Brussels 25.10.2022 Anna van Densky OPINION On Sunday night, October 23 at 10:50 PM, I received an email from the YouTube team, informing me, that my video was removed and my channel was suspended for one week. The explanation of this hostile measure against the Freedom of speech was announced in a standard, non personalized text:
“Our team has reviewed your content, and, unfortunately, we think it violates our medical-misinformation policy. We’ve removed the following content from YouTube: “EU: demand of Ursula resignation”.
I immediately launched an appeal explaining the political and non-medical nature of my reporting from the European Parliament Strasbourg Plenary, but to no avail.
Well… But seriously, what the loud political demands of a group of the Members of the European Parliament for Ursula von der Leyen resignation have to do with the “medical-misinformation”? Ursula von der Leyen holds a position of the European Commission president, or in the other words the Prime-minister of the “United States of Europe”, and the MEPs demands of the resignation are relevant to the democratic practices, in the context of corruption allegations.
In mid-October the European Public Prosecutor’s Office opened an investigation into the EU’s coronavirus vaccines purchases, an announcement attracting attention to the European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s questionable actions in concluding €71 bn contracts in total to November 2021.
My reporting censored by YouTube was correct because MEPs articulated the demands publicly a few times during the European Parliament second October Plenary in Strasbourg. Why the YouTube team is suppressing the vital for the EU citizens information, revealing corruption in the institutional highest ranks, and deleting the content about the legitimate demands of people’s representative for transparency enshrined to the EU Treaty?
Who is behind this YouTube team, who claims to be the guardians of the World Health Organization policies? On what grounds a Digital platform manifests itself as a censor, declaring that “YouTube doesn’t allow content that spreads medical misinformation that contradicts local health authorities’ (LHA) or the World Health Organization’s (WHO) medical information about COVID-19”. And what does the “medical misinformation” mean, while WHO, and other influential players in the field as the Chief Medical Advisor to the President of the U.S. spasmodically, but brazenly adapted their own slippery tactics in promotion of the Big Pharma products? Remember?
According to the statistic research the YouTube was among the major beneficiaries from the lockdown policies. According to The Insider YouTube is a powerhouse for Google, with revenue up 46% to almost $7 billion in the last quarter of 2020, doubling its profits due to lockdowns.
Just a few words about the YouTube, which is a video sharing platform where users around the world stream 694,000 hours of content every minute.
It is owned by Google, and is the second most visited website, after Google Search. YouTube has more than 2.5 billion monthly users who collectively watch more than one billion hours of videos each day. However policies of this Big Tech giant are becoming increasingly obscurant, influencing without any democratic mandate the political, and public life, moreover, manipulating and misguiding societies on epic scale.
However the concerns over the active “misinformation” censorship in favour of promotion of Big Pharma scheme of eternal use of their products reached the U.S. Senate. Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Ranking Member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, sent a letter to YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki demanding documents and communications explaining each instance of YouTube’s censorship of him and requesting information on the development of YouTube’s COVID-19 misinformation policies.
“YouTube has displayed a troubling track record of censoring a sitting United States Senator, the proceedings of the United States Senate, journalists that interview me, and the display of data that is entirely generated from U.S. government health agencies,” the senator said.
Senator Johnson pressed Big Tech executives on censorship, the silencing of conservative voices internal political bias at social media companies and their role in removing “COVID-19 disinformation.” The executives would not answer his questions.
Meanwhile on the other side of the Atlantic Ursula von der Leyen does not shy away from forceful imposition of decisions in a totalitarian power style, trampling The Nuremburg Code, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Declaration of Helsinki, and the Siracusa Principles.
Moreover led by Ursula von der Leyen the European Commission is eager to bring the “Health dictatorship” to another level. The EU is also determined to play a leading role in the negotiations for a new international legally binding agreement on “pandemic prevention, preparedness and response” and targeted amendments to strengthen the 2005 International Health Regulations.
This institution, which has become deeply authoritarian, asks Member States to relaunch their vaccine strategies and to fight against misinformation about the vaccine, which means nothing other than the return of the vaccination pass, and “health dictatorship”.
However, in spite of the heavy “editing” and mass-scale censorship the demands of transparency around the dealing of Ursula von der Leyen and the Big Pharma companies, namely Pfizer are mounting.
Olivier Frot, Doctor of Public Law, from Bordeaux University, France, managed to obtain the framework agreement from the European Commission for the purchase of “anti-Covid vaccines” from the company Pfizer BioNtech.
“We are in the presence of a very original and unusual contractual form in terms of public procurement, an ‘advance purchase agreement’, a form unknown to the writer before this study and not provided for in the texts governing public contracts awarded by the European Commission” commented Oliver Frot.
“This is a type of leonine contract in which the contracting party is exempt from economic risk (firm price over a short period, fixed contractual quantities, significant financial advance), exempt from legal risk (responsibility transferred to the participating Member State” the researcher continued.
“The information making it possible to determine the legality of the procedures for awarding and drafting these contracts is unfortunately not available. Given the totally unbalanced nature of these contracts, one can legitimately ask questions about their award conditions and the absence of corruption and/or conflicts of interest” he added.