How Wikipedia defames and delegitimizes anybody raising concerns against the WHO narrative on Covid

This is a personal story exposing the cesspit that is Wikipedia

How the ‘official’ covid narrative goes unchallenged on Wikipedia

If you look at the Wikipedia entries of any senior scientist, clinician or ‘influencer’ who has talked positively about early covid treatments or who has raised legitimate concerns about the vaccine efficacy or safety, you will discover that they have been delegitimized and labelled as promoters of ‘misinformation’. Their entries have also been heavily edited to downplay their credentials and research record. In many cases there are blatant lies and critical omissions made to frame these people as untrustworthy oddballs.

It turns out that a very small clique of Wikipedia ‘editors’ have been responsible for ensuring that any member of the public looking to Wikipedia for information on the many legitimate concerns about the ‘official’ covid narrative will find nothing other than smears against those raising such concerns. This clique act as ‘gatekeepers’ of the covid narrative, and have free reign to edit these personal pages. Not only do they insert complete lies, but they then delete any attempts to correct the lies and are able to block all attempts by others to provide corrections.

Retired Computer programmer Alex Brown (“Alexbrn”) who has a PhD in English: the ultimate arbiter of the ‘truth’ on Covid-19. This is his own profile picture on twitter

Prominent among this clique of ‘editors’ is Alex Brown (“Alexbrn”) who has a long history of acting as the gatekeeper to all medical knowledge on Wikipedia even though he describes himself as a retired computer programmer with a “PhD in English”. Despite multiple complaints against him over several years - that have been publicly acknowledged by Wikipedia’s owner Jimmy Swales (shown later) - he continues obsessively and unabated and apparently with full approval of Wikimedia’s management. Before providing some examples of his previous obnoxious behaviour, here is the story of how my own Wikipedia entry was hacked by him.

Timeline and details of the hacking of my Wikipedia entry with blatant lies and defamation

While I was fully aware of Wikipedia’s delegitimization of well-known and well qualified physicians like Robert Malone and Peter McCullough, I never imagined that I would be considered a sufficiently big threat to the ‘safe and effective’ vaccine narrative that they would also feel the need to come after me.

Before July 2022 I had not looked at my Wikipedia entry for a long time, and I understand that until recently it had no mention of covid-19. However, in early July 2022, shortly before I was due to give expert evidence about the statistics of covid in a court case in Indonesia, the plaintiffs in the case informed me that my page had recently been edited with the following section added:

The above statement was an outright lie. Note that the only reference provided (reference [16]) to support the claim was a Tom Whipple article in the Times (although note that no web link was provided) which misreprepresented a document from the HART Group.

In fact, the current online version of the Whipple article is different to the original version published on 22 March 2021, which had the different and even more misleading title “Scientists condemn report claiming vaccines caused second wave deaths”. The online version still includes the following statement naming me:

The print version (23 March 2021) in contrast does not name me, but has an even more ludicrous headline:

Critically, the Whipple article does not provide a link to the "extremely irresponsible document" on which the claims he makes are based. So the article does not enable readers to see exactly what was said in the document rather than Whipple's strange interpretation of what was said. In fact, the document was a compendium of 15 papers by individual researchers from the HART group which has many dozens of members including many academics, of whom I am one. I was not a contributor to any of the papers. Moreover, contrary to what is stated in the online version, there is no “Forward” to the document. There is an executive summary of the 15 papers. The inside cover of the document has a full list of the members of HART and there is also a Disclaimer: “Each contribution in this booklet reflects the author’s viewpoint alone, and not the position of the entire group”. At the time of publication of the HART document I did not have any opinion about whether the vaccine was causing deaths.

Whipple's article deliberately took the words of one paper (by Joel Smalley) in the HART document out of context. HART never made a claim that these deaths were from vaccine injury as the wording of both Whipple's original title (“Scientists condemn report claiming vaccines caused second wave deaths”) and print version title (“Academics back ‘bizarre’ claim that jabs may kill”) implies. The Smalley article merely says that there is a correlation with the timing of the second wave spike and the vaccine rollout and that that should be investigated urgently. That is an entirely defensible position to have taken (it is of course to be noted that falls in covid-related deaths - which may be seasonal or due to less virulent variants - are quite frequently ascribed to vaccination merely on the basis of such correlations). Since it was published there is substantial additional evidence, including from PHE, SAGE and other peer reviewed publications including Pfizer's own trial data, that the first two weeks after vaccination are indeed a period of increased susceptibility for covid (https://www.hartgroup.org/it-gets-worse-before-it-gets-better/). Such an increase in susceptibility on a population scale could indeed have resulted in a covid wave that correlated with vaccine rollout rather than having a more natural trajectory. That does not mean that in the absence of vaccine there would have been no covid but it does mean that there continues to be a need to investigate the role of the vaccine in the trajectory of the covid waves.

Whipple (in subsequent correspondence) continues to make the claim that the (Smalley) “chapter is clearly about direct vaccine injury" when this exists only in his imagination. Nothing in HART's document mentions, even indirectly, direct vaccine injury as a cause of death. In fact it is explicit that the concerning correlation is between vaccination and covid death. All the article ever said was that there was a correlation that needs investigating. No claim was made that the vaccine had caused 50,000 deaths. That again is from Whipple's imagination. What Joel Smalley has said separately or subsequently does not excuse Whipple from taking the words of the HART document out of context.

The Wikipedia entry was brought up by the lawyers when I delivered my expert testimony in Indonesia, but only to emphasize the extent to which those providing evidence to counter the ‘safe and effective’ vaccine narrative were subject to extreme censorship and delegitimization.

The March 2022 log entry below shows that the defamatory new material was inserted by Alexbrn on 18 March immediately after an editor called “Nauseous Man”, simply and harmlessly, suggested that my entry needed to be strengthened with additional citations or removed completely:

Here is a screenshot of the logs proving the specific edits were made by Alexbrn:

The logs now also show that, late in the evening of 24 July 2022 an editor “Mmc197” made an edit stating (correctly) that I had denied the allegations in the article under oath in the court in Jakarta (as indeed can be seen here), although Mmc197 got the date of the appearance wrong – it occurred on 20 July.

However, at 05:41 the next morning Alexbrn deleted this edit (an ‘undo’).

On 27 July an editor called “Holomatrix” edited the entry as follows in an attempt to set the record straight (there are some errors in the article dates stated by Holomatrix)

Covid-19

Since March 2022, Fenton has been active in analysing data relating to Covid-19 risk and the efficacy and safety of Covid-19 vaccines. His many articles on this are listed here <https://www.normanfenton.com/covid-19> and his many media appearances can be found here <https://www.normanfenton.com/media-appearances>

On 18 March 2022 “Alexbrn” who has a history of posting false claims added an entry to this wikipedia page stating:

In March 2021, Fenton was one of several academics who put their name to a document seeking to persuade the British government not to pass COVID-19 legislation, suggesting that a large increase in deaths had been caused by the COVID-19 vaccination programme. Jeremy Brown of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation said the document was "ridiculous" since the vaccines in question had an established safety profile, and virologist Jonathan Ball said it showed a "blatant disregard for the facts" and was "irresponsible in the extreme".[16]

The statement was an outright lie based entirely on a defamatory article by Tom Whipple in the Times on 28 Feb 2021, which was subsequently changed online (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/scientists-condemn-report-questioning-role-of-vaccine-in-second-wave-deaths-75rltw3qg) as a result of a press release from the HART group https://www.hartgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Times-Response-220321.pdf The ‘document’ referred to in the Whipple article <https://www.hartgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/240321-Updated-HART-review.pdf> was a compendium of papers by individual researchers from the HART group. Norman Fenton was not a contributor to any of the papers. None of the papers made any claim remotely like that stated in the original article by Whipple, which is why he was forced to change the online version of the article.

One year later, when there was evidence that the risks of the vaccine for children were greater than the benefits, Fenton was one of hundreds of clinicians, scientists and health workers who signed this letter <https://www.ukmedfreedom.org/open-letters/open-letter-to-jcvi-from-the-childrens-covid-vaccine-advisory-group> from the Children’s Covid Vaccine Advisory Group to the JCVI regarding child vaccinations.

As the log below shows, within 8 minutes of Holomatrix making this edit, Alexbrn removed it and reverted it to the defamatory version. There was then a rapid sequence of attempts by Holomatrix to revert his/her changes followed immediately each time by Alexbrn and his colleagues “ScottishFinnishRadio” and “Firefangledfeathers” reverting them. Note that the reason given by Alexbrn for deleting Holomatrix edits was because they were “fuckwittery”:

When Holomatrix went to the admin forum to ask for help the response he/she got was to accuse Holomatrix of having a COI and of making a legal threat as shown here (with Holomatrix’s response):

This was followed by a threat from ScottishFinnishRadio which Holomatrix responded to:

Immediately after this Holomatrix was blocked from my page:

Holomatrix noted that there are four accounts that appear to track to two IP addresses. Alexbrn clearly has no interest in the truth and he has at least one other person (JBW) who is senior enough to have access to block people. They are working together. JBW and ScottishFinnishRadish have the same IP address, same timestamp and are listed on other pages Alexbrn has edited. ScottishFinnishRadish makes the threats against users who make changes he/she and Alexbrn do not like, and JBW swoops in to block the person.

