Did an Israeli representative just TEAR UP a notice issued by the UN on Israel’s human rights violations in the 2023 Israel-Hamas War?!
Take a look at the viral video, and find out what the facts really are!
Claim : Israel Envoy Tore Up UN Human Rights Notice!
People are sharing a video, which claimed to show an Israeli representative tearing up a 20-page notice that the UN issued to Israel for violating human rights during the Israel-Hamas War of October 2023.
BIG BREAKING 🔥⚡️ UN issued 20-page notice to Israel that it has violated human rights Israeli representatives came on stage for 2 minutes, took the notice in their hands tore it, and threw it away saying that terrorists have no human rights. The World Loves Israel. #IsraelAttack #IsraelPalestineConflict #HamasWarCrimes
United Nations summoned Israel and gave them a report on human rights violations. Israeli representative come on the stage, tore the report and went away. 57 countries with green flags could do nothing about it. This is how a strong and powerful country answers.
Truth : Israel Envoy Tore UNHCR Report In 2021, Not 2023
We looked into the claim or suggestion that an Israeli representative tore up a notice that the UN issued to Israel for violating human rights, and here was what we found…
Fact #1 : Video Was Recorded In October 2021
The viral video is genuine, but it was recorded almost two years ago – on October 29, 2021.
This video has nothing to do with the October 2023 war between Israel and Hamas.
Fact #2 : It Was A Report, Not A Notice
The paper that was torn up in the viral video was not a notice that the UN issued to Israel for violating human rights. It was the UNHCR’s annual report.
Fact #3 : That Was Ambassador Gilad Erdan
The man in the video is Ambassador Gilad Erdan, who was addressing the UN General Assembly after the UNHCR (United Nations High Commission for Refugees) issued its annual report.
In his speech, he said that the UN had a history of anti-Israel bias, and referred to the 1975 General Assembly resolution that labelled Zionism as “racism” – a designation that was only revoked in 1991.
Today, I addressed the @UN General Assembly and spoke out against the baseless, one-sided, and outright false accusations from the Human Rights Council’s annual report.
…
It was on this stage at this very body that the very right of the Jewish people to have a national home was itself declared to be racist. A decision that was justly over-turned. A decision that Israel’s Ambassador at the time, Chaim Herzog, tore up before the United Nations.
So to, the Human Rights Council’s obsessive anti-Israel bias, embodied, once again, by this report, should have no place in any body concerned with human rights, security or peace. It’s only place is in the dustbin of antisemitism, and that is exactly how we shall treat it.
And that was when Gilad Erdan tore a page (or two) from the UNHCR annual report.
Gilad Erdan himself posted a video of his speech on X (formerly Twitter), confirming both the date and the circumstances behind his actions.
Today, I addressed the @UN General Assembly and spoke out against the baseless, one-sided, and outright false accusations from the Human Rights Council's annual report. 1/8 pic.twitter.com/b4YIv2jGaK
— Ambassador Gilad Erdan גלעד ארדן (@giladerdan1) October 29, 2021
Fact #4 : Gilad Erdan Spoke For More Than 2 Minutes
The message that accompanied the viral video claimed that Gilad tore the report in his 2-minute speech. This may seem like a small point, but even this point is categorically false.
The video that went viral WhatsApp and social media is only 28 seconds long, and Gilad Erdan himself posted a video clip that lasted 1 minute and 29 seconds.
However, there is a longer video of his speech lasting over 3 minutes. So we know for a fact that Gilad spoke for at least 3 minutes, if not longer.
Fact #5 : Israel Has Been Condemned Many Times
Frankly, that is hardly the first time that Israel was condemned by the Human Rights Council and/or UNHCR; and it was unlikely to be the last time either.
As Gilad Erdan pointed out in the longer version of his viral speech, Israel had been condemned by the Human Rights Council with 95 resolutions so far.
Since the establishment of the council 15 years ago, it has decided to blame and condemn Israel not 10 times like Iran or 35 times like Syria….the Human Rights Council has attacked Israel with 95 resolutions. Compared to 142 against all other countries combined.
Please help us FIGHT FAKE NEWS by sharing this fact check article out, and please SUPPORT our work!
Please Support My Work!
Support my work through a bank transfer / PayPal / credit card!
Name : Adrian Wong Bank Transfer : CIMB 7064555917 (Swift Code : CIBBMYKL)
Credit Card / Paypal : https://paypal.me/techarp
Dr. Adrian Wong has been writing about tech and science since 1997, even publishing a book with Prentice Hall called Breaking Through The BIOS Barrier (ISBN 978-0131455368) while in medical school.
He continues to devote countless hours every day writing about tech, medicine and science, in his pursuit of facts in a post-truth world.
Find out why many Western countries repeatedly voted against a UN resolution calling for global action against racism and discrimination!
Updated @ 2023-09-29 : Refreshed after message went viral again Originally posted @ 2023-04-30
Claim : The West Voted Against UN Anti-Racism Bill!
Pro-CCP netizens, as well as the Chinese 50 Cent Army (wumao, 五毛), are claiming that many Western countries like the US, the UK, and Canada voted against a UN resolution calling for global action against racism and discrimination!
UN introduced a bill that called for global action against racism and discrimination
Here’s Why The West Voted Against UN Anti-Racism Bill!
At first glance, it is easy enough to see why some netizens actually believe that Western countries are being hypocrites, with many sharing comments like these:
Hypocrites who tell you you have freedoms but actually you don’t. But you still think you do.
But the truth is – this is just another example of misinformation and propaganda created by the Chinese 50 Cent Army (wumao, 五毛), and shared by anti-West netizens, and here are the reasons why…
Fact #1 : It Was A 2020 UN Resolution Against Racism
First, let me just give you some context on the resolution (not a bill) in question.
The claim refers to the 2020 UN resolution called A global call for concrete action for the elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and the comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action.
This resolution is not new, and has actually been introduced and voted on every year since 2014.
Fact #2 : It Was A Non-Binding Resolution
That UN anti-racism resolution is also non-binding, which means countries are not compelled to abide by it.
Fact #3 : Many Western Countries Voted Against UN Racism Resolution
Let me confirm that most Western countries voted No to that 2020 UN resolution against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance.
