Peter Myers Digest: Wikipedia, RFK Jr, French out of Africa
(1) Larry Sanger says CIA and FBI have been editing Wikipedia since 2008
(2) Wikipedia Is an Information Warfare Tool
(3) RFK Jr. Hosts Censorship Roundtable — Journalists, Experts Examine Free Speech Crisis, Lawsuits
(4) RFKjr says that Luc Montagnier concluded that Mycoplasma infertans causes AIDS
(5) Time’s up for France in Africa
(1) Larry Sanger says CIA and FBI have been editing Wikipedia since 2008
WATCH THE VIDEO
US Intelligence Has Been Manipulating Wikipedia For Over A Decade: Wiki Co-Founder
By Tyler Durden
FRIDAY, AUG 04, 2023 – 09:00 AM
The co-founder of Wikipedia has revealed a bombshell concerning long-running suspicions of US intelligence interference and manipulation on the world’s most well-known collaborative online encyclopedia. The site’s co-creator Larry Sanger spoke to journalist Glenn Greenwald on his “System Update” podcast, and outlined the known “information warfare” efforts of US intelligence, which have to some extend make Wikipedia a tool of “control” by the left-liberal Washington deep state.
Some observers who have long watched and carefully documented US government involvement in major social media platforms as well as Wikipedia itself have commented, “the CIA Is running Wikipedia, Wow, what a shocker. Sanger asserted during Greenwald’s show, “We do have evidence that, as early as 2008, that CIA and FBI computers were used to edit Wikipedia,” before posing: “Do you think that they stopped doing that back then?”
Sanger explained that the intelligence agencies “pay off the most influential people to push their agendas, which they’re already mostly in line with, or they just develop their own talent within the community, learn the Wikipedia game, and then push what they want to say with their own people.”
“A great part of intelligence and information warfare is conducted online,” he added, and then specified: “on websites like Wikipedia.” For that reason along with others explored in the interview, Sanger calls it “the most biased encyclopedia” in history.
He described that US intelligence manipulation of the immensely large platform and repository of information had been going on for more than a decade (Wikipedia was founded and appeared online in 2001).
In particular, Greenwald brought up Wikipedia’s entry for the topic Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory, and pointed out that “there is a mountain of evidence showing that Hunter Biden was paid $80,000 a month by Burisma executives.” It is an established fact that Burisma executives were “getting a lot in value in the way of access to Joe Biden, the most important US official on Ukraine,” Greenwald said. “And yet, according to the Wikipedia article, this evidence doesn’t exist, it’s just a complete conspiracy theory.”
“Remember, this is supposed to be an ideology-free, neutral encyclopedia”, Greenwald then quipped sarcastically.
Watch the full interview with the Wikipedia co-founder:
Below is a section of the Sanger interview transcript wherein Greenwald lambasts Wikipedia’s treatment of the whole Biden-Ukraine scandal:
“The very first sentence reads ‘The Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory is a series of false allegations that Joe Biden, while he was Vice President of the United States, engaged in corrupt activities relating to his son, Hunter Biden, who was on the board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma.”
“As part of efforts by Donald Trump and his campaign in the Trump–Ukraine scandal, which led to Trump’s first impeachment, these falsehoods were spread in an attempt to damage Joe Biden’s reputation and chances during the 2020 presidential campaign,” the Wikipedia entry still reads.
“So notice: The Biden-Ukraine scandal is – according to Wikipedia – the ‘Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory’ but the Trump controversy involving Ukraine is ‘the Trump–Ukraine scandal’. Everything is written to comport with the liberal world view and the Democratic Party talking points.”
The two also agreed that Covid entries were heavily subject to propaganda and skewed information:
“Let me tell you a fact,” Greenwald said. “The view of the leading scientists in the US Department of Energy as well as the FBI is that the most likely explanation for how the Covid pandemic emerged is through the research that was being funded by the United States and conducted in the Wuhan lab. You would have no idea that was true – on one of the most important questions of the last decade: Where the Covid pandemic came from.”
“Every word (on Wikipedia) is designed to suggest that only right-wing conspiracy theorists would invest any plausibility in the theory that the virus came from a (lab) leak and not from a naturally occurring event, even though the top virologists in the world wrote to Dr. Fauci at the start of the pandemic and were adamant that the evidence was consistent with manipulation in a lab.”
“If you asked Joy Reid to comment on the Covid pandemic, that’s exactly what she would tell you. And that’s true of almost every entry. It shocked me when I started looking at (Wikipedia) over the last six months, how blatant it has become.”
Sanger explained that prior to a decade ago, Wikipedia “used to be kind of anti-establishment” but then it seemed to be hijacked. “Between 2005 and 2012 or so, there was this very definite shift to Wikipedia becoming an establishment mouthpiece. It was amazing. I never would’ve guessed that in 2001,” the site’s co-founder concluded.
(2) Wikipedia Is an Information Warfare Tool
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2023/09/02/wikipedia-information-warfare-tool.aspx
Wikipedia Is an Information Warfare Tool
Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola
September 02, 2023
STORY AT-A-GLANCE
Wikipedia is the most biased encyclopedia in history, having been hijacked by U.S. intelligence, industry and the political establishment years ago
According to Wikipedia cofounder Larry Sanger, U.S. intelligence has been manipulating the online encyclopedia since at least 2008, if not longer
Sanger noticed a bias creeping in around 2006, particularly in areas of science and medicine. Around 2010, he noticed that articles about Eastern Medicine were being changed to reflect blatantly biased positions, using “dismissive epithets” to paint this ancient tradition as quackery
Over-the-top kind of establishment bias includes Wikipedia’s assertion that the Ukraine-Biden scandal is a conspiracy theory designed to undermine Biden, even though evidence of Biden’s corruption has been made public
One explanation for why ideological bias has taken over Wikipedia is that it’s intentionally being used as a propaganda tool by intelligence agencies and the globalist establishment that is seeking to establish a One World Government. To succeed, they can’t allow a multitude of dissenting viewpoints to proliferate, and intelligence agencies are working together to disseminate and uphold the Deep State’s narratives worldwide
Intelligence agencies have a long history of using propaganda as a tool of war, and the effectiveness of information warfare radically improved with the emergence of the internet, to say nothing of artificial intelligence and social media.
If you’re over 50, you can probably remember a time when your family had a row of encyclopedias on the bookshelf — usually obtained at considerable cost — which were perused whenever you needed to learn more about a particular topic.
Today, you can’t even give a complete set of encyclopedias away because, well, we have Wikipedia. However, Wikipedia has also become a favored propaganda tool, so to call it unreliable would be an understatement.
According to Wikipedia cofounder Larry Sanger — who left Wikipedia in 2002, the year after its inception — U.S. intelligence has been manipulating the online encyclopedia since at least 2008, if not longer. Sanger recently sat down to speak with independent journalist Glenn Greenwald (video above) about the subversion of the site he helped create.1
The Blatant Bias of Wikipedia
Sanger says he noticed a bias creeping in around 2006, particularly in areas of science and medicine. Around 2010, he started noticing that articles about Eastern Medicine were being changed to reflect blatantly biased positions, using “dismissive epithets” to paint this ancient tradition as quackery.
In 2012, evidence also emerged revealing a Wikipedia trustee and “Wikipedian in Residence” were being paid to edit pages on behalf of their clients and secure their placement on Wikipedia’s front page in the “Did You Know” section,2 which publicizes new or expanded articles3 — a clear violation of Wikipedia rules.
“It really got over the top … between 2013 and 2018,” Sanger says, “and by by at the time Trump became president, it was almost as bad as it is now. It’s amazing, you know, no encyclopedia, to my knowledge, has ever been as biased as Wikipedia has been …
I remember being mad about Encyclopedia Britannica and The World Book not mentioning my favorite topics, [and] presenting only certain points of view in a way that establishment sources generally do. But this is something else. This is entirely different. It’s over the top.”
Greenwald agrees, highlighting some recent examples of the “over the top” kind of establishment bias, such as Wikipedia simply declaring that the Ukraine-Biden scandal is a conspiracy theory designed to undermine Biden:
“The very first sentence reads: ‘The Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory is a series of false allegations that Joe Biden, while he was Vice President of the United States, engaged in corrupt activities relating to his son, Hunter Biden, who was on the board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma.’
‘As part of efforts by Donald Trump and his campaign in the Trump–Ukraine scandal, which led to Trump’s first impeachment, these falsehoods were spread in an attempt to damage Joe Biden’s reputation and chances during the 2020 presidential campaign,’ the Wikipedia entry still reads.
So, notice: The Biden-Ukraine scandal is — according to Wikipedia — the ‘Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory’ but the Trump controversy involving Ukraine is ‘the Trump–Ukraine scandal’. Everything is written to comport with the liberal world view and the Democratic Party talking points.”
Wikipedia’s treatment of all things COVID-related is equally skewed. It presents only the establishment’s “truth” across the board, no matter how much evidence there is to refute it.
‘Truth’ Has Been Married to Ideology
“Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia devoted to truth,” Greenwald says. The problem is that “The premise seems to be that you don’t have truth anymore independent of ideological outlook.”
Indeed, Sanger points out that Wikipedia’s official policy even declares that 80% of Right-wing media is unreliable, and “that really, really colors the articles and what the editors allow the articles to say,” he says. Just how did we get to a point where “truth” is tied to a particular ideology? Common sense tells you it simply cannot be so.
One explanation for why this ideological bias has taken over Wikipedia is that it’s intentionally being used as a propaganda tool by intelligence agencies and the globalist establishment that is seeking to implement a new global governance, a New World Order/One World Government.
To succeed in that Herculean effort, they can’t allow a multitude of dissenting viewpoints to proliferate, and intelligence agencies are working together to disseminate and uphold the Deep State’s narratives worldwide. Sanger puts it this way:
“I think that the Left … very, very deliberately seeks out to take control. Except it isn’t just the Left. We’re learning that now, aren’t we? No, it’s the establishment, and they have their own agenda.
I’m not going to try to offer any opinions — because it’s not something that I study — as to how they bring that about. But it’s clear that between 2005 and 2015 … Wikipedia moved onto the establishment’s radar, and we … have evidence that … even as early as … 2008 … CIA and FBI computers were used to edit Wikipedia. Think they stopped doing that? No.
And not just them. We know that a great part of intelligence and information warfare is conducted online, and where, if not on websites like Wikipedia?
They pay off the most influential people to push their agendas, which they’re already mostly in line with, or they just develop their own talent within the [intelligence] community. [They] learn the Wikipedia game and then push what they want to say with their own people. So, that’s my take on that.”
Google and Social Media Are Controlled Too
As noted by Greenwald, Google has played a significant role in Wikipedia’s growth and success by algorithmically placing Wikipedia answers at the top of most searches, and, of course — while they don’t discuss this in the interview — Google also has deep and longstanding ties to the military-intelligence-industrial complex and the globalist Deep State.
The same can be said for social media companies like Twitter and Facebook. As reported by Jimmy Dore in the video above, in early 2023, Elon Musk released documents showing Twitter’s former executives censored content at the request of the FBI and assisted the U.S. military’s online propaganda campaigns.
Twitter also censored anti-Ukraine narratives on behalf of several U.S. intelligence agencies. Similarly, Facebook censored accurate information that was damaging to Joe Biden’s presidential campaign at the direct request of the FBI. There’s simply no doubt that intelligence agencies are directly involved in controlling and directing public information flow, and Wikipedia is invaluable in that respect.
Anonymous Writers Have No Credibility
Now, I’d be remiss if I didn’t stress a key feature of Wikipedia that makes it unreliable, no matter what, and that is the fact that contributing authors and editors are all anonymous.
Clearly, the credibility of an author, regardless of the media format, is of importance when trying to determine the veracity of a given topic, keeping in mind that even experts in the same field will often reach different (and perhaps opposing) conclusions.
Not every expert will have read and evaluated the exact same evidence, for example, leading to differences in interpretation of data. This is normal and unlikely to change, as it is human nature to draw conclusions based on our own breadth of experience and knowledge.
It’s then up to the reader to make up their mind about which of the two or more experts they believe is most correct — a choice that in turn is dependent on the reader’s own prejudices and knowledge base. That said, it should be obvious that no one individual, or even group of individuals, can be the final arbiter of which expert opinion is “the truth.”
However, that’s exactly the position that Wikipedia has inserted itself into. They now decide who they think is right and which position is the correct one, and they simply censor opposing views.
Google Must Have Known They Were Promoting Unreliable Info
Considering that one of the primary factors that come into play when determining the credibility of an author is his or her credentials, affiliations and previous writings,4 how is it that Google promotes Wikipedia as an authority for every possible type of information by listing them at the top of its search results?
And how can Google use Wikipedia as a primary tool for its quality raters to establish credibility of other online material?5,6 It doesn’t make sense, unless you realize that neither Google nor Wikipedia are about giving people accurate and unbiased information. Their function is to facilitate the programming of people with a certain set of narratives and viewpoints.
As early as 2011, the fact that Wikipedia editors were being paid by corporations to remove and suppress unwanted information was well known and had been declared scandalous.7 Yet nothing changed. At least not for the better.
A 2014 paper8 titled, “Do Experts or Collective Intelligence Write with More Bias? Evidence from Encyclopedia Britannica and Wikipedia” by Shane Greenstein and Feng Zhu, compared 4,000 articles that appear in both encyclopedias and found 73% of Wikipedia’s articles contained political buzz words, compared to 34% in Britannica, and in nearly all cases, Wikipedia was more left-leaning than the Britannica.
Wikipedia Used to Smear and Defame Truthtellers
A key take-home from all this is that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. It’s a propaganda tool, and relying on it will frequently leave you wearing the dunce hat. Articles on science and medicine are definitely corrupted and biased in favor of establishment views and should never be used to make medical decisions.
According to a 2014 study,9,10 which assessed the veracity of medical claims made on Wikipedia by cross-checking them with the latest peer-reviewed research, reported finding “many errors” in articles concerning the 10 costliest medical conditions. In fact, 9 out of 10 entries — 90%! — contained assertions that were contradicted by published research.
“Health care professionals, trainees, and patients should use caution when using Wikipedia to answer questions regarding patient care,” the authors warned.
That said, articles about historical events, current geopolitical issues and the biographies of public figures are not much better. Greenwald himself has seen his personal page transform from a neutral listing of his work history and accomplishments to an “ideological war” description that paints him in a bad light.
Many excellent scientists and doctors who veered from the establishment narrative on COVID have also been shamefully smeared and defamed by Wikipedia, and anyone who tries to clarify or clear up inaccuracies on the site is simply blocked.
Investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson, for example, has repeatedly tried to “correct provably false facts” about her background on Wikipedia, only to be told she’s “not a reliable source” and having her edits overridden by anonymous editors that guard her page, making sure her award-winning work is kept hushed and her character portrait tarnished.11 Other examples of “sanitizing” certain pages and tarnishing others can be found in a June 28, 2015, article12 in The Epoch Times.
Ditch Wikipedia and Use Other Online Encyclopedias
If you’re interested in learning more about Wikipedia, its history and inner workings, pick up a copy of Andrew Lih’s book, “The Wikipedia Revolution: How a Bunch of Nobodies Created the World’s Greatest Encyclopedia.”13 In it, Lih asks, “If Wikipedia is a minefield of inaccuracies, should one even be tiptoeing through this information garden?” It’s a fair question, for sure.
Similarly, in a 2005 blog post critiquing Wikipedia, Nicholas Carr, author of “What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains,” noted:14
“[A]n encyclopedia can’t just have a small percentage of good entries and be considered a success. I would argue, in fact, that the overall quality of an encyclopedia is best judged by its weakest entries rather than its best. What’s the worth of an unreliable reference work?”
The good news is there are dozens of other online encyclopedias, many of which do not suffer from this entrenched ideological bias. Two great resources are encyclosearch.org and encycloreader.org, which allow you to search for answers across dozens of encyclopedias, including Wikipedia, at once. This way, you can compare a multitude of sources.
Examples of more specialized encyclopedias include Ballotpedia (an explicitly neutral encyclopedia of American politics), Scholarpedia, EduTechWiki, MedlinePlus (a medical encyclopedia), Encyclopedia Mythica (religion, folklore and mythology) and HandWiki (computing, science, technology and general).
Sanger is involved in the creation of encyclosearch.org, which he describes as an effort to “strike a blow against censorship and control of information by simply making it easier to find the all the other encyclopedias that are out there.”
Truth be told, Wikipedia is dependent on your lack of knowledge about how they really operate. Taking advantage of your desire for quick information, their goal is to shuttle your thoughts, opinions and knowledge into a silo that doesn’t allow anything in except what they put in there. And what they’re putting on their site is some of the most biased information you’ll find anywhere in media today.
– Sources and References
1 ZeroHedge August 3, 2023
2 Wikipedia Main Page
3 CNET.com September 18, 2012
4 Hofstra University’s library Q&A Q: How can I determine if an author is credible? Answered by Georgina Martorella
5 The SEM Post.com May 17, 2019
6 Telapost 2019 Google Quality Rater Guidelines
7 Royal Dutch Shell PLC December 18, 2011
8 Working Knowledge, Do Experts or Collective Intelligence Write with More Bias? Evidence from Encyclopedia Britannica and Wikipedia November 7, 2014
9 Journal of the American Osteopathic Association 2014 May;114(5):368-73
10 Journal of the American Osteopathic Association 2014 May;114(5):368-73 (Archived copy)
11 Sharylattkisson.com May 25, 2019
12 The Epoch Times June 28, 2015
13 Amazon.com The Wikipedia Revolution: How a Bunch of Nobodies Created the World’s Greatest Encyclopedia by Andrew Lih
14 Roughtype.com Nicholas Carr blog
(3) RFK Jr. Hosts Censorship Roundtable — Journalists, Experts Examine Free Speech Crisis, Lawsuits
08/21/23
By Monica Dutcher
Democratic presidential candidate and Children’s Health Defense Chairman on Leave Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Aug. 17 hosted a <https://rumble.com/v387pu9-rfk-jr.-roundtable-on-censorship.html>roundtable discussion on how free speech is under attack and what steps citizens, politicians and corporations can take to protect the First Amendment.
Participants Sharyl Attkisson, Jamel Holley, Jenin Younes and Glenn Greenwald shared their experiences and perspectives as advocates for government transparency and defenders of free speech. Attkisson served as moderator.
Kennedy kicked off the discussion with an overview of six lawsuits — in which he is the plaintiff or a co-plaintiff — <https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/rfk-jr-house-committee-dystopia-totalitarianism/>alleging censorship and infringement on First Amendment rights.
He primarily focused on <https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/Rfk-Jr.-v.-Google-ND-CA-8.2.pdf>Kennedy v. Google and YouTube and <https://nclalegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/DE-316-Order-on-RFK-Jr.-Consolidation.pdf>the consolidation of <https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/chd-lawsuit-consolidate-censorship-big-tech/>Kennedy et al. v. Biden et al. and Missouri et al. v. Biden et al., referring to them as examples of the “state actor theory,” in which companies like Google and YouTube are not acting on their only accord but as “proxies for the government.”
Kennedy said:
“There’s been this bizarre cooperation between the big social media titans and the government. … We have the FBI and the CIA and a whole army of different government agencies, including the Census Bureau and the IRS.
“I don’t know what the Census Bureau has to do with censorship or controlling information, but they were given portals into <https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/twitter-files-claire-wardle-biden-officials-covid-misinformation/>Twitter, into <https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/facebook-covid-misinformation-censorship/>Facebook, to literally censor people from speaking.”
Referring to the consolidated <https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/landmark-censorship-case-missouri-biden-white-house-social-media/>lawsuits against the Biden administration — and oral arguments last month on whether to uphold the plaintiffs’ request for an injunction preventing White House officials from communicating with social media companies or grant the defendants’ motion to stay the injunction — Kennedy said he was confident in the plaintiffs’ case, and said it’s likely the case will go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
During the oral arguments, held before the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans, plaintiffs’ attorneys focused on the extent to which the federal government coerced social media platforms into removing content that contradicted the government’s official <https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender_category/covid/>COVID-19 policy narratives, likening the move to “book burning.”
“The judges in that argument were comparing the White House to the mafia,” said Kennedy. “Thirty-seven hours after President Biden took the oath of office, people from the White House were calling Facebook and Twitter” and threatening their <https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46751>Section 230 immunity — which protects online platforms from liability for content created by third-party users — if they did not remove Kennedy from their platforms.
“That is an existential threat to those organizations,” said Kennedy.
Who’s pulling strings on social media censorship?
<https://sharylattkisson.com/>Attkisson, investigative journalist and five-time Emmy Award winner, asked the panel to elaborate on how censorship has reached critical mass in this country and to identify the bad actors in the “censorship regime.”
Greenwald, co-founder of The Intercept who left the organization in 2020 due to censorship and now hosts “<https://rumble.com/v2trjzi-system-update-97.html>System Update” on Rumble, said it started with corporate media’s response to the election of Donald Trump in 2016, which “proved” to media giants that “people can’t be trusted to communicate freely.”
Corporate media “likes to maintain hegemony over the flow of information, in part because of ideological reasons,” said Greenwald. So they “started agitating for censorship” by calling companies like Facebook, Google and Twitter “under the guise of reporting” about the proliferation of “hate speech” on their platforms.
In reality, “it’s basically an extortion threat,” said Greenwald, to get companies to remove content <https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender_category/big-tech/>Big Media doesn’t like:
“For a journalist to advocate for censorship is like hearing a cardiologist encourage people to smoke more cigarettes. It is so anathema to the core values and functions of what journalism is supposed to be.”
Social media companies and journalists are being pressured by the FBI, CIA and other agencies, which are “constantly identifying content that threatens national security,” Greenwald said.
“You have this confluence of forces operating in conjunction with one another. … They’re very much unified toward the same goal of not just imposing a censorship regime, but one that is designed to silence dissidents to establishment orthodoxy,” he said.
Younes, who serves as senior special counsel for the U.S. House Judiciary Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, explained how emails and internal documents obtained as a result of the <https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/fauci-biden-lawsuit-social-media-free-speech/>Missouri v. Biden litigation and the <https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-facebook-files-11642035385>Facebook Files are exposing these alliances between government and private companies.
She said:
“What we’ve uncovered is quite a bit of evidence of the government’s orchestration of this censorship on social media. We knew that the social media companies were censoring people for saying things about, for instance, the COVID vaccines, lockdowns, masks and the 2020 election that didn’t align with the Biden administration’s preferred message.
“Some of the most important recent evidence that actually came out as a result of my <https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/weaponization-federal-government-hearing/>subcommittee’s investigation has showed that the companies were giving in to the government’s coercion.”
<https://www.amazon.com/Wuhan-Cover-Up-Officials-Conspired-Childrens/dp/1510773983>Order Now ‘The Wuhan Cover-up’ by RFK Jr.!
How do we disarm the censorship regime?
After identifying the tactics and relationships among the “bad actors,” panelists offered solutions to preserving the country’s foundational value of <https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/free-speech-protection-act-government-censorship/>free speech.
Holley, a former member of the New Jersey General Assembly Health Committee, said:
“You do exactly what Mr. Kennedy and others are doing — stepping up and fighting and continuing that change and bringing [these issues] to the forefront [for] the American people.
“Government has long had a history of targeting individuals, residents and people’s rights. And the only thing that changes [that] is when people power steps up.”
Greenwald agreed with Holley, saying that the freedom movement’s primary goal is to bring better public attention to the fact that “the censorship regime is very real” and “very pervasive.”
