‘Dangerous, Anticompetitive Behavior’: Big Brands Colluding to Control Online Speech
By John-Michael Dumais | The Defender | July 12, 2024
A congressional investigation uncovered allegations that some of the world’s largest brands and advertising agencies are colluding to control online speech through coordinated boycotts and content demonetization schemes.
A 39-page interim staff report, released Wednesday by the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, claims that the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) — an initiative of the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA) — is using its market power to silence disfavored voices in possible violation of antitrust laws.
“Through GARM, large corporations, advertising agencies, and industry associations participated in boycotts and other coordinated action to demonetize platforms, podcasts, news outlets, and other content deemed disfavored by GARM and its members,” the report states.
The committee’s investigation, which focused on GARM’s activities since its creation in 2019, examined its influence over major social media platforms, news outlets and content creators.
The report suggests that GARM’s actions may have far-reaching implications for online discourse and consumer choice in media.
‘Sounds a lot like a cartel to me’
GARM was established in 2019 by the WFA, which represents over 150 of the world’s biggest brands and more than 60 national advertiser associations globally.
According to this week’s congressional report, GARM’s influence stems from the collective power of its members. “WFA members represent roughly 90% of global advertising spend, or almost one trillion dollars annually,” the document states.
The alliance includes major players in the advertising industry:
- Every major advertising agency holding company.
- GroupM, the world’s largest media buying agency, on its Steer Team.
- Four large corporations — Unilever, Mars, Diageo, and Procter & Gamble — that together spend billions annually on advertising.
GARM’s Steer Team, which acts as a board of directors, is closely involved in day-to-day operations. The initiative reports to the WFA Executive Committee, which includes representatives from major corporations such as AB InBev, L’Oréal, Nestlé and IBM.
Robert Rakowitz, GARM’s initiative lead and co-founder, plays a central role in the organization’s activities. The report cites internal emails in which Rakowitz expressed views on free speech, describing an “extreme global interpretation of the US Constitution” as problematic.
GARM claims to focus on “content monetization” rather than “content moderation.” However, the report argues that these areas are “inextricably linked,” suggesting that GARM’s work effectively influences what content appears online.
In Wednesday’s congressional hearing on GARM, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), while questioning the CEO of GroupM and GARM board member Christian Juhl, said that GARM “sounds a lot like a cartel to me.”
Alleged antitrust violations and examples
The congressional report alleges that GARM’s activities may violate Section 1 of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, which prohibits unreasonable restraints of trade. The committee report cites several examples of GARM’s alleged coordinated actions:
1. Twitter boycott after Elon Musk acquisition. Following Musk’s acquisition of Twitter (now known as X) in October 2022, GARM allegedly orchestrated a boycott of the platform. According to the report, GARM recommended its members “stop … all paid advertisement” on Twitter in response to the takeover.
Internal documents show that GARM held “extensive debriefing and discussion around [Musk’s] takeover of Twitter,” providing opportunities for the boycott to be organized. The report claims that GARM later boasted about “taking on Elon Musk” and noted that Twitter was “80% below revenue forecasts” as a result.
2. Pressure on Spotify over Joe Rogan podcast. In early 2022, GARM and its Steer Team allegedly pressured Spotify over content on Rogan’s podcast, “The Joe Rogan Experience.” The report states that GARM members urged action against Spotify due to alleged misinformation on Rogan’s show, particularly regarding COVID-19 vaccines after Rogan said that young, healthy people didn’t need them.
Rogan later featured Dr. Robert Malone on his podcast, which prompted GroupM to reach out to Spotify after musician Neil Young removed his content from the platform in protest over vaccine-skeptical material.
Internal emails cited in the report show Rakowitz coordinating with member companies to formulate responses to Spotify. In one instance, he wrote that he “can’t publicly advise all clients to do X — that gets us into hot water by way of anticompetitive and collusive behaviors.”
3. Efforts to demonetize certain news outlets. The report alleges that GARM and its members discussed strategies to block certain news outlets, including Fox News, The Daily Wire and Breitbart News.
An internal email from a GARM Steer Team member describes monitoring these outlets closely. The email states that as much as he “hated their ideology and bulls**t,” his company “couldn’t really justify blocking them for misguided opinion[s]” but that it “watched them very carefully and it didn’t take long for them to cross the line.”
The congressional committee argued that these coordinated actions if proven, could constitute illegal restraints of trade that harm consumers by limiting their choices and access to diverse viewpoints online.
GARM’s influence on political content and elections
Through their content moderation efforts, GARM and its members attempted to influence political discourse and election outcomes — including pushing for coordinated action around the 2020 U.S. presidential election, according to the report.
In an October 2020 email, Rakowitz suggested telling Facebook it was “at a crossroads for the platform and fence sitting on content curation and moderation” and that it should apply its COVID-19 content moderation policies to election-related content.
The report cites an instance of GARM members pressuring Facebook to label a then-President Donald Trump campaign advertisement as misinformation. When Facebook refused, citing its policy of not fact-checking political candidates’ ads, Rakowitz allegedly described the decision as “honestly reprehensible” in an internal email.
The report also claims that GARM members expressed concerns about Musk’s handling of the Hunter Biden laptop story on Twitter. After Musk released internal Twitter documents about the platform’s suppression of the story, a GARM member reportedly described Musk’s actions as an “overtly partisan take.”
Misinformation definition and application. In 2022, GARM added a definition of misinformation to its framework, describing it as “verifiably false or willfully misleading content that is directly connected to user or societal harm.”
The report suggests this broad definition could be weaponized against disfavored political views.
Committee members said Wednesday that these actions demonstrate GARM’s potential to influence political discourse and election outcomes by controlling which content receives advertising revenue and visibility on major platforms.
GARM’s partnerships with ad-tech companies and AI integration
The congressional report delves into GARM’s relationships with advertising technology companies and plans to integrate its framework into artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning tools.
According to the report, GARM partnered with several “ad-tech partners” that offer solutions to help brands understand where their advertisements appear and what content surrounds them.
The report alleges that membership in GARM was conditioned on these partners agreeing “to make commensurate changes to business operations in pursuit of GARM’s goals.”
According to the congressional committee, this arrangement allowed GARM’s biases to be “baked directly into the solutions, allowing brands to seamlessly integrate GARM’s censorship.”
AI and machine learning integration
GARM’s plans for the future involve pushing its framework into AI solutions, according to the report. The committee said it was concerned that GARM’s partners are developing AI tools that will integrate GARM’s standards seamlessly across social media platforms.
“Such an automated censorship effort could result in the demonetization of any views or voices that GARM’s advertising cartel dislikes, potentially without any human involvement at all,” the report states.
Specific examples cited in the report include:
1. Zefr, a GARM ad-tech partner, which claims its “proprietary discriminative AI is powered by years of training data on platforms, and goes beyond keyword and text-based analyses, combining AI and ground truth data from global fact checking organizations that is mapped to the industry standards” set by GARM.
2. YouTube’s incorporation of Zefr-powered solutions to prevent advertisements from appearing next to content that violates GARM’s standards.
The combination of GARM’s framework with AI-powered content moderation tools could lead to opaque and potentially biased decisions about which content receives advertising revenue, ultimately limiting consumer choice and diverse viewpoints online, according to the report.
Connections to government agencies and censorship efforts
The congressional report alleges connections between GARM’s partners and government agencies involved in content moderation efforts. Specifically, it points to collaboration between GARM ad-tech partner Channel Factory and the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA).
According to the report, Channel Factory worked with CISA to develop a “common lexicon” for discussing misinformation.
An email cited in the report shows Channel Factory’s global chief strategy officer sharing this lexicon with GARM’s initiative lead, stating, “The industry will need a common lexicon and detailed definitions in order to make progress … attached is the lexicon we developed with CISA/DHS … which may provide” a useful starting point.
This type of collaboration could lead to government influence over private-sector content moderation practices, the committee report stated.
The report noted that Channel Factory is also a member of YouTube’s Measurement Program, suggesting that these connections could have far-reaching implications for online content moderation.
Former U.S. Department of State official Mike Benz in a video posted on X Wednesday, alleged that U.S. government-linked efforts to control online content with groups like GARM go back at least to 2017.
GARM engages in ‘dangerous, anticompetitive behavior’
The House Judiciary Committee concluded that GARM’s actions may violate antitrust laws and threaten free speech and consumer choice online.
According to the report, GARM’s members’ collective power allows them to achieve through coordination what they could not accomplish individually.
The report states:
“If collusion among powerful corporations capable of collectively demonetizing, and in effect eliminating, certain views and voices is allowed to continue, the ability of countless American consumers to choose what to read and listen to, or even have their speech or writing reach other Americans, will be destroyed.”
The committee emphasized that antitrust laws still apply even if GARM claims to have good intentions. It states that federal antitrust laws “do not diminish because GARM or its members claim to have good intentions.”
The committee said it will continue its oversight of GARM and evaluate the adequacy of existing antitrust laws. It suggested that legislative reforms may be necessary to address what it describes as “dangerous, anticompetitive behavior.”
Watch the House Judiciary Committee’s July 10 hearing:
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Possible consequences and prospects of Vladimir Putin’s visit to DPRK
By Konstantin Asmolov – New Eastern Outlook – 12.07.2024
The consequences of the visit of the Russian leader to North Korea and the documents signed there are so significant that they can propel the trend of global turbulence. How have Seoul, Beijing and Washington reacted to such a rapprochement between Moscow and Pyongyang and what will be Moscow’s response to the steps taken by Seoul and its allies?
Seoul’s response
Until a certain point, Seoul was ‘the friendliest of the unfriendly countries’ – the Russian president recently noted in a positive way. As Vladimir Putin said on June 5, 2024, within the framework of the International Economic Forum in St Petersburg, “Russia highly appreciates the refusal of ROK to directly supply lethal weapons to Ukraine”.
However, such a demonstrative rapprochement between Pyongyang and Moscow cannot be ignored by Seoul, especially since the content of the Treaty (which contains a military component along the lines of the Soviet-North Korean treaty of 1961) has turned out to match the worst expectations of South Korean analysts.
Even before the visit, South Korean diplomats hinted to the author that Seoul would definitely respond to such a level of cooperation between Moscow and Pyongyang, at least for domestic political and reputation reasons. This response would most likely entail boosting Seoul-NATO cooperation to a similar level. The United States, along with its allies and systemic right-wing politicians, are putting pressure on President Yoon Suk Yeol to take a more anti-Russian stance, especially on the Ukrainian track; Seoul is constantly being convinced that since Pyongyang has been ‘proven’ to be aiding Russia, South Korea has the right to provide similar support to Ukraine, despite all possible risks of retaliatory measures and a significant cooling of relations with Moscow.
In a statement on June 20, 2024, former Ambassador to Russia and current National Security Adviser to the President Chang Ho-jin noted: “Four ships, five organisations and eight individuals from third countries, as well as Russian and North Korean organisations involved in the supply of weapons and oil transshipment between Russia and North Korea, are on the list of independent sanctions… We have also included 243 new items to the list of sanctioned goods exported to Russia, bringing the total number to 1,402 items…We plan on reconsidering the issue of military support for Ukraine, as the government has so far maintained the position that it will not supply lethal weapons to this country”.
Chang’s statement, on the other hand, could not but evoke a threatening reply from Moscow. Vladimir Putin almost immediately declared that the supply of lethal weapons to Ukraine would be a “very big mistake” and that Moscow would in this case make “the appropriate decisions, which the current leadership of South Korea will most likely not appreciate”. However, the Russian president expressed hope that such a thing would not happen.
There was also a natural exchange of reprimands. On June 21, 2024, First Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs of ROK Kim Hong Kyung summoned Russian Ambassador Georgy Zinoviev to convey Seoul’s official position on the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Agreement between Russia and DPRK from June 19. The vice minister called on Russia to “immediately cease military cooperation with North Korea and comply with UN Security Council resolutions”. He made it clear that ROK, along with the international community, will “resolutely resist any actions that threaten its security”.
Zinoviev said that cooperation between Russia and DPRK is not directed against third countries, complies with the principles and norms of international law and is aimed at strengthening peace and stability on the Korean peninsula. Russia is ready to continue to make political and diplomatic efforts to form an architecture of long-term peace and stability based on the principle of indivisible security”, the ambassador stressed.
Meanwhile Seoul slowly began to backtrack. On June 23, 2024, in a speech on the KBS channels, Chang Ho-jin made it clear that the question of whether South Korea will supply lethal weapons to Ukraine will depend on Russia; if it starts sending high-precision modern weapons to North Korea, then nothing will stop South Korea from helping Ukraine. Among the options under consideration are 155 mm artillery shells and air defence systems.
In essence, the parties formally voiced to each other the long-known, informal red lines: South Korea is not to be engaged in direct supplies of weapons and military equipment to Ukraine and Russia is not to be engaged in the development of the North Korean military potential. It is important for Seoul to prevent the supply of dangerous modern weapons and technologies to the North, and North Korean shells (which are allegedly provided to the Special Military Operation) are a nuisance, but not yet a disaster.
It is worth remembering that, despite his high position, Chang still does not have the right to speak on behalf of the state unlike the president, the prime minister and the foreign minister. If such statements were to come from them as well, then it would indeed be a cause for concern. For now, though, one should wait and see, considering how, on the eve of his visit to the United States, Yoon Suk Yeol stated that the Republic of Korea could start supplying weapons to Ukraine if the Russian Armed Forces were to commit an atrocity.
Thus, the point of no return in relations between Moscow and Seoul has not yet been passed, but we are close. The author hopes for the best, as Moscow and Seoul understand that when crossing the ‘red’ line, Russia will also have to take action in response and South Korea may lose its status as ‘the friendliest of the unfriendly’.
China’s position
The reaction to the visit by the Chinese media and government agencies was between neutral and positive; they did [not] provide any statements of judgement and simply noted that this was an important and serious event. The Chinese Foreign Ministry called the DPRK’s desire to develop relations with Russia normal, and the Global Times noted that this cooperation could perhaps even make the United States afraid.
Western media actively wrote that China was not happy with the rapprochement between Russia and the DPRK that Putin’s visit to North Korea and Vietnam was actually anti-Chinese in nature and that having a parallel 2+2 dialogue shows China’s desire to be friends with Seoul, showing its tough stance to Pyongyang.
This is not exactly true. Firstly, coordination between Moscow and Beijing on the Korean issue has always been and is very close. A look at the joint statements on the Korean issue made during Putin’s visit to China is enough to prove this. This means that the essence of Moscow and Pyongyang’s agreements with Beijing was probably discussed in advance.
Secondly, on June 18 negotiations did indeed take place in Seoul. They were attended by senior officials from the foreign and defence ministries of ROK and China in a 2+2 format.
Before the start of the talks, the official representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Korea, Lim Soo-suk, believed that “issues of cooperation between Russia and North Korea will be discussed, since dialogue is taking place simultaneously with the scheduled visit of the Russian president to North Korea”. Professor of the Hankuk University of Foreign Affairs Kang Jung-young said that “having this dialogue is in itself is a clear signal to North Korea that China will not support Pyongyang’s attempts to create a trilateral bloc with Beijing and Moscow”.
The Korean approach to the 2+2 format is as follows: representatives of Seoul expressed deep concern to their Chinese colleagues about the visit of the Russian president to DPRK and the deepening of ties between Moscow and Pyongyang amid rising tensions on the Korean peninsula. They stressed that the Russian leader’s visit to North Korea should not undermine peace and stability in the region or lead to the strengthening of military cooperation between the two countries. Additionally, ROK called on China to play a constructive role in ensuring peace, stability and security on the Korean peninsula, emphasising that the deepening of Russian-North Korean military cooperation and its consequences run in contradiction to Beijing’s interests. In turn, China confirmed its unchanged position on the Korean peninsula, expressing its readiness to take an active part in solving the problems of the region.
A ‘bloc’ as a limiting factor
Almost immediately after the signing of the comprehensive strategic partnership agreement between the Russian Federation and North Korea, the Russian president noted that there were no fundamentally new points in it and that the document was similar to the 1961 treaty, including Article 4 on ‘automatic military intervention’. According to Putin, the provisions of the new Agreement stipulate that military assistance is provided only in case of aggression, and therefore ROK has nothing to worry about, since there are no known plans of the South to attack the North. The Russian president also expressed the opinion that the Agreement would to some extent limit the threat of the crisis on the Korean peninsula entering a ‘hot phase’.
The author supposes that the cooperation between Moscow and Pyongyang within the framework of a possible military bloc reduces the likelihood of conflict on the Korean peninsula rather than increases it. The fact that the opposing sides are two serious military blocs reduces the likelihood of an escalation of the conflict, as it could too easily escalate to become nuclear, and neither Moscow nor Pyongyang are suicidal.
One more detail: on the one hand, article 4 of the Agreement is harsher than article 5 of the NATO treaty. On the other, it clearly indicates that a state of war is required for comprehensive assistance, and if we recall the 1961 treaty, then it is worth paying attention to the events of 1968 when Moscow clarified to Pyongyang in which situations military assistance would be cancelled.
We should likely expect a confrontation similar to the Cold War. There will be an arms race, muscles will be flexed, loud statements and minor incidents will take place, but the parties are well aware of the red lines and do not intend to cross them. Being prepared for war, including the development of preemptive strike plans as a way of self-defence in a critical situation, is not the same as the desire to initiate a conflict.
The fate of UNSC sanctions
The demonstrative liquidation of UN Security Council sanctions, which was expected in the West, has still not taken place. Both Putin’s article and the additional decree emphasise cooperation in the fields of education, healthcare and science and maintain that the unjust sanctions should be lifted.
For now, though, Moscow says it will comply with the sanctions it previously voted for.
It is likely that the lifting of sanctions may occur following the next round of escalation because regardless of whether there were actually arms deals or not, the West will still blame Moscow and Pyongyang for colluding and take retaliatory measures.
The appearance of a North Korean labour force in Russia is a sign that a de jure or de facto decision to ignore a part of the sanctions has been made. Price, quality, safety and keeping a low profile are the strengths of North Korean builders, and talks of their employment have been going on for a long time.
Summa summarum, there is a lot of uncertainty in the future and the situation is similar to that described in the book ‘The Guns of August’ by Barbara Tuchman: nobody wanted war, so war was inevitable. However, it cannot be said that the visit of the President of the Russian Federation to the DPRK has significantly aggravated the situation.
Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, Leading Research Fellow at the Korean Studies Center of the Institute of China and Contemporary Asia of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
Pro-Pentagon Media Calls on DoD to Step Up Anti-Houthi Info War Amid Blows to US Navy’s Reputation
By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 11.07.2024
The Houthis resumed their attacks on suspected Israel and US-affiliated merchant ships Tuesday after a ten-day pause. Armed with mostly older missile designs and cheap drones and possessing no blue water navy to speak of, the militants have managed to effectively shut down the Red Sea to Western interests, humiliating the Pentagon in the process.
The US Navy’s inability to lift the Houthis’ self-imposed partial blockade of the Red and Arabian Seas or to meaningfully degrade the militia’s missile and drone capabilities in six months of air and missile strikes has given rise to embarrassing questions from allies and adversaries alike about whether the US military is a mere “paper tiger,” and not the “all powerful,” global and “omnipotent force” it’s cracked up to be.
In testimony by senior Pentagon officials on the state of America’s air and missile defenses earlier this year, Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces chairman Angus King complained that the US has proved not only unable to defend against peer competitors like Russia and China, but ineffective against smaller adversaries, including Iran and the Houthis, as well.
His concerns were echoed by media reports that the US has already spent over a billion dollars fighting the Houthis, with the USS Eisenhower supercarrier’s Super Hornet jets racking up tens of thousands of flight hours, and US warships firing hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of interceptor missiles to target the militia’s simple missiles, UAVs and maritime drones.
Amid the Houthis’ successes in humbling the American goliath, panicky voices have emerged in Washington and US military-affiliated media calling for something to be done to stop the Yemeni militia’s humiliation of the US Empire in the Middle East from spreading online.
The “Navy should hit back harder against Houthi online disinformation,” Max Lesser, a senior analyst with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a DC neoconservative think tank, wrote in an op-ed that appeared in the Navy Times on Wednesday.
“While the US military and allies regularly hit back with airstrikes against Houthi missile launchers and other assets in Yemen, the Pentagon is less prepared to defend against the online lies and disinformation that the Houthis are spreading,” Lesser complained.
The think tank analyst pointed to a series of social media posts from late May shared by “Houthi supporters” of digitally altered images and videos of damage purportedly done to the USS Eisenhower in one of the militia’s attempts to retaliate to US-UK strikes into Yemen.
The manipulated images apparently proved prolific enough for the carrier’s captain, Captain Christopher Hill, to invite journalists to inspect the warship’s flight deck to show it had not in fact suffered any damage in Houthi attacks.
Lesser suggests that the “deluge of deceptively labeled images” spread by “pro-Houthi accounts” has generally not been sufficiently challenged or debunked by the Pentagon, despite the operation of a DoD Joint Maritime Information Center stood up specifically to report on the situation in the Red Sea region. The analyst urged the military to include any “Houthi disinformation” it finds into its weekly updates, noting that for now, “debunking” the false images is falling to lone “independent” OSINT analysts.
“The challenge is not limited to the Red Sea or the Middle East,” Lesser stressed. “Military forces in every command should have public affairs and open-source intelligence personnel working together to debunk false and exaggerated claims of enemy success on the battlefield.”
Lesser’s calls for the US to step up its game in online disinformation warfare are the latest in a long-running effort by Western officials, media and corporations to rein in the free-flow of information, whether through outright broad brush censorship like the scrubbing of entire websites, comments and social media posts, or ‘softer’ means, like private ‘fact checking’ organizations set up explicitly and exclusively to challenge anti-establishment narratives.
Given the US military’s proven track record of covering up information the Pentagon finds inconvenient, there’s no guarantee that any DoD-led campaign to combat Houthi “disinformation” online won’t result in the creation of new falsehoods spread by the Defense Department.
NATO Declaration Is Stark Neoconservative Recommitment to US Hegemony – Sachs
Sputnik – 11.07.2024
WASHINGTON – NATO’s latest joint declaration serves as a stark neoconservative recommitment to US hegemony, Jeffrey Sachs, a world-renowned economist and President of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network, told Sputnik.
“The NATO Declaration is a stark neoconservative recommitment to US hegemony. It calls for NATO to back the ‘rules-based order,’ which is actually the US-based order that is often directly contrary to the UN Charter,” Sachs said.
On Wednesday, NATO released a joint Washington Summit Declaration, which outlines the alliance’s efforts to further isolate Russia, bolster the alliance’s security on its eastern flank, increase security assistance for Ukraine, and claim Ukraine is on an “irreversible path” into NATO, among other initiatives.
“It describes NATO as a defensive force despite the fact that NATO is repeatedly engaged in offensive regime-change operations, including Afghanistan, Iraq, Serbia, Libya, Ukraine, and others,” Sachs said.
Sachs explains that NATO’s declaration also restates Article 10 of the Washington Treaty, which claims that Russia has no input if NATO expands to surround Russia.
Moreover, Sachs said NATO’s joint statement describes its commitment to advanced biotechnologies, which raises concerns of biowarfare.
Sachs also pointed out that the declaration shows NATO’s intention to continue to deploy anti-ballistic missiles throughout Europe as it’s previously done in Poland, Romania, and Turkiye, which has directly destabilized the nuclear arms control architecture ever since the United States unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002.
The White House announced earlier that the United States will begin episodic deployments of the long-range fires capabilities of its Multi-Domain Task Force in Germany in 2026.
Russian Ambassador to the United States Anatoly Antonov said US plans to deploy intermediate- and shorter-range missiles to Germany pose a direct threat to international security and increase the risks of a missile arms race.
US plan to deploy missiles in Germany a ‘direct threat’ – Moscow
RT | July 11, 2024
US plans to deploy long-range missiles in Europe are a threat to global security and could pave the way for an escalation of already tense relations between Moscow and NATO, Russian Ambassador to Washington Anatoly Antonov has said.
On Wednesday, the US and Germany issued a joint statement that America “will begin episodic deployments of the long-range fires capabilities of its Multi-Domain Task Force in Germany in 2026, as part of planning for enduring stationing of these capabilities in the future.”
Washington also said that the systems will include SM-6 and Tomahawk missiles with ranges of up to 460km and 2,400km, respectively, as well as developmental hypersonic weapons. Those assets have a “significantly longer range than current land-based fires in Europe,” the statement added.
In a post on Telegram on Thursday, Antonov denounced the move as “a serious mistake by Washington.” “Such extremely destabilizing steps are a direct threat to international security and strategic stability,” he said.
The envoy stressed that the planned deployment “increases the risks of a missile arms race,” adding that it could unleash “uncontrolled escalation amid dangerously soaring Russia-NATO tensions.”
Antonov also said that Russia has always sought to reduce the risks posed by disagreements over missile capabilities. “Instead of the desire for peace that Russia has demonstrated many times, the Americans have embarked on the dangerous path of militarism,” according to the ambassador.
He emphasized that Russia’s tolerance for encroachments on its security is “not unlimited.” “Doesn’t Germany understand that the emergence of American missile assets on German soil will lead to these facilities ending up in Russian crosshairs? This is not saber-rattling, it is the simple logic of a normal person,” Antonov explained.
He went on to blast the US for not thinking about how to minimize the fallout from the collapse of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF). Signed in 1987 at the end of the Cold War, it barred Moscow and Washington from possessing many types of nuclear and conventional missiles with ranges of 500 to 5,500km.
The US unilaterally withdrew from the treaty in 2019, citing alleged Russian non-compliance, a charge denied in Moscow. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov suggested earlier this week that the US pulled out of the agreement to create formerly banned missile systems to put pressure on China.
At the same time, Russia has said that it intends to keep abiding by the INF’s terms, but warned that it could reverse that policy if Washington starts deploying missiles covered by the treaty in any region of the world.
US to deploy long-range weapons in Germany
RT | July 10, 2024
The US will station long-range missiles in Germany from 2026 onwards, the governments of both countries have announced. These weapons, including the SM-6 and Tomahawk systems, were banned on the continent until Washington tore up a landmark Cold War-era treaty in 2019.
According to a joint statement published by the White House, the US will “begin episodic deployments of the long-range fires capabilities of its Multi-Domain Task Force in Germany in 2026, as part of planning for enduring stationing of these capabilities in the future.”
The statement was released following talks between American and German officials at NATO’s annual summit in Washington on Wednesday.
The weapons systems deployed to Germany will include the SM-6 anti-air missile, which has a range of up to 460km (290 miles), and the Tomahawk cruise missile, which can reportedly strike targets more than 2,500km away.
The White House said that “developmental hypersonic weapons” will also be stationed in Germany, and will have a “significantly longer range than current land-based fires in Europe.”
The US has yet to successfully field a hypersonic weapon, and has canceled every hypersonic project since its first successful test in 2017.
Land-launched missiles with a range between 500km and 5,500km were banned on European soil under the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty, signed by Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987. Along with the START-I and START-II agreements, the INF treaty helped defuse nuclear tensions in Europe after the West and the USSR came perilously close to nuclear war during NATO’s Able Archer military exercise in 1983.