Total voting membership : 193
Members voting Yes : 106
Members voting No : 14
Members abstaining : 44
Members who did not vote : 29
Countries that voted No that year were Australia, Canada, Czechia (Czech Republic), Congo, France, Germany, Guyana, Israel, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Netherlands, Slovenia, United Kingdom, and United States.
If this UN resolution seems familiar, that is because it is similar to the Anti-Nazi resolution that Russia has submitted every year since 2012, and one which many Western countries consistently voted against, or abstained from voting.
Like this anti-racism UN resolution, that anti-Nazi resolution was hypocritical in nature. Russia did not introduce it to fight Nazism or neo-Nazis, but to justify its annexation of Crimea in March 2014, and its 2022 invasion of Ukraine.
Russia claims that it had to invade Ukraine to “denazify” it, and is using that UN resolution to justify its invasion of Ukraine.
Speaking to European Voice before the vote, Lithuania’s foreign minister, Linas Linkevičius, said that “no one should doubt that we are condemning fascism”, but, he continued, “under cover of this condemnation, Russia is pursuing its own agenda”.
Fact #4 : Western Countries Were Against Durban Declaration
Western countries have long boycotted the 2001 Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (DDPA), and the resulting Durban Review Conference that was called to implement it.
Even though the DDPA ostensibly has laudable goals – to eliminate “racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance”, it is being used to promote anti-Semitism, impose restrictions on free speech, and does not address discrimination against the LGBT community.
Our concerns about the 2001 Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (DDPA) are well-known, including its unfair and unacceptable singling out of Israel and its endorsement of overbroad restrictions on freedom of expression that run counter to the U.S. commitment to robust free speech. But we will always stand ready to work with others in the effort to combat racism, bigotry, and racial discrimination.
After another vote on the same resolution in 2021, the Biden Administration reiterated that the United States remain opposed to the DDPA and its “restrictions on freedom of speech and expression“.
As in previous years, we deeply regret that we cannot support this resolution, which does not genuinely focus on countering racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. Among our concerns are the resolution’s endorsement of the Durban Declaration and Program of Action (DDPA), the outcome of the Durban review conference and its endorsement of overbroad restrictions on freedom of speech and expression.
We reject any effort to advance the “full implementation” of the DDPA. We believe this resolution serves as a vehicle to prolong divisions , rather than providing an inclusive way forward for the international community to counter the scourge of racism and racial discrimination.
The United States also opposed the UN anti-racism resolution which called for UN States to implement Article 4 of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD).
And why is Article 4 of the CERD so offensive to the United States? After all, it calls for UN States to declare an offence punishable by law “all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred”, amongst other things.
That’s because the United States Constitution provides the right to freedom of speech and peaceful assembly and association, and this includes even offensive beliefs like Nazism and racism.
As Nicholas Hill, the Deputy US Representative for ECOSOC explained on November 12, 2021, when the United States voted No on the similar Anti-Nazi UN resolution :
The United States Supreme Court has consistently affirmed the constitutional right to freedom of speech and the rights of peaceful assembly and association, including by avowed Nazis, whose hatred and xenophobia are vile and widely scorned by the American people. We nevertheless firmly defend the constitutional rights of those who exercise their fundamental freedoms to combat intolerance and express strong opposition to the odious Nazi creed and others that espouse similar hatreds.
For these reasons, the United States has voted against each new version of this resolution since 2005 and is, again, compelled to vote “No” on this resolution, and calls on other States to do the same.
Fact #6 : Western Countries Do Not Want To Pay Reparations
The United States also objected to the resolution because it called for “former colonial powers” to provide reparations. That is arguably one of the reasons why so many Western nations voted against the resolution, or at least abstained against it.
We also reject the resolution’s call for “former colonial Powers” to provide reparations “consistent with” the DDPA.
Regardless of the harm colonialism has done in the past, reparations have nothing to do with eliminating racism today and in the future, does it?
Fact #7 : Western Countries Are Less Homogenous Than China
Since the Chinese 50 Cent Army (wumao, 五毛) appears to be pushing this narrative, I should point out that Western countries are much less homogenous than China.
Most Western countries have a mix of different races, with a significant number of foreign immigrants. Hence, incidents of racism can appear to be more common, simply because their societies are less homogenous than China’s.
According to the China National Bureau of Statistics, there were 2.77 million foreigners living in China at the end of 2019. That may sound like a lot, but that is less than 0.2% of its population of 1.4 billion!
China proudly declares that it has many ethnic groups, but some 91.5% of its native population are Han Chinese. The 55 ethnic minorities constitute a mere 8.5% of its population.
In other words – China is an extremely homogenous society, so there are very few opportunities for racism. It doesn’t mean the Chinese are not racist. It just means that they just don’t have enough engagement with other races to show their tolerance or intolerance to different looks, cultures and beliefs.
Fact #8 : Western Countries Are More Equitable Than China
I should also point out that Western countries are more open to foreign immigrants, with many of them ending up in positions of political and economic power.
The United States, for example, allow foreigners who become its citizens to run for public office, and many do:
Mazie Hirono from Japan : Lieutenant Governor, US Representative, and US Senator for Hawaii
Pramila Jayapal from India : US Representative for Washington, and Washington State Senator
Young Kim from South Korea : US Representative for California
Ted Liu from Taiwan : US Representative for California
Ilhan Omar from Somalia : US Representative for Minnesota
Victoria Spartz from Soviet Union : US Representative for Indiana
It is the same even in business, where many foreign immigrants were able to rise to the top of their industries:
Sundar Pichai from India : CEO of Google
Satya Nadella from India : CEO of Microsoft
Elon Musk from South Africa : CEO of SpaceX, Tesla and Twitter
Jensen Huang from Taiwan : CEO of NVIDIA
Dr. Lisa Su from Taiwan : CEO of AMD
Even though there are many examples of racism in the United States, it remains far more equitable than China, where foreign immigrants do not have the same opportunities as the native Chinese.
Try asking your local pro-CCP activist to name any foreign immigrant who has rose to prominence in politics or business in China, and watch as they gape in stunned silence.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has a central committee that consists of 205 full members, and 171 alternate members. Everyone of those 376 central committee members are Chinese natives – there are no foreign immigrants or their children. Not even a token immigrant just for show.