I have to say, I find it extremely disturbing to know there is a small group of people - who can only be described as lunatic stalkers – who apparently spend so much time looking out for any changes made to my and other people’s Wikipedia entries in case their deception is removed and something truthful and non-defamatory is entered. Their entire objective is to try to ensure the truth is not even allowed to be seen, even for a few minutes.

Alex Brown’s history of suppressing the truth and spreading misinformation

If you search Alexbrn on twitter you will find many dozens of legitimate complaints about his Wikipedia editing. He has edited entries of the likes of Robert Malone, Bret Weinstein, Malcolm Kendrick, Tess Lawrie, Dr Angela A Stanton and politician Greg Sonnenfeld. It is interesting to note that many of the people he ‘edits’ are also thrown off of twitter and Facebook, so it seems Alexbrn is working in lockstep with all the big platforms to delegitimize and censor the same set of people. The following are just a small snapshot to give you a feel for the extent to which Alexbrn is allowed free reign to do what he wants, apparently with the full approval of Jimmy Swales.

First, here are some examples which show that Jimmy Wales clearly has full knowledge of the many complaints made against Alexbrn but he never does anything about it:

(For more details on this thread see here)

The following contains a long quote by Alexbrn himself pompously explaining his strategy including how he automatically gets people he doesn’t agree with banned:

Here you can see complaints about his editing of Robert Malone’s entry:

Here are complaints about his edit of the Bret Weinstein entry:

And his attack on Tess Lawrie:

It seems Alexbrn is the gatekeeper of both the RNA vaccine page and the Ivermectin page:

Indeed, this article provides a comprehensive discussion of the control Alexbrn exerts over the Ivermectin narrative. Here is a small excerpt:

The following give you an indication of his abusiveness and arrogance:

This is especially evident in the Wikipedia change logs where he simply brushes aside anybody who questions his edits such as here:

and here:

And look at his extremely offensive dismissal of evidence from the Indian Government:

and here:

Finally, this long thread details the extent to which Alexbrn will go to crush any dissent.

Summary and Update

While in the process of writing this article - after observing first-hand the obnoxious behaviour of Alexbrn on 27 July - it appears even he has realised that he cannot get away with the obviously provable lies and defamation against me. As of last night (28 July) it seems the entire section on covid-19 in my entry has been removed. The logs now show:

1. They replaced the COVID-19 Misinformation tag that had been removed:

2. Then, after some discussion between various admins and Alexbrn, Alexbrn added the comment that he had actually been removing Holomatrix’s edits while the source is checked (thus contradicting his previous comments that Holomatrix’s edits were “fuckwittery”):

3. Then two other editors (Phillip Cross and Hob Gadling) made some minor changes to Alexbrn’s text (replacing ‘Norman’ to ‘he’ and ‘worldwide’ to ‘internationally’ and grammatically correcting a few sentences in the early part of the page).

It looks like Alexbrn got told to remove the entire Covid-19 section entirely at point 2 above by others in the FT/N group (Fringe Theories Noticeboard).

While my entry has finally been 'resolved', it is clear that many others continue to be the victims of his abuse and censorship. Additionally – and even more alarmingly – his antics have meant that many millions of people worldwide have been denied any chance to see arguments that counter the mainstream narrative on covid and other medical issues.

This story also illustrates how a relatively small group of fanatics can totally control the narrative (maintaining the same message parroted by the WHO and the mainstream media) and censor any dissent to it on an entire social media platform. People with exactly the same mindset as Alexbrn and his cronies have similarly – and in lockstep – achieved the same results on Twitter and Facebook. This happens because the owners of all of these social media platforms are themselves invested in the WHO narrative, and determined to crush any resistance to it.

Addendum

Today we have an extremely timely reminder of the extent to which Wikeipedia is allowed to rewrite history to suit a particular agenda. No sooner had the Biden administration decided that it didn't like the long accepted definiton of recession ("two consecutive quarters of decline in GDP”) because that is exactly what the USA had succumbed that an editor changed the definition to “there is no consensus on definition of recession”, and locked the page for editing: