business Insider reported on the way this ad and others were being used to justify Israel’s offensive in Gaza as early as October 17. That video is unlisted now, but the claim continues to be repeated. On January 2024, yet another video recycling the claims of ‘beheaded babies,’ this one propagated by the online antisemitism watchdog CyberWell, gasps in horror at the idea of Israeli atrocity propaganda being corrected. A person, scrolling online past a video debunking this same story of beheaded babies says “What? How can they even say that?” This video does not defend the claim that babies were beheaded. It can’t. Social security records make this an impossibility. Instead, it appeals to the viewer’s sense of horror and outrage. While this specific instance may not be true, this advertisement gives the viewer permission to believe a broader, truthier accusation: that Israel’s enemy is so depraved that such a thing could have happened then and may happen again in the future. There were very real atrocities that happened on October 7, including the killing of civilians in their homes and at a music festival and the taking of hostages, some of them children. But somehow, the clearest crimes committed have been crowded out of the narrative in favor of obscene, attention-grabbing lies. This re-telling of the day is disrespectful to victims and survivors alike and only increases suspicion as to what really happened. It is a narrative that only serves those in power and those seeking to justify the genocidal assault on Gaza, not those rightfully seeking answers. Notes 1. There are varying accounts of the number of those killed in Be’eri across different sources: 97 per the New York Times, 86 per Ha’aretz, 77 according to Social Security Administration records (but this may exclude captives later killed), and 98 per Oct7map.com. 12% represents the lower bound of the percentage of those killed attributable to the shelling of hostages. BEFORE YOU GO – At Mondoweiss, we understand the power of telling Palestinian stories. For 17 years, we have pushed back when the mainstream media published lies or echoed politicians’ hateful rhetoric. Now, Palestinian voices are more important than ever. Our traffic has increased ten times since October 7, and we need your help to cover our increased expenses. Support our journalists with a donation today. https://mondoweiss.net/2024/02/we-deserve-the-truth-about-what-happened-on-october-7/ https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/we-deserve-truth-about-what-happened-on.html
    MONDOWEISS.NET
    We deserve the truth about what happened on October 7
    Stories of atrocity on October 7 have been used to justify the ongoing assault on Gaza. But several of these high-profile claims have been found to be based on unreliable witnesses or even fabricated entirely. We deserve to know the truth.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 11996 Views
  • Wikipedia’s Smear Piece on WCH Represents a Badge of Honour
    The World Council for Health's message of health sovereignty is clearly a threat to the establishment.

    World Council for Health
    Written by World Council for Health Correspondent Alice Ashwell, PhD.


    They say that you pick up the most flack when you’re right over the target.

    Since the Covid phenomenon began, the degree of flack has become a navigational aid in the pursuit of Truth. Wikipedia’s hit piece on the World Council for Health (WCH) is evidence that their message of health sovereignty has become a threat to the establishment.

    Brainwashing goes global

    Ever more brazenly over the past four years, members of the ‘Great Reset Establishment’ have been involved in a process of what Psychoanalyst Dr Bruce Scott calls ‘menticide’, or brainwashing on a global scale. Through the unethical use of applied psychology, governments, corporations, and organisations around the world have been manipulating the masses into compliance with their globalist agenda.

    Whether the issue has been Covid-19, the war in Ukraine, economic meltdown, or climate hysteria, the outcome has been an environment of heightened fear and uncertainty. People seeking direction have been subjected to unprecedented levels of propaganda and censorship, which have added to the confusion by creating a ‘through-the-looking-glass’ world in which it feels like truths have become lies, and vice versa.

    If this content is important to you, please share it with your network.

    Share

    Wikipedia - no longer reliable

    One of the ‘trusted’ sources we have become accustomed to turning to when seeking information on a host of topics is Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. This online encyclopedia was established in 2001 with the aim of being a free, open, and neutral source of information that anyone could access and edit. The idea was that all sides of controversial issues would be welcomed and readers would be left to make up their own minds. But, as Wikipedia co-founder-turned-critic Larry Sanger complained in an interview with Glenn Greenwald in July 2023, “It didn’t work out that way.”

