04 August 2023

Covid cover-up: Wuhan lab leak suspicions, Anthony Fauci and how the science was silenced

Dr Anthony Fauci: “This was a reputational risk to him and his ­institute,” says Dr Robert Kadlec, Fauci’s boss.
     America’s top infectious diseases adviser, Anthony Fauci, delib­erately decided to downplay ­suspicions from scientists that Covid-19 came from a laboratory to protect his reputation and deflect from the risky coronavirus research his agency had funded, according to his boss, one of the most senior US health officials during the pandemic.

In an exclusive interview, Robert Kadlec – former assistant secretary for preparedness and response at the US Department of Health – told The Weekend Australian that he, Dr Fauci and National Institutes of Health director Francis Collins privately discussed how to “turn down the temperature” on accusations against China in the early days of the pandemic while they were trying to encourage Beijing to co-operate and share a sample of the virus.

But the senior US health official – who worked for George W. Bush and Donald Trump and went on to lead American efforts to develop a Covid-19 vaccine – said Dr Fauci mostly kept his knowledge of virologists’ concerns about a lab leak from Wuhan to himself.

The Weekend Australian revealed in 2021 that the National Institutes of Health and other US agencies funded 65 scientific ­projects at the Wuhan Institute of Virology over the past decade, many involving risky research on bat coronaviruses.

Vaccine ­research was the proximate cause’

Dr Kadlec’s comments give the closest insight to date on how Dr Fauci – who led coronavirus policy for two presidents and influenced the worldwide ­approach to the pandemic – handled the link between Covid-19 and China. They came as US congressional investigations in the past month revealed how scientists worked to silence concerns about a lab leak.

“I think Tony Fauci was ­trying to protect his institution and his own reputation from the possibility that his agency was funding the Wuhan ­Institute of Virology researchers who, beyond the scope of the grants received from the ­National Institutes of Health, may have been working with People’s Liberation Army researchers on defensive coronavirus vaccines,” Dr Kadlec said.

“I think it’s evident from his later released emails (obtained via Freedom of Information requests) that he had more sense of what his institute had funded at that moment. This was a reputational risk to him and his ­institute and certainly he probably sided with the international scientists that ­believed that false or unsubstantiated accusations could have a chilling effect on scientific collaboration between the western world and China.”

Dr Robert Kadlec, right, and Dr Fauci testify before a Senate Health Committee hearing on the US response to Covid on Capitol Hill on March 3, 2020.

Dr Kadlec, in his first ever media interview, added: “We think vaccine research resulted in the pandemic – that vaccine ­research was the proximate cause.”

In an extraordinary admission, Dr Kadlec said they decided to try to encourage a group of leading international scientists to calm down speculation on the origins of the virus.

The scientists held a phone call on February 1, 2020, in which they discussed concerns that SARS-CoV-2 looked like it may have been genetically engineered.

“When we talked about this in advance of that call, he (Fauci) would just try and see if he could get the scientists to take the temperature down, turn the rhetoric down. to at least find, we’re going to look into this but we don’t know,” Dr Kadlec said.

As both Mr Bush’s biodefence adviser and Mr Trump’s assistant health secretary for preparedness, Dr Kadlec has decades of experience in fighting public health crises. He created Operation Warp Speed, the plan to accelerate the development of a Covid-19 ­vaccine, and is credited for leading the push to vaccinate Americans. In 2018, he warned Congress the US was ill-prepared for a pandemic.

‘Turn the temperature down’

Dr Kadlec’s personal approach was to ask the National Academy of Sciences in late January 2020, to formally examine the sequence of SARS-CoV-2, to understand its origin. But publicly, he felt it was important to achieve co-operation from China from a public health perspective. Beijing had not yet shared a sample of the virus, critical for developing an effective vaccine.

“We decided to engage our national experts to look at this, the National Academy of Sciences,” he said. “It would take time to figure out what was going on. We were trying to prevent people from saying this was a bioweapon when we didn’t really know. That was my intent. It was Dr Fauci’s idea to see if he could get international scientists to examine the origins in a similar fashion. The object was to prevent speculation and turn the temperature down. There was something that could be said to turn the temperature of rhetoric down and avoid the wild speculation, of a bioweapon, that had already started at that point in time.”

That phone call was at the instigation of Dr Fauci after he spoke with scientist Kristian Andersen who expressed concern that SARS-Cov-2 may have been genetically engineered, because of its unusual features. In an email, Dr Andersen said “some of the features (potentially) look engineered” and several leading virologists “all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory.”

Media-link

'New crucial witness': How did the pandemic start?

Dr Kadlec said Dr Fauci kept these suspicions, privately expressed by leading virologists that the virus had been engineered in a laboratory, mostly to himself.

The full extent of those suspicions is now laid bare in emails subpoenaed by US congress and published in recent weeks. In those emails, some scientists discussed the “shit show” that would eventuate if anyone serious accused China of, even accidentally, starting the pandemic. They also discussed the impact such an accusation would have on scientific research and international relations. But, publicly, they insisted the possibility of an inadvertent laboratory leak was a conspiracy and authored a paper published in Nature Medicine, that argued SARS-Cov-2 was almost certainly a natural virus. Dr Kadlec acknowledges the power of that paper, titled the Proximal Origins of SARS-CoV-2, as becoming the official word that a laboratory leak was a conspiracy theory.

“Their paper did result in casting the die for what would then be the international scientific response going forward,” he said.

“I found it really odd that in light of the now revealed private musings of some of the scientists indicated the sequence looked unusual, that the authors decided to draft a letter as an opinion piece.

“Many people were confused or mistaken by what they wrote as more of a peer-reviewed paper.”

Wuhan ‘fingerprints’

Dr Kadlec accused the scientists of having personal agendas that might have influenced their decision to author a paper that suggested a laboratory leak was a conspiracy theory. “Their initial opinion was likely shaded by their personal professional equities or the belief that what was going on in the US – statements by political leaders- could be problematic for world relations for China but also their professional interests in science,” he said.

Dr Kadlec alluded to the febrile political atmosphere in the US under Mr Trump as a likely influence on the scientists, although the scientists’ deliberations began in late January, and the former president did not make any public comment about a potential laboratory origin of Covid-19 until April.

The P4 laboratory on the campus of the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China.

The authors of the Proximal Origins paper have argued in the media and congressional hearings that later virus research had led them to scotch their first fears of a lab leak – and to conclude instead that the origins of Covid-19 were zoonotic: i.e. the virus had been passed from animal to human, possibly via a Wuhan wet market.

However, new emails and posts over the Slack messaging platform that have surfaced in recent weeks pinpoint the ­moment this group began steering world attention away from the Wuhan lab. It was not months, or even weeks, but within days and hours of their realisation that the virus may contain “fingerprints” that connected it to the Wuhan ­Institute of Virology. The scientists are facing allegations that they embarked on a campaign of subterfuge that has rocked Washington.

’Blueprint for Covid-19’

Dr Kadlec has now spent a year and a half formally investigating the origins of the pandemic, putting together an A and B team to gather evidence for both a natural and laboratory origin respectively.

Gain-of-function research was banned by the Obama administration but lifted during the Trump era. Dr Kadlec says this was at the behest of the NIH. “Francis Collins and Fauci both had a similar world view which was scientists know best and there should be few restrictions on research,” he said.

The Wuhan Institute of Virology and EcoHealth Alliance drew up a proposal for grant funding for coronavirus research, which international scientists now believe could be the “blueprint” of Covid-19. Dr Kadlec chaired a committee to authorise whether gain-of-function could proceed. The proposal from the Wuhan institute was bouncing around US Government agencies, in search of funding, but it never went through his committee. “It shows you the fallibility or vulnerability of the oversight system,” he said.

Dr Fauci has denied his agency funded gain-of-function research, but Dr Kadlec said this wasn’t true. “It’s evident NIH supported research that has the potential for, and it at least one case resulted in gain of function,” he said.

02 August 2023

The Palestine Laboratory - How Israel exports the technology of occupation around the world

‘A sad and sordid record of how “the light unto the nations” became the purveyor of the means of violence and brutal repression from Guatemala to Myanmar and wherever else the opportunity arose.’

Noam Chomsky

On Tuesday 4 July the Australian Institute of International Affairs NSW hosted an address by Antony Loewenstein, author and political analyst, on the Israeli government’s use of its presence in Palestine to develop an international market in surveillance technology. As background, Loewenstein observed that, when he was growing up in Melbourne in the years after World War II, Israel was seen as deserving unqualified support: Israel, Zionism and Judaism had been seen as pretty much the same thing. But there was now increasing scrutiny among Jews of what is happening in Palestine under Israeli occupation. In his view, the existence of a Jewish state discriminates, by definition, against non-Jews. Media coverage, nevertheless, continued to simplify the situation as a two-way battle between Israelis and Palestinians.


Since its establishment, Israel (as detailed in his recently-published book The Palestine Laboratory) had been occupying increasing areas of Palestine and in that time had developed a range of tools and technologies for maintaining the occupation – “smart walls”, facial recognition, biometric data – designed to control and divide Palestinians. Technology such as Pegasus spyware, manufactured by the Israeli NSO group, was now exported throughout the world; it enabled governments to control mobile phones, emails and photos. And this was the tip of the iceberg. Israel had battle-tested these new technologies on its five million Palestinian captive population. Palestinians were powerless in this situation to affect Israel’s role: they were notionally governed by the corrupt Palestinian Authority but real power lay with the Israeli occupiers.

Israel had been an arms exporter to apartheid South Africa until its collapse in 1994. Today, Israel exports surveillance equipment and armaments to a large range of countries, many with dodgy human rights records – Rwanda, Myanmar, Saudi Arabia. It supplied surveillance technology to India, self-described as the world’s biggest democracy but in fact increasingly an ethnocentric dictatorship favouring the Hindu ascendancy and looking to Israel‘s role in Palestine as a model for India’s role in Kashmir and elsewhere.

Israel supplied drones to the EU to combat refugee movements over the Mediterranean, which is increasingly leading to drownings (with diminishing rescue attempts). Israeli surveillance towers had been installed on the US-Mexican border for “security” – essentially to combat unauthorised migration; this had been unchanged under the Biden presidency. These towers had first been tested in Palestine.

Israeli Celebrite phone hacking technology was increasingly employed by Australian police and government authorities for surveillance of private citizens. The normalisation of surveillance was now almost complete, with bipartisan support in such countries as Australia and the US,  and was little reported on by the media. Nazi and far-right movements in Europe – traditionally anti-Jewish – were admirers of Israel’s ethno-nationalism as applied in Palestine.

In response to audience questions and comments, Loewenstein said that the incoming Albanese government’s electoral commitment to recognising Palestine could imply recognition of the deeply-flawed Palestinian Authority, but would be a supportive gesture towards Palestinians. The government’s return to abstaining on UN resolutions critical of Israel (rather than opposing them) and to supporting a two-state solution was welcome.

But Australia (he said) should do more on human rights issues arising with Israel’s occupation. There is a marked lack of independence in Australian policy, with Australia generally reluctant to go beyond US policy lines, in relation to Israel as on other issues. There were signs of changing opinion in the younger populations of the US and Europe, turning against uncritical support and financing of Israel. Israeli public opinion, however, still showed little recognition of Israel’s practices in Palestine, marked by ethnic cleansing ever since 1948. The dominant perception of Palestinians among Israelis was as a threat. This was reinforced by Israelis’ experience of military service in the occupation.

Loewenstein saw little hope of a Mandela or a Ghandi arising among the Palestinians: if anything their commitment to armed resistance had grown under the continuing Israeli violence.

Asked if there were countries to which Israel would not sell security equipment, Loewenstein said the list was small: Iran, Syria and North Korea. (The picture was opaque with China and Russia.) This was an important means of achieving Israel’s international influence: Israel fully realised that weapons and spyware were of such fundamental importance that most governments were prepared to mute any criticism of Israeli behaviour as an implicit part of the deal.

Asked if Australia’s foreign influence legislation – which clearly targeted China – should be applied to Israel, Lowenstein outlined the extent of Israeli “soft power” diplomacy in Australia. Along with the US and Taiwan, Israel was the lead sponsor of visits by politicians and journalists. The Israeli lobby’s influence with the media was pervasive. There should be more accountability of these practices. In this context, he was critical of legislation in the US and Britain forbidding authorities such as local governments from banning purchases of Israeli products.

Antony Loewenstein (right) with AIIA NSW councillor, Ralph Housego
Source:AIIA.

31 July 2023

The Israeli Company Hacking Into Your Locked Mobile Phone

The use of military grade spyware by Australian government departments means our most personal data stored on our mobile phones – from financial details, contacts, and private photos, to an archive of messages and movements – is no longer secret.

The Israeli surveillance company Cellebrite's forensic tool, Universal Forensic Extraction Device (UFED), is used to crack mobile phones across the world. (Photo: Cellebrite)

From the provision of spyware and equipment, to electronic hardware and training programs, Israeli technology company Cellebrite is an integral part of Australia’s security infrastructure. 

A look at the AusTender website, where federal government contracts are listed, details 128 contracts between Australian government agencies and the Israeli company since 2011. 

Cellebrite is an Israeli digital intelligence company, staffed by former Israeli military and intelligence officers, that is now commonly used by law enforcement across the globe to hack and access data –  yet barely anybody in the public has heard of it. 

During the writing of my new book, The Palestine Laboratory, it was a firm that featured heavily. The most infamous Cellebrite spyware tool, the Universal Forensics Extraction Device (UFED), has been deployed by some of the most repressive states in the world, such as Russia and China, and across virtually all levels of the US government. A former Cellebrite employee wrote in 2021 that the company did nothing to stop the abuse of its products and was happy to sell them to the worst offenders on the planet. 

In Australia, Cellebrite is rarely in the headlines. The company enjoys little scrutiny, apart from recent stories in iTnews and the Guardian, detailing how Services Australia is using Cellebrite spyware to pursue alleged welfare fraud by cracking into individuals’ locked mobile phones. The hacking technology was allegedly used against a woman receiving single parent payments to determine if she had been in a relationship at the time. Although no charges were ever laid, the woman was chased for repayments. 

The range of Australian government departments now using Cellebrite’s unique phone spying abilities, from the Australian Tax Office to the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission to the Department of Home Affairs the home of ASIO, as well as Services Australia, shows that the corporation’s troubling record and accuracy across the globe has had no impact on it being able to secure contracts in Australia.

The history of Cellebrite and its role as an unaccountable arm of the Israeli state is detailed in this edited extract from my new book, The Palestine Laboratory.

The Palestine Laboratory: How Israel Exports The Technology Of Occupation Around The World is published by Scribe

It is not only NSO Group that’s causing harm around the globe. Cellebrite is another Israeli company that works with repressive states and yet it has received far less criticism. It is hard to know exactly why it has escaped NSO’s notoriety, but perhaps it’s because Cellebrite prefers to operate under the radar with its phone hacking capabilities or because NSO’s alliance with despots has uniquely captured the attention of researchers and media outlets that often fail to make the necessary ties to the Israeli state. “Cellebrite sells equipment to hack phones from short distance and NSO Group from long distance, but the effect is the same for activists,” Israeli human rights lawyer Eitay Mack told me.

Founded in the 1990s, Cellebrite started out as a consumer technology firm but by the 2010s was deep into the surveillance business and mobile phone hacking because it saw the potential of huge profits from working with law enforcement officials around the world. In late 2021, Cellebrite launched a large-scale PR campaign called “Heroes behind the Heroes,” featuring online ads and physical billboards that promoted the essential work being performed by their “digital intelligence solutions” in police forces around the globe.

Unsurprisingly, the PR blitz was selective about what services Cellebrite offered and who these advertisements were intended to influence. In 2022 Eitay Mack wrote to the company and Israel’s Defense Ministry to remind it where Cellebrite equipment had ended up, including Russia, where journalists are pursued, and the Philippines, where countless reporters were murdered during the reign of President Rodrigo Duterte.

The Australian Federal Police Commander signed over two Cellebrite machines to the Royal PNG Police Commissioner in June 2022 as part of the PNG-Australia Policing Partnership. (Photo: Australian High Commission PNG)

Neither the Israeli government nor Cellebrite could claim ignorance of what might happen to sophisticated surveillance gear in the hands of autocrats. There is a published photograph of Cellebrite employees meeting Duterte in 2018 and admitting that the corporation had trained a range of public bodies, some of whom were directly complicit in the murder of thousands of Filipinos during Duterte’s brutal “war on drugs.” When challenged on its complicity, Cellebrite told Haaretz that it had “strict oversight mechanisms” over its sales. It was a statement that was remarkably similar to NSO’s when pushed on its international relations.

The countries where Cellebrite surveillance tech has been used against critics, journalists, dissidents, or human rights workers include Botswana, Vietnam, Bangladesh, and Uganda. This includes the Universal Forensic Extraction Device (UFED) hacking tool, which allows the extraction of information from mobile phones.

In Bangladesh the hardware was used by the Rapid Action Battalion, a notorious paramilitary unit, which has been accused of extrajudicial killings and disappearances. When this connection was exposed in 2021, the company quickly announced that sales to Bangladesh were being suspended, though it was likely Bangladesh could still use the tech that had already been acquired.

Furthermore, Cellebrite said it would establish an advisory committee to ensure that “ethical considerations” were prioritized moving forward. Once again, Cellebrite used the same PR-driven tactic employed by NSO. Bangladesh has no formal ties with the Israeli government, but this did not stop Israeli intelligence experts from training Bangladeshi officers during a four-day event on the outskirts of Budapest, Hungary, in 2019. The Ethiopian federal police use Cellebrite products despite the government’s mass detention of minorities and repression of dissidents, journalists and activists.

Ethiopian police officers display Cellebrite’s UFED system. (Photo: Ethiopian federal police Facebook page)

Like NSO, Cellebrite resists media scrutiny. According to reporting in Haaretz, the Israeli Defense Ministry does not oversee Cellebrite sales because its products are somehow classified as dual-use civilian services and not a security-related export, a definition that therefore allows Cellebrite to operate in dozens of countries with no serious Israeli oversight.

The company has never had problems getting high-paying clients. Over 2,800 US government customers, including law enforcement agencies, including the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, and the Department of Agriculture, have purchased the company’s equipment, and the firm has hired prosecutors, police officers, and Secret Service agents to train people to use it. 

The company has announced that it has secured business with six of the world’s biggest oil refiners and six of the planet’s largest pharmaceutical firms. It has also moved into the increasingly profitable field of corporate surveillance. Elsewhere, Cellebrite systems were purchased around 2015 by the Venezuelan government amid allegations that it was used by the regime to target dissidents.

However, bad press has nevertheless sometimes impacted the company’s reach. The corporation said that it would no longer sell its UFED to Russia and Belarus after Eitay Mack revealed in court documents in 2021 that it had been used to surveil gay activists and opposition figures in both nations, including an associate of Russian political dissident Alexei Navalny and critics of Belarussian dictator Alexander Lukashenko.

In 2021 the company claimed to have withdrawn from activities in China and Hong Kong, but the Intercept later discovered that the brokers who had sold Cellebrite were still selling its hacking technology to Chinese police on the mainland and in Tibet. Human rights groups posited that the company was cutting official ties with some repressive states because it went public on the Nasdaq market in 2021 and wanted to leave controversy behind.

But doing that was not so easy. Cellebrite had sold its tools to Indonesia, a Muslim nation with no diplomatic relations with Israel, and the country had used them to target political opponents and activists, including in West Papua, as well as members of the gay community who used dating apps such as Grindr. Saudi Arabia was also a willing customer even after its 2018 assassination of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

In a 2020 interview, Cellebrite CEO Yossi Carmil rejected any suggestion that his firm was similar to NSO because what his company did was “very limited in its authority, unlike the world of the clients of NSO and others, where illegal things as well as covert things are done. Cellebrite is entirely in the good zone, with judicial orders. We don’t create hacking devices for private entities or espionage agencies.”

Upturn, a nonprofit in Washington, found in 2020 that Cellebrite tech was used frequently by US law enforcement to hack into smartphones, allegedly to fight crime. At least forty-nine out of the fifty biggest police department had used the tool to investigate crimes such as shoplifting, rape, and murder. Encrypted smartphones are routinely and successfully broken into with Cellebrite tech; Upturn found that it had been done hundreds of thousands of times between 2015 and 2020.

Like NSO, Cellebrite operates in nations that have friendly relations with Israel and in those with whom there’s little to no official diplomacy, on the basis that cyberweapons sales do not need to respect these niceties. Ethical considerations are not a factor in Israeli government decision-making.

 “It was amazing that Cellebrite wasn’t worried about US sanctions on countries like Russia and China and were still happy to sell equipment to Moscow and Beijing,” Eitay Mack told me, “but only when there was publicity against them they reacted and canceled contracts in both countries.”

