The year was 2001 and the dot-com bust was in the rearview mirror. New ideas were in circulation among young and visionary entrepreneurs. Sure, pets.com failed and so many others but that was a temporary boom-bust.

The Internet will change everything eventually, we were told. Technology, decentralization, crowd sourcing, and digital spontaneity will create an information landscape without gatekeepers. Everything will have to adapt. The experts of the old world will be replaced by a people’s revolution. Whereas legacy elites waved credentials, a new class of revolutionaries will raise armies of servers and digits to move the center of civilization to the cloud.

Wikipedia was a headline feature, an experiment in crowd sourcing knowledge in a way that was decentralized, able to scale in ways the old model was not, and drawing from the knowledge and passions of people the world over. The platform seemed to embody the principle of freedom itself. Everyone has a voice. The truth will emerge from the seeming chaos of competing points of view.

At long last, the anti-authoritarian outlook would be tested on a medium that had intrigued scholars since the ancient world: books containing all knowledge. Reading through Aristotle’s vast corpus, you find this passion and drive at work. He wanted to document everything he could about the world around him.

[…]

After the Second World War, it became common for every household to have a set on the shelf, or several.

[…]

Encyclopedias drew from the best experts but always with gatekeepers to decide what was and was not credible information.

[…]

This is the problem with gatekeepers. So long as printing remained the main means by which knowledge was preserved and distributed, they would be necessary.

The founding of Wikipedia in 2001 was about a vision to change that. The initial reaction was widespread and justifiable incredulity. It could never work for anyone to be able to change anything, so they said. It’s not possible simply to wipe away the gatekeepers and for truth to emerge. For years, this perception dominated, as teachers and experts of all sorts spoke of Wikipedia only with disdain.

But gradually, something interesting began to happen. It actually seemed to be working. The entries became ever more voluminous and detailed. The rules of the road became more embedded, so that citations and documentation were required, and interest groups rallied around particular entries to guard them against corruption. Sure anyone can edit but your edits will be reversed immediately if you are not in compliance. For many entries, it became essentially impossible to change them without first going to the discussion pages and asking permission.

Already early on, new gatekeepers emerged on the platform. How did they become that way? Through persistence, skill at Wiki code, deep knowledge of the platform, and a native ability to understand the culture of the platform.

[…]

Were its earliest champions correct? Did the model of spontaneous evolution actually generate a better product than the old top-down system? In many ways, it did. In other ways, it did not. Wikipedia brandished crowd-source credibility – this is what the community has decided to be true – while giving rise to a new opinion oligarchy that was as bad or worse than what it replaced.

The targeting of the platform started right away. The topic was science, and global warming in particular. One of the founders, Larry Sanger, noted that this was happening early on. Some sources were deemed inadmissible while others were valorized as excellent for citation.

[…]

The whole point of Wikipedia was to permit crowdsourcing to break down traditional information cartels. In this case, and ever more as the years went on, the cartels had reassembled themselves.

At least with old-style encyclopedias, readers knew the names of both the authors of entries and the editors. They signed what they wrote. With Wikipedia, 85 percent of the most powerful editors remained entirely anonymous. This turned out to be a grave problem. It permitted powerful industries, foreign governments, deep-state agents, and anyone with the highest stake in a topic to control the messaging while banishing contrary points of view.

As politics became ever more contentious, Wikipedia in general went the way of mainstream media with a consistently mainline center-left bias on any topic that impacted on political outlook. After Trump won in 2016, the entire platform was swept up in the hate that followed. Editors made lists of credible and not credible sources, thus banning any right-of-center media from being cited in the interest of balance. Indeed, balance disappeared entirely.

The Covid period proved that it was too far gone to be saved. Every entry echoed CDC and WHO propaganda, and even the entry on masks advanced the most preposterous claims. The material on the Covid vaccines might as well have been written by industry (and probably was). If you were looking for something objective – perhaps some common sense on dealing with a respiratory infection – the search was hopeless.

The platform had been fully captured during the greatest crisis of our lives. It was far worse than an older encyclopedia which would at least preserve known information on natural immunity or therapeutics or strategies used in pandemics in the past. Wikipedia was so agile that it would be edited in real time to delete settled knowledge and replace it with whatever hullabaloo was being whipped up by industrial bureaucrats that morning. This was not digital utopia; this was Orwell come to life.

The rise of Wikipedia was spectacular, implausible, and glorious. Its fall is equally disappointing, predictable, and inglorious. It’s also paradigmatic. Every major venue failed in its emancipationist promise and instead became handmaidens of the propagandists and censors: Microsoft, Google, Facebook, and even Amazon. The information revolution turned gradually into a tool for shoring up the corporatist/state system.

The betrayal here serves as a tragic reminder that no technology is uncorrupted, no method not subject to abuse, no platform permanently inoculated against capture. Indeed, the more credibility an institution earns, the more confidence it inspires, the more likely it is to attract bad actors who will flip its purposes on their head and push an agenda.

What I’ve reported above is no longer unknown. Most people today are aware of Wikipedia’s biases. Regular people long ago gave up trying to save it from itself. You can spend a half-day on a small edit and see it reversed by the nameless editorial oligarchs who guard every entry that is even slightly controversial. Instead of broadening and including voices, it has narrowed and excluded them.

Fortunately, the wheels of technology have kept turning. Artificial intelligence dropped in the late Covid period and at least one company, xAI, has devoted itself to providing the best tools to keep the dream of democratized information alive. Grokipedia, even in its first iteration, is already leagues above Wikipedia in balance and range of information sources. As it turns out, machines do a better job than anonymous oligarchs at getting us close to the truth.

Welcome to the post-Wikipedia age. It was fun while it lasted. All hail its deprecation and replacement with something much better. 

[…]

Via https://brownstone.org/articles/the-rise-and-fall-of-wikipedia/

On Oct. 10, Trump’s physician, Dr. Sean P. Barbabella, announced that after conducting a battery of tests, he found that our president “remains in exceptional health” and that he had received “immunizations, including annual influenza and updated Covid-19 booster vaccinations.” It’s likely the president received a Pfizer mRNA shot.

Listening to the Experts

Trump—perhaps the busiest man on the planet—can’t be expected to do a deep dive on the epidemiology, safety, and efficacy of these shots. Like most patients, he had no choice but to trust the experts.

Doing so makes sense when the experts are trustworthy and follow what the data tells them. Unfortunately, when it comes to public health, and to the Covid-19 mandates in particular, trust in federal health agencies and health care professionals has been shattered beyond recognition.

So much of what people think they know about America’s recent drug and mRNA approvals just isn’t so. As a result, I wonder if the President of the United States received a full disclosure of the available data so he could weigh the risks versus the benefits of mRNA Covid shots.

To exercise truly informed consent, he would have needed to know (at a minimum) the following:

• It’s October 2025. Deadly variants of Covid are long extinct and extremely unlikely to emerge without human engineering. This has been the case since the emergence of the Omicron variant in late 2021, according to a landmark meta-analysis published in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases.
• The president, according to his physician, “remains in exceptional health.”
  In layman’s terms: if the president were to catch Covid again (he has had Covid at least once), it would be mild. He could easily treat it with very safe drugs such as ivermectin and/or hydroxychloroquine that he correctly advocated for, and stockpiled, along with dozens of other repurposed, inexpensive treatments for Covid, proven to be safe and effective as the peer-reviewed literature has clearly outlined: Here are two of my favorites both of which I’ve written about extensively:

• Covid viruses mutate too quickly to be stopped by any mass-produced “vaccine.” Manufacturers knew from the start that with Covid’s high rate of mutation, mRNA shots would have to be produced and administered at least once a month, lest they become irrelevant due to mutations. Researchers from the Universities of Bath and Edinburgh found back in 2021 that Covid mutates as quickly as every two weeks. That means Trump’s monovalent injection that he was injected with in 2025, which was developed in late 2024 and early 2025, is likely obsolete.
• Even if they were given as a monthly booster, these shots don’t do what a “vaccine” is supposed to do; they have not been shown to prevent spread or transmission of Covid-19.
•  Unlike vaccines which are designed to provide total immunity, Covid injections have been shown to produce antibodies, but do not provide complete immunity from Covid. In other words, one would still catch Covid, just not the one particular strain of Covid you are being injected with.
• There’s no reputable evidence to show that mRNA Covid shots minimize serious disease and may have caused harm; by the end of 2022, the majority of Covid-19 deaths were in vaccinated/boosted individuals.

The Risks of mRNA Covid Shots

So much for the benefits. What about the risks?

• In the FDA VAERS database, there are over one million adverse event reports from Covid mRNA shots in the United States alone, which include tens of thousands of reports of: deaths, permanent disability, ER visits, and severe allergic reactions. Even worse: The VAERS surveillance database has been chastised by multiple government and FDA officials to only represent low, single-digit percentages of the actual number of adverse effects that actually occur.
• Pharma companies misled us in 2020-21 when they claimed that the spike proteins produced by the mRNA shots stay confined in the injection site and last only a few days. The Infectious Disease Society of America states that the spike proteins generated by Covid-19 vaccines last “up to a few weeks” in the body. Other publications show evidence that the highly complex mRNA products and ingredients remain in the body for years, wreaking long-lasting havoc on health.
• Although ubiquitously labeled “vaccines,” the definition of “vaccine” had to be altered, to accommodate the inclusion of mRNA injections. Prior to the definition change of vaccines, Covid-19 mRNA injections would have fallen under the definition of gene therapy.
• The fully synthetic lipid nanoparticles that accompany mRNA injections have not had their structures or exact doses disclosed. Although we know how much to inject (3 ml), Americans still don’t know how many nucleotide strands or lipid nanoparticles are in that volume of liquid.
• In addition to the number of nucleotide strands in mRNA injections, the manufacturers have never shared the precise mRNA sequences or the lipid nanoparticle structures that must accompany the mRNA.
• Americans still do not have full transparency on Covid mRNA shot ingredients. The FDA heavily redacted the manufacturer’s instructions on how to analyze the mRNA vaccines for quality control/assurance. Consider, for instance, a single redacted page in a longer FDA regulatory summary (shown below). This is ONE PAGE from a 127-page document on the protocol of how to evaluate the purity, concentration, and other analytical measures of mRNA injections. Only 63 of the 127 pages have been shared, and of those remaining 63 pages, around 50% has been redacted.
• Furthermore, the FDA does not release the results of its quality control release testing to verify the ingredients of the mRNA shots. And as I learned the long way, nor can those “release testing” results be FOIA’d by people on the outside. Translation: we don’t know how it’s made or what the ingredients are, despite taxpayers paying billions for the development and production.
• DNA contamination has been reported with Covid shots—contamination that could interfere with a healthy person’s ability to fight cancer.
• A population cohort study from August of 2025, which reported increased cancer risks following Covid-19 vaccination. In Italy, nearly 300,000 residents were tracked for 30 months, showing that mRNA shots boosted the risk of overall cancer, breast cancer, bladder cancer, and colorectal cancer.
• A confirmatory, second, larger study was published in late September 2025 out of South Korea examined data from 2021—2023. It found that after correcting for age, sex, comorbidities, income level, and prior Covid-19 infection, Covid-19 vaccination was linked to serious increases in multiple major cancers (in line with reports of DNA contamination). This signal was consistent across all vaccine platforms and age groups and both sexes. It involved a cohort of 8.4 million adults and found increased risk of six major cancers: lung, prostate, thyroid, gastric, colorectal, and breast cancers.
• Another Oct. 5, 2025, paper shows a Stage IV bladder cancer patient who received a Covid-19 mRNA shot, had a vaccine-derived spike gene sequence fused into the patient’s chromosome. The patient was a previously healthy 31-year-old woman who developed rapidly progressive stage IV bladder cancer within 12 months of completing a three-dose Moderna mRNA injection series. This suggests that mRNA injections can integrate into a patient’s DNA and cause devastating damage.
• A new analysis of CDC data shows children born in the years following mass mRNA vaccination of mothers (including pregnant mothers) are dying at a 77% relatively higher rate. Again, this implies that the shots (contrary to advertising), can integrate and damage the recipient’s DNA. In other words, despite propaganda from the University of California, San Francisco and “famous” “Twitter doctors” these shots don’t “stay in your arm” are dangerous to a developing fetus, and can damage your DNA.

Long story short: The mRNA shots are far riskier and have far fewer net benefits than the public was led to believe. What’s more, both the FDA and the drug companies continue to choose a policy of opacity over transparency.

While it’s impractical for a pharmacist or physician to rattle off every single side effect before giving every single drug, Covid mRNA shots are a special case due to its overall design and obscure dosing and lipid nanoparticle and genetic ingredients requiring special disclosure, not to mention its significant safety profile, long half-life, and mandates.

