There are many other sites coming up with the same problem, its not just about vaccine issues.
BUT…This is not the issue with this particular part of the site. It’s the PDF inline viewer which is causing the phishing alert, not the content. Just click on the "Unsafe Content" button and it gives you the details. Not all parts of the site give this error, just the PDF inline viewer by PDFjs.
The developer of the plugin mentions this on his Wordpress
site:
PDF.js
makes my site supicious on Edge | WordPress.org
and Wordpress addresses this here:
Got
a security defender warning on the PDF screen | WordPress.org
The developer of the plugin released a new version to make
the URL's relative to the site, and remove the double-URL problem within the
inline wordpress plugin embedded code.
I will let the pecc-il.org people know about this, and they
can update their Wordpress site and fix the issue themselves.
Ultimately this has nothing to do with Bill Gates, Microsoft
or even a global blacklist, it’s a built-in function of the Smartscreen doing
its job and blocking an improperly made Wordpress plugin.
And…Microsoft Edge is using a Chromium engine, the same as
Chrome does.
--
Also, this is a brand new domain, not been around long.
Brand new domains are usually flagged by aggressive security controls between
1-3 months to prevent phishing operations and temporary collection sites used
for nefarious reasons. Simply blocking newer domains just for that reason seems
a little stiff, but it does cut down on the amount of security issues you will
encounter.
Domain Name:
PECC-IL.ORG
Registry Domain ID:
D402200000017426943-LROR
Registrar WHOIS
Server: whois.namecheap.com
Registrar URL:
http://www.namecheap.com
Updated Date:
2021-09-27T03:47:51Z
Creation
Date: 2021-07-28T09:32:46Z
To "start" a new website and use a totally brand
new, never been registered domain, you need to ramp-up the usage slowly what is
called "warming up a domain" to both e-mail and web hits. Namecheap
is also not the worlds most reliable domain provider.
Microsoft and other security engines will also have a
feedback mechnism to register completely legit sites. Its also possible to
piggy back off existing sites to get back-links and traffic flow.
Microsofts instructions/docs on Smartscreen reporting:
Microsoft
Defender SmartScreen overview (Windows) - Windows security | Microsoft Docs
The SSL certificate checks out and is using Lets Encrypt,
which lots of websites do.
* Server certificate:
* subject: CN=pecc-il.org
* start date: Sep 26 20:40:08 2021 GMT
* expire date: Dec 25 20:40:07 2021 GMT
* subjectAltName: host "pecc-il.org"
matched cert's "pecc-il.org"
* issuer: C=US; O=Let's Encrypt; CN=R3
* SSL certificate verify ok.
From: Mathew Crawford from Rounding the Earth Newsletter
<roundingtheearth@substack.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2021 11:10 PM
Subject: Microsoft's Edge Browser Censors Vaccine Research
The Information
Wars Part VI
Microsoft's
Edge Browser Censors Vaccine Research
The Information Wars Part VI
I use multiple browsers.
I have mostly migrated to using the Brave browser from Chrome, which I now
use sparingly. But I keep several browsers open as a way to meaningfully
segregate the 200+ tabs I tend to have open at any one time. Tonight I was just
working on an article and sorting research when I noticed something strange
in my Edge browser. I had a page open on the Israeli Public Emergency Council for the COVID-19
Crisis website. But the page was mostly blank.
Understand two
things: 1. I constantly check tabs of "uncertain
content" to close some down. Since I open dozens of new articles and
research papers every day, this is strictly necessary to remain organized. 2. I am dyslexic. Without going into details, the more
tired I am or the more distractions I have to process, the narrower the focus
of my vision where I can read. I often learn to use new apps and systems
slowly, and in a different way than other people do, but learn to navigate in
my own way relatively quickly thereafter. There are times when it's
easier for me to close down a tab like this without even noticing what it
was. And I nearly did. I wasn't even aware of what website I was on, or the
topic---just that there was no content. Thankfully, I hesitated and slowly
read the horrible white text (which took a few seconds) and deliberately
focused on what I was experiencing. That's when I realized that the browser
was blocking the content! Once I realized that, I
became curious as to what content was being blocked. Very often I open links
from articles and emails and leave them open for when I have time to catch up
on the reading. I hadn't yet read this one, but I understand now why
Microsoft didn't want me to! Here is the content of that page:
This is an
empirical analysis of Israeli airport data published last week, comparing
SARS-CoV-2 positivity rates between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups of
travelers. Here are the first few sentences from the study abstract: The paper describes an
analysis based on data published on November 1, 2021, by the Israeli Ministry
of Health (MOH) on its control dashboard about returning Israelis through the
national airport. The data include the respective numbers of Vaccinated and
Unvaccinated individuals and the number of positive COVID-19 cases identified
in each group. These reflect the modified definitions of Vaccinated and
Unvaccinated status after the Pfizer booster vaccination campaign in Israel
(August-October). In particular, to maintain a Vaccinated status and
specifically the “Green Pass”, individuals who received the initial 2 doses
more than 6 months ago were required to receive the booster vaccine. Israel national
airport is a unique setting, where the Vaccinated and Unvaccinated
individuals all have to test, which allows a more objective assessment of
both the booster and Green Pass efficacy in preventing infections. The
analysis suggests that the positivity rate (number of cases divided by number
of tests) among the Vaccinated cohort throughout August-October is only
1.54-fold smaller than the one among the Unvaccinated cohort (about 35%
relative protection). Understand that 90%
efficacy implies a 10-fold smaller viral positivity rate among the Vaccinated
than the Unvaccinated, and 95% efficacy implies a 20-fold smaller viral
positivity rate. A mere 1.54-fold cohort-to-cohort rate comparison. This kind
of factor could represent any number of biases and is far closer to the conclusions of my modeling that there
is essentially no vaccine efficacy than the claim from trials and
dubiously designed retrospective studies claiming 20-fold (and sometimes
greater) relative infection rates. If "The
Science" is so clear, and on the side of the vaccine partisans, why does
the world's wealthiest vaccine partisan feel the need to auto-censor research
instead of examining its merits within the context of the debate? Isn't
science about examining the relationships between all the data and
the competing hypotheses?
|
