by Ryan Matters
July 12, 2021
cover-up for Big Pharma,
suppress alternative medicine
and bury inconvenient facts...
The COVID pseudopandemic has seen internet censorship rise to an unprecedented level.
The controllers and their minions are
scrambling to silence anyone who dares to question the efficacy of
vaccines or the existence of Sars-Cov-2.
So content that goes against the mainstream agenda is either censored or outright deleted.
We know that.
The first thing to understand about Google is that it's more than just a search engine.
Google develops and maintains a network of applications that all work together to collect, analyze, and leverage your data. Each application feeds data into the next, forming a global chain of information exchange.
For example, Google's driverless car initiative powers Google Maps, which in turn powers Google's local listings. It is this network effect that has made Google such a powerful and unrivaled force in the search engine space.
As a search engine, Google decides what information you see and what information you don't. It goes without saying, but any tool with such power needs to be responsibly managed and repeatedly scrutinized.
Anyone who chooses to use such a tool should also be aware that they are seeing the internet through a lens created by Google's mysterious algorithms and the information they're receiving doesn't necessarily come from an objective or neutral source.
Google's ability to affect people's thinking was demonstrated by the work of Dr. Robert Epstein when his team found that Google was profoundly influencing the results of elections.
Epstein writes that:
It would also appear that Google is inherently biased towards pro-drug, pro-vaccine, Big Pharma medicine.
In 2019, the search engine made an update to its algorithm that just so happened to shadow-ban health websites not affiliated with billion-dollar corporates.
The websites affected included,
Some of these sites lost over 90% of their organic traffic, overnight.
When searching for most health-related topics on Google, the first page is almost always filled with content from websites like WebMD, whose history is filled with conflicts of interest and open collaborations with Monsanto, Merck, and other corporates.
In 2017, the search engine blacklisted naturalnews.com, a natural health advocacy organization that reports on controversial health topics including vaccine safety, GMOs, and pharmaceutical experiments, de-indexing over 140,000 of their webpages.
In a 2019 article, the founder of NaturalNews, Mike Adams, had this to say about Google:
Google's ties to Big Pharma are well-known.
In 2016, Google's parent company, Alphabet, partnered with GlaxoSmithKline to create a new company focused on research into bioelectronics - a branch of medical science aimed at fighting diseases by targeting electrical signals in the body.
GSK also works directly with Google thanks to a deal between the two companies that allows GSK full control over the data that they use.
That isn't disclosed...
Alphabet is also heavily invested in Vaccitech, a UK-based vaccine company founded by researchers at Oxford University's Jenner Institute, the Vatican (vaxxican?) of vaccine research.
Finally, it has recently come to light that Google's charity arm, Google.org, provided funding for research and studies carried out by Peter Daszak and his charity, EcoHealth Alliance - the same charity that previously worked with the Wuhan lab involved in so-called 'gain of function' research.
These conflicts of interest alone should call into question the search engine's ability to provide an unbiased view of health content on the internet.
Google's "autocomplete" algorithm is another source of manipulation that works to affect people's perceptions about the danger of vaccines and the efficacy of natural treatments.
For example, if you type "vaccines cause" into Google, the top suggestion is "vaccines cause adults".
I mean, seriously? In contrast, if you search "Chiropractic is", the top suggestions are "quackery", "pseudoscience" and "dangerous".
Autocomplete is supposedly based on data collected from real Google searches, especially common and trending ones.
However, data from Google trends clearly show that ever since 2004, "vaccines cause autism" has been searched far more times than "vaccines cause adults", and "Chiropractic is good" has received a far higher popularity score than "Chiropractic is quackery", the top suggestion.
A similar trend can be observed for terms such as "supplements are", "GMOs are", "glyphosate is", "organic is", "homeopathy is", and "holistic medicine is".
Looking at the way Google favors Big Pharma content, it's reasonable to suspect that their "data lakes" are being poisoned.
In fact, this was confirmed in 2019 when former Google software engineer, Zack Vorheis, leaked 950 pages of internal company documents providing evidence that Google was,
Google's algorithms are shrouded in mystery, based on black-box machine learning models that few people understand.
Machine learning models must be "trained" and as long as Google feeds them data to say,
...the algorithms will continue to re-bias the internet in that direction, altering people's perceptions of natural health and presenting drug-based medicine as the shining light in a dark world filled with invisible enemies.
When it comes to psychological manipulation,
Wikipedia is a free, online encyclopedia operated by the Wikimedia Foundation.
If you've ever searched for anything on the internet, you've likely seen Wikipedia show up towards the top of the search results.
Big corporates have big pockets and they aren't opposed to the concept of "pay-to-play".
The founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, is no saint, either.
In 2008 he used the platform as his personal relationship break-up tool by updating his relationship status on his Wiki entry before telling his girlfriend.
And in 2010, he was embroiled in a Wikipedia pornography-removal scandal that saw him "voluntarily" relinquish certain editing and admin privileges.
One of the industries where Wikipedia's bias is most noticeable is healthcare...