The advantage for Israel, Mack said, is that “while it will be hard for Israel to sell Israeli guns or weapons that can be identified [as happened for decades before the cyber age], Israeli surveillance is different” and less identifiable as originating in Israel.

A former Cellebrite employee, previously a member of the defense establishment, wrote anonymously in Haaretz that “I can say from personal experience that the company does nothing to prevent the abuse of its products by customers.” The reason repressive states want Israeli tech, whether from Cellebrite or NSO, is simple: China and other states make “inferior alternatives.”

Extract from “The Palestine Laboratory: How Israel Exports The Technology Of Occupation Around The World”, published by Scribe and available now.

Source:Declassified Australia 



29 July 2023

Israeli spyware used to hack across 10 countries, Microsoft and watchdog say

The entrance to an office listed as belonging to Quadream is seen in a high rise building in Ramat Gan, Israel, January 25, 2022. REUTERS/Nir Elias

April 11 (Reuters) - An Israeli firm's hacking tools have been used against journalists, opposition figures and advocacy organizations across at least 10 countries - including people in North America and Europe - according to new research published Tuesday by Microsoft Corp (MSFT.O) and the internet watchdog Citizen Lab.

Citizen Lab said in its report that it had been able to identify a handful of civil society victims whose iPhones had been hacked using surveillance software developed by the Israeli company, QuaDream Ltd - a lower-profile competitor to the Israeli spyware company NSO Group, which has been blacklisted by the U.S. government over allegations of abuse.

In its report published at the same time, Microsoft said it believed with "high confidence" that the spyware was "strongly linked to QuaDream."

In a statement, Microsoft Associate General Counsel Amy Hogan-Burney said that mercenary hacking groups like QuaDream "thrive in the shadows" and that publicly outing them was "essential to stopping this activity."

Israeli lawyer Vibeke Dank, whose email was listed on QuaDream's corporate registration form, did not return a message seeking comment. Repeated attempts by Reuters to reach QuaDream over the past year - including a visit to the company’s office outside Tel Aviv - have been unsuccessful.

Reuters reported in 2022 that QuaDream had previously developed a no-interaction-needed hacking tool similar to the programs deployed by NSO. Such hacking tools, known as "zero-click," are particularly prized by cybercriminals, spies, and law enforcement because they can remotely compromise devices without an owner needing to open a malicious link or download a tainted attachment.

NSO did not immediately return a message seeking comment.

Neither Citizen Lab nor Microsoft identified the targets of QuaDream's software, but the allegation could still be damaging for the firm.

The reports come on the heels of an announced crackdown on the international spyware industry by U.S. President Joe Biden. Last month, the White House announced an executive order intended to curb the purchase of surveillance software by U.S. agencies if the programs are also being used by repressive governments abroad.

The White House did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment.

Unlike NSO, which regularly briefed journalists amid allegations of abuse, QuaDream has kept a lower profile. The company has no website touting its business and employees have been told to keep any reference to their employer off social media, Reuters has previously reported.

Source:Reuters.


27 July 2023

Freedom of Information Act - Moderna, Pfizer


As a result of Defending the Republic’s (DTR) successful Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation against the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), we are excited to announce that we are releasing nearly 15,000 pages of documents relating to testing and adverse events associated with Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine “Spikevax.”

DTR filed its FOIA lawsuit after the FDA denied the expedited production of Moderna COVID-19 records, stating there was no compelling need or urgency for the public to review this information. This spring, DTR reached an agreement with the FDA for the production of approximately 24,000 pages of some of the most important records submitted by Moderna in support of its Biologics License Application (BLA). This is the first part of that production. Later this year the FDA will produce approximately 8,000 more pages of Moderna documents.

These documents are the first significant release of data from Moderna’s COVID-19 clinical trials. They reveal the causes of deaths, serious adverse events, and instances of neurological disorders (such as Bell’s Palsy and Shingles) potentially associated with Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine.

Importantly, these records also demonstrate the utter lack of thoroughness of these studies. Many of those who died after receiving the Moderna vaccine were not given an autopsy. According to one study, 16 individuals died after being administered the Moderna vaccine.  The study’s authors indicated that out of those 16 deaths, only two autopsies were performed, five of the dead were not autopsied, and the autopsy status of nine of the dead was “unknown”.

See documents within the post:

https://defendingtherepublic.org/moderna/

25 July 2023

Google guilty of ad-fraud against its customers including NYTimes, Reuters, Wired, Mashable and Gizmodo

Did Google mislead advertisers about TrueView skippable in-stream ads for the past three years?

This report finds that advertisers including Fortune 500 brands, the US federal government, and many small businesses may have been misled for years about Google’s proprietary TrueView skippable in-stream video ads. This misalignment may have cost media buyers up to billions of digital ad dollars, which were ultimately spent on small, muted, out-stream, auto-playing or interstitial video ad units running on independent websites and mobile apps.

TrueView is Google's “proprietary cost-per-view, choice-based ad format that serves on YouTube, millions of apps, and across the web.” With TrueView, advertisers only pay “for actual views of their ads, rather than impressions.” TrueView asks users if they want to skip the video ad after 5 seconds with a visual prompt. Google’s policies state that TrueView ads must be skippable, audible, and playing of the video (and ad) cannot be solely initiated by passive user scrolling.