When the CCP Central Committee and the All-China Federation of Industry and Commerce (ACFIC) proudly released their list of top 100 outstanding private entrepreneurs in 2018 – they were all Chinese natives as well. No foreign immigrants or their children were in the list.
This is really nothing more than yet another example of Chinese propaganda created by the infamous Chinese 50 Cent Army (wumao, 五毛).
All of the wumao articles that I looked at so far have proven to be false in most instances. So please watch out for such false claims. Here is just the latest dozen,.
Please help us fight fake news – SHARE this article, and SUPPORT our work!
Please Support My Work!
Support my work through a bank transfer / PayPal / credit card!
Name : Adrian Wong Bank Transfer : CIMB 7064555917 (Swift Code : CIBBMYKL)
Credit Card / Paypal : https://paypal.me/techarp
Dr. Adrian Wong has been writing about tech and science since 1997, even publishing a book with Prentice Hall called Breaking Through The BIOS Barrier (ISBN 978-0131455368) while in medical school.
He continues to devote countless hours every day writing about tech, medicine and science, in his pursuit of facts in a post-truth world.
Did Germany just publicly accuse the US of blowing up Nord Stream 2 at the United Nations?!
Take a look at the viral claim, and find out what the facts really are!
Updated @ 2023-08-05 : Updated with a new YouTube channel. Originally posted @ 2023-05-01
Claim : Germany Accuses US Of Blowing Up Nord Stream 2!
People are sharing a YouTube video which shows the Chancellor of Germany, Olaf Scholz, publicly accusing the US of blowing up Nord Stream 2 at the United Nations!
Fierce and powerful recent speech of German Chancellor on Americans blowing up the Nord Stream pipeline, the aggressive using of Ukraine to start a war against Russia . ‘ We are the baddies’
BREAKING NEWS!!! Germany Accuses US Of Blowing Up Nord Stream 2. Bravo – finally 👍👏
How To Be A Hypocrite Show How The Actions Of The West Divides The World Instead Of Bring It Together
Truth : Germany Did Not Accuse US Of Blowing Up Nord Stream 2!
This is yet another example of FAKE NEWS created by pro-Russia activists, and promoted / shared by pro-Russian vatniks, the Chinese 50 Cent Army (wumao, 五毛) and pro-CCP netizens, and here are the reasons why…
Fact #1 : Olaf Scholz Was Denouncing Russia’s Invasion Of Ukraine
I traced the video to a speech German Chancellor Olaf Scholz gave at the United Nations General Assembly’s 77th session on 20 September 2022
In the original, unedited video, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz did not accuse the US of blowing up the Nord Stream 2 pipelines. Instead, he denounced Russia’s invasion of Ukraine:
There is no justification whatsoever for Russia’s war of occupation against Ukraine. President Putin is waging this war with one single objective: to seize Ukraine. Self-determination, political independence do not count for him.
And there’s only one word for this – this is imperialism, plain and simple. The return of imperialism is not only a disaster for Europe, but also a disaster for our global peaceful order.
If we want this war to end, then we cannot be indifferent to how it ends. Putin will only give up his war and his imperialist ambitions if he realizes that he cannot wi.
This is why we will not accept a peace dictated by Russia. This is why we will not accept any pretentious referenda. And this is why Ukraine must be able to defend itself against Russia’s invasion.
Fact #2 : It Features A Fake “Satire” Voice-Over
The video is real, but the original audio was replaced by a fake male “satire” voice-over. The original, unedited video features a female interpreter, which you can view below.
The fake video creator actually mentioned this in the video’s title, but intentionally made the extra long to reduce visibility of that disclaimer. The fake news creator also mentioned the use of a fake voice-over in the description:
BREAKING NEWS!!! Germany Accuses US Of Blowing Up Nord Stream 2. (Satire Interpreter Voice)
How To Be A Hypocrite Show How The Actions Of The West Divides The World Instead Of Bring It Together. Satire Interpreter Voice To Show What The Rest Of The World World Prefer.
This goes to show just how many people don’t bother to even read the title. Of course, when it comes to pro-Russia and pro-CCP netizens, who cares? If it is anti-America, it must be true.
Fact #3 : It Was Posted By A New “Parody” YouTube Account
The viral video was posted by a new YouTube account created on March 15, 2023.
So far, this YouTube channel – AlienJacket, posted six anti-Western videos – five of which are fake “parody” videos.
The only non-parody video is of Zambian politician Fred M’membe criticising the United States at China’s recent “democracy forum” – the the Second International Forum on Democracy.
Despite being reported as misinformation, YouTube allowed the video to chalk up over 103,000 views over 3 months… and counting.
Fact #4 : It Was Reposted By MVO Channel
Perhaps impressed by how many views the fake video that AlienJacket created drew, a new YouTube channel called MVO Channel reposted the video in May 2023.
Again, YouTube left the video untouched, despite being reported as misinformation…
Fact #5 : Unknown Who Destroyed Nord Stream 2 Pipelines
It is currently unknown who destroyed the Nord Stream 2 pipelines. As far as plausible reasons go, many countries had plausible reasons to destroy the Nord Stream pipelines:
US : To prevent allies in Europe from being held hostage by their reliance on cheap Russian gas.
UK : To encourage allies in Europe to support Ukraine in its fight against the Russian invasion.
Russia : To stop supplying Europe without breaking its gas supply contracts, and/or to divide Europe.
Ukraine : To unite Europe against Russia.
While motive is important, it is not evidence that a country has committed the crime. There has to be actual evidence that the US / UK / Russia / Ukraine did it.
Regardless of what armchair experts may claim, there is simply no conclusive evidence YET that any of those countries are responsible for the destruction of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipelines.
Please help us FIGHT FAKE NEWS by sharing this fact check article out, and please SUPPORT our work!
Please Support My Work!
Support my work through a bank transfer / PayPal / credit card!
Name : Adrian Wong Bank Transfer : CIMB 7064555917 (Swift Code : CIBBMYKL)
Credit Card / Paypal : https://paypal.me/techarp
Dr. Adrian Wong has been writing about tech and science since 1997, even publishing a book with Prentice Hall called Breaking Through The BIOS Barrier (ISBN 978-0131455368) while in medical school.
He continues to devote countless hours every day writing about tech, medicine and science, in his pursuit of facts in a post-truth world.