“I think Americans are inculcated from birth with the idea that free speech is an important value and censorship is intrinsically the tool of tyrants and despots,” Greenwald added.
Younes, who also serves as litigation counsel for the <https://nclalegal.org/>New Civil Liberties Alliance, didn’t think Americans fully understood the truth speech debate. She said:
“I think that there needs to be a renewed appreciation for free speech in the country before we can really move forward. The public has to care about this and they have to understand that silencing your political opponents is not a way to win or to have a free society.”
Part of encouraging that education is rehabilitating journalism. Substack is a start, said Kennedy, but none of those thought leaders are being recognized by the mainstream media.
Kennedy said:
“Journalists have always prided themselves on being the gatekeepers and the guardians of free speech and fierce defenders of free expression.
“We need to start developing our own institutions where real journalists can actually come and make a living and be able to flourish. That’s absolutely critical to our democracy, and we’ve lost it. We’ve lost it here. We’ve lost it all over the world.”
Greenwald agreed it’s important to build “alternative ecosystems of independent media where dissent can thrive,” citing Rumble as a good example.
Watch here:
(4) RFKjr says that Luc Montagnier concluded that Mycoplasma infertans causes AIDS
RFKjr says that Luc Montagnier concluded that HIV is harmless in itself, but when combined with Mycoplasma infertans it causes AIDS.
He also quotes evidence that Chronic Fatigue Syndrome is related to AIDs, in effect, AIDs of people who don’t have HIV.
Here are the exact quotes from RFKjr, with page#s.
The Real Anthony Fauci
Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Children’s Health Defense
Skyhorse Publishing, 2021
{p. 235} At the June 1990 San Francisco AIDS conference, Luc Montagnier made his tectonic announcement that “The HIV virus is harmless and passive, a benign virus.” He added that he had discovered that HIV only becomes dangerous in the presence of a second organism. He described a tiny, bacteria-like bug called a Mycoplasma. His laboratory had demonstrated that in culture with his new Mycoplasma, HIV becomes a vicious killer. Montagnier declared that he now believes that HIV is “a peaceful virus” that becomes lethal only when combined with Mycoplasma infertans.
As Montagnier spoke, Dr. Shyh-Ching Lo sat in the audience, basking in
{p. 236} vindication. Dr. Lo’s important new ally, Montagnier, the Nobel laureate of AIDS, had independently discovered the same Mycoplasma and concluded, like Lo, that it was the primary cause of the immune system collapse known as AIDS. The two had not shared their data. Separately, they had made the same earthshaking discovery four months apart.
In April of that year, Montagnier published his findings in Research in Virology, reporting that HIV and the microscopic pathogen react together, causing the body’s cells to burst.— Even more exciting, he had discovered that in his test tubes, tetracycline stopped the Mycoplasma’s destruction entirely in its tracks. Montagnier’s findings had transformative implications for AIDS treatment. They suggested that AIDS could be effectively treated and demolished with common patent-expired antibiotics instead of deadly and expensive chemotherapy concoctions.
At the San Francisco conference, Dr. Lo was almost the only person in the room who was excited. Of the twelve thousand people who attended the conference, only two hundred attended Montagnier’s talk, and almost half of them exited before he finished.—’— Characteristically, the multibillion-dollar international research and development establishment opted to ignore his discovery.
Peter Duesberg: “There was Montagnier, the Jesus of HIV, and they threw him out of the temple.”
“Who were these people who are so much wiser, so much smarter than Luc Montagnier?” asks Harry Rubin, the dean of American retrovirology. “He became an outlaw as soon as he started saying that HIV might not be the only cause of AIDS. […]
{p. 195} A large contingent of HIV/AIDS critics (although not Peter Duesberg) had been clamoring that CFS and AIDS were a single disease—neither caused by HIV. To derail this lethal heresy, Dr. Fauci had set the compass for the medical community’s reprehensible dismissal of CFS as a “psychosomatic illness.” Following Dr. Fauci’s lead, doctors dubbed CFS as “Yuppie Flu,” characterizing it as a neurotic affliction among women genetically unequipped for high-pressure corporate jobs that suddenly opened to them in the 1980s, coterminous with the lockstep pandemics of AIDS and CFS.—
A September 6, 1992 Newsweek article— by Geoffrey Cowley asked “AIDS or Chronic Fatigue?” Though Cowley took some heat for the article, he was merely voicing the quiet suspicion among many of Dr. Fauci’s own Pis that “non-HIV AIDS” was actually CFS, and that CFS was simply another name for AIDS when it occurred in heterosexuals who tested negative for HIV. “As more cases come to light,” Cowley observed, “it’s becoming clear that the newly defined syndrome has as much in common with CFS as it does with AIDS.”