However, this research report finds that for years, significant quantities of TrueView skippable in-stream ads, purchased by many different brands and media agencies, appear to have been served on hundreds of thousands of websites and apps in which the consumer experience did not meet Google’s stated quality standards. For example, many TrueView in-stream ads were served muted and auto-playing as out-stream video or as obscured video players on independent sites. Often, there was little to no organic video media content between ads, the video units simply played ads only. 


For a major infrastructure brand, only ~16% of their TrueView skippable in-stream video ad budget was spent on YouTube.com or YouTube’s apps. The majority of their budget was spent on tens of thousands of different websites or mobile apps which make up the Google Video Partner (GVP) network. The majority of those GVP mobile apps and websites served the TrueView skippable in-stream video ads in outstream, muted, auto-playing, interstitial, and/or non-visible ad slots - which are inconsistent with the TrueView or skippable in-stream ad format.

Adalytics shared examples of these TrueView skippable in-stream placements with advertisers and media buyers. Several dozen marketers stated that they would not have purchased this TrueView skippable in-stream inventory running on 3rd party environments, if this fact was clearly explained to them in advance. Marketers also shared that they did not expect or want video ads to be run muted, and doing so was contrary to their understanding of TrueView. 

Critically, Youtube and Google’s own policies state that TrueView in-stream ads must be skippable, audible, and initiated by viewer action. TrueView in-stream ad placement reports from brands and advertisers - including Fortune 500 brands - showed that in some ad campaigns, between 42 to 75% of TrueView in-stream ad spend was allocated to GVP sites and apps which did not meet Google’s standards. 

Many media buyers were surprised to learn that the majority of their ad budgets against a so-called “walled garden” environment was spent on muted, auto-playing video ads on third party websites such as lebanonfiles.com and freewebnovel.com, or on foreign-developed Android mobile gaming apps for toddlers.

null

Screenshot of a YouTube TrueView ad for americanexpress.com, served in a muted, out-stream, auto-playing video player on a 3rd party website.

Many TrueView skippable “in-stream” ads that Adalytics reviewed were delivered on sites and apps in which the ads were rendered in a method that violates Google’s own definitions of in-stream. Specifically, ads were placed on pages with such characteristics as

  • in small, out-stream video players in the corner or side of the consumer’s device viewport

  • in a fully muted video player

  • with little to no video content in between consecutive TrueView ads

  • where the video ads auto-play without any viewer interaction or initiation

  • the ads played continuously, on a loop

One digital advertising professional who was shown an advanced copy of this report said “repackaging shitty, brand-unsafe outstream as instream is a big problem.” The professional further stated “that seems like a fraud”.

In some instances, multiple TrueView skippable in-stream ads were rendered on a consumer’s device at the same time. Other examples include TrueView skippable in-stream ads that were served “stacked” on top of another “in-stream” ad. Furthermore, in some instances, the “Skip” button from the video ad was hidden or obscured outside the user’s viewport, making it impossible for the consumer to “choose to skip” the video ads after 5 seconds, forcing the user to experience the ad – a direct violation of Google’s quality standards for TrueView ads. This may have artificially inflated TrueView skippable in-stream ad video completion rates, possibly resulting in higher costs for Google’s advertisers. 

Screenshot of a JPMorgan Chase TrueView skippable in-stream video ad serving on a 3rd party website, in a muted, auto-play, partially obscured video player that is covered by another ad.

Multiple Kayak.de TrueView skippable in-stream video ads being served on dostor.org, with both video ads playing in a muted, auto-play state.

Another media buyer who received an advanced copy of this research told Adalytics:

“Nobody goes to walled gardens like YouTube to run on audience networks which all have the same crappy inventory. This is a method for YouTube and Google to extract more budget and manufacture scale in a way that is palatable to the advertiser because they don’t fully understand it.”

Brands that may have purchased muted, auto-playing, mis-declared TrueView skippable in-stream inventory include:

  1. The Wall Street Journal (owned by Dow Jones & Company, a division of News Corp)

  2. The United States federal government, including the Department of Health & Human Services (Medicare, Army, Social Security Administration)

  3. The European Parliament

  4. Johnson & Johnson

  5. The New York City municipal government (nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor)

  6. HP

  7. Ernst & Young

  8. Bayer

  9. Newark, Delaware Police Department (joinnewarkpd.com)

  10. The Dutch military cyber defense forces (werkenbijdefensie.nl/burgermedewerker/ict)

  11. JPMorgan Chase Bank

  12. American Express

  13. Public Service Alliance of Canada

  14. Alberta New Democratic Party

  15. National Volunteer Fire Council

  16. Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) (edf.giftplans.org)

