6
0

Some resistance to the far-left bias in Wikipedia!


 invite response                
2020 Aug 12, 8:19pm   877 views  13 comments

by Patrick   ➕follow (55)   💰tip   ignore  

The main article about HCQ (hydroxychloroquine) is bitter and dismissive, exactly like the mainstream press's attitude toward the drug.

Fortunately, there are still sane people objecting to the ridiculous levels of slant and omission in the Wikipedia, on the "talk" page for the article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hydroxychloroquine


Hydroxychloroquine is an ionophore which transports zinc into cells and it is the zinc which attacks the virus. I have tried several times to link studies which explain that and they have been removed and I am beginning to feel there may be an agenda to keep Trump's zinc aspect from consideration and pretend only the hydroxycholoroquine by itself happens to be valid to consider in building a picture of Trump's action. That doesn't seem scientific. Soundhill (talk) 10:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)>

...

Why was this removed: "As of 8 May 2020, hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin plus zinc have been found to have effect against SARS-CoV-2 for patients in hospital but not yet in intensive care. "Zinc inhibits RNA dependent RNA polymerase, and has been shown to do this in vitro against SARS-CoV[13]. However, it is difficult to generate substantial intracellular concentrations of zinc, therefore prophylactic administration of zinc alone may not play a role against SarCoV-2[14]. When combined with a zinc ionophore, such as chloroquine (hydroxychloroquine), cellular uptake is increased making it more likely to achieve suitably elevated intracellular concentrations[15]. This combination is already being tested as a prophylactic regimen in a randomized clinical trial." [5]Soundhill (talk) 05:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

...

There are quite a few reliable sources reporting that zinc/hydroxy/ziro combo is working differently and is alot more effective than hydroxy itself, and there seems to be some evidence backing it. (one ex. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chloroquine#Antiviral Chloroquine also seems to act as a zinc ionophore that allows extracellular zinc to enter the cell and inhibit viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerase.[4][5] )

While the NYU study is retrospective and not clinical trial so is the vetarns study. Leaving one and omitting other would be against Wiki bias policy.

The fact is that trump is taking the whole combo not just hydroxy, which make it relevant here (at least as much as the VA study which was a)on hydroxy itself b)people in late stages of corona c) people in critical conditions or ventilators). Before revereting again please explain your position here os talk page to avoid edit war. see link https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/18/trump-says-he-takes-hydroxychloroquine-to-prevent-coronavirus-infection.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berkshires (talk • contribs) 20:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

...
I have added mention of NYU study showing more favorable results when combining hydroxy with zinc. While the NYU study was retrospective, so was the study linking to higher death rates.. so to be fair, either both of them should be mentioned or neither of them. Berkshires (talk) 03:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

...
Chloroquine Study at Henry Ford

Dear Wikipedia,

After consultation with many medical professionals and Boards of Directors of major hospitals your coverage of this potential drug shows your left wing bias, as you cite many studies that were not "clinical studies" but utilized data from multiple hospitals. To not even mention this study is journalistic malpractice. Count on no further contributions from me, but I will continue to use you as I get to spend your money.

Dr. Dale S. Steichen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:782:4080:1DA:CD3:FD17:A78E:1F26 (talk) 21:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

...

HCQ is a generic drug for many years and cheap. The billions to be made go to the vaccines and the Israeli antiviral. There is nothing sexy about HCQ; it's like chicken soup and Vitamin C. The profit motive is much greater, to suppress HCQ. Drsruli (talk) 00:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


Of course arguing with those suffering from TDS does nothing except make them more determined than ever to distort or omit the truth.

Of course no one should ever donate to Wikipedia again, but that hardly matters because they are now awash in cash from anonymous sources who approve of their departure from a universally editable and neutral encyclopedia.

Comments 1 - 13 of 13        Search these comments

1   Patrick   2020 Aug 12, 8:23pm  

The Brittanica, sadly, has no article on hydroxychloroquine at all, only a mention of it in their chloroquine article:

https://www.britannica.com/science/chloroquine#ref1280290

And no mention of the now very compelling evidence that it reduces the duration of Wuhan virus disease.
2   Patrick   2020 Sep 16, 12:17pm  

I wrote donate@wikimedia.org and told them why I will never donate: their extreme leftist bias.
3   Automan Empire   2020 Sep 16, 12:20pm  

Why does this article internalize Trump's narcissism and self-aggrandizement?

"an agenda to keep Trump's zinc aspect from consideration"
4   rocketjoe79   2020 Sep 16, 1:28pm  

Are there any alternatives to Wikipedia?
5   HeadSet   2020 Sep 16, 3:12pm  

Automan Empire says
Why does this article internalize Trump's narcissism and self-aggrandizement?

"an agenda to keep Trump's zinc aspect from consideration"


It doesn't internalize Trump's "narcissism." It emphasizes that the whole reason for the attacks on HCQ/zinc is solely because Trump brought it up.
6   Hircus   2020 Sep 16, 7:52pm  

Patrick says
I wrote donate@wikimedia.org and told them why I will never donate: their extreme leftist bias.


ditto.
7   Blue   2020 Sep 16, 9:40pm  

I am not following recent changes but I donated in the past and still like it in general.
8   Patrick   2020 Sep 16, 9:45pm  

It's still fine for most non-political articles.

But if there is a way they can insert the blue-hair nose-ring agenda, their editors will keep that and remove the conservative point of view every time.

https://conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/05/26/wikipedia-co-founder-sites-neutrality-is-dead-thanks-to-leftist-bias/
9   Hircus   2020 Sep 17, 1:42pm  

TrumpingTits says
Same thing applies to your emails sent to donate@wikipedia.org . Makes ya feel good, but in the end it is just another form of masturbation.


I disagree. Emails to big orgs like wikipedia are less impactful than smaller businesses, but there's some.
10   Hircus   2020 Sep 17, 1:50pm  

Patrick says
I wrote donate@wikimedia.org and told them why I will never donate: their extreme leftist bias.


@patrick did you get a reply mentioning how they banned 381 linked accounts that were orchestrating a paid editing scheme in 2015?
11   Rin   2020 Sep 17, 5:09pm  

That's why we shouldn't 'say anything about Quercetin' or wikipedia will pull all their articles on it.
12   Patrick   2020 Sep 17, 5:21pm  

Hircus says
Patrick says
I wrote donate@wikimedia.org and told them why I will never donate: their extreme leftist bias.


patrick did you get a reply mentioning how they banned 381 linked accounts that were orchestrating a paid editing scheme in 2015?


I did get a reply and someone read it, because they sent a form letter saying they value neutrality.

So I replied to that as well.

On 17/September/2020 07:24, donate@wikimedia.org wrote:
> The idea of a neutral point of view is one of our core principles.

No!

Wrong!

Take a look at any political article it will be:

1. obviously skewed far left
2. locked to prevent public input

Do you want examples?

Patrick


Maybe it's only a tiny action, but drop by drop the pot becomes full.
13   Patrick   2020 Oct 31, 10:25am  

https://spectator.us/nothing-neutral-about-wikipedia/

The academics have analyzed disputes between Wikipedia contributors in several politically charged areas and found that in every case the administrators have more often ruled in favor of left-wing editors than right-wing ones. In the case of disagreements between pro- and anti-Trump contributors the powers that be found in favor of the latter by a ratio of six to one. So much for the encyclopedia’s ‘neutral point of view’.

None of this would matter if Wikipedia wasn’t such an authoritative source. It’s precisely for that reason that it’s been captured by the woke left. Restoring any kind of balance is probably too much to hope for, but we should do what we can to disabuse people of the idea that it’s impartial.

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions