Le site truthwiki.org est-il sûr ?

Is it really so outlandish that people might take issue with the spurious claims made on this site, that one must assume everyone voicing criticism is on the take? There really are serious issues with the site; a page on the MMR vaccine, for instance, is bog standard anti-vaxxer material, downplaying the risks of serious diseases and parroting long-debunked claims about vaccine side effects.

The corporate trolls are at it again. They must get paid well or they have an army of them or both. Its funny how facts, independent peer-reviewed studies, and the truth scare big corporations so much that they literally pay thousands of people to smear websites that host this information.

All of two (2) people gave this site a negative rating, effectively "torpedoing" the site through the authority they borrow from Web of Trust. But their comments are quite unsubstantiated, as I later discovered when I visited the site for the first time. Having read their comments, my judgment against truthwiki.org was already poisoned against truthwiki. Imagine my surprise when I found truthwiki.org not only made reasonable, fully substantiated criticisms of such corporations as Monsanto, but documented them, as well. This discovery completely turned the tables on the two imposters of negative opinion. who do not bother to substantiate their own charges. Clearly, Web of Trust can be used against itself-- and WOT management should be alert to this possibility. Not too long ago, it turned out that members of one party had used WOT ratings to sabotage a site run by the opposite party, painting it in lurid colors for "deception" and as a site unsafe for children. When Web of Trust is misused in such a manner as this, trust in Web of Trust suffers serious damage. All users of WOT should be ready to read and challenge misstatements of fact used by political and business rivals against other websites. My conclusion-- truthwiki.org, so long as it continues to buttress its statements with a factual basis, deserves to be considered fairly with all other websites. * How interesting that one negative commenter actually singles out the author by name for his charges of deception, a rare case of personal involvement and animus. We might suppose anyone who merely disagreed with the site would disagree, and go on with his life. Which suggests there is more to his negative, but unsubstantiated rating-- perhaps a political or industry rival?