YouTube Boasts About Elevating “Quality” Content, Collaborating With the WHO, and Suppressing “Misinformation”
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | November 15, 2023
YouTube (Google) is yet another in a series of tech behemoths that feel the need to declare their stance on content, including its effective algorithmic manipulation, just as US primaries are ushering the country into another year of presidential elections.
Beating around that bush – Google representatives now talk about processes, procedures, and tools of censorship of health-related information that, unfortunately, can easily be “repurposed” to serve other, for example, political ends.
Much of the conversation rests on what Google wants to portray as its laurels from “the previous epidemic” – which too many people and creators see from a diametrically opposed point of view, as a dark time of nearly unbridled censorship and suppression of free speech.
A video now published by Yahoo Finance reveals not only that Google has a “chief clinical officer,” but also how that officer, Michael Howell, sees the role of this super powerful tech corporation in determining what users are likely to see, see first, or see at all on a platform like YouTube.
Howell, naturally, sees nothing wrong with this and even, to all intents and purposes, brags that YouTube is working to make sure legacy media have advantage over independent creators, and that the latter may easily face censorship.
That’s the takeaway from his words, which he chose to phrase thus: YouTube works to “lift up high quality content, even as we work to lower, and make less prominent content that isn’t accurate or helpful to users.”
The whole interview is positioned as an exploration of how “misinformation grows and spreads” supposedly in sync with the amount of content and the number of users. There is even the assertion made by Yahoo that medical sector “misinformation” is not only very present among users but also “in the broader medical community.”
While this may or may not signal continued censorship of “disfavored” medical professionals, YouTube Head of Healthcare & Public Health (yes, that’s a YouTube job title these days, too) Dr. Garth Graham shared that the platform is the first to start “labeling health information that’s coming from licensed doctors, licensed nurses, licensed healthcare professionals.”
And even after all these years of sometimes completely arbitrary censorship YouTube is supposed to be taken as a “credible source of information (users) can trust” – as it works with the National Academy of Medicine and of course, the World Health Organization (WHO) to craft its definitions, and then “raise that up” – i.e., algorithmically promote, at the expense of other content.
Graham had more curious things to say, such as that while clearly committed to censoring what (or, whatever) Google decides is “delicate (sic) and dangerous information” – people are still supposed to view it as an “open platform”!
Either Graham doesn’t know what an open platform is, or he hopes YouTube/Google users don’t.
There’s also a good amount of patronizing toward those users, as in them needing to be hand-held (by Google) pretty much all the way in order to discern information from misinformation and make appropriate decisions.
“So, you know, we’re an open platform, but the real goal is how do you balance getting good information to people at the right time (…) while making sure that we remove delicate or dangerous information.”
Asked how Google has already managed (shocker) to get the government to participate in posting videos promoting their policies and what “conversations” preceded this, the Google exec said that “the entire healthcare eco-system” was already “energized” to get their message across.
And he counted the government as well as hospitals and physicians as part of this eco-system. One of them, last but not least, is the WHO.
What we know for certain from a great number of internal documents that have emerged over the past months both from Twitter and Facebook is that these two were being “led” to do certain things by the government and its agencies.
Google’s position in the interview is suggested to be the opposite – namely, at one point Howell is asked if the company basically instructed all these national and international healthcare players on what content to make, and have “trending” (mostly artificially, one might add.)
Howell dances around this question – or statement – by saying that the (pandemic) produced a community of creators from the health sector.
But as we know, many of them also got their voices silenced, however, that is not something anyone should expect Google to address.
Instead, the talk is obviously about the “approved” community of healthcare creators.
But, says Howell: “If there’s no good content out there that people want to watch, it’s very hard to show (that) content to users.”
And, cynics would say – then you write an algorithm that shoves that content into everybody’s “recommended” videos anyway.
But, Howell decided to claim that “people responded well to YouTube’s partnerships” – where that last word means, government and international bodies and institutions.
Mayo Clinic is Sued For Suspending Doctor Over Online Posts on Covid and Transgenderism
By Ben Squires | Reclaim The Net | November 15, 2023
Dr. Michael Joyner, backed by the Academic Freedom Alliance (AFA), has initiated a lawsuit against the Mayo Clinic College, including its president and board chair. The suit arises from disciplinary actions taken against Joyner following his public comments on topics within his field of expertise. Specifically, the controversy revolves around statements he made to the New York Times about gender differences in athletic performance and to CNN regarding the use of convalescent plasma in COVID-19 treatment. The Mayo Clinic’s response, which involved suspension, salary review implications, and strict media interview oversight, is at the heart of this legal challenge.
We obtained a copy of the complaint for you here.
Lucas Morel, chair of the AFA’s academic committee, emphasized the lawsuit’s significance, asserting that “academic freedom is a key guarantor of scientific integrity.”
Morel expects the case to establish a precedent for the freedom of scientists and academics to express their professional opinions without undue influence from financial or political interests. The AFA, which previously supported Joyner during his disciplinary hearings, is now financing this lawsuit, highlighting the organization’s commitment to protecting academic freedom.
Joyner’s legal action, filed with the State of Minnesota’s Third Judicial District, seeks compensation for the damages incurred from the disciplinary measures. These included a week-long unpaid suspension, denial of salary increase, and a potential termination threat, all of which have reportedly harmed Joyner’s finances and professional reputation. The lawsuit, handled by Allen Harris Law, was filed after allowing the defendants to review and respond, which they declined.
Eight items of major concern regarding the proposed WHO treaty and IHR amendments
By Meryl Nass, MD | November 13, 2023
1. Biological warfare agent proliferation.
The treaty and the proposed amendments instruct nations that they must perform surveillance for potential pandemic pathogens, build or maintain sequencing labs, and both share actual specimens with the WHO (where a BioHub has been created for this purpose) and also share the sequences online. This demands the proliferation of biological weapons agents — which I believe is a crime (based on my interpretation of Security Council Resolution 1540 and the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention).
1 a. The June 2, 2023 “Bureau text” version of the treaty also called for nations performing Gain-of-Function research to reduce “administrative impediments” to the work. In other words, restrictions on the research should be relaxed, which would make lab leaks more likely to occur. This paragraph was removed from the October 30, 2023 version of the treaty.
2. Giving the WHO a blank check to create new rules in the future
The treaty calls for a Conference of Parties and a new WHO Secretariat to be created in the future that will make rules for how the pandemic prevention and response apparatus will work—which provides essentially a blank, signed contract to the WHO to create whatever rules it wants.
3. Liability-free vaccines developed at warp speed will be produced
The treaty calls for rapid vaccine development /production and shaving time off all aspects of vaccine development, testing and manufacture. This requires vaccines to be used without licenses, and the treaty calls for nations to have laws in place to issue Emergency Use Authorizations for this purpose, and to “manage” liability issues. See “The WHO’s Proposed Treaty will Increase Man-Made Pandemics” for more information about this. The US, EU and others have specifically called for 100-day vaccine development and an additional 30 days for production of pandemic vaccines. This would allow for no meaningful human testing.
4. Human rights guarantees have been removed in the new amendments
The amendments removed “human rights, dignity and freedom of persons” from the existing IHR language. Following complaints, this phrase was later inserted into the Treaty–but the treaty may not be accepted in 2024. Meanwhile, the amendments require only a simple majority to pass, are being written in secret, and so it is likely that the most problematic issues will be found in the amendments.
5. Social media surveillance and censorship of citizens is required
Both the amendments and the treaty call for nation states to perform surveillance of their citizens’ social media, and to censor and prevent the spread of information that does not conform to the WHO’s public health narratives. Yet the treaty also calls for citizens to be free to access information, while they are to be protected from “infodemics,” which are defined as too much information. Citizens must also be stopped from spreading mis- and disinformation.
6. We may not learn what is in the amendments until after they are passed
The amendments have been negotiated entirely in secret for the past nine months, while there have been multiple consecutive drafts of the pandemic treaty released to the public during that time. And while the negotiated amendments were to be tabled for public review in January, the WHO’s principal legal officer has provided a legal fig leaf to avoid the obligation of making them public 4 months ahead of the vote. Will the public even see the amendments before a vote on them occurs?
Why is there such secrecy regarding the proposed amendments?
7. The WHO Director-General could become your personal physician
According to the proposed amendments, the WHO D-G would be able to commandeer and move medical supplies from one country to another, decide what treatments can be used, and restrict the use of other treatments.
8. When will the WHO be able to use its newly minted powers?
The amendments will come into force after a declaration of a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) is made. However, a declaration of a potential PHEIC will also trigger these powers. The powers can be extended even after a PHEIC is over, as we have seen with COVID and monkeypox (MPOX) declarations by the D-G.
The treaty will be in force continuously, requiring no declaration or pandemic to confer new powers to the WHO.
See detailed report:
Ukraine ‘cynically’ not interested in minority rights – Hungary
RT | November 13, 2023
Ukraine has no intention of resolving concerns about its treatment of Hungarians and other minorities living in its western province, Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto told reporters in a meeting broadcast on his Facebook page on Monday.
Instead, the government in Kiev has focused on duping the rest of the world into believing the minority rights issue is “resolved or almost resolved” – even as the situation for Hungarians living in the province of Transcarpathia “deteriorates” even further.
“I think it’s very cynical on the part of Ukrainians that, as can be clearly seen, they in no way want to resolve issues that are important to us, in no way want to return the rights taken away from Transcarpathian Hungarians,” Szijjarto said.
To illustrate the minority’s worsening plight, Szijjarto described a letter sent by the Ukrainian Ministry of Education instructing schools that the Ukrainian language “should be used as the state language not only during classes, but also during breaks between teachers and students,” even in schools where the majority of students – and teachers – are Hungarian.
Last month, Szijjarto demanded Ukraine repeal several laws seen as impinging on the rights of ethnic Hungarians, warning that Budapest would block Kiev’s efforts to join the EU so long as the discrimination continued.
Hungarian President Viktor Orban took things one step further, declaring Hungary would not support its neighbor “on any issue in international life until it restores the laws that guaranteed the rights of Transcarpathian Hungarians.”
Approximately 156,000 ethnic Hungarians living in Ukraine have seen their situation worsen dramatically since 2015, according to Szijjarto. The nation’s other ethnic minorities – including 150,000 Romanians and 250,000 Moldovans – have similarly suffered under a series of laws mandating the use of the Ukrainian language in official settings.
The legislation, which has come under fire from human rights groups and the Council of Europe, has led to the closing of some 100 Hungarian schools in Ukraine, leaving just 20% of the country’s Hungarian population receiving lessons in their own language.
The Council of Europe’s Venice Commission urged Ukraine to improve the recognition of its national minorities if it hopes to enter the EU in a report published earlier this year. Its proposed reforms include publishing official state documents in minority languages, delaying the introduction of Ukrainian as a principal language in schools, providing interpreter services at Ukrainian public events, and ditching Ukrainian-language content quotas for minority media outlets. Currently, just 10% of a media outlet’s content can be broadcast in the minority language.
Obama Says He’s Close to a “First Amendment Absolutist,” Then Adds a “But,” Criticizes “Certain Kinds of Speech”
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | November 12, 2023
President Barack Obama has reemerged in the media, as the election campaign in the US is picking up pace.
And he got his two cents in on a range of issues, including free speech in the context of the First Amendment, “misinformation,” social networks vs. democracy – as his politically like-minded comrades like to position the situation – and, of course, the role of “AI.”
Obama was a guest on a Verge podcast when he – a former US president, twice sworn to preserve, protect, and defend the country’s Constitution – seemed to water down the meaning of that oath.
At one point, he told the host that he is “close” to being a First Amendment “absolutist” – only to add, “but we have laws against certain kinds of speech that we deem to be really harmful to the public health and welfare.”
Obama’s understanding of the First Amendment, according to this statement, is not that this legislation is there to protect the right to free speech – but rather that it should secure a “marketplace” of various ideas.
In his own words: “(…) these ideas battle themselves out, and ultimately, we can all judge better ideas versus worse ideas. I deeply believe in that core principle (of the First Amendment).”
“Misinformation” is another issue troubling Obama, where he seems somewhat skeptical about the government’s ability to regulate the field (obviously – to his political slant).
But the former president has ideas about how it might be done: “We need to think about different platforms and different business models.”
Furthermore – “It may be that I’m perfectly happy to have AI mediate how I buy jeans online. That could be very efficient. I’m perfectly happy with it. So if it’s a shopping app or thread, fine.”
But – what if it’s about speech, or as he put it, “marketplace of ideas”?
There, Obama would like to see regulation that would “broaden” people’s perspectives. Let his audience be the judge of the direction this (political) “broadening” would be taking, and at the expense of what.
The interview came after sitting US president, Joe Biden, signed what is described as “a sweeping executive order about AI.”
Obama has not previously been known as an expert on these matters (apparently, his “expertise” stems from being a prominent victim of deepfakes), but now he has a lot to say about “AI”. Mostly, how those tech companies at the forefront should “regulate” matters pertaining to this technology.
On this front, one of the key messages Obama was trying to push during the podcast is to “recruit” actual tech and “AI” experts into a segment of the US Digital Service that was launched during his time in office. In this context, he urged professionals to “sign up” at ai.gov and work “for the common good.”
Israel war cabinet resolves to shut down Al-Mayadeen in Palestine
The Cradle | November 13, 2023
Israel’s war cabinet on 13 November approved the decision to ban and shut down media companies that “give the nation a poor image,” with Hebrew media reports saying Israeli Minister of Communications, Shlomo Qurei, signed an order to end the operation of Lebanon’s Al-Mayadeen in the occupied Palestinian territories.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the decision to shut down Al-Mayadeen was due to the channel’s “making wartime efforts to harm [Israel’s] security interests and to serve the enemy’s goals.”
Nonetheless, Nasser al-Laham, director of Al-Mayadeen’s bureau in occupied Palestine, stressed that the channel “will continue to broadcast what is happening, whatever the cabinet’s decision is.”
The Lebanese broadcaster has had its fair share of aggression by the Israelis since the start of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood.
On 31 October, the office of Laham was raided, his wife assaulted by the Israeli forces, and his children detained.
Previously, the Israeli government was targeting Qatari news channel Al-Jazeera, which has been reporting on Israeli war crimes against Palestinians for decades.
The threats against the Qatari news network are seemingly on ice, however, as the Ministry of Communications said that, as of now, no actions are being taken to shut down Al-Jazeera.
The decision reportedly comes due to fears of the action causing a crisis between Israel and Qatar, as Doha is acting as the prime mediator of the release of Israeli captives held in the Gaza Strip.
Israel Foreign Minister Eli Cohen has fervently voiced his distaste with the Qatari broadcaster, citing its “unbalanced and anti-Israel coverage,” and has demanded to examine “the form of its coverage at the security level and ensure that it did not harm the military forces.”
As the ethnic cleansing of Gaza enters its 38th day, at least 49 journalists have been killed in the besieged coastal enclave.
What does the WHO say about its power to enforce the Pandemic Treaty (and International Health Regulations)?
By MERYL NASS | NOVEMBER 12, 2023
Many people have insisted that the WHO could not make the US do anything. Let me remind those people that the US government under Biden is instrumental in pushing forward the WHO proposals, and so it will comply. Here is what the WHO says:

What is meant by a ‘convention, agreement or other international instrument’?
Conventions, framework agreements and treaties are all examples of international instruments, which are legal agreements made between countries that are binding.
Why did WHO’s Member States decide to create an accord for pandemic preparedness and response?
In light of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, WHO’s 194 Member States established a process to draft and negotiate a new convention, agreement, or other international instrument (referred to in the rest of this FAQ, generally, as an “accord”) on pandemic preparedness and response. This was driven by the need to ensure communities, governments, and all sectors of society – within countries and globally – are better prepared and protected, in order to prevent and respond to future pandemics. The great loss of human life, disruption to households and societies at large, and impact on development are among the factors cited by governments to support the need for lasting action to prevent a repeat of such crises.
[Ho ho ho—Nass]
At the heart of the proposed accord is the need to ensure equity in both access to the tools needed to prevent pandemics (including technologies like vaccines, personal protective equipment, information and expertise) and access to health care for all people.
[If this were true, why do the treaty and amendments only discuss health “coverage” which means health insurance, rather than health care? The WHO knows the difference, but only demands “coverage”—a sop to the insurance industry.
Furthermore, the WHO demands censorship of information not in agreement with the WHO’s narratives, not free sharing of information—so much for information equity—and its so-called expertise was used to overdose hospitalized patients with HCQ without informed consent, when these unfortunates were enrolled in the WHO’s “SOLIDARITY” trial. Its expertise led to demanding that nations stop the use of HCQ and ivermectin for COVID and administer more shots. Who needs this expertise? —Nass]
Who else is involved in the process for the accord?
Besides WHO Member States, the process for developing a possible new accord is providing extensive opportunities for engagement with relevant stakeholders, including other United Nations system bodies, and a wide range of other non-State actors in official relations with the WHO, to ensure robust and inclusive participation in the proceedings of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body. Furthermore, WHO is seeking complementary inputs through public hearings with stakeholders including: international organizations; civil society; the private sector; philanthropic organizations; scientific, medical, public policy and academic institutions and other entities with relevant knowledge, experience and/or expertise.
[In other words, Bill Gates, who was the largest funder of the WHO the year Trump defunded the organization, gets the lion’s share of input, while we peons get none. Trump then turned around and funded Gate’s’ charity GAVI with the money, and GAVI turned around and gave it back to the WHO. That was our money, by the way.—Nass]
—There is more of this nonsense on this webpage, but you can go look it up yourself if you have the stomach for it.—Meryl
WHO Director General Complains About Online “Conspiracy Theories” About WHO Pandemic Treaty

By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | November 12, 2023
Given the fervor of Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus’ crusade against “disinformation,” if one didn’t know any better, one could hardly guess that he is at the helm of UN’s health agency, the World Health Organization (WHO), rather than some “ministry of truth.”
Then again, given his own, and WHO’s role in the disastrously mishandled pandemic – when those who were to blame at national and international level discovered “misinformation” as a way to discredit any criticism – this is not so surprising.
Now Tedros writes, “We find ourselves in a time where fake news, lies, conspiracy theories, misinformation and disinformation are rampant.” The reason this time is the UN’s push to get countries around the world to agree to “the pandemic accord.”

The document is designed to put in place the tools to handle “the next pandemic,” but is far from limited to health issues.
Opponents have been warning that the accord also aims to introduce surveillance tools, effectively facilitate censorship, and undermine a country’s sovereignty in the decision-making processes during a health crisis by transferring a number of powers to the UN.
This last serious concern seems to rub Tedros particularly the wrong way.
There are many more aspects to losing national sovereignty than overt ones such as direct imposition of vaccination or lockdowns, but in his post Tedros chose to focus on that, to then blast critics as making claims that are “completely unfounded, untrue, nonsense and have no basis in reality.”
The WHO director-general doth protest too much, some might conclude.
Such language doesn’t just come out of nowhere; it is usually a signal that not everything is going smoothly behind the scenes, and here Tedros seems to be trying to not only persuade countries about “fake news, lies, conspiracy theories…” around this issue, but also to get them to launch propaganda campaigns in favor of the accord, ASAP.
Tedros calls this, “actively countering false narratives.”
“It is important for them to communicate with their own citizens, assuring them that this agreement explicitly protects their country’s sovereignty. There should be no room for doubt or confusion in this matter,” he wrote on X.
A post – or a whole study – explaining how exactly the proposed treaty “explicitly protects” national sovereignty would be even better as a way to leave “no room for doubt or confusion.”
That’s lacking, but efforts to promote WHO’s narratives are only increasing. Thus, Spark Street Advisors is lobbying by proposing “soft (reputational) incentives such as technical and material resources to help countries (with compliance).
Most international agreements leave it to nations to “self-report” on implementation, but here the recommendation is for the accord to set up “an independent monitoring committee, tasked with producing regular assessments of state parties’ compliance with the pandemic agreement and the timeliness, completeness and accuracy of self-reporting.”
Not sovereignty-undermining, this. Not at all.
Australian whistleblower for Afghan war crimes stands trial
Press TV – November 12, 2023
The Australian government is set to put a former military lawyer on trial for leaking classified documents about the perpetration of crimes by Australian occupation troops during the invasion of Afghanistan.
David McBride is scheduled to appear in the Supreme Court in Canberra on Monday for breaching the Defence Act and unauthorised disclosure of information. He could be facing a “life sentence” if found guilty at the Australian top court.
McBride is accused of leaking classified defence information to three senior journalists at the ABC and the then Fairfax Media newspapers.
The material later formed the basis of “The Afghan Files,” a 2017 ABC expose revealing allegations of misconduct by Australian special forces in Afghanistan, including possible unlawful killings. The disclosures also led to a much-publicised federal police raid on the ABC’s Sydney offices in 2019.
McBride has pleaded not guilty to five charges, including the unauthorised disclosure of information, theft of commonwealth property and breaching the Defence Act.
He has not been the first or only person to reveal information about alleged Australian war crimes in Afghanistan.
Back in 2020, an Australian military investigation confirmed that Australian forces had murdered dozens of civilians and prisoners in Afghanistan between 2005 and 2016.
The report, released by Major General Justice Paul Brereton, determined that Australian special forces had murdered 39 civilians and prisoners, including children, in Afghanistan.
The Australian government had previously spent years trying to gag whistle-blowers or dismiss reports of wrongdoings by the country’s military personnel.
Australia, which is not a member of NATO, has had an active role in Afghanistan since the US, along with a number of its allies, invaded the country in 2001.


