Contact me for feedback or questions! I reply to everyone.

Wikipedia is the Ministry of Truth

- Introduction -
- The problems with Wikipedia's fundamentals -
- Neutrality -
- Reliable sources -
- Due weight -
- Orthodoxy worship -
- Other illusions -
- Summary -
- Examples of Wikipedia's unreliability -
- Parapsychology -
- Plasma cosmology -
- Alternative medicine -
- COVID-19 vaccines -
- September 11 attacks -
- Moon landing -
- Coconut oil -
- Hunza people -
- White genocide -
- Vitamin D -
- Wikipedia's own founder shits on it -
- The conclusions of Wikipedia are predetermined -
- The real point of Wikipedia -
- Can you fix Wikipedia? -
- It wasn't always like this -
- Wikipedia forks
- Citizendium -


Something will be written day. Otherwise, this is probably done.

The problems with Wikipedia's fundamentals


Wikipedia promises us neutrality (archive) (MozArchive):

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

What does neutral mean for them, though?

Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.

Now let us see what does neutral mean in a real dictionary (archive) (MozArchive):

not saying or doing anything that would encourage or help any of the groups involved in an argument or war

And in another one (archive) (MozArchive) (definition 1):

not taking part or giving assistance in a dispute or war between others

And definition 2:

not aligned with or supporting any side or position in a controversy

Let's throw in a third dictionary (archive) (MozArchive), because their definition is so good:

Not aligned with, supporting, or favoring either side in a war, dispute, or contest

Can we get anymore clear than the above? We now have enough to understand what neutrality is all about in the real world. When two parties are fighting (whether it's a war or an argument), you don't take sides. Can you take that impression out of the Wiki definition? Wiki obviously takes the side of the reliable source; it is a total 1984-style redefinition. Some synonyms for neutral are unbiased, impartial and non-aligned, which (especially the last one) should make it even more clear that the reliability of one of the sides has no bearing whatsoever on whether supporting it becomes neutral. Every dictionary is in agreement, that all sides of a conflict are equal as far as neutrality is concerned.

But not Wikipedia. According to them, neutrality comes down to what the reliable sources have to say. So let's let Wikipedia itself explain what those even are:

Reliable sources

I've always understood the word reliable to mean generally solid or something like that. But a reader reminded me that another possible meaning is someone you can count on to do what you want them to. E.g a reliable dealer for drugs in a country that disallows them, etc. A dictionary like Cambridge's (archive) (MozArchive) confirms this with the first definition being Someone or something that is reliable can be trusted or believed because he, she, or it works or behaves well in the way you expect. Though the difference might be subtle, it exists; my understanding was more about objectivity (or the properties of something) and Wiki's is about subjectivity (following their wishes). When I realized this, it put the Wikipedia situation into an entirely different light for me. Like those pictures that you can look at in two ways, and you finally find the second one and the flower becomes the old woman. By choosing the word reliable, Wikipedia is telling us exactly what it's doing. It is picking the sources that will confirm the Ministry's biases. They could have used the words quality or accurate or professional or anything else that's concerned with properties other than blind obedience. But they didn't. Because the Ministry wants exclusively sources that it can rely on to say what it wants them to. Even though on their page explaining reliable sources (archive) (MozArchive) they pay lip service to qualities like a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy or error-correction, when you examine their list of reliable sources (archive) (MozArchive), it is obvious those only provide a cover for allegiance to the Ministry.

On that list, spreading conspiracy theories (which really means "crimes done by the people at the top") is enough to get sources (such as NaturalNews or ZeroHedge) banned. Another reason is (alleged) propaganda from Russia or China (however, USA's from their myriad of sources that spread it, is completely acceptable). The funniest case is that of Newsmax, with the rationale for its dismissal being: Newsmax lacks adherence to journalistic standards, launders propaganda, promulgates misinformation, promotes conspiracy theories and false information for political purposes, and promotes medical misinformation such as COVID-19-related falsehoods, climate change denialism, conspiracy theories, and anti-vaccination propaganda.. Haha. All the favorite Ministry boogeymen are here. And look at the utter contempt with which they are stated. Can it get any clearer that whether a source is accepted by Wiki has nothing to do with a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, or error-correction - but only which specific views it holds?

Another piece of evidence to show it's all about shilling certain positions can be found by seeing what kinds of sources get unquestioningly accepted, and why. Snopes, PolitiFact and Reuters have spread a lot of nonsense during the "pandemic", which I have shown a few times in my Corona report. Funnily, there is not a lot of "fact-checking" in the "fact-checker's" offices. But, Wikipedia isn't phased, because those sources were commited to supporting the mainstream Corona narrative at all costs (as in, they were reliable for doing so). Oh, and additional points are given because they're endorsed by some shady International Fact-Checking Network - which actually receives funding (archive) (MozArchive) from the...wait for it... Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation :D - and is even owned by the same entity as PolitiFact, one of the bullshitting sources. No conflicts of interest there, at all :D. It's the blind leading the blind on Wiki - or maybe the same criminals being the judges, jurors and executioners.

And so, since Wikipedia only accepts sources that state its prefered views, and has redefined neutrality to mean "extreme favoring of the views stated by those sources" - it can then pretend to be neutral while in reality executing the shill campaign for the ruling elites. How despicably fraudulent. And yet that's still not enough defense against unwanted views; sometimes a source that's on the reliable list will say something they shouldn't. It will of course end up on the unreliable / banned list during the next review; but in the meantime, the Ministry needs to keep the conspiracy theories and pseudoscience from slipping through the cracks. They achieve this through the Due weight principle:

Due weight

Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views.
Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view.

So the beliefs the Ministry likes take the center stage, and daring to put any others on equal footing is really, really bad. By its own admission Wikipedia is just a shill outlet for its chosen theories. But the reality is even worse than the stated principle - all unwanted views on Wikipedia are dumped into separate articles (which then shit on them). So there isn't even a distinction between significant and tiny minorities - both receive the same treatment. The one where they get ignored in the main article and sent to the wolves' den for the inevitable ripping. So, any view that the Ministry doesn't like is not given due weight - as the Ministry says - but no weight at all, or even negative weight. The stuff about relative levels of support is just a bluff, since any view the Ministry dislikes receives zero support in its articles (I will show all this with several examples later). The Ministry's utter hate against challenging the ortodoxy is easily seen in this quote:

Orthodoxy worship

While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo Moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship.

Suddenly any pretense of neutrality poofs into the ether when it concerns conspiracy theories or pseudoscience. Do they even have statistics on whether their hated views are minority? If not, then there is no basis for rejecting their inclusion from main articles about a topic. Remember that Wikipedia doesn't claim to reject minority views completely - but represent them proportionally according to their prevalence. In that case, why isn't the view that the Moon landing was faked included as a section of the Moon landing (archive) (MozArchive) article? After all, 16% of British people believe that (archive) (MozArchive). If it is about the opinions of scientists only, then well, do they even have the statistics for those? We know 3500+ architects and engineers question the official 9 / 11 story, and yet that is not enough to give the alternative view a section in the Wikipedia hit piece (archive) (MozArchive). If the Ministry's definition of significance isn't based on the numbers, then on what? Aside from the Ministry simply not liking certain views, of course. None of this is ever explained in any Ministry page, so the most obvious assumption is that it is - indeed - about the Ministry's preferences. The only way out of this conundrum is to settle on the prevalence of a view in reliable sources, but the reliable sources are handpicked in terms of whether they have the views prefered by the Ministry itself - so it's just a self-referencing claim ("I am the greatest person in the world, because I have eliminated everyone but myself from the competition"). Even if we let them define the terms of the competition, they still don't have statistics for which views are actually significant in their chosen reliable sources (nor what level of prevalence is required), so it all ends up being based on the Ministry's imagination. Literally - set the rules of the competition, then write down the scores themselves, and finally declare yourself the winner. All hail, the Ministry of Truth! Anyway, let's check out some other rules Wikipedia is supposed to follow (which really are just extensions of NPOV that they have already shown to not care about):

Other illusions

Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone


There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with care because they may introduce bias. For example, the word claim, as in "Jim claimed he paid for the sandwich", could imply a lack of credibility. Using this or other expressions of doubt may make an article appear to promote one position over another. Try to state the facts more simply without using such loaded words; for example, "Jim said he paid for the sandwich". Strive to eliminate flattering expressions, disparaging, vague, or clichéd, or that endorse a particular point of view (unless those expressions are part of a quote from noteworthy sources).

The following ones are particularly funny, because almost every article Wikipedia has on anything even mildly controversial violates them:

Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc.
Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.

Their About page (archive) (MozArchive) also contains this gem:

Editors' opinions and beliefs and unreviewed research will not remain.

Oh, and from another page (archive) (MozArchive):

All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[2] the material

Remember this one when you examine the upcoming examples.


Wikipedia dismisses sources that it arbitrarily decides are not reliable solely because they have views that go against the Ministry, instead of the quality of research. Then, even the sources that remain are only allowed to cover topics the Ministry likes, in ways the Ministry likes, lest they eventually end up on the unreliable list. After all this, Wikipedia pretends to have a bunch of rules that allegedly ensure the neutrality of its articles, but in reality does not care about any of them at all. Let's move on to the examples which show that:

Examples of Wikipedia's unreliability


Link - Archive - MozArchive

Parapsychology is the study of alleged psychic phenomena (extrasensory perception, telepathy, precognition, clairvoyance, psychokinesis (also called telekinesis), and psychometry) and other paranormal claims, for example, those related to near-death experiences, synchronicity, apparitional experiences, etc.[1] Criticized as being a pseudoscience, the majority of mainstream scientists reject it. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]

Right in the first paragraph we have a loaded word (alleged), another loaded word (claims; hey, remember that thing about how the word claim [...] could imply a lack of credibility, and should be avoided?), and an insult (pseudoscience). The claim that the majority of mainstream scientists reject it has 8 (!) references, but none of them provide any statistics supporting it, so it is just a bluff (and violates All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[2] the material). It is of course impossible for the editors to not have noticed that their main claim is completely unsupported - therefore the whole article has been written as a hit piece from the start. Either way, if they cannot prove that mainstream science actually rejects parapsychology, then there is no basis for making skepticism the prominent view according to Wikipedia's own principles. It is also funny how they cite Richard Wiseman, when the same Wiseman has admitted (archive) (MozArchive) that psychic ability is proven. Of course, that quote didn't find its way into the Wiki hit piece. Also look at the huge right sidebar where parapsychology is lumped in with things like fringe science, urban legend or fallacy. This article doesn't even sniff the neutral label.

Plasma cosmology

Link - Archive - MozArchive

Cosmologists and astrophysicists who have evaluated plasma cosmology reject it because it does not match the observations of astrophysical phenomena as well as current cosmological theory. Very few papers supporting plasma cosmology have appeared in the literature since the mid-1990s.

This claim is completely unsourced. Literally editor's opinion, which Wikipedia supposedly disallows.

The Electric Universe refers to a related set of ideas that are also not supported by observations

The source for this claim is a rant about pseudoscience (archive) (MozArchive) from the fucking Michael Shermer. Is this what Wikipedia considers a reliable source? Shermer is not a physicist, nor any kind of scientist - just a random who has made a career out of denying everything non-mainstream. And yet, this is the guy Wikipedia chose to debunk a claim. What a joke. Yet another Ministry piece that is utterly non-neutral.

Alternative medicine

Link - Archive - MozArchive
Alternative medicine is any practice that aims to achieve the healing effects of medicine despite lacking biological plausibility, testability, repeatability, or evidence from clinical trials.

No reference given for this editor's opinion.

Alternative therapies share in common that they reside outside of medical science and instead rely on pseudoscience.

Neither for this one. In fact, there isn't a single reference given for any of the bullshit said in the entire first paragraph. Or the second. Or the third. Or the fourth. I'm serious - go check it for yourself. The Ministry threw at you a screed taken entirely out of its ass. Then, on the right sidebar, they call alt med the alternative to reality-based medical treatments of conventional medicine. Totally neutral, totally not loaded, totally not just an opinion of a shill for the medical industry. The principle of Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone just looks funny reading this piece, where every sentence violates it.

I don't think there's a need to go through all the claims this trashy article makes. I mean, there are thousands of alternative therapies and they include eating plans, exercise, herbs, etc. that have been used for thousands of years and are known to work. There is no need for the Ministry's approval to realize this. But they dismiss it all in principle, because you are supposed to act only according to the information coming from the Ministry.

COVID-19 vaccines

Link - Archive - MozArchive
Serious adverse events associated COVID‑19 vaccines are generally rare but of high interest to the public.[15] The official databases of reported adverse events include the World Health Organization's VigiBase, the United States Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) and the United Kingdom's Yellow Card Scheme. Increased public awareness of these reporting systems and the extra reporting requirements under US FDA Emergency Use Authorization rules have resulted in an increased volume of reported adverse events.

The rarity of side effects is emphasized all over the article, but they never tell you about the 12 times increase of their prevalence at VAERS. What they do try to do is dismissing the relevance of the reporting system (with a link to a "fact-checking" site), without ever telling you the actual numbers. Because if they told you the numbers, you would have realized that their explanations don't work. They also say that up to 20% of people report a disruptive level of side effects after the second dose of an mRNA vaccine, but actually half of vaccine takers get a systemic reaction according to V-Safe - which Wikipedia completely ignores. The fact that they dismiss both VAERS and V-Safe (remember, these are government sources) shows that they are not only not neutral, but nothing more than shills for the vaccines.

September 11 attacks

Link - Archive - MozArchive

One of the worst cases on Wikipedia, for sure - pretty much perfectly showcasing how the Ministry doesn't give a shit about any of the noble principles they advertise.

The September 11 attacks, commonly known as 9/11,[c] were four coordinated suicide terrorist attacks carried out by the militant Islamic extremist network al-Qaeda

Sounds like a violation of Avoid stating opinions as facts and Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. But of course, anything is allowed if the alternative is to give space to the dreaded conspiracy theories:

9/11 conspiracy theories have become social phenomena, despite lack of support from expert scientists, engineers, and historians.

Ha-ha. What about the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (archive) (MozArchive)? Who are not mentioned even once in this whole excuse of an "encyclopedic" article. If Wikipedia was even close to neutral, there would be a whole "Criticism" section in the article, that would honestly present the views of the AE911 folks. I mean, this is clearly a significant view by any sane definition of significant (they have over 3500 architects and engineers who question the official story; August 2022 stats). But of course - since the point of the Ministry is propaganda - it can't be mentioned. The only way you'd know that alternative views even exist is if you clicked the 9 / 11 conspiracy theories (archive) (MozArchive) page (one single link in the middle of the article; can easily be missed) - where they are promptly shat on.

One of the arbiters on the 9 / 11 arbitration page (archive) (MozArchive) said this:

This is my first participation in an arbitration case, although I have participated in a successful mediation. I was really hoping to see a more dispassionate and rational discourse. Unfortunately, from the barely-concealed vitriol of some of the preceeding statements, we can clearly see why we have ended up at this stage. Potential new editors are forced to deal with a handful of self-appointed wardens of the site who have summarized the events of 9-11 in their minds, and refuse to consider anything outside of those summaries. Any attempt to add content to the article outside of the government-prescribed record of events is met with scorn and ridicule. Editors who attempt to add such are called, (as noted above), "Truthers" or "Conspiracy Theorists" at best, and more commonly "morons" and similar. The attempt to rename "9-11 Conspiracy Theories" to "9-11 Alternative Theories" was defeated by editors entrenched in their beliefs, despite the obvious logical fact that a non-mainstream theory is NOT necessarily a conspiracy theory, and the attempt to portray it as such is obvious bad faith.

Having said that, I (like others above) am also not sure what the goal of arbitration would be in this case.

Perhaps you were thinking that "Since Wikipedia is open, we can just fix the bad articles!"; well, this should bury that idea. They didn't even let people fix the fucking name, much less the contents of their propaganda pieces.

Moon landing

Link - Archive - MozArchive

The United States' Apollo 11 was the first crewed mission to land on the Moon, on 20 July 1969.[4] There were six crewed U.S. landings between 1969 and 1972, and numerous uncrewed landings, with no soft landings happening between 22 August 1976 and 14 December 2013.

Same old, same old. Opinions as facts, no criticism, dismissal of alternatives with the conspiracy theory label. The thing that makes this one unique is that the moon landing is so easy to disprove. Like, a single Bart Sibrel video - for example this one (CF) or this one can do it in less than an hour. And then nothing remains of all the fluff they've included in this Ministry propaganda piece. Look, people - the chance that the moon landing was real is zero. Absolute zero. And there is no way the Wiki editors don't know they're bullshitting you, proving Wiki is evil to the core.

About Bart Sibrel, the Ministry shits on him too (archive) (MozArchive), of course.

Bart Winfield Sibrel (born 1964/1965)[1][2] is an American conspiracy theorist who has written, produced, and directed works in support of the false belief that the Apollo Moon landings between 1969 and 1972 were staged by NASA under the control of the CIA

The standard conspiracy theorist smear and a false belief dismissal (isn't this just a direct violation of Avoid stating opinions as facts. [...] However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice.?) right in the first sentence of a neutral encyclopedia. Totally shameless.

Coconut oil

Link - Archive - MozArchive
Due to its high levels of saturated fat, numerous health authorities recommend limiting its consumption as a food.

Took them until just the third sentence to throw this predictable nonsense at the readers. And then there's this:

Marketing of coconut oil has created the inaccurate belief that it is a "healthy food".

Inaccurate belief = another direct violation of Avoid stating opinions as facts. [...] However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. This is so tiring. Anyway, this sorry piece of medical industry propaganda that pretends to be an encyclopedic article has a section titled Health concerns - but nothing whatsover about the shitloads of health benefits (archive) (MozArchive) that coconut oil has been shown to have in scientific studies. From that section we can fish out this gem:

Although lauric acid consumption may create a more favorable total blood cholesterol profile, this does not exclude the possibility that persistent consumption of coconut oil may actually increase the risk of cardiovascular diseases through other mechanisms

"Although our primary theory has been convincingly refuted, we don't want people to get healthy so we still pretend coconut oil is somehow harmful, with zero evidence". By the way, whenever coconut oil is compared to vegetable oils in terms of cholesterol, consider this quote from Ray Peat:

The cholesterol-lowering fiasco for a long time centered on the ability of unsaturated oils to slightly lower serum cholesterol. For years, the mechanism of that action wasn't known, which should have suggested caution. Now, it seems that the effect is just one more toxic action, in which the liver defensively retains its cholesterol, rather than releasing it into the blood.

Hey, they even have a Clinical research section! Is this where we finally find a mention of the numerous health benefits? Or maybe some information about the healthy populations (archive) (MozArchive) that eat extreme amounts of coconut with zero negative effect (Vascular disease is uncommon in both populations and there is no evidence of the high saturated fat intake having a harmful effect in these populations.)? No, it's just more whining about cholesterol. Because this is the only point the Ministry could have latched on to to make coconut oil seem negative at all costs. But to do that, they had to ignore everything else, which can only be called neutral in clown world.

Hunza people

Link - Archive - MozArchive
An author who had significant and sustained contact with Burusho people, John Clark, reported that they were overall unhealthy.[16]

The source for this claim is Bible Life (archive) (MozArchive), a Christian creationist site that has hundreds of "alternative" theories in it. This is exactly the kind of a source which the Ministry would have dismissed immediately... if it didn't help them "prove" what they want to. Does it not seem like Wikipedia does everything to make you not be healthy - by denying that healthy populations exist? The stuff about reliable sources evaporates when Wikipedia really needs to dismiss something. Either way, this account totally contradicts McCarrison's from the 1920s, described in the book The Wheel of Health:

My own experience provides an example of a race unsurpassed in perfection of physique and in freedom from disease in general.
During the period of my association with these people, I never saw a case of asthenic dyspesia, of gastric or duodenal ulcer, of appendicitis, of mucous colitis, of cancer...Among these people the abdomen oversensitive to nerve impressions, to fatigue, anxiety or cold was unknown.

This source is - of course - completely ignored by the Ministry.

White genocide

Link - Archive - MozArchive

Definitely the most egregious example of Wikipedia's non-neutrality (this probably means the elites want to keep this buried the most; I will let you guess the reason).

The white genocide, white extinction,[1] or white replacement conspiracy theory,[2][3][4] is a white supremacist[5][6][7][8] conspiracy theory which states that there is a deliberate plot, often blamed on Jews
White genocide is a political myth,[22][23][15] based on pseudoscience, pseudohistory, and ethnic hatred

I'm being blinded by all this neutrality.

White people are not dying out or facing extermination.[26][27][28][21]

Do not be fooled by the four references, because none of them discuss the numbers. The Conversation (archive) (MozArchive) (one of the sources considered reliable by Wikipedia) - on the other hand - does. And guess what:

The proportion of whites in the U.S. population started to decline in 1950. It fell to gradually over the years, eventually reaching just over 60% in 2018 – the lowest percentage ever recorded.

The numbers support the theory. The same is done by the Washington Post (archive) (MozArchive), another reliable source:

The most touted set of projections adopts the most exclusive definition, restricting the white population to those who self-identify as white and also no other race or ethnicity. Under this definition, whites are indeed in numerical decline.
Mixed-race parentage is growing more common, and a rapidly growing number of people choose more than one racial or ethnic category to describe themselves on the census.

Though the article calls it a myth, the actual quotes inside it support the white genocide theory. The same trend is also seen in the UK (archive) (MozArchive):

The white British proportion is officially below 50 per cent in Leicester, Luton and Slough.
London’s 3.7 million white Britons were already a minority – 44.9 per cent of the population – and researchers said the same could be true in Birmingham within seven years.

And yet, none of those sources can be found anywhere in the 323 ones cited by Wikipedia - all while the article is filled with ones whining about hate, neo-nazism, white supremacy, white nationalism, conspiracy theories and Donald Trump. Now why not at least mention the numbers once in such a long article about a topic for which the numbers should form the base? But of course, they can't teach their readers why those dirty neo-nazis, conspiracy theorists, and white supremacists believe in the theory in the first place, since enlightenment is not on the Ministry's menu. This article is so valuable, because it violates pretty much every single rule Wikipedia pretends to follow - even reliable sources are completely ignored here.

Vitamin D

Link - Archive - MozArchive

At this point I'm used to enduring the Wiki talking shit about all kinds of conspiracy theories or alternative science. In those cases, even if you buy the Ministry's bullshit - at worst you will end up as a normie; confused, manipulated and controlled by dark forces - but without real physical harm done. What I will not tolerate is them shamelessly toying with people's lives by lying about a nutrient that is extremely safe and the lack of which affects pretty much every disease process in the body. If there is ever a time where words can kill, it is right here. Hold on to your seats, because the biggest conspiracy of all time is about to be exposed:

Wikipedia first tries to reel you in by mentioning some generic positive effects of Vitamin D, such as the maintenance of calcium and phosphorus levels in the blood, bone remodeling through its role as a potent stimulator of bone resorption and Vitamin D also affects the immune system and VDRs are expressed in several white blood cells. The ones everyone knows and accepts and they couldn't really argue against. That is the bait, and once you're on the hook - they can begin to devour their catch.

The first fraud is in the way they define Vitamin D deficiency and insufficiency. Their definitions are based on the USA government's definitions stated here (archive) (MozArchive):

How the US government defines Vitamin D deficiency and insufficiency

So, they define deficient as the level which fails to prevent rickets, and insufficient as that which fails to support overall health in healthy individuals. Amazing. Now we'll do a thought exercise. Ask yourself how you would define a deficiency in a nutrient. My answer is: let's say that the human body has a need for some nutrient to do some things. If the nutrient is lacking to do "job X" then some bad effect happens, that can be detected (Analogically, if a city lacks a fire department - or enough firemen - when a fire happens, stuff just burns and this can be detected). And so, a sufficient (or not deficient) amount of a nutrient is that which prevents all the bad effects due to lack of its availability (or, a sufficient amount of firemen is the one that can reach all the fires that happen and douse them in the required time). Do you follow me here? Deficiency - to me - ends when additional doses of the nutrient do not provide anymore good effects and / or prevent bad ones. Sufficiency is when you have enough to fulfill all the jobs the relevant nutrient is supposed to do. Lack of deficiency = sufficiency (the term insufficiency, that they try so hard to shove in there, seems like another fraud to me. Just a distraction to make it seem that a small or moderate deficiency is fine in the minds of people. The more honest terminology would be deficient for what they call insufficient and extremely deficient for what they call deficient). For another example, there exists some amount of protein with which you ensure the maximum possible amount of muscle growth as a weighlifter. Less than that would be deficient assuming that muscle growth is one of the effects you're considering. Hell let's have another one - the sufficient amount of clothing is the one that fully protects you from outside temperature, e.g a jacket in winter. Anything that doesn't and makes you feel cold (e.g only a sweater in winter) is deficient. I want to hammer on this point, because it is fundamental to show how the government (and Wiki by extension) lies to you. So I hope this was clear enough. Now look at this chart with all of this in mind:

Disease incidence prevention by serum Vitamin D level

Notice the trick yet? They arbitrarily picked out a single (worst) effect of a lack of Vitamin D to focus on (rickets) and are claiming that - if that effect is prevented - you're not anymore deficient in Vitamin D. Yet in this case they failed even according to their own standards, because you need 18ng / ml - and not 12 - to fully prevent rickets. Anyway - as the chart shows - Vitamin D prevents many diseases in much higher amounts than are recommended. But Wiki and the gov say fuck all those, go suffer, you plebeian and tell you that you are sufficient with only the rickets prevention. This is like deciding that you're sufficient in protein if you're not sarcopenic. Screw all the other effects of additional protein on hormones or anything else, those are irrelevant. Or it's like deciding that you're sufficient in clothing if you're not so hypothermic that you die. And so, if you wear just enough to prevent death in winter (let's say jeans and a shirt), that's sufficient even if you're shivering. This is how they make it seem like you're having enough of something, even if in reality more would heavily improve your situation. Another easy to understand example would be defining poverty. Screw electricity, clothes or gas - you're sufficient in money if you can afford food, according to Wiki's and the gov's reasoning. Anyway - the chart shows that 54ng / ml is the amount that achieves all possible good effects (there could be some more not shown in this chart, and so the real needed amount might be even higher, but let's keep this simple for now) of Vitamin D, and so is the actually sufficient amount according to a sane, non-arbitrary definition. Anyway, Wiki takes their shitty definition and runs with it to claim that:

An estimated one billion adults worldwide are either vitamin D insufficient or deficient

Yet the reality is that... are you ready for this? EVERYONE is deficient! I know my audience will not simply buy this truly outrageous claim, so I have of course prepared an extremely strong proof (local):

Blood vitamin D levels in various European countries

Look at the 95th Percentile column. This means that 95% of people have less Vitamin D in their blood than what's listed. The conversion from nmol/L (European unit) to ng/ml (American unit) is 2.5. And so - if you look at e.g the LASA (Netherlands) study, 95% of people living there have less than 103.9 nmol/L (41.56 ng/ml) of Vitamin D in their blood. Look back at the chart above and see, that many diseases are still not prevented at that level! And that's the highest result out of all the studies! Hey, I even have no idea what's the difference between Original and VDSP-Calibrated but it doesn't change anything. Neither allows countries to reach the levels required to maximally prevent kidney or ovarian cancers, or fractures. When I told you everyone was deficient, I meant it. And that's still the best faring country, remember! Most of them are like at the level of 80 nmol/L (32 ng/ml) or even less, which is really abysmal - failing to even maximally prevent heart attacks.

But hey, let's for thoroughness sake clarify that maybe it's not literally everyone in the world that's deficient, since I just know some nitpicker will harp on this point. Some wild people in Africa that haven't yet been shoved into the city lifestyle, actually come close to the optimal level, but even they don't reach it. I think the only ones actually not deficient are those that either take supplements in high enough dosages (e.g 10K per day for at least most of the year) or sunbathe naked during the entire summer, or maybe work construction shirtless for many hours per day. But this is a fraction of a fraction of all people, and not at all relevant to the many hikikomoris of today (an office worker is effectively a hikikomori at least when Vit D intake is concerned). And still, I suspect that even those enjoying lots of sun exposure during the Vitamin D months might still be deficient during winter in Europe, since the amount they have stored in their bodyfat will be falling every day then, and not being replenished. So supplements will still be essential unless you're a white man in Africa (the cheat code).

So, Wiki lies about the amount of deficient people. Then they also downplay the effects of the lack of Vitamin D:

Severe vitamin D deficiency in children, a rare disease in the developed world, causes a softening and weakening of growing bones, and a condition called rickets.
Deficiency results in impaired bone mineralization and bone damage which leads to bone-softening diseases,[29] including rickets in children and osteomalacia in adults.

They can do that only because they've defined all other effects out of existence! See the previous paragraphs for a refresher. Hey, this isn't the first time they've played that game. They - actually - do that every time they dismiss a source because it's not on their list of reliable ones. But here it is much more blatant. Then - when they finally decide to focus on something other than bones - they spit nonsense such as:

Vitamin D3 supplementation has been tentatively found to lead to a reduced risk of death in the elderly,[11][56] but the effect has not been deemed pronounced, or certain enough, to make taking supplements recommendable.[13]
Vitamin D supplements do not alter the outcomes for myocardial infarction, stroke or cerebrovascular disease, cancer, bone fractures or knee osteoarthritis.[13][57]
Vitamin D supplementation is not associated with a reduced risk of stroke, cerebrovascular disease, myocardial infarction, or ischemic heart disease.[13][79][80]

[13] is their favorite source, it seems. I decided to take a look at it (local). Check this:

Results from Vitamin D studies Results from Vitamin D studies, part 2 Results from Vitamin D studies, part 3 Results from Vitamin D studies, part 4

Do you see anything funny? The dosages used in those studies were pathetic. 800 IU? 400?! What the fuck is that? That's - of course - not going to prevent or treat any disease. They didn't even manage to raise the levels of Vitamin D in the bloods of participants to levels sufficient according to the above chart (54 ng/ml or 135 nmol/L as refreshers). See how the one using 9000 IU actually got results in terms of the blood levels, at least? So why not gather the studies where actually relevant dosages were used? In most of the studies Wiki's meta-analysis included, people started with a Vitamin D level of a corpse (55 nmol/L = 22 ng/ml, or even less), and got it raised only a little (e.g Meyer 2002, level raise of 18.8 ng/ml to 25.6, whereas the amount needed to prevent fractures minimally is...38!! Of course it didn't work!) with the puny dosages used. No wonder there weren't results in terms of disease incidence. Yet Wikipedia uses this shitty meta-analysis to dismiss Vitamin D treatment altogether. Do not - also - get tricked by the massive per year amounts used, because when calculated - the per day dosage ends up being just as puny (500 000 per year = 1369 per day, and failed to raise blood levels AT ALL!). Look at the amounts positive studies use (archive) (MozArchive), then you will understand the fraud easily. They can be 10 or even more times higher than the Wiki ones (e.g many using 50000 weekly, which is over 7K per day). And so, the shiny statistical graphs shown in Wiki's meta-analysis later mean nothing whatsoever, since they're based on studies with mouse dosages. The entire source [13] is a hit piece, and not actually meant to investigate anything. But hey, maybe Wiki has simply made a mistake with that one source. Mistakes happen! No one is perfect. So let's investigate some others, starting with source [79] (local), which supposedly proves that Vitamin D supplementation is not associated with a reduced risk of stroke, cerebrovascular disease, myocardial infarction, or ischemic heart disease. In this meta-analysis, out of 21 included studies:

List of studies part 1, showing Vitamin D amounts used List of studies part 2, showing Vitamin D amounts used

The increases in blood Vitamin D levels were not measured. But from [13] we know that such dosages are not enough to even come close to the optimal levels (e.g 1369 failed to raise it AT ALL!). And the starting levels were low in all studies where such data was available - except Sanders (where the participants started with already optimal levels, pretty much - meaning additional Vitamin D would not have done anything, anyway). So, it's almost certain that the treatments simply didn't raise the blood Vitamin D levels high enough to prevent cardiac events (in [13] the only dosage which accomplished that was the 9000 IU per day; nothing close to that was used here). Yet another shoddy hit piece cited by Wiki. Hey, I also looked at source [80] (local), and it suffers from the same issues as [79] (corpse initial levels and low treatment doses). No need to repeat the analysis, I guess. Anyway, let's read further...

The entire Excess section is a sham. How dare you even have it when everyone is deficient and most people terminally so? Anyway, sometimes Wikipedia does admit a part of the truth there, but only to later bury it with lies, leaving the reader confused. Their first nonsense claim is:

The threshold for vitamin D toxicity has not been established; however, according to some research, the tolerable upper intake level (UL) is 4,000 IU/day for ages 9–71[157]