They really, really, want us to get vaccinated.
Whom do I mean when I use the word “they”? Well, for starters, there’s the government. All Western governments, in fact, even that of Hungary. “They” also includes the major media, Big Tech, the MSM, the universities and secondary schools, and all major philanthropic organizations. All of them are pushing relentlessly for all citizens to submit to the injection of an experimental medical treatment that uses messenger RNA, and whose long-term side effects are completely unknown.
For as far back as I can remember, I have never experienced such a relentless full-court press by all social and political institutions in pursuit of a single goal. Perhaps the war effort from 1939-1945 was like this, but I wasn’t alive then, so I don’t know.
Before I started researching the propaganda push behind the vax, I had never heard of the term “social marketing”. It is an important concept in this dystopian age, so we would all be well-advised to learn more about it. The California STD/HIV Prevention Training Center — which is funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and is a joint project of the California Department of Health Services, Sexually Transmitted Disease Control Branch, the University of California, Berkeley, School of Public Health, and the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine — gives the following definitionof social marketing:
Social marketing is the use of commercial marketing principles and techniques to improve the welfare of people and the physical, social and economic environment in which they live. It is a carefully planned, long-term approach to changing human behavior.
So one group of people — presumably quite small — uses subtle manipulative techniques developed by behavioral psychologists to change the behavior of another group of people — presumably much larger — and make them conform to a standard of behavior which the first group has devised and considers optimal.
My instinctive reaction to such a practice is: What arrogance! What hubris!
We ordinary plebs think we know what’s good for us, but they know better. And they see nothing wrong with conning us into thinking the way they want us to think.
I bring all this up because of a paper that was published by The National Center for Biotechnology Information, which is part of the National Library of Medicine, which is a branch of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The NIH, as you may recall, is where Dr. Anthony Fauci rules over a little fiefdom known as NIAID, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
The paper is entitled “Key Guidelines in Developing a Pre-Emptive COVID-19 Vaccination Uptake Promotion Strategy” [pdf]. It was published in August of last year, but I didn’t find it until a few weeks ago.
It is beyond my level of analytical competence to peel back all the layers of manipulative strategy found in this paper, so I’ll just highlight a few significant points. I recommend reading the whole thing carefully, if you have the time and the stomach to work your way through all the sociological jargon.
First, a word on some of the terminology used. A person who receives an injection with the experimental mRNA treatment is said to engage in “vaccine uptake”. Those who decline to take the vaccine are said to experience “vaccine hesitancy”.
In the epistemological framework of the paper there is no acceptable rationale for not being “vaccinated”. Those who have not been vaxed are either vaccine hesitant — in which case they will eventually do their duty and get the jab — or they are malicious actors who have been convinced by evil anti-vax propaganda to resist the injection, and thereby put themselves and their loved ones at risk of contracting a dangerous and potentially lethal disease.
In the mindset of the authors of this paper — and all the official pro-vax propaganda — it is not conceivable that one could investigate the available facts, think carefully, and make a reasoned decision not to get the jab.
Citizens are expected to give their informed consent to the procedure, yet it is impossible to give informed consent. The long-term side effects of the mRNA treatment are unknown, and will remain unknown for at least five more years. Therefore no one can be fully informed about the treatment. Giving informed consent is simply not possible.
But none of that matters to those who are pushing the jab. My reasoning is considered fallacious and maliciously motivated, and my arguments would be removed from Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and other Big Tech platforms if I were to make them there.
There is only one possible outcome from the point of view of the vax pushers. You may be “hesitant”, but you cannot make a decision not to get the jab, and they will prod you and punish you until you do.
The first thing to notice about the NIH paper is that it’s not primarily an American document, despite its being published by an agency of the United States government. The spelling of certain words — for example, “sceptics” — serves as a clue. And it makes complete sense when you see the names and credentials of the four authors:
- Jeff French of Strategic Social Marketing Ltd and the University of Brighton
- Sameer Deshpande of Social Marketing @ Griffith, Griffith University in Australia
- William Evans of George Washington University
- Rafael Obregon of UNICEF in Paraguay
Mr. French is the lead author, so one may presume that it was his spell-checker that approved the spellings that no native American speaker would use.
Two of the authors list social marketing in their credentials, so we may deduce that the NIH has subcontracted with expert social marketers to produce strategies and guidelines to induce vaccine hesitant Americans to get the needle into their arm as quickly as possible.
The abstract outlines the techniques that will be recommended (emphasis added):
This paper makes the case for immediate planning for a COVID-19 vaccination uptake strategy in advance of vaccine availability for two reasons: first, the need to build a consensus about the order in which groups of the population will get access to the vaccine; second, to reduce any fear and concerns that exist in relation to vaccination and to create demand for vaccines. A key part of this strategy is to counter the anti-vaccination movement that is already promoting hesitancy and resistance. Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic there has been a tsunami of misinformation and conspiracy theories that have the potential to reduce vaccine uptake. To make matters worse, sections of populations in many countries display low trust in governments and official information about the pandemic and how the officials are tackling it. This paper aims to set out in short form critical guidelines that governments and regional bodies should take to enhance the impact of a COVID-19 vaccination strategy. We base our recommendations on a review of existing best practice guidance. This paper aims to assist those responsible for promoting COVID-19 vaccine uptake to digest the mass of guidance that exists and formulate an effective locally relevant strategy. A summary of key guidelines is presented based on best practice guidance.
The paper’s introduction defines vaccine hesitancy: