Pharmaceutical giant Moderna engaged in a widespread operation that sought to covertly shut down critics of the company’s experimental Covid mRNA shots.
According to a new report, the vaccine maker reportedly engaged in extensive surveillance and influence operations.
Moderna sought to remove criticism or pushback against its vaccine from online discourse, the new report from UnHerd reveals.
The biotech firm was raised to prominence for its mRNA Covid vaccine.
The injections were the first and only product the company has released to the public.
Nevertheless, the mRNA shots were enough to propel Moderna to a $100 billion valuation during the pandemic.
However, UnHerd is now reporting that the company ventured beyond pharmaceutical innovation and into the murky world of surveillance, propaganda, censorship, and public influence.
According to the report, Moderna developed an intricate network of monitoring.
The company used the network to influence the public discourse on vaccines.
Central to this operation is a collaboration with Public Good Projects (PGP) and former law enforcement officials.
PGP is a drug industry-funded NGO.
The operation aimed to combat what the company considers to be vaccine “misinformation.”
However, this initiative’s scope and methods have sparked significant concerns.
The effort was blurring lines between public health advocacy and corporate surveillance.
During the pandemic, Moderna transformed almost overnight from a fledgling biotech firm to a household name.
Moderna’s sudden success was thanks to the widespread use of its mRNA vaccine.
However, as the demand for vaccinations waned, so did Moderna’s earnings.
In response, Moderna increased vaccine prices.
However, the Big Pharma company also embarked on a marketing campaign to maintain its relevance in the public health sphere.
The company’s surveillance arm was led by Nikki Rutman, a former FBI analyst.
The operation monitors a vast array of mainstream and alternative media outlets.
Utilizing advanced technology like Talkwalker’s “BlueSilk” AI, the team tracks vaccine-related conversations across millions of websites globally.
High-risk alerts are raised for narratives that could potentially harm Moderna’s interests or bolster anti-vaccine sentiments.
This proactive approach to monitoring and influencing vaccine discourse extends to scrutinizing public figures like Elon Musk, Tucker Carlson, and Russell Brand.
Moderna’s reporting on public figures’ comments on vaccines does not necessarily dispute their claims but flags them as “misinformation” if they are perceived to encourage vaccine hesitancy.
The partnership between Moderna and PGP, however, is particularly interesting.
UnHerd claims to have obtained documents revealing that the companies initially collaborated on a program called “Stronger” in 2021-22.
The program seeks to identify “misinformation” and shape content decisions on social media.
However, the relationship has grown between the pharmaceutical firm and the NGO.
PGP, with its extensive access to Twitter data and influence in formulating pandemic-related speech policies, has been pivotal in guiding Moderna’s strategy.
According to documents, PGP works closely with social media platforms, government agencies, and news websites to confront the “root cause of vaccine hesitancy” by rapidly identifying and “shutting down misinformation.”
Moderna’s disinformation arm is perpetuating the public discourse wars that have been raging since early in the pandemic.
This effort was aimed at shutting down anything that might undermine COVID-19-related policies, including lockdowns and efforts to encourage mass vaccinations.
These documents provide a new window into the process that has roiled speech debates over the last three years.
As part of the effort, Moderna plowed huge sums of cash into “independent fact-checkers” on social media.
These so-called “fact-checkers” moved to shut down any wrongthink on social media.
“What often flies under the banner of combating disinformation is, in this case, nothing but corporate public relations, trying to spin public narratives in directions favorable to the corporation’s interests,” said Aaron Kheriaty, a bioethicist, and fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.
“Does anyone really want to live under a regime where their social media feed is essentially curated by government or by multinational corporate interests that stand to profit, influencing opinion on these issues?”
But despite the growing backlash against social media censorship, the network of fact-checking “nonprofits” has grown at an industrial pace.
The industry is providing opaque opportunities for private and public interests to take subtle control over the public discourse.
Such sophistication in blending public health messaging and corporate advertising should concern anyone with an interest in how the government controls free speech.
“This is an interesting peek behind the disinformation industry, what it actually does,” said Kheriaty.
“It’s about controlling a narrative, controlling the flow of information, controlling how people think about public policy, like the vaccine mandate, and how people think about a particular product that a corporation is profiting from,” he added.
“It’s deeply disturbing.”
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário