"

 Reply to your question 

I'm curious as to why you (Mister Hospodar) conclude that everyone who disagrees with you (that is, everyone you've encountered on Wikipedia thus far) must be part of a nefarious conspiracy, and why they must be ""paid"" by their ""bosses"" to ""police"" these articles. Leaving aside the various behavioral policies violated by such repetitive accusations, do you think alternate explanations are possible, if not likely? For example, is it possible that people edit these articles out of a desire to create a serious, respectable reference work - one that treats discredited claims honestly as discredited claims, rather creating a false impression of ongoing scientific debate? Could these nefarious editors possibly be motivated to contribute their free time to ensure that potentially important medical information here accurately reflects the knowledge of scholars and experts in the field? MastCell Talk 

In reply to the above question, I will state that NO, there is no other possible explanation for editors who take down within 30 minutes any edits that disagree with their agenda without considering the logic or validity of these edits, many of which edits greatly improve the articles in question; whose arguments funnel always into the same tired arguments and bullying, all of which adhere to a fixed political agenda and specific types of censorship; who are on call seemingly 24 hours a day for years to revert any edit which they think is damning to their agenda; who spend countless hours creating specious, illogical arguments and trying the time-worn tactic of  invalidating their ""opponents"" with name-calling and fringe accusations; who ridicule and demean everyone, including established scientists, who disagree with their agenda; who are clearly not clever or informed enough to be operating on their own, say, as AIDS scientists or researchers who merely want to help the world with their knowledge; and who police a number of pages all related to the concerns of pharmaceutical companies, slamming alternative therapies and spreading disinformation about diseases. If your bosses at big pharma are reading this, they should know that you're not doing a very good job of hiding any of this.   "