Did a UN report call for the decriminalisation of sex between adults and children?!
Take a look at the viral claim, and find out what the facts really are!
Claim : UN Report Calls For Decriminalisation Of Sex Between Adults + Children
People are sharing an article which claims that a UN report just called for the decriminalisation of sex between adults and children!
Here is an excerpt from the long article, for your reference. Please skip to the next section for the facts!
UN report calls for decriminalization of all sexual activity, including between adults and children
A new report from the United Nations has called for all forms of drug use and sexual activity to be decriminalized globally.
Written by the International Committee of Jurists (ICJ), UNAIDS and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), the report was released on International Women’s Day, with the goal of guiding “the application of international human rights law to criminal law.” Called the “8 March principles,” the report calls for offenses related to “sex, drug use, HIV, sexual and reproductive health, homelessness and poverty” to be decriminalized.
The United Nations experts say that criminalizing offenses related to these issues constitute an attack on human rights.
While on the surface, it may seem relatively uncontroversial, the report calls for sex between adults and minors to be decriminalized, so long as the minors “consent”:
Minors, of course, cannot truly consent to sex with an adult — something these so-called experts should know. The report also calls for all criminal laws relating to sex work to be abolished, which could easily serve to aid traffickers, pimps, and abusers. In turn, this serves the abortion industry as well, which has aided traffickers and abusers by failing to report suspected abuse and returning victims to their abusers after their abortions. Decriminalizing sex work, sex crimes against minors, and abortion would only serve to doubly suit traffickers and abusers, who are known to use abortion as a means to cover up their crimes.
What UN Report Said On Between Adults + Children : Nothing
This is just another example of FAKE NEWS, here are the reasons why…
Fact #1 : The Report Was Released In March 2023
The UN report in question was released on 8 March 2023 by UNAIDS. You can download a PDF copy to read for yourself.
The International Committee of Jurists (ICJ) along with UNAIDS and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) officially launched a new set of expert jurist legal principles to guide the application of international human rights law to criminal law.
The ‘8 March principles’ as they are called lay out a human rights-based approach to laws criminalising conduct in relation to sex, drug use, HIV, sexual and reproductive health, homelessness and poverty.
Ian Seiderman, Law and Policy Director at ICJ said, “Criminal law is among the harshest of tools at the disposal of the State to exert control over individuals…as such, it ought to be a measure of last resort however, globally, there has been a growing trend towards overcriminalization.”
“We must acknowledge that these laws not only violate human rights, but the fundamental principles of criminal law themselves,” he said.
Fact #2 : The Report Was Written By The ICJ
I should point out that the report was written by the International Committee of Jurists (ICJ), which is not part of the United Nations, and is a separate and independent body. So technically, it is not a UN report.
Composed of 60 eminent judges and lawyers from all regions of the world, the International Commission of Jurists promotes and protects human rights through the Rule of Law, by using its unique legal expertise to develop and strengthen national and international justice systems. Established in 1952 and active on five continents, the ICJ aims to ensure the progressive development and effective implementation of international human rights and international humanitarian law; secure the realization of civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights; safeguard the separation of powers; and guarantee the independence of the judiciary and legal profession.
Before we get to the crux of the issue, it is important to note these definitions.
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child broadly defines a child as an individual aged 0-18 years, but over time, the UN and the WHO formally defined adolescence as the ages of 10-19.
Fact #4 : Report Referred To Adolescent Sexual Activity
The ICJ / UN report in question referred to adolescent sexual activity, and not child sexual activity.
In the Foreword on Page 2 and the Introduction on Page 7, it was mentioned twice that the report referred to “consensual sexual activities, including in contexts such as sex outside marriage, same-sex sexual relations, adolescent sexual activity and sex work“.
This is repeated for the third time in Part III of the document, where it called for the decriminalisation of “consensual sexual activities, including in contexts such as sex outside marriage, same-sex sexual relations, adolescent sexual activity and sex work“.
Therefore, Principle 16 – Consensual Sexual Conduct, where the report called for the decriminalisation of consensual sexual conduct clearly refers to adolescents, and not children at large.
Fact #5 : Adolescents Are Having Sex
The decriminalisation of consensual sexual activity involving adolescents is critical, because the truth is – many adolescents are having sex.
In its 2013 study of young adolescent sexual activity, the Guttmacher Institute noted that by the time they turn 16, about ⅓ of adolescents have had sex, increasing to nearly half (48%) by 17 years of age, and 61% when they turn 18.
If minimum age of consent laws are not adjusted accordingly, these adolescents may be criminally penalised, throwing their lives and future into jeopardy.
Fact #6 : Age of Consent In Many States / Countries Is Less Than 18
It should be pointed out that most US states set the age of consent at 16, with Arizona, North Dakota, Oregon and Virginia setting theirs at 15. So adults in most US states are already legally allowed to have sex with children / adolescents, as per UN definition.
Similarly, many countries have age of consent lower than 18, which again, legally means that adults are already allowed to have sex with children / adolescents, as per UN definition.
In all those US states and countries, adolescents who are younger than 18 are already considered to be capable of consent, even though the UN still considers them as “children”.
This has nothing to do with the United Nations, but was decided by individual governments in different states and countries around the world.
Fact #7 : Report Mentioned Minimum Age of Consent
Principle 16 – Consensual Sexual Conduct did not call for the abolishment of any minimum age of consent, which is what those viral claims implied. Rather, it said that such criminal laws should not be biased in favour of any sex / gender, or age of consent to marriage.
In other words – what’s good for the gander is good for the goose too. The law should be applied equally – if the age of consent is set at 16 years, then it must apply to both males and females alike.
With respect to the enforcement of criminal law, any prescribed minimum age of consent to sex must be applied in a non-discriminatory manner. Enforcement may not be linked to the sex/gender of participants or age of consent to marriage.
Fact #8 : Report Never Mentioned Sex Between Adults + Children
Nowhere in the report is there any mention of sexual activity between adults and children. The report also did not call for the decriminalisation of sexual activity between adults and children.
The word “adults” is only mentioned three times in the report, all under a single section:
Principle 17 – Sex Work
The exchange of sexual services between consenting adults for money, goods or services and communication with another about, advertising an offer for, or sharing premises with another for the purpose of exchanging sexual services between consenting adults for money, goods or services, whether in a public or private place, may not be criminalized, absent coercion, force, abuse of authority or fraud.