(5) Time’s up for France in Africa
From: JP Desmoulins <jean-pierre.desmoulins@orange.fr>
Subject: Time’s up for France in Africa
Hello Peter
I have read a <https://www.politico.eu/article/france-africa-sahel-niger-al-qaeda-islamic-state/> recent article in English by Michael Shurkin. I approve it 100%. I could add to this very clever analysis my own: the French-bashing propaganda by as well many anglophone newspapers, the US owned social media and the Wagner group troll factories, have succeeded to convince poorly educated people in Africa that France is the main cause of their problems. This is right only on one point : France is now on a downwards spiral due mainly to the failure of a bureaucratic state to maintain the industrial power of the country, which has for result huge social problems. France has left to its former colonies in Africa this bureaucratic syphilis, be it before or after the independence of these countries. They are thus now stuck in the last ranks of the world economic development rankings.
Another factor of anger of Sahel populations in Mali, Burkina Faso or Niger against France is that they believed that the French army would be capable of letting them get rid of the Islamic infiltration and guerilla. An evident success occurred when this attempt to destroy Mali took the form of a classical invasion of a column of pickups heading to the capital Bamako, which was easily stopped by the French Serval operation. Instructed by this defeat, the two main Islamic subversion forces took the party to conquer populations in rural zones by infiltrating villages and remote towns, and taking control there by terror. A classical army, heavily equipped and prone to stay most of the time inside its fortifications, cannot succeed to counteract such an agenda, knowing that most of the time it takes the form of a local civil and/or tribal war. Despite the muscle showing of the French politicians and top army brass, the Barkhane operation was thus doomed to be a failure.
My opinion is that the French political authorities and top military officers were a little more instructed of the history of the Indochina and Algeria wars, for example having read the memory books of General Giap who defeated them in 1954, they would have known that failure was unavoidable. Just for memory, the French army had 500,000 men in Algeria and had never more than 6000 in Sahel in the Barkane operation. Draw your own conclusions. Of course, French bashing coming from USA or Russia is badly received by the people’s opinion in France, who took these lessons with some irony, given the failures of these counties in Vietnam, Irak, Afghanistan, caused by the same errors and hubris.
My view of the geopolitics situation today is that three new colonial powers, USA, Russia and China are pushing their agenda in Africa. They don’t have the same methods, but the final goal is the same: extend their influence zone. I agree with Michael Shurkin that the only exit door for France is to withdraw any military forces from Africa, except perhaps the naval or aerial bases (Djibouti…) and stop any political handover on the local governments. France has now internal problems, after decades of bad political and economic management, with a debt level incredibly high (and not backed by the ease of printing green banknotes), and all it’s efforts now must be directed to avoiding to the country the fate of Greece a few years ago i.e. bankruptcy.
French opinion, though being sorry for the populations in Africa, former colonies, francophone countries, with so many friendly ties, wishes them good luck if they want now to have other partners for their development. After the withdrawal of the army, the next step will probably be the announcement that the Franc-CFA’s parity with the Euro is no longer guaranteed by the French state, unless Europe is able to understand its interests and take this role of financial protection from France in this matter. Obviously, I’m pessimistic about this eventuality, Europe taking the path of becoming another neocolonial field of influence of the USA. Will we come to the point where the realistic issue for France will be to become a neutral country and negotiate a defence agreement with Switzerland ? Why not…
Keep on the good job, Peter. Greetings.