Special to WorldTribune.com, February 14, 2024

Corporate WATCH

Commentary by Joe Schaeffer @Schaeff55

The Jan. 27 op-ed, platformed at big-box heavyweight The New York Times, did not appear out of thin air:
 

The response has been almost like clockwork, at nearly every medical visit in the past few weeks. “It’s time for the flu shot,” I’ll say to my patients, “plus the updated Covid vaccine.” And that’s when the groans start.

“My Patients Used to Be Gung-Ho About the Covid Vaccine. What Changed?” reads the disingenuous headline to the piece penned by Danielle Ofri, “a primary care doctor in New York,” as if there is some mystery involved. The “safe and effective” narrative forced down Americans’ throats during the heyday of the tyrannical coronavirus social regime has completely crumbled. Coercion won’t work anymore. What’s the next move?

Establishment physicians are now being tasked with the difficult chore of normalizing an experimental gene therapy falsely described as a “vaccine” as a routine and regular part of patient health care. This comes in the face of increasing reports that add to the already voluminous pile of data proving how lethally dangerous the jabs are:
 

When they say, “I’ve had enough Covid vaccinations already,” I’ll probe where the sense of “enough” comes from. I might ask, “Do you ever feel this way about your diabetes medicines or your mammograms?” We’ll explore how they come to conclusions about which treatments they accept and try to separate vague discomfort from specific concerns.

Despite a stated desire to achieve dialogue with her patients, Dr. Ofri’s entire tone is unmistakably patronizing:
 

A review of the facts is less about starting a lecture and more about examining emotional responses. We talk openly about what they are hearing in their communities — that the pandemic is over, that the new boosters are more experimental than the old ones, that some number of vaccinations is too many.

It can be a revelation to some patients when they realize that they may be reacting to a sense of the waters being muddied rather than specific information or misinformation.

The primary care doctor still serves as a front-line soldier in Big Pharma’s emotional manipulation war, but far larger efforts are underway as well. How’s this for a nice scare campaign? “FDA leaders say thousands of Americans are likely to die this winter because too many of them no longer believe in vaccines,” screams the headline to a January 2024 article published by the Journal of the American Medical Association. This came out the same month as Ofri’s well-publicized New York Times opinion piece. It’s all coordinated, none of this is unique individual perspective.

The two FDA authors point out what they see as a dire reason promoting this sad trend, which they are literally describing as deadly:
 

Despite the care taken in the development and deployment of vaccines and their clear and compelling benefit of saving individual lives and improving population health outcomes, an increasing number of people in the U.S. are now declining vaccination for a variety of reasons, ranging from safety concerns to religious beliefs.

Setting aside for now the controversial issue of vaccine mandates at the federal, state, or local level in the U.S., which are not within the purview of the Food and Drug Administration, the situation has now deteriorated to the point that population immunity against some vaccine-preventable infectious diseases is at risk, and thousands of excess deaths are likely to occur this season due to illnesses amenable to prevention or reduction in severity of illness with vaccines.

The disgusting message being sent by top FDA officials Dr. Peter Marks and Dr. Robert Califf: Your religious beliefs are killing people. They’re hardly the only ones pursuing this grotesque tack. An organization called the Vaccine Confidence Project’s mission statement is clear from the name. The group is funded by... well you know already... but the World Economic Forum and YouTube are some interesting names listed alongside the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Merck and Meta (Facebook). It is of exceedingly great interest to note that this globalist organization sees religious belief as a main impediment to its goal.

An ominously titled “Theory of Change” section on the Vaccine Confidence Project’s website contains a diagram labeled “Pillars of Vaccine Confidence.” It contains a circle of factors that lead to more trust in vaccines. Included are “safety,” “importance” and “effectiveness.” It is impossible not to notice that one item stands heads and shoulders above all these. At the top of the circle is “Religious compatibility.” A small illustration accompanying it features symbols of the world’s great religions. Direct attacks on religious belief, of course, was a staple of the coercive vaccine regime during the height of the pandemic hysteria.

Professor Heidi J. Larson of The London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine is founder and director of The Vaccine Confidence Project. At an October 2021 event hosted by Boston University, School of Public Health, Larson spelled things out:
 

Larson shares some of the determinants of vaccine hesitancy.

"This is not just about the vaccine, this is about the system. This is about religion. This is about politics," @ProfHeidiLarson says. #SPHConversations #vaccines pic.twitter.com/e9uTWVwVgb

— Boston University School of Public Health (@BUSPH) October 4, 2021

In September 2020 an article posted by her university employer quoted her insisting that trust in “government and scientific elites” is essential to successful mass vaccination campaigns:
 

“One of the main threats to the resilience of vaccination programs globally is the rapid and global spread of misinformation. When there is a large drop in vaccination coverage, it is often because there's an unproven vaccine safety scare seeding doubt and distrust. Sometimes there is a genuine small risk that gets rapidly spread and amplified to appear to be a much larger risk.

There are also cases where vaccine debates have been purposefully polarized, exploiting the doubting public and system weaknesses for political purposes, while waning vaccine confidence in other places may be influenced by a general distrust in government and scientific elites.”

Larson specifically says local religious expression around the world, which she casually describes as “religious extremism,” poses a threat to mass vaccination. If all this credentialed anti-religion sentiment sounds communist, well... consider this. Nature.com touts itself as “the world's leading multidisciplinary science journal.” This premier medical publication on Jan. 5 (same month as JAMA and NYT pieces) published a 2023 Chinese study that goes to great lengths to stress just how much of a major stumbling block to accepting vaccines religion can be:
 

[C]ertain social-cultural factors, such as societal norms, beliefs, and religious influences related to vaccination, are frequently underemphasized in addressing the vaccine inequality challenge. However, these factors consistently wield a significant influence on vaccine uptake.

In a representative-sample survey study in 2020, for example, researchers found that nearly one-third of the population of Ireland and the UK were hesitant or resistant to accept a vaccine. In the current study, we focus on people’s attitudes toward science and religion. They serve as fundamental principles that guide individuals in their vaccination decisions, yet they are frequently overlooked as contributors to variations in vaccine coverage across different countries....

Science vs. religion -- the Chinese authors describe it as a genuine showdown:
 

A study using survey data from 2017 and 2019, which involved thousands of participants in Italy, revealed that people with stronger trust in the science community would evaluate a vaccine more positively...

On the other hand, stronger religious faith is related to lower vaccination uptake....

[A] survey study, which recruited nearly 2,000 American participants in 2021, found that Christian nationalism (the degree to which participants think the US should be declared a Christian nation) was the most important predictor of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy....

This is the end of the emotional manipulation arc gingerly hinted at in that NYT op-ed:
 

It is time to consider why people are unwilling to get vaccinated rather than how to promote vaccine supply. In the current study, we showed that country-level science-religion-related variables, including science trust, religious faith, and science-religion choice, are closely linked with real-world vaccination coverage.

And then they come right out and say it: Religion must be made to bend the knee to “science”:
 

In the future, further investment in scientific education should be considered if it is shown to enhance the likelihood of choosing science in the face of potential conflicts between science and religion. Vaccination rates are important for ending the pandemic, and now we need move forwards.

In fact, pro-vaccine zealots had identified religion as an obstacle to its global schemes even before the pandemic. From UK “philanthropic” globalist foundation powerhouse Wellcome Trust’s Global Monitor 2018:
 

Notably, Northern America is the only high-income region in which people who say they have a religion are substantially more likely to say they believe their religion’s teachings over science, in cases of disagreement. This finding is driven predominantly by the US, where people who have a religion are almost twice as likely to believe their religious teachings (60%) as science (32%) in cases of disagreement.

Overcoming deeply held personal belief is the order of the day for the jab militants in 2024. A new study “led by a researcher at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health” was detailed by the university in a Jan. 16 write-up (just 11 days before that seemingly benign NYT op-ed). It’s startling gist: We must track the thoughts of those who refuse vaccines:
 

Lead author Kai Ruggeri, PhD, professor of health policy and management at Columbia Mailman School, and his co-authors argue that a crucial step towards developing more effective interventions is the close monitoring of public perceptions and opinions about vaccination.

Behavioral researchers must partner with social media companies to analyze large quantities of “social listening data” in real time. (Unfortunately, these partnerships face a headwind of social media platforms’ declining interest in vaccine misinformation countermeasures since the height of the pandemic – none more so than X, formerly Twitter.) Also important are partnerships between researchers, health care clinics, and public health agencies, to understand the effects of interventions on vaccinations.

Religious leaders are called upon to play a major role in this Orwellian effort, a “Key Takeaways” section states:
 

Successful messaging typically affirms cultural values (e.g., autonomy of choice, protection of loved ones, common beliefs) and addresses their reasons for hesitancy — not only facts about vaccine benefits and harms.

Trust is a crucial component of successful campaigns. Trusted voices (influencers) include community health workers, faith leaders, and members of the U.S. military.

The crusade to stick the arms of the entire world with a wildly irresponsible experimental gene therapy is far from receding. New tactics are being devised, and the familiar demonization of personal autonomy is being sharpened into what is poised to turn into an all-out assault on religious faith in the loaded name of communal “health.”
 

Action . . . . Intelligence . . . . Publish