Criminal law may not proscribe the conduct of third parties who, directly or indirectly, for receipt of a financial or material benefit, under fair conditions – without coercion, force, abuse of authority or fraud – facilitate, manage, organize, communicate with another, advertise, provide information about, provide or rent premises for the purpose of the exchange of sexual services between consenting adults for money, goods or services.
Fact #9 : Report Only States That Underage Sexual Conduct May Be Consensual
The report did not call for the decriminalisation of sexual activity between adults and children. It only pointed out that any sexual activity involving individuals under the legal age of consent may be consensual in fact, even if they are not consider consensual in law.
In that context, it calls for the enforcement of such minimum age of consent laws to take into account the possibility that adolescents may be matured enough to engage in consensual sexual conduct, and have a right to be heard.
Moreover, sexual conduct involving persons below the domestically prescribed minimum age of consent to sex may be consensual in fact, if not in law.
In this context, the enforcement of criminal law should reflect the rights and capacity of persons under 18 years of age to make decisions about engaging in consensual sexual conduct and their right to be heard in matters concerning them.
Pursuant to their evolving capacities and progressive autonomy, persons under 18 years of age should participate in decisions affecting them, with due regard to their age, maturity and best interests, and with specific attention to non-discrimination guarantees.
In other words – the report did not call for the abolishment of minimum age of consent, but asked that law enforcement take into account the opinions / testimonies of the adolescents in question, rather than just applying the law blindly.
Please help us FIGHT FAKE NEWS by sharing this fact check article out, and please SUPPORT our work!
Please Support My Work!
Support my work through a bank transfer / PayPal / credit card!
Name : Adrian Wong Bank Transfer : CIMB 7064555917 (Swift Code : CIBBMYKL)
Credit Card / Paypal : https://paypal.me/techarp
Dr. Adrian Wong has been writing about tech and science since 1997, even publishing a book with Prentice Hall called Breaking Through The BIOS Barrier (ISBN 978-0131455368) while in medical school.
He continues to devote countless hours every day writing about tech, medicine and science, in his pursuit of facts in a post-truth world.
Find out why the US, Canada and Ukraine repeatedly voted against an anti-Nazi resolution in the United Nations!
Claim : US, Canada, Ukraine Voted Against Anti-Nazi Resolution!
Pro-Russia and pro-CCP netizens, as well as the Chinese 50 Cent Army (wumao, 五毛), are claiming that the US, Canada and Ukraine are the only three of four countries to vote against the anti-Nazi resolution in the United Nations.
Here is a recent example, which refers to a 2014 UN Resolution called “Combating glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance“.
Why are the US, Canada, and Ukraine the only three of four countries in the world to vote NO to the UN resolution to combat Nazism and Neo-Nazism? In fact most European countries abstained, while the vast majority of the global south including China, India, Russia voted yes
Note : This photo has often been used as “evidence” that Ukraine and the US are pro-Nazi. The truth is – this is a digitally manipulated photo.
Here’s Why US, Canada, Ukraine Voted Against Anti-Nazi Resolution!
At first glance, it is easy enough to see why pro-Russia and pro-CCP netizens actually believe that the US, Canada and Ukraine are Nazi supporters.
Let’s go through the facts of this UN resolution, and find out why US, Canada and Ukraine voted against an anti-Nazi resolution.
Fact #1 : US, Canada, Ukraine Voted Against Anti-Nazi Resolution
First, let me confirm that the US, Canada and Ukraine did indeed vote No to a 2014 UN resolution called 2014 UN Resolution called “Combating glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance“.
Here was how the voting went :
Total voting membership : 193
Members voting Yes : 132
Members voting No : 4 (US, Canada, Ukraine, Palau)
Members abstaining : 51 (including all EU member states)
Members who did not vote : 6
Fact #2 : This Is Old News From 2014
This is old news from 2014 that is being resurrected due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Russia calls their invasion of Ukraine a “special operation” to “denazify Ukraine”, and they justified it by claiming that Ukraine is full of Nazis.
Hence, pro-Russia and pro-CCP groups, including the Chinese 50 Cent Army (wumao, 五毛), have been promoting this story as “evidence” that the US, Canada and Ukraine are pro-Nazi.
Fact #3 : Resolution Was Presented By Russia To Justify Annexation Of Crimea
The 2014 UN resolution was presented by Russia as a way to justify its annexation of Crimea in March 2014.
That was why Ukraine joined the US and Canada in voting against the resolution. All European Union member states abstained en masse from the resolution for the same reason.
Speaking to European Voice before the vote, Lithuania’s foreign minister, Linas Linkevičius, said that “no one should doubt that we are condemning fascism”, but, he continued, “under cover of this condemnation, Russia is pursuing its own agenda”.
It was not that those countries support Nazism or facism. It’s because they do not agree that Russia should use it as a pretext to attack other countries.
Fact #4 : Ukraine First Voted No In 2014
This resolution has actually been presented on a yearly basis since 1980, but Ukraine only started to vote no in 2014, after Russia annexed Crimea.
Their official reason for Ukraine voting No though was because the document did not reflect the crimes of the Stalin regime :
Andrey Tsimbalyuk, Ukraine’s Representative in the UN, said in 2014: “Until Stalinism and neo-Stalinism are judged with the same degree, as Nazism, neo-Nazism and other forms of intolerance, Ukraine will not be able to support this document.”
This is why pro-Russia and pro-CCP netizens only mention the 2014 resolution, but not the earlier versions. That was the first time Ukraine voted against the resolution.
Did Russian annexation of Crimea turn Ukrainians into Nazis? Or did they simply dislike Russia’s use of Nazism to justify their illegal invasion of Ukraine?
Thanks to a CCP supporter, Wan Chun Hong, I confirm that United States has voted against each instance of this resolution as far back as 1985.
The United States also abstained from voting for this resolution in the 1980 resolution, together with 17 other countries.
