There is so very much right ... and so very much wrong with Wikipedia.

For example ... the fact that Stephen Barrett and Quackwatch are being sued by Dr. Harrison may take years to be allowed on Wikipedia. Click here for court papers.

I adore Jimbo Wales and his Vision ~ a huge and magnificent undertaking. As a world traveler for many decades myself ... I am thrilled he is getting to experience the magic of world travels.

Right now there is a huge Wiki community crisis ... as a beloved high level arbitrator (I believe) named Essjay ... was asked to resign because he had faked an identity and pretended to be who he was not.

Jimbo Wales on how he had lived by his beliefs and Assumed Good Faith.

Read this from Wiki News on this topic.

Wikipedia: A Nightmare Of Libel and Slander

A former editor at the venerable Encyclopedia Britannica recently likened the site to a public rest room: "You never know who used it last."

Wikipedia founder speaks on the Essjay controversy -
Jimmy Wales, founder of the Wikipedia user-generated and edited encyclopaedia, said he expects contributors to the site who claim certain credentials will soon have to prove they really have them.

Wikipedia - how accurate is the online encyclopedia? This is London
Fact or fiction? Economist

Wikipedia's Wales fires lying 'professor'

A Prominent Editor at the Popular Online Encyclopedia Is a Fraud
ABC News - 2 hours ago
A prominent editor at Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, resigned after it was revealed that he had not earned the doctorate he had claimed to and that he ...

Fake Wikipedia professor altered 20000 entries, UK - 7 hours ago
Wikipedia, the online encyclopaedia, has been plunged into controversy after one of its most prolific contributors and editors, a professor of religion with ...

Wikipedia's Great Fraud, MA - 8 hours ago
Wikipedia's basic premise is built on a pseudo-intellectual concept of collective contributions, on the mistaken belief that since there are lots of people ...

With Wikipedia, what you see is not always what you get
Foreign Policy (subscription) - 10 hours ago
The July 31, 2006, piece on Wikipedia, "Know It All," by Stacy Schiff, contained an interview with a Wikipedia site administrator and contributor called ...

Wikipedia, Academia Have a Love-Hate Relationship
TechNewsWorld, CA - 12 hours ago
University of Virginia English professor John Sullivan, who also teaches courses in mass media and American culture, is skeptical of Wikipedia.

Top 10 Most Harmful Books, CA - 13 hours ago
So, I followed wikipedia's link This list was so biased I didn't even know what to think. ...

Bogus professor quits Wikipedia
iTWire, Australia - 1 hour ago
A 24 year old with no advanced degrees who posed as a professor of religion while working on Wikipedia's arbitration committee has resigned at the request ...
Bogus Wikipedia editor who posed as a professor resigns after real ...
TechShout!, India - 1 hour ago
The bogus editor known as Essjay on Wikipedia had the authority to arbitrate disputes between authors, and remove vandalism. Essjay was actually Ryan Jordan ...

Jimbo's Apology 3/6/2007

What I believe about my experiences there ... is that I had not even one nanosecond of AGF (assume good faith) ... the hallmark of Wikipedia.

From the day (July 7, 2006) I began editing facts and correcting falsities against Barrett himself (unbeknownst to me), Fyslee mmediately proved that WP:AGF was not even an option as you can see from my talk page and their prominent immediate warnings and threats. [[7]]. They continued their jobs as Link Farms for Barrett .... and took off my links and added his ... with stern warnings.

Please read my Arbitration evidence here and here.

To the contrary. Paul Lee and Arthur Rubin (Wikipedians Who Oppose Quackery ) greeted me with attacks and threats.

That name tells why it makes a mockery of any encyclopedia ... they are biased, totally subjective, and use derogative and pejorative terminology to attack controversial issues with their POV.

I've learned alot about Jimbo's Wiki World this week ... a microcosm of life itself.

Except in real life ... I beat Stephen Barrett and the Quackwatch Agenda ... and on Wiki ... they are beating me.


Wikipedia Reputation and the Wemedia Project

"Wikipedia’s articles are written by anyone who fancies himself an expert… "

“I think it’s exactly the right price,”

Wikipedia founder admits to serious quality problems by Andrew Orlowski, The Register, U.K. click here to read his series on Wikipedia


The Six Sins of the Wikipedia by Sam Vaknin ... this well describes my experiences with the Healthfraud group. The would revert an edit of mine within nanoseconds, and they use anonymous 'editors' to put the Healthfraud/Quackwatch viewpoint as fact.

Excerpt:  As recent events clearly demonstrate, the Wikipedia is a hotbed of slander and libel. It is regularly manipulated by interns, political staffers, public relations consultants, marketing personnel, special interest groups, political parties, business firms, brand managers, and others with an axe to grind. It serves as a platform for settling personal accounts, defaming, distorting the truth, and re-writing history.


Don't Rely on the Wikipedia by Dr. Joseph Mercola


Ilena Rosenthal on Dr. Mercola's site Breast Implants: The Silent Epidemic

Ilena Rosenthal was recently cyber-interviewed by WIRED Senior Editor

Kristen Philipkoski 

full article here

Ilena Rose, who runs the Humantics Foundation, said she believes surgeons who deny that silicone breast implants cause health problems are simply motivated by money.

"If a plastic surgeon inserts just two pairs of implants a week ...
that's over a half a million dollars annually coming in to their coffers in implant revenue alone," Rose said on a web page she created
to respond to questions from Wired News.


Monday, August 21, 2006, Ilena once again joined Academy Award Nominated Actress, breast implant survivor, and Woman's Health Advocate, Sally Kirkland on her weekly Radio Show on Click logo below to hear program live from 10-11AM Monday the 21st.

Click here to hear our two archived programs.


Please listen to Dr. Sherrill Sellman interview Ilena Rosenthal by clicking Progressive Radio Network logo and going to August 28, 2006.

What Women Must Know



Please click here to send a message to your Member of Congress ... the FDA MUST Thoroughly Examine Safety Evidence & Must Stop Ignoring Evidence that Silicone Implants Are Not Safe!


Loss of Helen Wattier, beloved Support Group Member


Keeping Abreast of
Parasitic Implants!, 8 Feb, 2006 by Fintan Dunne, Editor

Ilena is interviewed and discusses the dangers of breast implants and the resulting industry backed Smear Campaign against her. Click here to read about Stephen Barrett and Christopher Grell's loss and the third plaintiff, Terry Polevoy, whose case against her is now in the Supreme Court of California.






Bravo to Dr. Zuckerman for her excellent presentation to the Canadian Parliament last week. Click here for full text.


Dr. Feng on Implant Capsule Removal thanks to Rosie and her Support Board


Residual Capsule and Intercapsular Debris As Long Term Risk Factors.


Aetna Policy on Explant (breast implant removal)


The perverted irony of Health Canada's Special Access Programme Pays for breast implants, denies AIDS drugs


The PR Secret War Against Activists by John Stauber & Sheldon Rampton


Female Senators Caution FDA on Breast Implants

Greetings from somewhere on God's Green Planet.

Welcome to my rant/blog page on Wikipedia!

I'm working on a new format to discuss various topics that touch the breast implant issue and my viewpoints on medical freedom.



I've had a wild education in Wikipedia World since Barrett Vs Rosenthal was ruled upon in the California Supreme Court in November, 2006.

I won against Barrett's Team in the Superior, Appeals and the Supreme Court of California -- yet his Rag-Tag Posse won on Wikipedia.

Thanks to Susan Ferris for bringing this page to the attention of Jimmy Wales ... my response is below.

I've been thrilled to see so much coverage about the Wiki Scanner and outing the many corporations who post from their offices. Bravo!

However, I am not in agreement with anonymous professional posters, usually industry / government connected who push their POV and team with others to help push theirs. Wiki is so filled with them, it is almost impossible to compete with their industry/gov edits.