The US pulled out of the INF treaty in 2019, with the State Department claiming that some of Russia’s cruise missiles had breached the agreement. Moscow denied this, and Russian President Vladimir Putin warned then-US President Donald Trump that the demise of the treaty would “have the gravest consequences.”
Russia continued to abide by the treaty and imposed a moratorium on the development of missiles that it prohibited. However, Putin announced earlier this month that the Russian defense industry would resume development of such armaments, citing the “hostile actions” of the US.
“We now know that the US is not only producing these missile systems, but has also brought them to Europe, Denmark, to use in exercises. Not long ago, it was reported that they were in the Philippines,” Putin explained at the time.
US and Danish forces trained with SM-6 missiles last September, while the Pentagon deployed its Typhon Weapon System – which can fire both SM-6 and Tomahawk missiles – to the Philippines in April.
High-tech Western weapons ‘useless’ in Ukraine conflict – WSJ
RT | July 10, 2024
Russia’s electronic warfare capabilities have rendered precision-guided Western munitions “useless” in the Ukraine conflict, the Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday. With their guidance systems scrambled, some of these weapons have reportedly been retired within weeks of hitting the battlefield.
When the US announced the delivery of GPS-guided Excalibur artillery shells to Ukraine in 2022, pro-Kiev outlets predicted that the $100,000-per-shot projectiles would make “Ukrainian artillery a whole lot more accurate” and “cause Russia a world of pain.”
However, the Russian military adapted within weeks, Ukrainian commanders told the Wall Street Journal. Russian signal-jamming equipment was used to feed false coordinates to the shells and interfere with their fuses, causing them to veer off course or fall to the ground as duds.
“By the middle of last year, the M982 Excalibur munitions, developed by RTX and BAE Systems, became essentially useless and are no longer employed,” the newspaper stated, paraphrasing the Ukrainian commanders.
The Soviet Union invested heavily in electronic warfare (EW) during the 1980s, viewing jamming technology as a crucial bulwark against the guided missiles and shells that the US was beginning to develop at the time. While weapons such as the 1990s-era Excalibur shells were used by the US to devastating effect in Iraq and Afghanistan, officials and analysts in Washington have since concluded that they are far less effective against a peer-level opponent like Russia.
“The Russians have gotten really, really good” at interfering with guided munitions, US Deputy Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment William LaPlante told the WSJ.
Retired US General Ben Hodges, who once predicted that Western weapons would help Ukraine seize Crimea by last winter, told the newspaper that “we probably made some bad assumptions because over the last 20 years we were launching precision weapons against people that could not do anything about it… and Russia and China do have these capabilities.”
Some of NATO’s most advanced weapons systems have met a similar fate in Ukraine. The newly-developed Ground-Launched Small Diameter Bomb (GLSDB), a joint project of Boeing in the US and Saab in Sweden, was given to Ukraine earlier this year, with Kiev’s troops firing these GPS-guided munitions before their American counterparts. However, it has since been pulled from the battlefield after it proved completely ineffective against Russian EW.
Likewise, Russian EW has significantly blunted the accuracy of Ukraine’s Western-provided GMLRS missiles, which are fired from the HIMARS multiple-launch rocket system, Ukrainian soldiers told the WSJ. As with the Excalibur shells, GMLRS missiles were once described by pro-Kiev pundits and analysts as a “game changer” that would swing the conflict in Ukraine’s favor.
Russia has long insisted that no amount of Western weapons systems will prevent it from achieving victory. Supplying these weapons is a “futile project” that will only encourage Kiev to “commit new crimes,” Moscow’s ambassador to Washington, Anatoly Antonov, warned last week.
Two Infants Died Within Hours of Receiving RSV Shots, CDC Internal Emails Show
By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | July 8, 2024
At least two infant deaths reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) as occurring after the babies mistakenly received Pfizer’s adult respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine were likely caused instead by nirsevimab, the monoclonal antibody shot approved for infants and meant to prevent RSV.
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) documents obtained by Children’s Health Defense (CHD) from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show that both babies died on the day they received the shots.
According to the reports in VAERS, a 27-day-old boy died immediately upon receiving the shot in the doctor’s office and an infant girl was found not breathing by her father seven hours after receiving the shot. The infant was pronounced dead soon after.
The deaths were reported in VAERS as resulting from mistaken administration of Pfizer’s adult RSV vaccine, but the CDC internal emails obtained by CHD indicate the babies had been administered Beyfortus, the brand name for nirsevimab, manufactured by AstraZeneca and Sanofi.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the drug in July 2023 and the CDC recommended it in August 2023 for infants under 8 months or high-risk infants up to 24 months of age.
In clinical trials for the drug, 12 infants died, but an FDA spokesperson told CNBC when the drug was approved that “none of the deaths appeared to be related to nirsevimab.”
After the CDC recommended the drug, it expanded the 2024 childhood vaccine schedule and included nirsevimab for infants whose mothers did not receive the RSV vaccine — also recently approved — during pregnancy.
The CDC’s childhood immunization schedule lists the CDC-recommended shots for children from birth through age 18. Pediatricians and other clinicians typically use the schedule to make recommendations to parents, and schools use it to set vaccine requirements.
Monoclonal antibodies are not technically vaccines. Vaccines stimulate the individual’s immune system to trigger an immune response. Monoclonal antibodies are proteins cloned in a lab that act like antibodies, seeking out antigens in the body to destroy them just like people’s own antibodies do, according to the Cleveland Clinic.
When the CDC expanded the 2024 vaccine schedule, it changed the description of the schedule to be for “vaccines and other immunizing agents,” before adding the RSV monoclonal antibodies to the list.