  17. Samsung

  18. Empower Annuity Insurance Company of America

  19. Sephora

  20. Macy’s

  21. Disney Plus

  22. Best Buy

  23. Mercedes-Benz

  24. General Motors

  25. Office Depot

  26. Pizza Hut

  27. Microsoft

  28. Instacart

  29. IBM (Redhat)

  30. Ford

  31. Honda

  32. Vimeo

  33. HBO Max (owned by Warner Bros. Discovery)

  34. Novo Nordisk

  35. Intuit (owner of Quickbooks)

  36. The North Face

  37. Columbia (sportswear company)

  38. Volkswagen

  39. Abbott Laboratories (pediasure.ca)

  40. Petco

  41. cerebral.com

  42. servicetitan.com

  43. Google (Google Career Certificates and Google Workspace Domains)

  44. McDonald’s

  45. ​​Hyatt Hotels Corporation

  46. Lavazza

  47. Siemens

  48. Alberta Blue Cross Plan

  49. California Science and Technology University

  50. Edgewell Personal Care (owner of Schick razors)

  51. Enterprise Rent-A-Car

  52. Rocket Mortgage

  53. Church & Dwight (OxiClean)

  54. National Geographic

  55. American Committee for the Weizmann Institute of Science (weizmann-usa.org)

  56. Aflac Inc. (American Family Life Assurance Company)

  57. XM.com (trading name of Trading Point Holdings Ltd.)

  58. Wolters Kluwer

  59. Virgin Voyages

  60. Aeroméxico (aeromexico.com)

  61. Paramount Plus

  62. Lacoste

  63. James Hardie Industries

  64. Western Union

  65. National Harbor (nationalharbor.com) - from the Maryland Office of Tourism (visitmaryland.org)

  66. Ebay

  67. Klaviyo

  68. Okta

  69. Zillow

  70. St. George’s University

  71. Cisco

  72. Hyundai

  73. Mazda

  74. Notion (notion.so)

  75. Subaru

  76. Consumer Cellular

  77. Fandango (fandango.com)

  78. Michigan Economic Development Corporation (michigan.org)

  79. Tourism Nova Scotia (planyournovascotia.com)

  80. Kayak.com

  81. etoro.com

  82. Royal Dutch Gazelle bikes

  83. Terminix Pest Control & Termite Treatment

  84. Canadaisthesolution.com (Canadian Energy Centre Ltd)

  85. FreeTaxUsa.com

  86. Squarespace.com

  87. hotjar.com

  88. Carrefour

  89. Olt.com

  90. Netgear

  91. The Federalist Society

  92. Quirion AG

  93. MyFundedFX

  94. Scholastic Corporation

  95. Adobe

  96. Miele (domestic appliances)

  97. Hertz

  98. Bosch

  99. Vimeo

  100. Plaid

  101. Hollister

  102. TikTok

  103. United Wholesale Mortgage

  104. Indeed.com (jobs website)

  105. Bellroy (Australian accessories brand)

  106. Fiverr

  107. Tommy John

  108. Micro Focus International Plc

  109. NewRelic

  110. sitechange.com

  111. vda-global.lilisi.com

  112. Comarch

  113. Circa Resort & Casino Las Vegas (circalasvegas.com)

  114. Dyson

  115. Beliani

  116. Semrush

  117. McCain Foods

  118. Expedia, Vrbo, and hotels.com

  119. kodiakcakes.com

  120. tablethotels.com

  121. Pancreatic Cancer Action Network (PAN)

  122. Grammarly

  123. GrubHub

  124. Allbirds

  125. Bristol Myers Squibb

  126. Pfizer

  127. Haleon (formerly GSK Consumer Healthcare)

  128. Athletic Greens

  129. Fever-Tree

  130. KitchenAid (American home appliance brand owned by Whirlpool Corporation)

  131. Doptelet (AkaRx, Inc)

The list of media agencies and media buying companies that appeared to have transacted muted, auto-playing, out-stream TrueView ads include:

  1. Interpublic Group (Matterkind, Initiative, Mediabrands)

  2. Dentsu (Amnet)

  3. Publicis (Audience on Demand, Precision)

  4. Omnicom (Accuen)

  5. WPP (Xaxis, Headlight, Essence)

  6. Havas (Affiperf)

  7. Jellyfish

  8. Brain Labs Digital

  9. Horizon Media (Canvas WorldWide)

  10. MiQ

This mis-declared TrueView in-stream inventory has been observed going back as far as 2020.

Google was observed serving brands’ TrueView ads on websites that have had tens of thousands of copyright violation takedown requests filed against them (potential “piracy sites”), raising possible brand safety concerns and questions about the validity of Google’s TAG Certification and MRC Brand Safety accreditation.

According to Google’s stated policies, Google complies with valid copyright requests and frequently delists content as a result of copyright infringements. However, it appears Google permits repeated infringement offenders to continue monetizing their content through TrueView ads. 

Furthermore, Google was observed delivering thousands of TrueView ads to declared bots running out of Google Cloud data center servers. YouTube has not allowed independent 3rd party measurement and verification tags to be applied to its ad inventory since 2016.

Fortune 500 brands’ TrueView skippable in-stream ads were reported as being delivered on Russian websites, including “pravda.ru” - a website which has been characterized as “being a tool of the Russian state” and has been cited by NewsGuard as “publishing false, pro-Russian disinformation, including false claims related to the invasion of Ukraine.”

Ad campaign placement reports regarding TrueView skippable in-stream ads include references to mobile apps and websites which either do not currently exist, or do not contain any ads whatsoever, raising the possibility that either Google’s placement reporting tools have software bugs or are susceptible to deception by invalid ad traffic.

Lastly, in some instances, TrueView skippable in-stream ads from brands were reported as serving on delisted or side-loaded Android apps that are not allowed on the Google app Play Store. Some of these delisted or side-loaded apps are developed and maintained by software vendors based in US Treasury OFAC sanctioned countries such as Iran, which raises the question of whether Google’s advertisers are inadvertently sending funds to Treasury sanctioned entities.

Adalytics shared an advanced copy of this report with Ebiquity, a major marketing and media consultancy which helps brands audit their ad buys. Ruben Schreurs, the Chief Product Office of Ebiquity noted:

"The research report by Adalytics is highly incriminating. Based on the findings and allegations represented within, I see this as a structural misrepresentation of advertising products at best, and downright fraudulent misleading practices at worst. If true, this will have major repercussions in the industry and lead to a significant negative impact on Google's perceived quality and reliability. Ebiquity works for over 75 of the top 100 brands, nearly all listed in this report as possibly being exposed, and we will initiate a large-scale review of this immediately. We thank Adalytics for their hard work in this and previous cases, and look forward to a detailed reply from Google."

A Member of the European Parliament (MEP) in Brussels - Paul Tang, also said:

"Google deliberately makes itself the play doll of dictators, also dragging the European Parliament through the mud. The same Parliament that declared the Russian Federation in November 2022 a state sponsor of terrorism, advertises on Russian propaganda websites like Pravda because of Youtube's scandalous system. Exposing once again the AdTech duopoly of Google and Facebook is a highly opaque game of billions which threatens democracy."

Read more at:

https://adalytics.io/blog/invalid-google-video-partner-trueview-ads


See also video by Louis Rossman

Youtube wants us to pay for views - this platform is circling the drain



23 July 2023

Spain hits Apple and Amazon with $218 million combined antitrust fine


Apple's consolidation of its third party iPhone, Mac, and iPad resellers to Amazon has induced Spain's antitrust agency to levy a $218 million fine in total on the pair.

Spain's Comision Nacional De Los Mercados Y La Competencia (CNMC) announced in July 2021 that it was investigating if Apple and Amazon have unfairly colluded to "reduce competition in the Internet retail market for electronic products."

Specifically, the group was looking for proof of any deals that the pair made limiting sale of Apple products to Amazon itself. Two years later, it appears to have found the proof it was looking for, and has fined the pair 194.1 million euros in total.

"We reject the suggestion made by CNMC that Amazon benefits from excluding sellers from its market place, as our business model hinges precisely on the success of the companies selling through Amazon," Amazon said in a statement to Reuters on Tuesday morning.

Both Apple and Amazon have stated that the deal benefits consumers, protects buyers from fake products, and increases the number and magnitude of discounts offered to customers.

Of the 194.1 million euro fine, Apple was hit with 143.6 million, and Amazon 50.5 million euro. Both companies have already said that they will appeal the matter, and they have two months to do so.

Apple selling directly in Amazon began at the same time almost worldwide. The deal, which applied to the United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, and Spain started in November 2018.

Prior to the deal, the products were either not available or only sold through the third-party marketplace. This process led to products being offered to Amazon customers at varying price points, and not necessarily in perfect condition.

In the US, terms of the Apple-Amazon agreement mean that resellers must either be authorized by Apple, or buy at least $2.5 million in refurbished inventory every 90 days. The latter must come directly from Apple or through a third party with over $5 billion in annual sales, typically meaning carriers and national retailers. It's not clear if the terms in Spain are the same.

Third-party vendors not meeting those purchase thresholds were prevented from selling Apple products on the Amazon store in January 2019.

In the United States, most of the Specialists in the country doing Apple resale have closed, with the rate accelerating in the last few years. The first wave started and continues with Apple's retail store expansion, and the Amazon deal was and is another nail in the coffin.

Source:appleinsider 




Government Exposé Renewable Energy a scam!

It has been stated that the renewable energy business in Austalia is vital to the government's "economy", where it's primary obective is about the money and not the environment.



See the Amendment Bill:
within the link:

13 July 2023

The 4th Industrial Revolution - We are all alone together


Ants respond to isolation in a similar way to humans. Studies reveal changes in social and hygienic behaviors in ants subjected to isolation from their groups. Another interesting finding has to do with the fact that immune and stress genes are severely downgraded in the brains of isolated ants. This makes the immune system less efficient, which has also been observed in isolated humans.

Socialization, physical contact and the ability to do the things we like are vitally important to the health and well-being of humans. Isolation can be very stressful leading to rapid decline in a person's mental and physical health. Isolated individuals become lonely, depressed, anxious and more easily prone to addictions. Their immune systems become weakened, which also negatively impacts their overall health and resistance to diseases. 

There is also an additional unexpected consequence observed in one particular species of ants, which lasts beyond the term of social deprivation - the loss of interest in their adult colony mates, a rather alarming finding in the context of social distancing practices, lockdowns and isolation during Covid.

The artificially manufactured identity crisis aims at destroying traditions, cultural norms, and established value systems in order to leave humanity a blank slate susceptible and open to new trends and iterations. Our environment, habitats and urban organization are also subject to targeted infrastructure upgrades, alterations, and technological manipulations, all incrementally and strategically executed in accord with the unfolding social reformations. The purpose of this exercise is part of an ongoing social engineering experiment designed to undo and remake the fabric of society, and deliver us to the frontiers of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, trapped in the Digital Panopticon - ALL ALONE TOGETHER.

WE ARE THE TEST SUBJECTS IN THIS ONGOING GLOBAL SOCIAL ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT!

Source:supplied