And this can be verified as Wikipedia keeps a public record of all edits made to an article over time.
He goes on to comment on the history of Wikipedia and states that:
Here are real snippets from Wikipedia entries on alternative forms of medicine and natural healing, taken from the first few sentences of the entry…
The editors display a shocking level of bias by cherry-picking references, many of which are not peer-reviewed or scientific, and make hollow claims which they portray as facts.
The entry on Functional Medicine is particularly difficult to get through.
Functional Medicine is a form of medicine focused on identifying and addressing the root cause of disease. It often involves treatments to correct nutritional imbalances and gut dysbiosis.
However, the author claims that functional medicine encompasses a number of 'unproven' and 'disproven' treatments and cites two articles on sciencebasedmedicine.org, a notorious 'Skeptic' publication, both written by the same author.
The articles, far from scientific or scholarly, read as opinion pieces written by an MD with a chip on his shoulder, who clearly has no understanding of what functional medicine really is.
The author, Dr. Wallace Sampson, passed away in 2015.
Here's his author bio:
Incidentally, the Wikipedia entry for the Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine, says that it is a discontinued medical journal and that it was evaluated at least three times by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) for indexing in MEDLINE, but rejected each time.
What a shame...
Furthermore, in 2003, a California Appeals Court found Dr. Sampson,
Yet these are the kind of charlatans that Wikipedia endorses as "experts".
Instead of citing 'quackbuster' publications written by biased, outdated, and nutritionally uneducated MDs, the editors would do well to dive into Alan Gaby's Nutritional Medicine (over 16,000 scientific references), or Dr. Alex Vasquez's Inflammation Mastery.
That's presuming they have the intelligence to read high-level, academic texts, based on real, unbiased science (not opinions).
If I were an editor at Wikipedia, I may choose to rewrite the article on chemotherapy, claiming it is a pseudoscience by citing this 2004 study which found the overall contribution of chemotherapy to cancer survival to be barely over 2%, or this study in Nature Medicine that found chemotherapy to increase tumor growth and survival.
Wikipedia made its stance on alternative health quite clear in 2014 when founder Jimmy Wales ridiculed an 8,000-signature petition on Change.org calling for a fairer discussion of alternative and complementary medicine on the encyclopedia.
The petition stated that:
Instead of recognizing his lack of expertise in the area of healthcare and re-evaluating the fraudulent and dubious wiki entries, Wales demonstrated his lack of awareness by stating that:
Quite frankly, it's not surprising to hear such a response from the man who heads an organization that serves the interests of the Big Money Machine and its quest to dumb down the populace.
As Dr. Vasquez puts it, in a recent critique of a New York Times propaganda piece on the "danger" of nutritional supplements to fight coronavirus:
So when did Wikipedia become an extension of Big Pharma?
The truth is that the health section of Wikipedia was commandeered by a bitter group of skeptics who live within their own, egoic constructs of reality and health.
This anti-health movement ramped up in 2006 when Paul Lee, then the listmaster of Quackwatch, made a forum post inviting skeptics to come forward and begin writing content on Wikipedia about natural and complementary health topics.
Quackwatch, a "Skeptic" website aimed at "debunking" and smearing non-drug medicine, was founded by Steven Barrett, an unlicensed MD who failed his psychiatric board exam, and has authored zero published research (at least I haven't been able to find any).
During a court proceeding, he admitted ties to the AMA, the Federal Trade Commission, and the FDA (though his sources of funding are likely far more expansive).
Lee was in full violation of Wikipedia's neutrality policy and knowing this, he stated:
Needless to say, a coordinated effort over private email IS a conspiracy. And not a very sophisticated one at that.
Then, in a move demonstrating both the organization's ethical and moral standards, Wikipedia made Paul Lee a senior editor with special rights and privileges.
The influence that both Google and Wikipedia have is astonishing when you consider that Google receives more than 1 billion health-related questions per day.
Perhaps we are to blame. Blindly trusting in "authorities" to have our best interests at heart is the kind of infantile thinking that got us into this mess.
As the number one visited website in the world, Google controls ~90% of global search traffic.
Our minds, health beliefs, political stances, and world views are inseparably linked to information we read on the internet and neither Google nor Wikipedia is an objective source for this information.
It is time that we take responsibility for our own health. We have to develop the ability to read and assess health knowledge objectively and intuitively.
Do you suffer from depression? Maybe you need to get your vitamin B12 or vitamin D levels checked, maybe you need to cut out processed and neuro-inflammatory foods from your diet.
The internet is not a miracle worker, The internet doesn't know what's best for you, no one does. Your body is different from mine. Treatments that work for you may not work for me.
But as long as we learn to listen to our bodies, to understand our own, unique inner landscape, we can begin to seek treatments and practitioners that truly make a difference.
The lesson is this:
Read, learn, understand, and don't take anything at face value. We need to learn to develop our intuition in parallel with our critical thinking skills.
Discernment is our secret weapon. We're fighting an information war.
Arm yourself with knowledge and be free...