The US reason for voting against the resolution was to defend the freedom of speech. As Nicholas Hill, the Deputy US Representative for ECOSOC explained on November 12, 2021 :
The United States Supreme Court has consistently affirmed the constitutional right to freedom of speech and the rights of peaceful assembly and association, including by avowed Nazis, whose hatred and xenophobia are vile and widely scorned by the American people. We nevertheless firmly defend the constitutional rights of those who exercise their fundamental freedoms to combat intolerance and express strong opposition to the odious Nazi creed and others that espouse similar hatreds.
For these reasons, the United States has voted against each new version of this resolution since 2005 and is, again, compelled to vote “No” on this resolution, and calls on other States to do the same.
Nazism is also far less of a problem today than white nationalism, or Russian and Chinese aggression against their neighbours.
CCP supporter, Wan Chun Hong, intended to use the 1985 UN Resolution as evidence that Western countries were really supporters of Nazism.
There is one problem though – two countries voted No against the measure called “Measures to be taken against Nazi, Fascist and neo-Fascist activities and all other forms of totalitarian ideologies and practices based on racial intolerance, hatred and terror“.
One was the United States. The other was Israel. Does Israel voting against that anti-Nazi resolution mean that the Israelis are also pro-Nazis, like the United States?
CCP supporters would like us to believe that, because they think we are idiots.
Fact #7 : Russia Is Using Resolution To Justify Attacks On Neighbours
Russia has been using this resolution to justify its attacks on its neighbours, as Nicholas Hill also pointed out in the same November 12, 2021 explanation :
[T]he United States must once again express opposition to this resolution, a document most notable for its thinly veiled attempts to legitimize Russian disinformation campaigns denigrating neighboring nations and promoting the distorted Soviet narrative of much of contemporary European history, using the cynical guise of halting Nazi glorification.
Here is a list of territories that Russia has occupied so far :
Transnistria : seized from Moldova in 1992
Abkhazia and South Ossetia : seized from Georgia in 2008
Crimea, and parts of Donetsk and Luhansk : seized from Ukraine in 2014
Parts of Donetsk and all of Luhansk : seized from Ukraine in 2022 (ongoing)
This is really nothing more than Russian propaganda to justify their invasions of other countries, reminiscent of what Nazi Germany did in the 1930s.
Russian and Chinese propaganda have also tried to introduce fake claims like NATO had been planning to invade Russia from Ukraine, or that they created COVID-19 in Ukrainian biological labs.
Fact #8 : Russia Colluded With Nazi Germany In World War 2
Russian and Chinese propaganda avoid mentioning how the Soviet Union colluded with Nazi Germany, and was responsible (in part) for starting World War 2 in Europe.
The fascist ideology of Nazi Germany did not gel well with the communist ideology of the Soviet Union, which was why relations between the two countries deteriorated once Hitler came into power.
But the Soviet Union warmed up to the Nazis, and actively colluded with Nazi Germany before and during World War 2… up until Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union in Operation Barbarossa.
Multiple commercial agreements provided Nazi Germany with desperately needed raw materials, including oil.
The Soviet Union invaded Poland in partnership with Nazi Germany.
The Soviet Union invaded Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia, just after Germany invaded France, the Netherlands and Belgium.
The Soviet Union tried to join the Axis Pact, which consisted of Nazi Germany, Japan and Italy.
The Soviet Union provided Nazi Germany with the means to avoid the economic blockade, and continue their invasion of Europe.
If Hitler did not make the mistake of invading the Soviet Union, it was likely that Europe would have been divided between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany as per the infamous Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
In these pictures from 23 August 1939, you can see Soviet Foreign Minister, Vyacheslav Molotov, signing the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact; and Stalin shaking hands with German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop, after signing the pact.
Vyacheslav Molotov signs the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (left), Stalin shaking hands with Ribbentrop after signing the pact (right)
Fact #9 : United States Was Anti-Nazi Long Before Russia
Russian and Chinese propaganda always skim over the inconvenient fact that the United States was anti-Nazi long before Russia.
While Russia was actively colluding with Nazis, and partnering with Nazi Germany in dividing up Central Europe; the United States not only prepared for war against Germany, it shared critical technology with Britain and provided them with tremendous amounts of armaments through the Lend-Lease Act.
Russia would also end up benefiting from the US Lend-Lease Act, which saw the US producing and shipping US$50.1 billion worth of military equipment and supplies (equivalent to US$690 billion in 2020) to Allies.
Fact #10 : United States Prevented Soviet Union’s Collapse
Russian and Chinese propaganda also (intentionally?) forget to point out that it was the United States that helped to prevent the Soviet Union’s collapse during the German invasion in 1941.
It took the German armed forces less than 6 months to advance within 20 miles of the Kremlin. The complete capitulation of Russia was stopped, in part, by a prodigious amount of arms and equipment sent by the United States :
400,000 jeeps & trucks
14,000 airplanes
8,000 tractors
13,000 tanks
1.5 million blankets
15 million pairs of army boots
107,000 tons of cotton
2.7 million tons of petrol products
4.5 million tons of food
Reminiscent of the military aid that Ukraine is now receiving from the United States and other members of NATO, the US Lend-Lease Act supplied the Soviet Union with $11.3 billion ($180 billion in 2020 currency) worth of aid from 1941 to 1945.
Without such large amounts of aid from the United States, it was likely that Russia would today be part of a Greater Nazi Germany, or at least a vassal state of Nazi Germany.
Stalin himself acknowledged the value of American support to his aide and future USSR leader, Nikita Khrushchev, who said :
I would like to tell about some remarks Stalin made and repeated several times when we were “discussing freely” among ourselves. He stated bluntly that if the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war. If we had had to fight Nazi Germany one on one, we could not have stood up against Germany’s pressure, and we would have lost the war.
We should note that the US helped Russia, even though the US was at that time a neutral country, and Russia was responsible for kicking off World War 2 by colluding with Nazi Germany to invade Central European countries.
Please Support My Work!
Support my work through a bank transfer / PayPal / credit card!
Name : Adrian Wong Bank Transfer : CIMB 7064555917 (Swift Code : CIBBMYKL)
Credit Card / Paypal : https://paypal.me/techarp
Dr. Adrian Wong has been writing about tech and science since 1997, even publishing a book with Prentice Hall called Breaking Through The BIOS Barrier (ISBN 978-0131455368) while in medical school.
He continues to devote countless hours every day writing about tech, medicine and science, in his pursuit of facts in a post-truth world.
Is the International Court of Justice (ICJ) going to judge Malaysia over side effects caused by the COVID-19 vaccine?!
Take a look at the viral claim, and find out what the facts really are!
Claim : ICJ To Judge Malaysia Over COVID-19 Vaccine Injury Cases!
People are sharing a video and a message on WhatsApp, claiming that the International Court of Justice – ICJ – will soon judge Malaysia over side effects caused by the COVID-19 vaccine!
They also claim that both the Health Minister, Khairy Jamaluddin, and the Director-General of Health, Noor Hisham Abdullah, could stand before the ICJ and the International Criminal Court (ICC) for crimes against the people.
The post is very long, so feel free to skip to the next section for the facts…
[Khairy and Noor Hisham will face the International Court of Justice]
Malaysia will be the first country in the offce world to immediately refer AEFI cases or deaths due to Covid-19 vaccines to civil, criminal and judicial courts…
Khairy Jamaluddin, Noor Hisham and others may be brought to the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court in the Netherlands and the High Court of Malaysia for crimes against humanity…
The gentlemen of Mohamad Zainuddin & Co held a press conference announcing that they had successfully obtained the COVID-19 Special Adjudication Tribunal’s “ex parte adjudication” order on a “toxic experimental premature vaccine” issued by a Malaysian court in arbitration.
Courts of Arbitration are internationally recognized organizations such as the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, Netherlands, or PCA for short.
The Permanent Court of Arbitration is an intergovernmental organization that provides the services of international tribunals, such as the recent lawsuit brought by the Sultan of Sulu against Sabah.
The PCA is neutral and not bound by the United Nations to avoid international conflicts of interest in resolving issues of maritime borders, sovereignty, investment, and international trade and human rights…
In the two video series above, the lead lawyer and founder of the law firm from Mr Mohamad Zainuddin, claims to be the first to bring the AEFI case to the public stage…
They also claim that more than 20,000 deaths from Covid-19 were actually the result of vaccinations, not natural deaths from the pandemic virus.
Meanwhile, as many as 1 million serious injuries have been reported among vaccinators in Malaysia.
It is not impossible if the death rate in the country has risen sharply by 60.5% compared to 2017-2020, as revealed by the Department of Statistics Malaysia in November 2021…
Meanwhile, according to the Ministry of Health, 2020 will see 113,000 Covid-19 cases, compared to 19,000 in 2021…
According to CovidNow, the period with the highest number of vaccinations was from July 2021 to October 2021, while the highest Covid-19 death toll also hit a record of more than 500 deaths per day between July 2021 and October 2021 For the record, it’s no coincidence…
The AEFI case in Malaysia will be brought before the International Court of Justice and the International Court of Justice of the International Chamber of Commerce and has been submitted to the Attorney General for acceptance and judicial review in the High Court.
Truth : ICJ Is NOT Going To Judge Malaysia Over Vaccine Injury Cases!
This is yet another example of misinformation created by anti-vaccination activists to mislead you into thinking that the COVID-19 vaccines are dangerous.
Even though I’m no lawyer, these facts will show you why this is nothing more than just theatrics…
Fact #1 : ICJ Only Accepts Cases From Countries
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations based in The Hague, Netherlands.
Its role is to settle legal disputes between States (countries), and to give advisory opinions on legal questions by authorised UN organs and agencies.
The ICJ only entertains legal disputes submitted by States (countries). It does not entertain legal disputes brought forward by any individual or corporation.
So it is most peculiar for any individual to claim that they filed any case with the ICJ…
Fact #2 : PCA Only Accepts Cases From Countries
The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) is a non-UN intergovernmental organisation, also located in The Hague, Netherlands.
Tribunals under the PCA only have jurisdiction for disputes that are based on the PCA founding documents (the Conventions on Pacific Settlement of International Disputes), or based on bilateral and multilateral treaties.
More importantly, the PCA only arbitrates between member countries, and does not accept cases from individuals or companies.
So it is peculiar for any individual to claim that they intend to file, or have already filed, a case with the PCA.
Fact #3 : Malaysia Is Not An ICC Member
The International Criminal Court (ICC) is an intergovernmental organisation and tribunal, also based in The Hague, Netherlands.
It only has jurisdiction in States (countries) that have signed and ratified the Rome Statute. While Malaysia signed the Rome Statute in March 2019, it has not ratified it and is therefore not yet a member of the ICC.
The ICC therefore does not have jurisdiction over Malaysia, and filing any complaint with the ICC over any matter regarding Malaysia would be pointless.
Fact #4 : There Is No Arbitration Court Of Malaysia
If you look at the letter that the lawyer, Mohamad Zainuddin, held up as evidence of the court case, it actually refers to an Arbitration Court of Malaysia.
IN ARBITRATION COURT OF MALAYSIA KUALA LUMPUR
As far as I can tell – there is no such Arbitration Court of Malaysia. The leading arbitration institution in Malaysia is the Asia International Arbitration Centre (AIAC).
I could be wrong of course, so if you do know of such an arbitration court in Malaysia, do let me know.
Fact #5 : The Letter Appears To Refer To A Civil Claim
Again, I’m no lawyer, but the letter he held appears to be referring to a civil claim for damages.
ADJUDICATION MATTER NO:L-10-011-2022
SPECIAL TRIBUNAL OF ADJUDICATION
COVID-19 EXPERIMENTAL-PREMATURE VACCINE
[Order 15 Rule 1, 4, 12 of the Rules of High Court 2012 [Class Action]
[The Application by Claimants for Special Tribunal of Adjudication for Civil Liability and Special Damages including Exemplary Compensation against twenty [20] Respondents in this action being fully responsible in executing the Covid-19 Experimental-premature Vaccine]
The letter does not refer to the ICC, the PCA or even the ICJ. Neither does it mention any charges of crimes against humanity.
Fact #6 : COVID-19 Vaccines Are No Longer Experimental
The letter refers to the COVID-19 vaccine as “experimental-premature”, which is false.
The COVID-19 vaccines are only experimental whilst they are under development, or undergoing clinical trials.
They are no longer experimental once they successfully clear their clinical trials, and receive either an emergency use authorisation or full approval from a health authority like the US FDA or EMA.
Phase 3 trials, incidentally, ended in 2020 for the Pfizer and AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccines, and they both received their EUA in December 2020.
I should also point out that the Pfizer vaccine received its full FDA approval on 23 August 2021, while the AstraZeneca vaccine received its full EU approval on 29 January 2021.
The European Medicines Agency (EMA) also renewed the authorisation for these vaccines :
Moderna Spikevax : 4 October 2021
Pfizer COMIRNATY : 3 November 2021
Johnson & Johnson Janssen : 3 January 2022
None of those COVID-19 vaccines are experimental. They have all passed their clinical tests, and have been approved. You should also know that no experimental vaccine can be administered to the public.
The COVID-19 vaccines were proven safe and effective in the massive Phase 2/3 trials that involved hundreds of thousands of volunteers.
These COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials are much larger than the usual clinical trials for new drugs or vaccines.
On top of that, they continue to undergo post-marketing surveillance, to catch very rare side effects like myocarditis (risk of less than 1 in million).
With so much clinical data, there is no way anyone can say that the vaccines are dangerous, or experimental.
Now that you know the facts, please help to fight fake news – SHARE this article out!
And please protect yourself, and your family, by vaccinating them against COVID-19!
Please Support My Work!
Support my work through a bank transfer / PayPal / credit card!
Name : Adrian Wong Bank Transfer : CIMB 7064555917 (Swift Code : CIBBMYKL)
Credit Card / Paypal : https://paypal.me/techarp
Dr. Adrian Wong has been writing about tech and science since 1997, even publishing a book with Prentice Hall called Breaking Through The BIOS Barrier (ISBN 978-0131455368) while in medical school.
He continues to devote countless hours every day writing about tech, medicine and science, in his pursuit of facts in a post-truth world.
Did China really contribute 60% of the vaccine supply to COVAX – the worldwide initiative for equitable access to COVID-19 vaccines?
Take a look at this shocking claim by CGTN Europe, and find out what the FACTS really are!
CGTN Europe : China Contributed 60% Of COVAX Vaccine Supply!
Patrick Rhys Atack from CGTN Europe took umbrage at UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s claim that “the effort to vaccinate the world would only be completed very largely thanks to the efforts of [G7] countries“.
He wrote an article in response called, Who is vaccinating the world?, claiming that China contributed 60% of the COVAX vaccine supply so far.
In his article, he shared this pie chart, showing UNICEF data for the “total doses delivered to [COVAX] by donor country”.
As you can see, he clearly showed that China delivered just over 60% of the COVAX vaccine supply so far. Or did he? Let’s take a closer look…
Truth : China Did NOT Contribute 60% Of COVAX Vaccine Supply
The short and simple truth is – China did NOT contribute 60% of COVAX vaccine supply, and is unlikely to do so even in the future.
Here are the facts…
Fact #1 : Chinese Vaccines Not In UNICEF Data On COVAX
The pie chart was created by CGTN Europe based on UNICEF data, but the truth is – the UNICEF vaccine dashboard actually showed a different story altogether…
The UNICEF data showed that no Chinese vaccines are (currently) part of the vaccine purchases that COVAX made.
315 million doses of vaccines were also donated to COVAX, but UNICEF does not show the breakdown. But even if all 315 million of those vaccine doses are from China, it would only account for 9.5% of the total COVAX vaccine supply of 3.325 million secured doses.
Fact #2 : COVAX Facility Currently Has No Chinese Vaccine
In the latest COVAX Supply Forecast, released on 28 June 2021, there were eight vaccines in the COVAX portfolio, and none of them are from Chinese manufacturers.
It would be quite impossible for China to contribute 60% of COVAX vaccine supply if there are no Chinese vaccines in the COVAX vaccine portfolio…
Fact #3 : China Only Committed 10 Million Doses To COVAX
On 3 February 2021, China announced that they would contribute 10 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines to the COVAX Facility.
Those 10 million vaccine doses finally rolled off the Sinopharm production line on 31 May 2021, as China Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin announced on 1 June 2021.
The 10 million doses would only account for 0.3% of the 3,315 million doses secured by the COVAX Facility – a far cry from the 60% claimed by CGTN Europe.
Fact #4 : China Has Not Contributed Financially To COVAX
The COVAX Facility does not just rely on donated COVID-19 vaccines. It relies primarily on financial aid, which allows it to directly purchase vaccines from their manufacturers to distribute.
Currently, COVAX is funded in large part by Western countries and Japan. You can verify this through the latest COVAX donor list.
Even the tiny country of Bhutan contributed to the COVAX Facility, as have many foundations. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, in particular, contributed US$206 million to COVAX.
However, China has not contributed a single dollar to the COVAX Facility. So it would be impossible that the 60% vaccine supply claim was partly due to monetary contribution.
COVAX Donors
Contribution
(US Dollars)
United States
3,500 million
Germany
1,097 million
Japan
1,000 million
United Kingdom
733 million
European Commission
489 million
Italy
470 million
Canada
384 million
Sweden
296 million
France
244 million
Bill & Melinda
Gates Foundation
206 million
Why Would CGTN Lie About COVAX Contribution By China?
CGTN is part of Chinese state media, and is directly controlled by the Propaganda Department of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
With China’s aggressive foreign stance in recent years, it is not uncommon to see such fake stories being created by Chinese state media.
Some believe it is part of a concerted attempt to burnish China’s image overseas – a form of vaccine diplomacy.
Others believe the many fake stories are being created to drown out the negative coverage of China’s controversial Belt and Road Initiative, and their aggressive moves in the South China Sea.
Whatever the reasons may be, it is our duty as global citizens to stop the proliferation of such fake stories.
Please SHARE this fact check with your friends, and SUPPORT our work
Please Support My Work!
Support my work through a bank transfer / PayPal / credit card!
Name : Adrian Wong Bank Transfer : CIMB 7064555917 (Swift Code : CIBBMYKL)
Credit Card / Paypal : https://paypal.me/techarp
Dr. Adrian Wong has been writing about tech and science since 1997, even publishing a book with Prentice Hall called Breaking Through The BIOS Barrier (ISBN 978-0131455368) while in medical school.
He continues to devote countless hours every day writing about tech, medicine and science, in his pursuit of facts in a post-truth world.
