It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Hidden Wikipedia: Protecting Medical Industry Profit, Deceit and Fraud

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2010 @ 04:55 PM
link   
The following is an exposé by the Orthomolecular Medicine News Service on fraudulent activity at Wikipedia.


There is nothing quite like a paper trail, and Wikipedia has one. Consequently, you can read for yourself all the material that has been added, and then deleted.

For example: Wikipedia's page about Dr. Max Gerson

The doctor is widely known for the nutritional cancer therapy that bears his name. Gerson's principal biographer is his grandson, Howard Straus

Mr. Straus tells the Orthomolecular Medicine News Service of some interesting experiences he has had with Wikipedia bias:

"Some years ago, on seeing that the pages for Dr. Max Gerson and the Gerson Therapy were only stubs (short place-holders with little information on them), I took it upon myself to flesh out the pages. I thought Wikipedia was fairly neutral on balance, so I put in all the information that I could, and kept it factual with references, citations, and literature links."


Within a month, the following had happened:


"The information was labeled as "biased" and "unreliable" because I am Dr. Gerson's grandson and biographer. There appeared a big red flag at the top of the article labeling the articles neutrality "dubious." The photograph I posted was removed. Provable, referenced facts, with dates and places, all suddenly became "claims," even quotes from no less than Nobel Laureate Albert Schweitzer, M.D., who famously said: "I see in Dr. Max Gerson one of the most eminent geniuses in medical history." Dr. Schweitzer and his wife were patients of Dr. Gerson, making this a first-hand account from a rather reliable source."


"All my links, references and citations were removed. They were replaced by links to the American Cancer Society and National Cancer Institute, which offer only criticism of the Gerson Therapy. Even quotations from published scientific papers were removed. Attempts to rectify these actions were immediately overwritten."


It's easy enough to show the progression of the pages, since Wikipedia displays former edits on request, dated and documented. One can verify this by clicking on the "History" tab at the top of the Max Gerson page, and looking at 2005 and before. My editing is archived at HERE and at HERE

A second Wikipedia page, specific to the Gerson Therapy, has been completely removed.

To see something of what happened, you can click the "History" tab here as well.

One other intriguing statement about Dr. Gerson's work that is probably too "unreliable" to be seen on Wikipedia:

"I know of one patient who turned to Gerson Therapy having been told she was suffering from terminal cancer and would not survive another course of chemotherapy. Happily, seven years later, she is alive and well. So it is vital that, rather than dismissing such experiences, we should further investigate the beneficial nature of these treatments." - H.R.H. Charles, Prince of Wales


Max Gerson is not the only nutritionally-oriented physician whose work is slanted or censored at Wikipedia; many others exist.


For More Information on Max Gerson, M.D. and the Gerson Therapy:

Complete Bibliography of Dr Gerson's Publishings

Extensive list of papers on the Gerson Therapy

Additional Reading

Charlotte Gerson

A short video of Gerson Therapy results and testimonials:




Documentaries about the Gerson Therapy:





Documentaries featuring the Gerson Therapy:






Further links for the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine:

orthomolecular.org...
orthomolecular.org...
orthomolecular.org...

Orthomolecular medicine uses safe, effective nutritional therapy to fight illness.

The peer-reviewed Orthomolecular Medicine News Service is a non-profit and non-commercial informational resource.




posted on May, 11 2010 @ 05:10 PM
link   
The key to the value of Wikipedia is the ability to uncover editorial changes.

Imagine if that hadn't been possible.

I appreciate your efforts to share what would otherwise be lost.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 05:26 PM
link   
I fear they might also start censoring/tampering with the literature databases, although hope is still out there...

One such database is EBSCOHost.

Mostly subscribed by public libraries and lesser so, by universities, it carries a magazine news publication dedicated to Gerson therapy.

I also find curious the electrolyte ratios and balances of Gerson therapy.

It advises to maintain Potassium above Sodium.

It draws on historical reference values, today it is 2 to 1 or more in favour of Sodium, in the past it was 2 to 1 or more, but for Potassium instead.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   
I looked over the archived edits related to Gerson and Gerson therapy. It appears (to me, at least) that they were reverted to claims because the "references" were written by Gerson himself and were not peer-reviewed or critical studies. Referencing yourself to prove a point isn't exactly the height of critical analysis and doesn't serve to prove any claim.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by StrangeBrew
 

I've noticed this tendency on the part of Wikipedia on medical subjects.

I suspect the drug companies are hiring educated people to edit these subjects and squeeze out any "non-conventional" views.

It's pretty obvious they also hire a few posters here for similar reasons.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kailassa
reply to post by StrangeBrew
 

I've noticed this tendency on the part of Wikipedia on medical subjects.

I suspect the drug companies are hiring educated people to edit these subjects and squeeze out any "non-conventional" views.

It's pretty obvious they also hire a few posters here for similar reasons.


You realize that both Wikipedia and this site are freely editable by anyone, right? Why does it automatically have to be "pharma shills" when a website asks you to give references to verifiable sources rather than self-written reports and books?



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 06:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


Thanks for speaking on Wikipedia's value.

The unfortunate part about editable encyclopedia content lies with the average member of the public. The majority of people who proactively choose to read through an encyclopedia entry aren't willing or are aware of how to wade through a messy array of edited entries from the annals of the database.

These days on the Internet Wikipedia content is highly prized as anyone can see for themselves with a random Internet search. More often than not Wikipedia comes back as a number one hit, directing large amounts of traffic for any subject matter.

The average Internet user, who doesn't necessarily have the time to take on hours of reading and research, feels that they can adequately equip themselves with a thorough understanding of a topic by reading over a Wikipedia page.

Great as it may be for informing yourself on the migratory habits of varies species of duck or the history of swing music's popularity in the 1930's, Wikipedia value drops sharply with any matters of critical importance.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Kailassa
 


It's a shame that Wikipedia finds itself in the position of relying on the use an authoritarian moderator system. Of course it is the ability for anyone to contribute freely to Wikipedia article content at anytime, but it is the fact that newly added contributions are effectively moderated and are dealt with as seen fit by those chosen for such positions.

Certain topics, again those of critical importance, are moderated and ruled with an iron fist approach. With these subjects, as quickly as something goes in; it's back out in record time – always by the same few moderator usernames, some times dozens of times per day and hundreds of times per month.

With the large amounts of search engine traffic handled by Wikipedia, it isn't difficult to understand how these moderator positions could been seen as highly valuable and heavily sought after. It also isn't difficult to fathom the value of controlling that level of public exposure to information.

It's easy to envision the amount of lobbying and compensation that could be taking place to control this set of highly viewed, public information.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by jjjtir
 


All versions of electronic information are susceptible to tampering. It serve to reason that we may begin to see regular occurrences of it happen as time goes on.

There was a story recently in the news about Amazon deleting purchased copies of George Orwell's 1984 from customer's electronic Kindle devices due to a “violation of copyrights”. If a corporation has the ability to remotely delete electronic content then they also have the ability to remotely edit electronic content.

The Gerson Therapy uses a mixture of potassium salts as a part of it's supplementation. Specifically potassium glauconate and potassium phosphate are used to raise the alkalinity and pH of the body's cells.

Unfortunately, the Wikipedia page on Max Gerson is a shell of what it should be and the section on the therapy it self is nothing like the actual therapy promoted by the Gerson Institute and practiced around the world.

Any attempts by me or anyone else to document current work such as that of Prof. Yoshihiko Hoshino, M.D in Japan or the 500 hundred cancer patients of Dr. Tominaga, of the Director of the Loma Linda Clinic, who are currently on the Gerson Therapy (of which over half no longer show any signs of cancer), would be swiftly met by moderated deletion.

Or for instance the mention of the Director of the prestigious Toritsu Ohtsuka Hosptial, in Tokyo, Dr. Takaho Watayo who is on record extensively proclaiming the miraculous effects of the Gerson Therapy on his cancer patients. One of the most eminent and well respected surgeons in Japan, he readily describes the Gerson Therapy as magnificent. Wide public exposure of that fact on the level that Wikipedia meets would be heavily protected.

It really is too bad we don't have the degree of medical freedom of choice that they share in Japan.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kailassa
reply to post by StrangeBrew
 

I've noticed this tendency on the part of Wikipedia on medical subjects.

I suspect the drug companies are hiring educated people to edit these subjects and squeeze out any "non-conventional" views.

It's pretty obvious they also hire a few posters here for similar reasons.


With the page on Wikipedia fibromyalgia the changes have been directly linked to the insurance industry.
The page has become so bad the it is no longer any use to people with fibro and about 90% of the information is bogus.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 10:33 AM
link   
I took the liberty of uploading a short video which speaks of current instances of Gerson Therapy use in Japan and scientific testing done on the treatment at the hospital itself.