    Over time, the platform has moved away from its non-negotiable editorial policy that content should strive to reflect a ‘neutral point of view’ (NPOV). As Kristin Heflin described in her PhD thesis in 2010, this means that:

    … all Wikipedia content must represent―fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. By insisting articles represent [―] all significant views without bias, the policy of striving for NPOV shares similarities with objectivity … (p. 89)

    In 2015, Heather Ford observed in her D. Phil. Thesis that Wikipedia was by that time offering “a skewed representation of the world that favours some groups at the expense of others” (p. 3). She continued:

    Instead of everyone having the same power to represent their views on Wikipedia, those who understand how to perform and speak according to Wikipedia's complex technical, symbolic and policy vocabulary tend to prevail over those who possess disciplinary knowledge about the subject being represented.

    This means that Wikipedia is able to decide which facts are stabilised or destabilised on its platform, according to the ideological positions of its editors. While Wikipedia originally provided the opportunity for people to publish without the need for gatekeepers or mediators, this is no longer the case. Especially since the Covid-19 event boosted the fortunes of the Censorship Industrial Complex, Wikipedians have become foot soldiers in the battle to scrub from the Internet information they consider to be mis-, dis-, or mal-information.

    Larry Sanger, in the interview mentioned above, described how he has watched Wikipedia’s neutrality evaporate over the years, shifting around 2005 to establishment views on topics like global warming and certain drugs, and starting to show bias against holistic medicine in the early 2010s. Its reliable sources of information are now left-of-centre media corporations such as CNN, MSNBC, and the New York Times, while in their policies 80% of news sources on the right are deemed unreliable. Independent news outlets and self-published subject experts are also not able to edit a Wikipedia page. Before it is deemed acceptable, information needs to be filtered through a mainstream news source, which in turn is constrained by fact-checking services.

    Misrepresenting Covid dissidents

    The World Council for Health (WCH) is one of many organisations and individuals who have been defamed by Wikipedia since the advent of Covid-19. As discussed at the WCH’s 83rd General Assembly meeting in April 2023, this has been part of a much broader strategy to silence dissent with regard to the so-called pandemic and its protocols.

    WCH was established to challenge the official Covid response and its Wikipedia article was created in September 2022. The current Wikipedia entry is fairly close to the original version, although it has been edited a number of times. However, a number of Wikipedia pages created prior to Covid-19 have been completely amended since 2020, resulting in a ‘hero-to-zero’ fall from grace for people such as the author Dr Vernon Coleman (compare his October 2019 entry with the current article), and the early developer of the mRNA vaccine technology, Dr Robert Malone, whose role in this invention has been deleted from the page on mRNA vaccines.



    https://worldcouncilforhealth.org/multimedia/fact-checkers-independent-media/
    Who’s fact-checking the fact-checkers? A trio of independent media creators—Derrick Broze, Jason Bassler & Joe Martino—reveal their eye-opening shared experience in dealing with fact-checkers and censorship dating back years before Covid-19 emerged.


    Scarcely worth commenting on … but we shall!

    Let’s take a look at the WCH Wikipedia article (accessed 18 December 2023) to see just how deeply flawed and factually incorrect it is.

    Firstly, the content – comprising just eight paragraphs – is entirely inadequate. Other than stating that the organisation “appears to have been formed in September 2021” [emphasis mine], and that it was “founded by Jennifer A. Hibberd and Tess Lawrie”, nothing substantive is mentioned about what WCH is or what it does, despite its goals, values, and initiatives being clearly represented on its website and social media channels.

    Secondly, most of the article attempts to smear WCH by association. The bulk of the content refers to people or organisations who are part of the broader health freedom network but neither WCH staff nor council members, including Robert F Kennedy Jr of Children’s Health Defense and esteemed cardiologist Dr Aseem Malhotra. Wikipedia maligns these experts for their efforts to cancel the rollout of the experimental Covid-19 gene therapies which, contrary to the protestations of the fact-checkers, have caused millions of deaths worldwide. Ironically, Wikipedia accuses Dr Malhotra of “cherry-picking” sources to substantiate his concerns about the jab, yet they themselves cherry-pick tangential content and questionable opinions from, with only two exceptions, rather dubious sources.

    So, thirdly, let’s have a look at the references Wikipedia uses to back up its potentially libelous statements.

    The reference to Kerr et. al (March 2022) is simply a brief Erratum, noting that some of the authors of the paper quoted were using ivermectin to treat patients, which one would expect as they were reporting on its efficacy.

    The flawed Cochrane Review by Popp et. al (2022) that criticised a systematic review by Bryant et. al (2021) on the use of ivermectin to prevent and treat Covid-19 was thoroughly debunked in a letter sent to them by Fordham and colleagues in September 2021, but this has not been acknowledged on Wikipedia. The Bryant et al review remains in the top 10 most read out of 23 million tracked scientific papers.

    Three references are to fact-checking sites: AAP FactCheck (Australia), AFP Fact Check (France), and Health Feedback (USA), which employ teams of people to prevent the dissemination of information that is not in line with the menticidal narratives of the Great Reset Establishment.

    Four of the nine sources come from two Vice magazine journalists, Anna Merlan and Tim Hume. Their articles are replete with worn-out terms such as right-wing, conspiracy theorist, Covid-denier, anti-vaxxer, and mis-/disinformation-peddler. They also predictably take issue with ivermectin, common law, and even the notion of sovereign citizens! The tone of the articles ranges from wryly dismissive to scathingly scornful, with words such as discredited, nonsense, completely false, misleading, and fringe peppering the text. They also delight in reporting cases of doctors and scientists who have been barred from their professions for refusing to deny their professional oaths and personal principles. Underlying the supercilious slurs, however, runs a definite current of concern that these ‘discredited conspiracy theorists’ who are promoting health, freedom, and human rights may actually be gaining traction.

    Larry Sanger reflects on how far Wikipedia has departed from its original commitment to neutrality by pointing out the features of biased reporting, all of which apply to the Wikipedia article on WCH:

    negative information is so predominant that readers can infer that the authors harbor great hatred, resentment, or strong disapproval of the subject (especially when the target has a popular following among many ordinary people);

    dismissive epithets and judgments are used in Wikipedia’s own voice; or

    what a person is legitimately famous for is omitted, dismissed, or misrepresented

    While WCH might wish to create a more accurate Wikipedia entry, this is not possible. According to the view source button, only registered users are allowed to edit this article. In other words, WCH has no right of reply.


    Wikipedia, like a child having a tantrum, refuses point-blank to engage with those people and ideas it just WILL NOT acknowledge.
    Is there a future for Wikipedia?

    Why anyone would bother to search Wikipedia for information about WCH, which has a perfectly informative website and Substack, is anyone’s guess. But the more Wikipedia produces atrocious articles like the one on WCH, the faster they will lose credibility among those who simply want information and do not have an ideological axe to grind.

    In fact, it is worth subjecting this article to a well-known credibility test developed by California State University, and appropriately named the CRAAP test!

    Its five components (plus comments on the WCH article) include:

    Currency: Is the source up-to-date? – No, for one thing, it does not mention WCH’s second conference in 2023. Although editing of the Wikipedia article continues, no up-to-date information has been added.

    Relevance: Is the source relevant to your research? – Not if one wants to know anything about WCH. But it has been very relevant to an investigation into the decline and fall of Wikipedia.

    Authority: Where is the source published? Who is the author? Are they considered reputable and trustworthy in their field? – Absolutely not. Wikipedia’s policy on Reliable Sources specifically discounts independent experts in favour of large news corporations, which are committed to promoting Establishment narratives.

    Accuracy: Is the source supported by evidence? Are the claims cited correctly? – Not at all. Please visit the WCH website to confirm this.

    Purpose: What was the motive behind publishing this source? – The only purpose appears to be to discredit WCH.

    At least in the case of the WCH article, Wikipedia’s credibility is clearly questionable. More broadly, Wikipedia co-founder, Larry Sanger, believes that the platform can no longer be trusted. Observing that it has become a useful propaganda mouthpiece for the Establishment, he mused: “If only one version of the facts is allowed, then that gives a huge incentive to wealthy and powerful people to seize control of things like Wikipedia in order to shore up their power.”

    Indeed, in recent years, Google has invested substantially in the Wikipedia Foundation, paying them to provide the “most accurate and up-to-date information” for its search engine. Google is now elevating Wikipedia articles in Internet searches, using their content to populate their ‘knowledge panels’, and inserting their articles under videos on YouTube (its subsidiary) in an effort “to fight misinformation and conspiracy theories.” In this way, the actual spreaders of misinformation flood the Internet with their post-truth propaganda, causing those who value Truth, Beauty, and Goodness to look elsewhere for information.

    What is particularly interesting, though, is that the Wikipedia edifice may be crumbling from within. Thanks to the transparency of the Wikimedia system, one is able to peer behind the curtain into the online discussions of the various editors working on a particular article. And here we discover dissention in the ranks. Recent discussions between Wikipedia editors working on the WCH article reveal anything but agreement regarding this flimsy hit-piece. For example, one editor asks why the article on WCH focuses on Dr Lawrie. The person then asks why Dr Lawrie’s qualifications, directorship, publication record, and over 4,000 citations are not mentioned (actually Dr Lawrie has over 5,000 citations and is ranked among the top 5% of Researchgate scientists), but only her prior role as an obstetrician. It is encouraging to read the following comment:

    Science is research and debate, not dogma; even in the case Lawrie could be wrong on some things, that doesnt's [sic.] make her a conspiracy theorist, but a good researcher. Suppression of scientific debate is not scientific method.

    Later, and for good reason, concerns are expressed about the use of Vice magazine as a ‘reliable source’ (RS).


    Anna Merlan, author of three of the Vice articles.
    Conclusion

    WCH’s Wikipedia experience is the tip of a very large iceberg of censorship and suppression (Shi-Raz et al. 2023) that, especially over the past four years, has been threatening to sink those opposing Establishment narratives. Media and tech companies, including Wikipedia, Google, and the fact-checkers mentioned in this article, have played a central role in stifling debate and attempting to constrain narratives and minds. But, as Larry Sanger puts it, “people have natural BS detectors” and are not satisfied with condescending journalists or one flavour of opinion.

    Instead, as described by Shi-Raz et al., many people who are concerned about public health and committed to freedom of speech have not been deterred by the efforts of the Establishment. Instead, they have been motivated to create a world in parallel to the mainstream, using alternative channels of communication, establishing multi-disciplinary support networks, and developing alternative medical and health information systems such as, of course, the World Council for Health.

    And, recognising the decline of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger is in the process of creating what he calls the ‘Encyclosphere’, a massive network of online encyclopaedias covering a plethora of specialist and generalist areas of knowledge, that is set to literally put Wikipedia in its place as an equal among many others.

    So, while Wikipedia spends an inordinate amount of time, energy, and money on a business that not only lacks substance but is also mean-spirited and divisive, initiatives like WCH and the Encyclosphere shine like candles in the dark, illuminating a better way.

    Share


    If you find value in this Substack and have the means, please consider making a contribution to support the World Council for Health. Thank you.

    Upgrade to Paid Subscription

    Refer a friend

    Donate Subscriptions

    Give Direct to WCH

    https://worldcouncilforhealth.substack.com/p/wikipedia-smear-piece-wch?utm_medium=ios
    Wikipedia’s Smear Piece on WCH Represents a Badge of Honour The World Council for Health's message of health sovereignty is clearly a threat to the establishment. World Council for Health Written by World Council for Health Correspondent Alice Ashwell, PhD. They say that you pick up the most flack when you’re right over the target. Since the Covid phenomenon began, the degree of flack has become a navigational aid in the pursuit of Truth. Wikipedia’s hit piece on the World Council for Health (WCH) is evidence that their message of health sovereignty has become a threat to the establishment. Brainwashing goes global Ever more brazenly over the past four years, members of the ‘Great Reset Establishment’ have been involved in a process of what Psychoanalyst Dr Bruce Scott calls ‘menticide’, or brainwashing on a global scale. Through the unethical use of applied psychology, governments, corporations, and organisations around the world have been manipulating the masses into compliance with their globalist agenda. Whether the issue has been Covid-19, the war in Ukraine, economic meltdown, or climate hysteria, the outcome has been an environment of heightened fear and uncertainty. People seeking direction have been subjected to unprecedented levels of propaganda and censorship, which have added to the confusion by creating a ‘through-the-looking-glass’ world in which it feels like truths have become lies, and vice versa. If this content is important to you, please share it with your network. Share Wikipedia - no longer reliable One of the ‘trusted’ sources we have become accustomed to turning to when seeking information on a host of topics is Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. This online encyclopedia was established in 2001 with the aim of being a free, open, and neutral source of information that anyone could access and edit. The idea was that all sides of controversial issues would be welcomed and readers would be left to make up their own minds. But, as Wikipedia co-founder-turned-critic Larry Sanger complained in an interview with Glenn Greenwald in July 2023, “It didn’t work out that way.” Over time, the platform has moved away from its non-negotiable editorial policy that content should strive to reflect a ‘neutral point of view’ (NPOV). As Kristin Heflin described in her PhD thesis in 2010, this means that: … all Wikipedia content must represent―fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. By insisting articles represent [―] all significant views without bias, the policy of striving for NPOV shares similarities with objectivity … (p. 89) In 2015, Heather Ford observed in her D. Phil. Thesis that Wikipedia was by that time offering “a skewed representation of the world that favours some groups at the expense of others” (p. 3). She continued: Instead of everyone having the same power to represent their views on Wikipedia, those who understand how to perform and speak according to Wikipedia's complex technical, symbolic and policy vocabulary tend to prevail over those who possess disciplinary knowledge about the subject being represented. This means that Wikipedia is able to decide which facts are stabilised or destabilised on its platform, according to the ideological positions of its editors. While Wikipedia originally provided the opportunity for people to publish without the need for gatekeepers or mediators, this is no longer the case. Especially since the Covid-19 event boosted the fortunes of the Censorship Industrial Complex, Wikipedians have become foot soldiers in the battle to scrub from the Internet information they consider to be mis-, dis-, or mal-information. Larry Sanger, in the interview mentioned above, described how he has watched Wikipedia’s neutrality evaporate over the years, shifting around 2005 to establishment views on topics like global warming and certain drugs, and starting to show bias against holistic medicine in the early 2010s. Its reliable sources of information are now left-of-centre media corporations such as CNN, MSNBC, and the New York Times, while in their policies 80% of news sources on the right are deemed unreliable. Independent news outlets and self-published subject experts are also not able to edit a Wikipedia page. Before it is deemed acceptable, information needs to be filtered through a mainstream news source, which in turn is constrained by fact-checking services. Misrepresenting Covid dissidents The World Council for Health (WCH) is one of many organisations and individuals who have been defamed by Wikipedia since the advent of Covid-19. As discussed at the WCH’s 83rd General Assembly meeting in April 2023, this has been part of a much broader strategy to silence dissent with regard to the so-called pandemic and its protocols. WCH was established to challenge the official Covid response and its Wikipedia article was created in September 2022. The current Wikipedia entry is fairly close to the original version, although it has been edited a number of times. However, a number of Wikipedia pages created prior to Covid-19 have been completely amended since 2020, resulting in a ‘hero-to-zero’ fall from grace for people such as the author Dr Vernon Coleman (compare his October 2019 entry with the current article), and the early