How about you go down the list step by step and actually debunk the claims instead of claiming the source is not reliable. What is actually wrong in that articl

How about you go down the list step by step and actually debunk the claims instead of claiming the source is not reliable. What is actually wrong in that article? Clap Clap you read a Wikipedia Article. Yes I trust Michael Adams with a lot of stuff, not everything. Yes I am a horrible anti-waxxer anti GMO who dares to believe that natural healthy lifestyle is better that taking a lot of chemicals sold by big Pharma. And yes I am also a "conspiracy theorist" (CIA invented term to shut down opposition after the JFK assassination) Nobody in their right minds can believe their magic bullet lone wolf assassin fairytale, and in fact about around 50% of Americans do not. I am actually well educated on many topics that Natural News covers and mainly not from Natural News, still coming to the same conclusions. On the German Wikipedia they have a lot of defamatory Articles about people who dare to question the status quo. They refuse to let up edit the Articles objectively and it has been proven that the admins, the top 200 of Wikipedias Editors and Admins are in fact organized in various radical leftists organizations. And that they abuse their power and are anything but unbiased.