There was a dude that was literally drugged, woke up tied to a bed with a girl on top of him, he ejaculated in her because men really don't have any control over that if you're bouncing on top of them, he told the police about it immediately, the police did nothing, she got pregnant, gave birth, filed for child support, and the courts made him pay for her rape baby.
But my doctor told me that in cases of a true rape, the man's body can prevent the pregnancy.
Seriously though, this needs a citation. I really really want to read about this story.
The Monsanto executive that claimed that vaccines are so safe you could get 10,000 vaccinations in a day. Yet he never accepted bets from a few people to get just 100 or 1000 in a day.
So some guy who is not a doctor, not an expert on vaccines, and not a scientist, says something about vaccines that I can only assume was a gross exaggeration (and obviously untrue), therefore vaccines are bad?
The problem with that is that editing hurts credibility. How do I know that Wikileaks haven't removed even more incriminating information?
Editing wouldn't hurt credibility if they had a specific policy for redacting unrelated private addresses. Even without redactions how do you know they haven't removed entire documents? How do you know they didn't modify them from the original source? They likely publish everything because it reduces their burden and risk. They probably don't have the resources to sift through the materials, and they don't want to have to store the unredacted originals because they would now be a target for those who want more information.
"Religion is something left over from the infancy of our intelligence, it will fade away as we adopt reason and science as our guidelines." -- Bertrand Russell