For example, Barrett has "editors" working around the clock ... no fact that is not flattering to him remains on Wiki for more than a heartbeat.

The worst of the worst are the freelancers ... the bloggers for hire that fill Usenet and Wikipedia and the BlogWorld, pretending to be just 'folks.'

When Stephen Barrett and Terry Polevoy lost to me in the Supreme Court of California ... they were determined 1,000,000% more to change history and appear to be the victors and the victims.

When I went to Wikipedia in December, 2006, it was to correct the disinformation and biased loser POV (point of view) being posted by Barrett himself, followed immediately by his assistant, Paul "Fyslee" Lee, Barrett slanted admin, Arthur Rubin, and Ron Zero.

New Barrett POV posters were added in January, 2007, including QuackGuru, who, within 8 seconds, connected with Paul "Fyslee" Lee.

Another new Wiki editor appeared then on January 20, 2007, a long term Usenet Flack with thousands and thousands and thousands of posts. Her job was to subtlely promote Pfizer's Celebrex, while providing support and back up for the Barett Usenet team.

When she arrived on Wiki, she immediately went to work on the Stephen Barrett articles, and as recently as yesterday, was helping make his article another Barrett fluff piece ... bearing no resemblance to reality.

It appears that she may well be a Pfizer flack, as she was able to get herself published in USA Today, with this opening Pfizer perfect comment, at a time when Pfizer was being blasted in the news. and sorely needed some good PR.

For Susan Ferris, the drug Celebrex has been "a godsend."

On Usenet, she keeps the benefits of Celebrex before the public ... as well as being an avid supporter for the Stephen Barrett Quackwatch Team.

On Wikipedia, she is there to back every post of Paul Lee's or Ron Zero's or whoever hides behind QuackGuru.

She helped them remove the link I had edited on the Sally Kirkland webpage about her breast implant advocacy for no reason other than their mutual attempt to remove any website that links in any way to mine.

She helped keep off the fact that Pfizer sponsored the Pfizer/Spiked self-congratulatory piece quoting Barrett.

She supported keeping off the fact that Barrett, although owner of "Credential Watch" was never board certified and in fact had failed his psychiatric boards.

It was quite shocking that she has accused me of outing her, when a friend merely pointed to her many posts under her own name. Click here.

For more ... click here.


What fear they have of my opinions and facts. For example, Ron Zeno (ronz) and MastCell (probably another disguise used by David "orac" Gorski) work long & hard to continue to attempt to discredit me and keep of factual and unflattering information about their Guru, Steve Barrett.

They refuse to allow the court papers of the latest suit against Barrett by Dr. Harrison to be acknowledged. The pdf file is here.

An Arbitration in the same name raged --- and for an unexplained reason ... the supposively non-biased arbirtrators, decided that Paul Lee was to be enonerated and me burned at the stake.

Wikipedia Signpost/2007-02-26/Arbitration report

Barrett v. Rosenthal: A case brought by Peter M. Dodge involving the actions of Ilena and Fyslee. According to Dodge, Ilena was initially reported to AN/I for "posting links to sites that some considered to be attack sites". Various users attempted to assist Ilena, but "This was sabotaged...when Fyslee posted a link to a site that attacked Ilena in a personal manner". The title of the case refers to Barrett v. Rosenthal, a decision of the Supreme Court of California, which ruled that internet users and providers were not liable for the republication of defamatory statements, which some editors believe provides protection for Wikipedia. According to Durova, Ilena is the Rosenthal in that case, and she (Ilena) alleges that Fyslee has a close relationship with Barrett. Fred Bauder has proposed remedies, with the support of three arbitrators, banning Ilena for one year, and prohibiting her and Fyslee from editing the articles in question.

I believe that the halls were stacked against me from the moment I arrived on Wikipedia ... the Assistant Listmaster to Stephen Barrett's beloved Healthfraud List greeted me with huge red stopsigns and threats and warnings.

Concurrently, as Lee stood as a sentry, Stephen Barrett himself edited happily away on Wiki ... removing links to his legal opponents webpages, and replacing them with his own.

He then went underground, and immediately, Paul Lee took over, assuring that all his links and many more, would be linkspammed throughout Wikipedia.

For my December Wiki page ...please click here.

One of the things that I have been falsely accused of is bringing my "personal" lawsuit to Wikipedia.

That is blatantly false. Barrett's POV was all over articles about him and the article on the Supreme Court decsion was biased to the point of not being recognizable.

I'll be filling in details of what is like a needed separation from a bad, abusive marriage, where the abuser enforces rules for me and not for himself.

My losing #1 plaintiff ... Stephen Barrett, ever so modestly called himself "the media" in Time Magazine. He got a Ph.d in Google Bombing and has layers and layers of multiple websites & webrings & blogs & Groups & now Wikipedia sites -- each promoting each other, repeating each other, filling Google with their commercial, partisan, "anti-quackery" propaganda.

They use every trick in the book for their smear campaigns against Chiropractors, Naturopaths, and me ... to name but a few. Paul Lee is the Ring Master, and hosts his own partisan blogs and hate sites ... each promoting each other. He has spent about 15 months on Wikipedia as "fyslee" bringing this biased, campaign, frequently sending out "Call to Arms" for other editors to back him or collaborate with him, pretending to be "writing an encyclopedia."

I for one, still believe that Jimbo Wales wants Wiki to be an encyclopedida ... and not be used to further commercial campaigns like Quackwatch's and other professional teams that work Wiki.

Here are some of my statements regarding Barrett Vs Rosenthal on Wikipedia and our "separation."

Wiki Arb #1  Wiki Arb #2

I'll be writing quite a bit about what I have learned about Wiki ... and welcome any of your experiences. Send to me here:

I want to thank all those who have dared to support me there ... and who have endured the wrath of Barrett's team in so doing.

People have been coming out of the shadows of Wikipedia to share their own experiences on Wikipedia ... and how the corporate interests are attempting to overtake Wikipedia too ... slanting every relevant article to the he who has the gold, rules.

Wikipedia is a very, very, very, very important medium in the Information Wars.

Shockingly important.

For example, I've noticed recently that in a high percentage of basic Google searches, the Wikipedia article in the top dog on the Google Search.

I knew little about the workings of Wikipedia until December, 2006, when a couple of friends had written to advise me that Barrett Vs Rosenthal was being covered in an article on Wikipedia. What I read was basically unrecognizable as to the facts of the case.

When I corrected the errors ( edited in WikiSpeak), and quoted from the Supreme Court decision, within moments, Wiki editors close to the plaintiffs would revert my facts and take off my references ... sometimes in a heartbeat. Like sentries, they guarded articles. I didn't know until much later, as I figured out the system better, that it was Barrett himself publishing his viewpoint as facts.

They were attempting to make it appear that Barrett lost to me on a technicality ... just because he was a "public figure." That was not factual in any sense of the word. The article was ridiculously slanted.

One typical example is my co-defendant, Mr. Tim Bolen and I are not allowed any description.

Mr. Bolen isn't even allowed a first name. (update: Mr. Bolen got a last name after heated fight)

He's only Bolen.

His registered California company is not allowed to be mentioned, though most all of Barrett's commercial operations are listed on hundreds and hundreds of articles and linked all over Wikipedia.

They refuse to allow anything about who I am ... my name alone is permitted (I get first and last) but nothing about who I am or represent.

The fact that I have headed an international support group for women harmed by breast implants for over 11 years, been quoted in multiple media, including a recent Wired Magazine ... is forbidden.


Last Summer,  I had spent a short time on Wikipedia editing a few articles, and attempting to balance what continues to be lopsided and biased information on Barrett.

Paul Lee stood guard on every article about Stephen Barrett or any of his operations, and refused to allow a link showing that NCAHF, the so called  The National Council Against Healthfraud , has been suspended by the State of California since May, 2003.

Soon before that, the NCAHF and Barrett lost to King-Bio and were severely reprimanded by the court in these Court Opinions. This all ties into Paul Lee (fyslee), and the Wiki War he has led against me from my first Wiki days. Click here for the two court rulings against NCAHF and Barrett and Wallace Sampson.

Paul Lee is someone I know very, very, very well.

Barrett and he are together attempting to control information on what they (and the pharmaceutical industry) considers quackery on the internet.

Barrett calls himself the Director of Internet Operations for NCAHF. Paul Lee runs two webrings that every Barrett site is distributed through. He treats Wikipedia just like the Healthfraud list ... attempting to censor any critics.

I started looking around at other sites around Wikipedia in matters relating to breast implants and various alternative modalities and other articles of interest to me.

Everywhere, the same people from The Rag-tag Posse ruled the article.

With their guerrilla and gang tactics, they bullied their viewpoint. Barrett's links were everywhere ... yet critics (me being one) had to fight for every word on Wikipedia.

This team began to circulate scores of statements that go against what I quote below from Judge Moreno (in red.)

Why would these have been included and even the very last words in the Opinion if Judge Moreno did not find them significant?

Why would they be significant in the Supreme Court but not Wikipedia?

From the Supreme Court decision, page 39, these are the the last words in the opinion.

"As the lower courts correctly concluded, however, none of the hostile comments against Dr. Barrett alleged in the complaint are defamatory."

I therefore conclude the majority is correct in reversing the Court of Appeal.


This ruling is an important one for internet providers and hosts of internet chat groups and blogs and individual posters of which there are millions.



I thank the true scientists there ... those who are really neutral and bring order in chaos.

I wanted to thank Dr. Zuckerman (and a few other powerful editors) for their courage and tenacity to make the Wikipedia article on breast implants as factual as possible. If the industry had their way, Wikipedia would be just another biased PR / advertising tool.

More soon ...


I know people are reading because they are sending me my typos ... that I really appreciate!

It's been a wild couple of weeks since the Supreme Court of California announced their unanimous decision in my favor in what is now known as Barrett Vs Rosenthal on November 20, 2006.

Click here for California Supreme Court documents (opens large pdf file)

The 7 Justices ruled that the re-posting of potentially libelous material on the internet is not actionable.

For the last years, ISP's and bloggers and others have been threatened and been sued for the words of someone else ... and this decision sets precedence behind these types of suits, typically filed to silence critics by intimidating them with expensive, energy consuming litigation.

Further, from the Supreme Court decision, I quote:

As the lower courts correctly concluded, however, none of the hostile comments against Dr. Barrett alleged in the complaint are defamatory.

Almost immediately, their revenge began.


Click here for more on other Barrett quackwatch lawsuits and operations.

From the Electronic Frontier Federation (EFF): California Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Free Speech on the Internet

San Francisco - In what is a victory for free speech on the Internet, the California Supreme Court ruled today that no provider or user of an interactive computer service may be held liable for putting material on the Internet that was written by someone else.

Today's ruling affirms that blogs, websites, listservs, and ISPs like Yahoo!, as well as individuals like defendant Ilena Rosenthal, are protected under Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act (CDA), which explicitly states that "[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."


L.A. Times, November 21, 2006: Ruling limits Internet liability

Excerpt: Rosenthal did not return a call for comment Monday but said on a website that she was gratified by the ruling. She described the litigation as "exhausting" and said it was "intended to silence my voice and exhaust my resources."




The Wikipedia Branch of Barrett's publicists continues to expand.

Who is QuackGuru???

He began posting January 1, 2007, soon after Barrett's loss in the Supreme Court. Immediately (8 seconds later) he connected with Paul Fyslee Lee ... long Barrett's assistant on the Healthfraud list.

They allow none of the facts regarding the many lawsuits Barrett has lost, and since January 20th, are helped by Susan Ferris, aka crohnie or "um mom" on Usenet. She appears to be promoting Pfizer's Celebrex. Together, they remove every reference to me on Wiki, and Susan Ferris promotes Stephen Barrett's publicists as if they were her gods.

Paul Lee, Stephen Barrett, David Gorski, Peter Bowditch and others who have attacked me and others being SLAPP sued by Barrett's Team ... hastily tore down this website after I exposed Paul Lee's tight connection with Barrett. These smear campaigners listed here volunteered to help Barrett's smearing his defendants from 2000 to December, 2006.

Rounding up outlaw 'net quacks since 2000

Click above link to see the three losing plaintiffs, Terry Polevoy, Stephen Barrett, and Christopher Grell teamed with their "rag-tag posse." This team was formed to harass and attack on the internet, we defendants of approximately 40 SLAPP suits filed around the country by the so-called quackbuster team.

While successfully battling the three plaintiffs in various courts in California, on Usenet and Blogs and Lists run by people on this list, have continually waged a defamation campaign ... so ugly, nothing was too personal or too untrue for them to publish.

When I came to Wikipedia ... I was immedately and mercilessly attacked by Paul Lee (aka Fyslee). I had not one moment's or one edit's peace.

Barrett's Rag-tag Posse members such as Paul Lee and Peter Bowditch and others ... have successfully embedded themselves into many layers at Wikipedia.

Lee and Arthur Rubin and others have the audacity to make a Wiki group ... "Wikipedians Who Oppose Quackery" ... nothing more than another biased, subjective, attack article, much like the rest of Barrett & Lee's Attack Websites.

They have made Wikipedia ... Quackwatch Redux.

It is my understanding that in six years of various litigation, they have won none of these suits, designed to waste the resources of the defendants and divert their energies to defending themselves.

One defendant, Dr. Mercola, had two suits filed against him by Barrett ... the first Barrett dropped days before the hearing, causing enormous expense to Dr. Mercola. The second time Barrett sued him, Dr. Mercola settled so that he could continue his work instead of spending his time defending himself. Even after receiving money from Dr. Mercola, Barrett's team continue their vile public attacks on him.

FDA Warning Confirms ADHD Drugs Cause Sudden Death, Heart Attack and Strokes

JAMA refuses to exclude authors who hide financial ties to drug

How Bill Frist and the Drug Lobby Covertly
Bagged a Liability Shield

Monopoly medicine squashes the alternatives

Are Antibiotics Killing Us?

Kids’ Use of Antipsychotic Drugs Rises

Mobile phones tumour risk to young children

Mammograms, X-rays may boost bre ast cancer risk by 250%

Chest X-ray for under 20s may double the risk of breast cancer

Not a PR Job for the Faint of Heart

APCO Worldwide: PR firm for both Merck and Dow Corning

On-line Support Groups / Chat Rooms

Implant Info Net Website & Chatroom

Beth & Kathy's Wonderful Breast Implant Support Group

Silicone Holocaust Chatroom

Saline Support Group


Lany's Prayer & Information Group

Vitamin C treatment shows cancer promise By Sophia Maines

Great video!

Just another Quack List ... the double speak of Paul Lee, aka Fyslee

Strong keep of a very useful list for those who understand the subject matter, and for those who would like to understand it better. For those who choose to feel attacked, well...that's their problem....;-) Fortunately the US courts have even determined that calling someone a "quack" (which isn't being done at all here) is not libelous. So Penn & Teller's "Bullshit!" introduction is no longer accurate. They can now call quacks by their right name. Just because some people dispute the term (and maybe because it is precisely them that do so!) doesn't mean the phemomenon isn't a problem. Empty drums make a lot of noise when touched.... Governments are concerned about quackery, and especially India is plagued by it. Governments have no problem using the word, but of course those who promote and defend it will always object. Such objections are not Wikipedia-legitimate arguments for the disposition of articles or lists even slightly related to the subject. They are merely POV suppression by those who hold strong POV. Such objections are deletionism, not inclusionism, and are designed to prevent one POV from being expressed, while their POV then is allowed to prevail unchecked, for the profit of quacks and scammers. -- Fyslee 20:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)