This video on scientific results of the Gerson Therapy visits with Dr. Tominaga, Director of the Loma Linda Clinic in Japan, Dr. Takaho Watayo, Director of the presegous Toritsu Ohtsuka Hosptial, in Tokyo and Prof. Yoshihiko Hoshino, M.D.

Current, on going treatments of hundreds of patients is discussed along with intense and laborious scientific testing taking place on the Gerson Therapy.

Dr. Tominaga alone monitors some 500 patients currently on the Gerson therapy, over half of which now show no signs of cancer.



(click to open player in new window)



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 11:51 AM
link   
For those interested in exactly how things got this bad, take a moment to look at a brief overview on the origins of modern medical industry corruption.

This video details how the modern day, mainstream medical industry has a dubious history, deeply rooted by a drive for profit through the subversion and suppression of non-profitable and non-patentable therapies and treatments.

To this day mainstream allopathic doctors and practitioners are heavily indoctrinated into a system that protects ever increasing industry profits while fiercely defending orthodox therapies. The network of allopathic medical institutions and education strictly denies medical freedom and outlaws any treatments that cannot generate market share profits for their monopolized industry.



(click to open player in new window)



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   
I was also disgusted to see the bias allowed on the Wiki "Max Gerson" listing, marginalizing the subject. I did an edit and an hour later it was back to what it was. The moderator (Ronz) told me The Gerson Therapy book was not an acceptable reference, pointing me toward Wiki's rules about "neutrality". When I replied that the current Gerson article is biased, Ronz said basically that the American Cancer Society and National Cancer Institute trumped all other references. Basically Ronz says that any other references that countered the ACS and NCI references would be seen as lacking neutrality.I explained that those organizations have been historically biased against Gerson, but Ronz was not hearing it. I was told that they don't want me to do any more edits on the article, but I explained that I will be back despite Ronz's and Wikipedia's efforts to censor me (and apparently many others).

See the whole thread here: en.wikipedia.org...:Amusedspaceman&diff=0&oldid=466929592

My goal is track down this article by a top Japanese doctor to see if Wiki's claim of publishing references from only reputable national or international papers holds true: www.thefreelibrary.com...

If anyone can help me track it down, it would be much appreciated.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by MegaGorilla
 


Hey there MegaGorilla,

Thank you for your attempts at improving the content on Max Gerson’s wiki page. You’re right, many have tried. And thanks for detailing your experience with the wikipedia moderator. He out right told you that The American Cancer Society and The National Cancer Institute has a complete information monopoly on anything relating to cancer and all topics/subjects that are indirectly related.

Anyone using Wikipedia this time of year becomes very familiar with their “quarter of a page plea” for monetary donations. I’m sure The American Cancer Society and The National Cancer Institute are all more than happy to donate. After all, it’s an investment. An advertisement of the best kind.

It could be difficult tracking down the published research you refer to simply because it would be in Japanese and hard to recognize what we’re looking at should we find it. It would be really great to have help from someone comfortable with the language. I’m sure it’s online somewhere.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   
I think you misunderstood - that is not the Wikipedia policy at all. Their neutrality guidelines require that medical information in the encyclopedia get a similar representation to what it gets in peer reviewed medical sources.

So if you open up PubMed, and all the papers on the Gerson's therapy are skeptical, where Wikipedia writes about it they are required to be skeptical as well.

Especially note that this is specifically peer reviewed, independently published sources. That is why your attempt to use the Gerson Therapy book did not fly - self published material doesn't count for Wikipedia's purposes.

It is not specifically that the American Cancer Society and National Cancer Institute trump all other references - but that those are peer reviewed and independently published, and what you were attempting to use to rebut them were not.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by StrangeBrew
 


you are quite correct.

wiki censors a lot of information they can no longer be trusted.

i would not be surprised if some of them are consultants for various interest groups with golden hand shakes waiting for them.

i remember there used to be a page on blood electrification which is now a stub as wiki censors have removed everything.

in contrast to this the number of research articles,pages,blogs,articles,groups,devices produced for blood electrification have gone up exponentially.

i would not bother with editing wiki.

...unless you have a lot of time and lots of friends who are willing to battle with the censors and keep them busy with reapplying the edits.



new topics

top topics



 
6

log in

join