Even professionals confused about how to report injuries related to infant RSV shots
When people experience vaccine injuries, they can report them to the CDC using VAERS, a passive surveillance system available to anyone — including doctors, other vaccine administrators and the public — for reporting adverse events.
The CDC also has other systems for monitoring vaccine safety. It monitors COVID-19 and adult RSV vaccines through the V-safe system, a different voluntary reporting system, and most vaccines through the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), which analyzes healthcare data, often investigating concerns initially raised in VAERS.
However, according to the internal emails obtained by CHD, and reported by the CDC to its advisory committee, the CDC doesn’t monitor injuries from medications that are not vaccines. The FDA recommends those injuries be reported to MedWatch, the FDA’s adverse event reporting system.
That means adverse events from all medical treatments on the immunization schedule are not monitored through the same system. This can generate confusion, even among medical professionals, who treat monoclonal antibodies as vaccines.
For example, even people at the CDC in internal emails referred to the monoclonal antibodies as the “RSV (Sanofi Pasteur) Vaccine.”
Data analyst and VAERS expert Albert Benavides told The Defender this also presents a challenge to people who want to report nirsevimab injuries, because VAERS does not have a category for the drug, so people have submitted their claims as “unknown vax type” or selected one of the existing RSV vaccines, which are different drugs.
In analysis, they may fall through the cracks or be underreported, rather than forwarded to the FDA’s MedWatch system.
The emails obtained by CHD support Benavides’ claims that there is confusion between RSV vaccines approved for adults and RSV monoclonal antibodies approved for infants.
For example, Carol Ennulat, VAERS project coordinator, on March 21 emailed Pedro Moro, M.D., M.P.H, who headed up the accidental infant RSV vaccination study, informing him that one of the infants — a 1-month-old girl in Texas — died after receiving the “RSV (Sanofi Pasteur) Vaccine,” which is actually Beyfortus, the monoclonal antibody.
She told Moro the baby had been misclassified and therefore mistakenly assigned to the adult RSV project.
Moro forwarded the email to others and said the FDA was following up on nirsevimab reports, so they should take no action on the report.
In a second email the following day, Ennulat informed Moro that a second infant death — a 27-day-old New York boy — was misclassified as having received the Pfizer Abrysvo vaccine according to documents that had become available.
“The case was misclassified,” Ennulat wrote. Although the sentence indicating what drug he received was redacted, she added, “I assume FDA follows this,” which would indicate the drug administered to the infant and then reported to VAERS was likely also nirsevimab.
500 pages of FOIA documents largely redacted
CDC researchers in May published an article in Pediatrics reporting that at least 34 babies were mistakenly given the RSV vaccine — made by either Pfizer or GSK and authorized for adults — and one of those babies was hospitalized.
Thirty-one of the children under age 2 identified in the study who were mistakenly vaccinated between Aug. 21, 2023, and March 18, 2024, were less than 8 months old. Seven reports described adverse health events including fevers, vomiting, coughing and injection site swelling.
One baby was hospitalized for cardiorespiratory arrest within 24 hours of receiving the GSK RSV vaccine. The baby had a history of congenital heart disease and was hospitalized at the time of the VAERS report.
When the paper was published, The Defender worked with Benavides and identified at least two other babies in the VAERS system reported to have received the RSV vaccine and died within hours of vaccination.
The Defender reached out to the CDC in a series of emails inquiring about why the babies were not included in the study, but the CDC declined to provide details about its knowledge of the reports.
The agency said only that the VAERS reports were mistaken — neither infant had received the shot.
In response, CHD filed FOIA requests with the CDC for communications related to the two reports.
The CDC recently responded to the request, sending 556 pages of largely redacted response materials. Redactions included portions of emails sent by The Defender to the CDC and the agency’s responses — which CHD clearly already had in its possession.
Two largely unredacted emails included in the documents, however, did pertain to the babies’ deaths.
No mention of infant deaths in CDC advisory committee meeting
In the last research presentation session of the June 26-28 meeting of the CDC’s vaccine advisory committee, the RSV work group presented data on nirsevimab, touting its effectiveness — how well it prevents disease under real-world conditions — with limited discussion of safety issues.
The CDC reported in the presentation that 41% of eligible infants received the nirsevimab shot as of March 2024, 24% of parents indicated they would definitely get the shot for their children and 23% indicated they would probably get it or were unsure. Twelve percent indicated they would never give their children the shot.
The agency also said it was meeting with manufacturers to ensure they would ramp up production for the coming year after shortages of the drug were reported last year.
The committee presented a range of different effectiveness numbers from different observational studies. Overall, real-world data found the shot was “well above 50%” effective against RSV infection. Committee members said this corresponded to the European published literature that found effectiveness against hospitalization of 70-89% and against emergency room visits of 55-88%.
They said observational data showed the duration of protection was unknown.
In the presentation on nirsevimab safety, the CDC’s Dr. Jefferson Jones informed the committee that VAERS is not the primary system for monitoring the drug’s safety, because it is not a vaccine, so the data had not been previously presented. Instead, he said, adverse events should be reported to MedWatch.
Same-day events are reported to VAERS, he said, and then reviewed by the FDA.
He did, however, review the adverse events reported to VAERS.
Jones said the most frequently reported adverse events were RSV breakthrough infections. He also said, “Cases of serious hypersensitivity reactions with nirsevimab were identified and the product labeling was updated in February 2024” to indicate that.
The reactions include hives, shortness of breath, low blood oxygen levels causing blue skin, lips and nailbeds and muscle weakness. “And no additional safety signals have been identified at this time,” he said.
Jones did not mention the two infant deaths that the FOIA documents obtained by CHD reveal happened immediately following the shots.
The committee did emphasize several times that newborn deaths reported to VAERS “is of course devastating for that family, but reporting to VAERS does not necessarily mean that vaccine caused that.”
However, in that case, they were discussing neonatal death associated with the maternal RSV vaccine.
Jones concluded that the RSV work group was “very happy and pleased with the evidence that shows nirsevimab to be highly effective.”
Known safety Issues with nirsevimab/Beyfortus
RSV is a common respiratory virus that usually causes mild cold-like symptoms but can lead to hospitalization and, in rare cases, death in infants and the elderly.
By age 2, 97% of all babies have been infected with the RSV virus, which confers partial immunity, making any subsequent episodes less severe.
Yet last year as the media hyped a dangerous “tripledemic” of COVID-19, flu and RSV, new RSV vaccines were approved and recommended for pregnant women and older adults, and nirsevimab was approved for infants.
The Biden administration rushed to work with Sanofi and AstraZeneca to make hundreds of thousands of doses of the antibodies available.
According to the CDC, approximately 58,000 to 80,000 children younger than age 5 are hospitalized due to RSV infection annually and 100 to 300 deaths occur annually in that group.
Those numbers are also disputed within the CDC’s own data.
In an Aug. 4, 2023, Substack post, Dr. Meryl Nass, an internist and biological warfare epidemiologist, cited 2021 CDC data showing that over 12 years, on average 25 babies up to age 1 die annually in the U.S. from RSV.
Although RSV can be a serious event for infants, with so few deaths among that age group, both researchers and practitioners have raised questions about administering vaccines to pregnant mothers and monoclonal antibodies to babies, especially given the serious risks evident in clinical trials, and now, in post-trial follow-up.
According to the Cleveland Clinic, reactions to monoclonal antibody treatments are common and occur during or shortly after they are administered. There are also “more serious but less common risks linked to unwanted immune system reactions, such as acute anaphylaxis, cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and serum sickness.”
Nass noted that no monoclonal antibody product has ever been given on a mass scale to children. She also said that the Beyfortus label doesn’t provide information about side effects and don’t address the infant deaths in the clinical trials.
Of the 12 infants that died in the nirsevimab trials, “four died from cardiac disease, two died from gastroenteritis, two died from unknown causes but were likely cases of sudden infant death syndrome, one died from a tumor, one died from Covid, one died from a skull fracture and one died of pneumonia,” CNBC reported.
“Most deaths were due to an underlying disease,” the FDA’s Dr. Melissa Baylor said.
According to the drug’s label, no drug interaction studies — that, for example, might identify safety risks if the antibodies are given with other vaccines — have been done for Beyfortus.
Researchers have been trying and failing to develop an RSV vaccine for children for 60 years, but have encountered serious safety issues. One version developed in the 1960s worsened symptoms for children. In that case, when two infants died, the vaccine distribution was stopped.
Beyfortus is being promoted for babies by governments globally, particularly in Europe, where it was first approved in November 2022.
French independent scientist and author Hélène Banoun, Ph.D., and French statistician Christine Mackoi found that data from France’s National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies indicates an improbably high rate of deaths of babies between 2 and 6 days old in France during September and October 2023.
Those dates correspond with the introduction of Beyfortus in French hospitals, which began on Sept. 15, 2023, The Defender reported.
Beyfortus costs $519.75 per dose for 50-milligram (mg) and 100-mg doses and $1,039.50 for a 200-mg dose. That doesn’t include administration costs.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Columbia University staff removed over use of ‘ancient anti-Semitic tropes’
MEMO | July 9, 2024
Three senior administrators at Columbia University have been “permanently removed from their positions” and remain on leave due to texts exchanged during an on-campus event about Jewish life, the university’s President Minouche Shafik announced yesterday.
The issue in question occurred during a panel discussion in May titled “Jewish Life on Campus: Past, Present and Future” during which the deans exchanged texts disparaging students’ complaints about anti-Semitism.
Susan Chang-Kim, previously the vice dean and chief administrative officer, was dismissive of the students’ concerns, texting that they “come from such a place of privilege… hard to hear the woe is me.” Cristen Kromm, the former dean of undergraduate student life, used vomiting emojis and wrote, “Amazing what $$$$ can do.” Meanwhile, Matthew Patashnick, formerly the associate dean for student and family support, suggested that Jews on campus were just trying “to take full advantage of this moment. Huge fundraising potential.”
Shafik condemned their comments. In a letter released yesterday, she said that the comments were not only unprofessional, but also touched disturbingly on “ancient” anti-Semitic tropes. “Whether intended as such or not, these sentiments are unacceptable and deeply upsetting, conveying a lack of seriousness about the concerns and the experiences of members of our Jewish community that is antithetical to our University’s values and the standards we must uphold in our community.”
The event took place a month after university leaders called in New York City police to break up a pro-Palestinian protest camp which resulted in 108 arrests. Several students involved with the protest have been suspended and threatened with eviction from their graduate student housing for pro-Palestinian activism on campus.
Shafik described the decision to call in the police as an “extraordinary step” necessary to “support both the right to expression and the safety and functioning of our university” after the protesters refused to disperse.
Pro-Palestinian student groups condemned Columbia for allegedly supporting Israel while ignoring Palestinian suffering, and accused deans of labelling legitimate Palestinian resistance as “terrorism”. As pro-Palestinian protests escalated and Jewish students reported an increasingly hostile environment, Columbia came under growing scrutiny from students, alumni and even the US Congress regarding its response. The university is currently one of many institutions facing a federal investigation in this respect.