developer of the mRNA vaccine technology, Dr Robert Malone, whose role in this invention has been deleted from the page on mRNA vaccines. https://worldcouncilforhealth.org/multimedia/fact-checkers-independent-media/ Who’s fact-checking the fact-checkers? A trio of independent media creators—Derrick Broze, Jason Bassler & Joe Martino—reveal their eye-opening shared experience in dealing with fact-checkers and censorship dating back years before Covid-19 emerged. Scarcely worth commenting on … but we shall! Let’s take a look at the WCH Wikipedia article (accessed 18 December 2023) to see just how deeply flawed and factually incorrect it is. Firstly, the content – comprising just eight paragraphs – is entirely inadequate. Other than stating that the organisation “appears to have been formed in September 2021” [emphasis mine], and that it was “founded by Jennifer A. Hibberd and Tess Lawrie”, nothing substantive is mentioned about what WCH is or what it does, despite its goals, values, and initiatives being clearly represented on its website and social media channels. Secondly, most of the article attempts to smear WCH by association. The bulk of the content refers to people or organisations who are part of the broader health freedom network but neither WCH staff nor council members, including Robert F Kennedy Jr of Children’s Health Defense and esteemed cardiologist Dr Aseem Malhotra. Wikipedia maligns these experts for their efforts to cancel the rollout of the experimental Covid-19 gene therapies which, contrary to the protestations of the fact-checkers, have caused millions of deaths worldwide. Ironically, Wikipedia accuses Dr Malhotra of “cherry-picking” sources to substantiate his concerns about the jab, yet they themselves cherry-pick tangential content and questionable opinions from, with only two exceptions, rather dubious sources. So, thirdly, let’s have a look at the references Wikipedia uses to back up its potentially libelous statements. The reference to Kerr et. al (March 2022) is simply a brief Erratum, noting that some of the authors of the paper quoted were using ivermectin to treat patients, which one would expect as they were reporting on its efficacy. The flawed Cochrane Review by Popp et. al (2022) that criticised a systematic review by Bryant et. al (2021) on the use of ivermectin to prevent and treat Covid-19 was thoroughly debunked in a letter sent to them by Fordham and colleagues in September 2021, but this has not been acknowledged on Wikipedia. The Bryant et al review remains in the top 10 most read out of 23 million tracked scientific papers. Three references are to fact-checking sites: AAP FactCheck (Australia), AFP Fact Check (France), and Health Feedback (USA), which employ teams of people to prevent the dissemination of information that is not in line with the menticidal narratives of the Great Reset Establishment. Four of the nine sources come from two Vice magazine journalists, Anna Merlan and Tim Hume. Their articles are replete with worn-out terms such as right-wing, conspiracy theorist, Covid-denier, anti-vaxxer, and mis-/disinformation-peddler. They also predictably take issue with ivermectin, common law, and even the notion of sovereign citizens! The tone of the articles ranges from wryly dismissive to scathingly scornful, with words such as discredited, nonsense, completely false, misleading, and fringe peppering the text. They also delight in reporting cases of doctors and scientists who have been barred from their professions for refusing to deny their professional oaths and personal principles. Underlying the supercilious slurs, however, runs a definite current of concern that these ‘discredited conspiracy theorists’ who are promoting health, freedom, and human rights may actually be gaining traction. Larry Sanger reflects on how far Wikipedia has departed from its original commitment to neutrality by pointing out the features of biased reporting, all of which apply to the Wikipedia article on WCH: negative information is so predominant that readers can infer that the authors harbor great hatred, resentment, or strong disapproval of the subject (especially when the target has a popular following among many ordinary people); dismissive epithets and judgments are used in Wikipedia’s own voice; or what a person is legitimately famous for is omitted, dismissed, or misrepresented While WCH might wish to create a more accurate Wikipedia entry, this is not possible. According to the view source button, only registered users are allowed to edit this article. In other words, WCH has no right of reply. Wikipedia, like a child having a tantrum, refuses point-blank to engage with those people and ideas it just WILL NOT acknowledge. Is there a future for Wikipedia? Why anyone would bother to search Wikipedia for information about WCH, which has a perfectly informative website and Substack, is anyone’s guess. But the more Wikipedia produces atrocious articles like the one on WCH, the faster they will lose credibility among those who simply want information and do not have an ideological axe to grind. In fact, it is worth subjecting this article to a well-known credibility test developed by California State University, and appropriately named the CRAAP test! Its five components (plus comments on the WCH article) include: Currency: Is the source up-to-date? – No, for one thing, it does not mention WCH’s second conference in 2023. Although editing of the Wikipedia article continues, no up-to-date information has been added. Relevance: Is the source relevant to your research? – Not if one wants to know anything about WCH. But it has been very relevant to an investigation into the decline and fall of Wikipedia. Authority: Where is the source published? Who is the author? Are they considered reputable and trustworthy in their field? – Absolutely not. Wikipedia’s policy on Reliable Sources specifically discounts independent experts in favour of large news corporations, which are committed to promoting Establishment narratives. Accuracy: Is the source supported by evidence? Are the claims cited correctly? – Not at all. Please visit the WCH website to confirm this. Purpose: What was the motive behind publishing this source? – The only purpose appears to be to discredit WCH. At least in the case of the WCH article, Wikipedia’s credibility is clearly questionable. More broadly, Wikipedia co-founder, Larry Sanger, believes that the platform can no longer be trusted. Observing that it has become a useful propaganda mouthpiece for the Establishment, he mused: “If only one version of the facts is allowed, then that gives a huge incentive to wealthy and powerful people to seize control of things like Wikipedia in order to shore up their power.” Indeed, in recent years, Google has invested substantially in the Wikipedia Foundation, paying them to provide the “most accurate and up-to-date information” for its search engine. Google is now elevating Wikipedia articles in Internet searches, using their content to populate their ‘knowledge panels’, and inserting their articles under videos on YouTube (its subsidiary) in an effort “to fight misinformation and conspiracy theories.” In this way, the actual spreaders of misinformation flood the Internet with their post-truth propaganda, causing those who value Truth, Beauty, and Goodness to look elsewhere for information. What is particularly interesting, though, is that the Wikipedia edifice may be crumbling from within. Thanks to the transparency of the Wikimedia system, one is able to peer behind the curtain into the online discussions of the various editors working on a particular article. And here we discover dissention in the ranks. Recent discussions between Wikipedia editors working on the WCH article reveal anything but agreement regarding this flimsy hit-piece. For example, one editor asks why the article on WCH focuses on Dr Lawrie. The person then asks why Dr Lawrie’s qualifications, directorship, publication record, and over 4,000 citations are not mentioned (actually Dr Lawrie has over 5,000 citations and is ranked among the top 5% of Researchgate scientists), but only her prior role as an obstetrician. It is encouraging to read the following comment: Science is research and debate, not dogma; even in the case Lawrie could be wrong on some things, that doesnt's [sic.] make her a conspiracy theorist, but a good researcher. Suppression of scientific debate is not scientific method. Later, and for good reason, concerns are expressed about the use of Vice magazine as a ‘reliable source’ (RS). Anna Merlan, author of three of the Vice articles. Conclusion WCH’s Wikipedia experience is the tip of a very large iceberg of censorship and suppression (Shi-Raz et al. 2023) that, especially over the past four years, has been threatening to sink those opposing Establishment narratives. Media and tech companies, including Wikipedia, Google, and the fact-checkers mentioned in this article, have played a central role in stifling debate and attempting to constrain narratives and minds. But, as Larry Sanger puts it, “people have natural BS detectors” and are not satisfied with condescending journalists or one flavour of opinion. Instead, as described by Shi-Raz et al., many people who are concerned about public health and committed to freedom of speech have not been deterred by the efforts of the Establishment. Instead, they have been motivated to create a world in parallel to the mainstream, using alternative channels of communication, establishing multi-disciplinary support networks, and developing alternative medical and health information systems such as, of course, the World Council for Health. And, recognising the decline of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger is in the process of creating what he calls the ‘Encyclosphere’, a massive network of online encyclopaedias covering a plethora of specialist and generalist areas of knowledge, that is set to literally put Wikipedia in its place as an equal among many others. So, while Wikipedia spends an inordinate amount of time, energy, and money on a business that not only lacks substance but is also mean-spirited and divisive, initiatives like WCH and the Encyclosphere shine like candles in the dark, illuminating a better way. Share If you find value in this Substack and have the means, please consider making a contribution to support the World Council for Health. Thank you. Upgrade to Paid Subscription Refer a friend Donate Subscriptions Give Direct to WCH https://worldcouncilforhealth.substack.com/p/wikipedia-smear-piece-wch?utm_medium=ios
    WORLDCOUNCILFORHEALTH.SUBSTACK.COM
    Wikipedia’s Smear Piece on WCH Represents a Badge of Honour
    The World Council for Health's message of health sovereignty is clearly a threat to the establishment.
    Like
    1
    1 Comments 0 Shares 13838 Views
  • Consortium News Sues “Misinformation” Arbiter NewsGuard

    NewsGuard Technologies Inc., an organization focused on combating “misinformation” in news media, along with the federal government (which has a contract with NewsGuard), is facing legal challenges over alleged defamation and First Amendment breaches, respectively. The plaintiff in the case is the Consortium for Independent Journalists, which initiated the litigation in the Southern District of New York.

    ...Founded in 1995 by the late investigative journalist Robert Parry, Consortium has contributed an impressive 27,000 articles to the journalistic landscape. Yet, amidst this vast collection, NewsGuard has taken issue five articles, the news outlet alleges, and, as a result of this has put a mark next to every news article on the site in its ratings system.

    The entirety of CN’s online archive now bears a red mark when viewed through search engines or social media platforms that use the NewsGuard system.

    “NewsGuard attaches an electronic ‘label’ to every CN item on search engines and social media that warns NewsGuard subscribers to ‘Proceed with caution’ because Consortium News ‘fails to maintain basic standards of accuracy and accountability,’ the complaint alleges. “Such statements slander and defame Consortium News and are arbitrary, wanton, malicious and reckless.”

    The lawsuit takes particular offense with NewsGuard’s system of attaching a label next to all articles from the outlet.

    🔗Source: ReclaimTheNet

    https://reclaimthenet.org/consortium-news-sues-misinformation-arbiter-newsguard #news #factcheck #factcheckers #freespeech
    Consortium News Sues “Misinformation” Arbiter NewsGuard NewsGuard Technologies Inc., an organization focused on combating “misinformation” in news media, along with the federal government (which has a contract with NewsGuard), is facing legal challenges over alleged defamation and First Amendment breaches, respectively. The plaintiff in the case is the Consortium for Independent Journalists, which initiated the litigation in the Southern District of New York. ...Founded in 1995 by the late investigative journalist Robert Parry, Consortium has contributed an impressive 27,000 articles to the journalistic landscape. Yet, amidst this vast collection, NewsGuard has taken issue five articles, the news outlet alleges, and, as a result of this has put a mark next to every news article on the site in its ratings system. The entirety of CN’s online archive now bears a red mark when viewed through search engines or social media platforms that use the NewsGuard system. “NewsGuard attaches an electronic ‘label’ to every CN item on search engines and social media that warns NewsGuard subscribers to ‘Proceed with caution’ because Consortium News ‘fails to maintain basic standards of accuracy and accountability,’ the complaint alleges. “Such statements slander and defame Consortium News and are arbitrary, wanton, malicious and reckless.” The lawsuit takes particular offense with NewsGuard’s system of attaching a label next to all articles from the outlet. 🔗Source: ReclaimTheNet https://reclaimthenet.org/consortium-news-sues-misinformation-arbiter-newsguard #news #factcheck #factcheckers #freespeech
    0 Comments 0 Shares 5222 Views