Plus, unlike every other product on the market, vaccine recipients can’t sue vaccine manufacturers in case of injury or death. Add to that the profound lack of transparency on some of the most basic ingredients of these still novel products.

In light of these facts, providers have a duty to fully inform patients of risks and benefits. (In fact, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 and 1993 seem to require this.)

On Sept. 1st 2025, Trump lamented the lack of mRNA transparency over Truth Social Media and also said that pharma should be releasing data to prove their Covid vaccines are safe and effective, further stating: “…I want the answer, and I want it NOW.” [emphasis, presidential]. 

We hope someone in the president’s circle will tell him…and his FDA. 

[…]

Via https://brownstone.org/articles/did-president-donald-trumps-physician-provide-a-full-safety-efficacy-disclosure-on-mrna-covid-19-shots/

Episode 22 Languages of the South Pacific Part 2

Language Families of the World

Dr John McWhorter (2019)

Film Review

The Polynesian languages are the second newest in the world (Creole being the newest). They only emerged in the last millennium. The peoples who left Taiwan (see The Origin of South Pacific Languages) around 3000 BC had established clear settlements in Samoa and Tonga by 1200 BC. They reached Tahiti by 200 AD, when prevailing westerlies kept them from exploring more islands east of Tahiti. Between 1140 and 1260 AD the direction of the prevailing winds shifted and they reached New Caledonia and New Zealand.

The word for bird is the same in Tongan, Samoan, Tahitian, Maori and Hawaiian.

The Austronesian language family is divided into three subfamilies:

• Western – Tagalog, Indonesian and Javanese
• Central – Tetum (spoken in Timur and Kamura) and Keo (spoken in western Indonesia)
• Eastern – Oceanic (aka South Pacific, aka Polynesian) languages

The Polynesian languages, the most recent to develop, tend to have the smallest number of sounds with short syllables and no consonant clusters or long words. As language groups split off the number of words tends to decrease in proportion to the decrease in speaker numbers.

Most linguists believe the first languages originating in Africa were click languages. They had the largest number of sounds, and as languages evolved there was steady loss of sonic material. This most obvious in recently evolved languages. For example most Polynesian languages use the same pronoun for he and she.

https://www.kanopy.com/en/pukeariki/watch/video/6120000/6120042

by Nicolas Hulscher, MPH

For over two decades, Dr. Andrew Wakefield has been vilified for reporting what countless parents saw with their own eyes — that their healthy children regressed into autism following vaccination.

Now, in our landmark McCullough Foundation report, Determinants of Autism Spectrum Disorder, we bring together over 300 studies confirming that vaccines are the dominant risk factor among all environmental and iatrogenic influences.

BREAKING — Landmark Report Finds Vaccination Is the Dominant Risk Factor for Autism Spectrum Disorder

Nicolas Hulscher, MPH

·

28 Oct

Read full story

In this exclusive interview, Dr. Wakefield reflects on how he first identified gastrointestinal disease in autistic children, the decades of censorship that followed, and why the truth can no longer be suppressed.

“The parents were right — the doctors were wrong,” Wakefield said. “We scoped the children, we saw the inflammation, and it was something brand new. Had we been allowed to continue, we would have known the full mechanism years ago.”

Academia’s Campaign of Indoctrination Against Wakefield

During the interview, I shared something that shocked even Dr. Wakefield.
When I was completing my Master of Public Health at the University of Michigan School of Public Health, there were entire modules in the curriculum dedicated to ‘debunking’ Dr. Wakefield — not by examining data, but by rehearsing talking points fed by pharmaceutical interests.

Students were instructed to dismiss his work as “discredited” without ever reading the Lancet paper or the clinical evidence it described.

This was not education — it was indoctrination, a form of scientific brainwashing designed to preserve the narrative that “vaccines cannot cause autism,” regardless of mounting evidence to the contrary.

It exposed how deeply the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex has infiltrated academia — shaping generations of public-health professionals who are rewarded not for independent thought, but for obedience.

The Lancet Debacle & the Vaccine Cartel’s Retaliation

As detailed in our report, the controversy began in 1998, when Dr. Wakefield and twelve colleagues published their Lancet case series describing intestinal inflammation and regression following the MMR vaccine. They did not claim proof of causation — only that the evidence warranted further investigation. Yet, after the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act shielded manufacturers from liability and the Omnibus Autism Proceeding began exposing vaccine-injury claims, powerful interests moved to silence dissent.

In 2004, journalist Brian Deer — working for a Rupert Murdoch–owned paper — launched a coordinated smear campaign accusing Wakefield of fraud, just as thousands of families were petitioning the U.S. vaccine court. Under immense pressure from the pharmaceutical establishment, The Lancet capitulated in 2011, retracting the paper despite no errors in data or methodology.

This moment marked the triumph of censorship over scientific inquiry.

Decades of Progress, Lost to Censorship

Had Wakefield and others been allowed to continue their research, we might have understood and successfully treated autism decades ago.

Promising leads on gut–brain dysfunction, immune dysregulation, and mitochondrial injury were buried under propaganda and professional reprisals. Entire generations of children have since been lost to diagnostic labeling rather than biomedical intervention — while universities, journals, and health agencies doubled down on denial.

The human cost of that censorship is incalculable: millions of families left without answers, and an entire field of autism research set back a quarter-century.

Today, the McCullough Foundation’s comprehensive analysis revives that lost line of inquiry — uniting the epidemiologic, mechanistic, and clinical evidence that vindicates what Wakefield first observed in the 1990s.

[…]

Via https://www.thefocalpoints.com/p/dr-andy-wakefield-vindicated-the

the freeonline

… “The fact of the matter is that the posturing with China is really all about obscuring the US’s economic demise, while also gaining leverage, sabotaging, and undercutting China as much as possible.

This is because the US political class has no answers at all for its own failing economy, and thus must rely exclusively on the strategy of hamstringing its competitors.
It’s all an act meant to forestall China’s takeover to buy time for the US corporo-political class to figure out a way to reset US’s runaway debt spiral and hyper-financialized Babylonian tower—which many now believe will happen by crypto-izing US debt:

AMERICA WANTS TO HAVE ALL THEIR 37 TRILLION DEBT IN CRYPTO then crash the market, eliminating the debt.

Translation: EXPORT THE DEBT TO OTHER NATIONS

This plan was enumerated in particular at the Eastern Economic Forum by Putin’s special advisor Anton Kobyakov:

U.S. CRYPTO PLOT EXPOSED: Wiping $35 trillion debt on world’s dime

“The US will solve their financial problems at the expense of the whole world, driving everyone into the crypto-currency cloud. Over time, when part of the US state debt will be placed in stablecoins, the US will devalue this debt,” Putin’s advisor Kobyakov revealed.

Putin’s advisor Kobyakov: The U.S. has devised a crypto scheme to erase its massive debt at the world’s expense.

The U.S. is now trying to rewrite the rules of the gold and cryptocurrency markets. Remember the size of their debt—35 trillion dollars. These two sectors (crypto and gold) are essentially alternatives to the traditional global currency system.

Washington’s actions in this area clearly highlight one of its main goals: to urgently address the declining trust in the dollar.

As in the 1930s and the 1970s, the U.S. plans to solve its financial problems at the world’s expense—this time by pushing everyone into the “crypto cloud.” Over time, once part of the U.S. national debt is placed into stablecoins, Washington will devalue that debt.

Put simply: they have a $35 trillion currency debt, they’ll move it into the crypto cloud, devalue it—and start from scratch.

That’s the reality for those who are so enthusiastic about crypto.

🔗 Source (https://forumvostok.ru/programme/press-event-programme/?search#131998)

Everyone is talking about it now, from major MSM publications like, in this case, Reuters:

https://www.reuters.com/markets/stablecoins-might-reboot-us-exorbitant-privilege-2025-09-10/

“To even Larry Fink himself, who made some coincidentally ‘interesting’ statements on crypto recently, just as Peter Thiel hinted that BlackRock might have coopted all Bitcoin:

When a guy managing $13T says owning crypto makes sense because governments will keep killing their currencies… that’s your clue. The system’s insiders are quietly admitting what Bitcoiners knew all along. Watch what they do, not what they preach.

“As stated earlier, at this point the theatrics with China and various tariff seesaws appear more a distraction and desperate time-buying theater.

The US is insolvent and its entire economy is increasingly hinged on nothing more than an empty AI capital washing machine spinning the same inflating ball of lint in circles as the plebs are immiserated beyond the breaking point……..”

 

[…]

Via https://thefreeonline.com/2025/10/31/us-plan-to-export-its-37t-debt-into-bitcoin-then-crash-the-market-restoring-itsexorbitant-privilege/