How the Establishment Slew “Vaccine Hesitancy”

Per a May 2020 JAMA editorial, our trusted experts came up with an early plan, worked their plan, recruited ‘influencers’ and looked us in the eyes and lied their fannies off.

Dr. Linda Fu was a co-author of a medical journal op-ed that spelled out how the medical establishment would force Covid “vaccines” on the global population. The nickname I’d give this physician author is Dr. FUBAR.

I’ve spent the last several days reviewing many old “Covid files” to develop key points I'll make in future articles. This morning I stumbled upon an editorial from the Journal of the American Medical Association that was published online on May 18, 2020.

As readers will see, the goal of this editorial was to pro-actively battle “vaccine hesitancy” to ensure as many global citizens as possible rolled up their sleeves and got the “safe and effective” Covid “vaccines” that were seven months away.

***

My favorite job as a Covid Contrarian author is penning paragraph-by-paragraph rebuttals of “official” or significant articles which I view as dangerous and preposterous, articles that prove our world is being led by morally-challenged or incompetent “experts.”

This article/op-ed is significant as it explicitly outlines how the Covid “vaccines,” via a massive conspiracy of accomplices, should be marketed to the public.

For the record, I should note that all of “recommendations” of the prestigious JAMA were indeed implemented or followed.

I hope my readers enjoy my rebuttal points. It’s clear to me these physician authors are still trying to silence people like me. Author pro-tip: Pay particular attention to the words I put in boldfaced text for emphasis.

Viewpoint: Planning for a Covid-19 Vaccination Program

By Sarah Schaffer DeRoo, MD, MA, Natalie J. Pudalov, BA and Linda Y. Fu, MD, MS

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: “Dr Fu (pictured above) reported receiving grants from Pfizer Inc.”

First comment: Well I’ll be damned. Who woulda thunk it?

****

Begin Text and Rebuttals Proper …

“The long-term solution to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, hopefully, will be a globally implemented, safe vaccination program that has broad clinical and socioeconomic benefits … “

Second comment: As I’ve written for five years, the goal all along was the roll-out of these non-vaccines. This was the “solution” our betters were champing at the bit to implement.

Also, can the authors please identify any of the “broad socio-economic benefits” that occurred in America from March 2020 to today. (Note: I’m not talking about the narrow benefits for the Top 1 percent or benefits in prestige or ego enjoyed by public health experts.)

“ … As launches of prior mass vaccination programs have demonstrated, careful planning to ensure readiness of both the general public and the health community for a COVID-19 vaccine should begin now.

“However, the mere availability of a vaccine is insufficient to guarantee broad immunological protection; the vaccine must also be acceptable to both the health community and general public.

“Vaccine hesitancy is a major barrier to vaccine uptake and the achievement of herd immunity …

“… Confidence in vaccines lies along a spectrum, and individuals who have hesitation about routine childhood vaccines have expressed various concerns.

“… In their report on vaccine hesitancy, Edwards and Hackell identified 3 broad categories of parents’ concerns regarding childhood vaccines: (1) the necessity of vaccines, (2) vaccine safety, and (3) freedom of choice.

My Comment: Good job, Edwards and Hackell, you correctly identified the concerns of many parents. All three concerns were prescient, excellent and wise.

***

“… This Viewpoint describes these categories of concerns with regard to a future COVID-19 vaccine and presents suggestions to enhance the likelihood of rapid, widespread vaccine uptake in the United States.”

Potential Objections to a COVID-19 Vaccine

“Individuals who question the necessity of vaccines have historically questioned the underlying principle of mass vaccination. Among the most common misconceptions are that vaccination benefits do not outweigh the risks, and that immunity derived from surviving a disease is superior to immunity from vaccination …”

Stick this in your syringe and inject it …

My comment: These concerns are dead-on accurate and reasonable. Benefits do NOT outweigh the risks and natural immunity is superior to immunity from vaccination. What the authors label “common misconceptions” are common correct conceptions. The experts were and are wrong; the naysayers and skeptics were and are right.

***

“… Concerns about the necessity of a COVID-19 vaccine may be reduced by recent memory of the overwhelming morbidity and mortality associated with the disease …”

My comment: The “overwhelming mortality and morbidity” associated with the “disease” Covid-19 were based entirely on the overwhelming use of bogus case and death statistics. Also, these reports and statistics were produced by organizations who profit or benefit from vaccines.

***

“… Chen and Orenstein demonstrated that enthusiasm for vaccines is highest during a pandemic, prior to, and immediately following the release of a novel vaccine. As such, the health community should capitalize on an anticipated, early public enthusiasm for a COVID-19 vaccine with a well-organized, rapid vaccine distribution plan.

“Vaccine safety will likely be a significant concern given the rapid development and testing process, underlying suspicion about vaccines among segments of the population, and mistrust of the government’s pandemic response.

“As such, vaccine safety concerns should be addressed before and during vaccine program roll out. The public should be informed about the rigorous testing and ongoing monitoring required by the vaccine approval process …

Excuse my French while I demur …

My comment: “Rigorous testing,” my ass. “On-going monitoring for safety,” my ass. These were brazen and intentional lies. The entire government and medical/science establishment CONSPIRED to conceal vaccine injuries, adverse effects and death … and are still conspiring to do so.

“Educational campaigns (Me: Propaganda or indoctrination campaigns) also should include information about the contribution of individual vaccination to herd immunity.

“Transparency about vaccine effectiveness and adverse events to set public expectations will likely improve trust in a COVID-19 vaccine, but messaging should take care to avoid unintentionally overemphasizing the risk of rare adverse events …”

My comment: Re-stated, officials should intentionally underemphasize the risk of adverse events, which may or may not be “rare.”

Question: How could the authors of this editorial know in May 2020 that Covid vaccine adverse events would be “rare”? Answer: They couldn’t.

Also, “transparency,” my ass.

***

“Arguments based on freedom of choice may reflect mistrust of the medical community. While various subpopulations have their bases for mistrust, the perspectives of African American individuals, in particular, are critical to consider as a matter of health equity.

“Early reports from cities and states demonstrate the disproportionate burden of COVID-19 disease borne by African American people …”

***

My comments and questions:

Let’s think a little about this. Why would a virus create a “disproportionate burden” on one race of people? Is it possible more blacks died or had severe cases of Covid because they were more likely to be victims of the hospital and nursing home Covid protocols?

Why did a disproportionate number and percentage of Covid cases, severe cases and deaths occur in hospitals that disproportionately serve the poor and minorities?

We are the champions, my friends …

“ … Studies link mistrust of the health care system and fears of experimentation among some African American people to historical and contemporary mistreatment and disparities in care. Fu et al found among a sample of African American individuals higher levels of trust in vaccine advice from race-concordant vs race-discordant physicians, as well as high levels of trust in community advisors including disease survivors, school nurses, and other parents.

“This suggests public health campaigns should enlist cultural leaders outside of traditional medical and public health communities as vaccination champions …”

***

My Comments:

Per this photo, Hark Aaron looked like he was in excellent health when he volunteered to be a Vax Influencer for the African-American community.

People like the late African-American baseball icon Hank Aaron, who was shown in numerous media reports getting his Covid vaccine in January 2021 … and died suddenly several weeks later.

As in numerous earlier table-top planning exercises, by early May 2020 experts and authorities were already game-planning strategies to recruit, entice and pay key “community influencers” to promote Covid vaccines.

***

“ … Cultural leaders should be made partners to develop and spread culturally relevant messaging and ensure educational content is shared via readily accessible venues and formats.”

My comment/Re-stated: Public health leaders must organize our own massive disinformation campaigns to persuade the possibly-suspicious population they have nothing to fear from the new Warp-Speed Covid “vaccines.”

“Messaging” from the world’s enlightened public health leaders should stress that we aren’t the dangerous disinformation spreaders; that group is the “vaccine hesitant” … who we will do everything in our power, fair or unfair, to shame, intimidate, ridicule and silence.

Mounting a Proactive COVID-19 Vaccine Educational Campaign

“… Robust public health campaigns should harness traditional and social media to engage a diverse audience. Social media serve as a conduit for both factual (ha!) and false information, and it is important that the health community counteract anti–COVID-19 vaccine tropes on social media in real time or these harmful ideas may become normalized by individuals.”

***

My comment: In one key paragraph, we get the entire real justification for ramping up the newly-mobilized Censorship Industrial Complex to Orwellian, never-before-utilized levels. In a nutshell, they don’t want smart people to play any role in “normalizing” the truth.

Check. Check. (Maybe) Check. Check …

“… According to the nonprofit Public Good Projects, currently trending stories question the safety of a future COVID-19 vaccine, criticize a potential vaccination mandate as “tyrannical,” and promote conspiracy theories that forced vaccination will be used to inject a microchip to track individuals, as well as to cull the global population.”

***

My comment: All of these concerns were real and based on legitimate concerns.

While microchips weren’t placed in people’s bodies (although companies are working on this technology), massive “tracking” and surveillance efforts did commence and were utilized around the world. “Potential mandates” became real mandates. Exploding “all-cause death” statistics and a statistically-significant decline in live births and miscarriages prove that the global population has indeed been “culled.”

***

“Emerging evidence suggests that correcting misinformation on social media—either through individual comment or link to evidence-based information (ha!)—may be effective in changing health beliefs. Public health campaigns must engage with traditional and social media platforms now to monitor, counter, and prevent the spread of fringe notions about a future COVID-19 vaccine before dangerous myths take root in the public psyche.”

My comment: This paragraph directly contradicts the above paragraph as it calls for social media companies to “monitor” its users. This effort to “counter” and “prevent” the speech of skeptics is an obvious example of Big Brother surveillance, an approach the JAMA strongly “recommends.”

Also, regarding “fringe notions” about the coming vaccines … Among the 25 to 30 percent of the country that didn’t get our Covid vaccine, we were part of a “fringe-thinking” group of at least 50 million people.

Paging Dr. Welby …

“… Frontline health care workers will play a central role in encouraging COVID-19 vaccination. Many studies have found that physicians are the most important influencers of vaccine decision-making. Thus, strong physician recommendations can bolster public and individual support for a COVID-19 vaccine.

“Physicians who share personal anecdotes about being immunized and immunizing their family members are effective in encouraging vaccine uptake in vaccine-hesitant families.”

My comment: Numerous participants at the pre-pandemic table-top-planning exercises made the exact same point as these three authors - namely that doctors (and doctors groups like the AMA and national pediatricians’ organizations) would be the key influencers in the upcoming vaccine campaign.

These doctors and medical groups were indeed enlisted to lead the vaccine messaging campaign. They were also given fantastic financial bonuses, and incentives to vaccinate as many of their patients as possible.

***

“… As such, achieving a high vaccination coverage level of health care workers early on not only ensures an adequate workforce to treat infected patients, but also allows medical authority figures to share their positive vaccination experiences with patients …”

***

My comment: I’d note that the hundreds (thousands?) of vaccinated doctors and nurses who have since “died suddenly” can no longer share these “positive vaccination experiences” with their patients.

“… Health care workers are exposed to the same media stories as the general public and may be subject to the same cognitive biases that can lead to excessive reliance on anecdotal evidence and false conclusions …”

***

My comment: The “anecdotal evidence” of vaccine harm (gleaned from the alternative media) could fill a section of the Library of Congress. Question: How many “anecdotes” does it require for someone “who matters” to take note?

Again, by now, one can conclude with 100-percent confidence that the alleged “false conclusions” actually happened.

***

… “Ensuring that all individuals who interface with patients in the clinical setting are confident about the safety and effectiveness of a future COVID-19 vaccine is critical for presenting a unified message of strong vaccination support from the medical community.”

My comment: Even more “critical” was the program to censor the opinions, observations and conclusions of the skeptics. Once upon a time in real science and in real journalism, all views were considered valuable, especially the views of any person who was taking great professional risks to challenge the views of their superiors or the “authorized narrative.”

Conclusions and Recommendations

“The groundwork for public acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine must be carefully started before a vaccine becomes available. … To promote future COVID-19 vaccine uptake, the following approaches are suggested.

“First, a COVID-19 vaccine should rapidly be delivered to the public as soon as rigorous testing has been completed, and efficacy and safety have been established …”

My comment: Have the editors of the JAMA re-visited this criteria or re-read their own op-ed? Is it possible these learned editors really believe “rigorous testing” of the Covid vaccines was “completed” or that the “efficacy and safety” of these rushed vaccines was “established?”

If this didn’t happen, per the first criteria in this editorial, Covid-19 vaccine should not have been “rapidly delivered to the public.”

***

“The vaccine should be equitably (there’s that word) and justly distributed …

Question: Is it “just” to force people who don’t want a substance injected into their blood streams to have to get said shots?

***

“Second, the plan for a COVID-19 mass vaccination program should proactively address known potential obstacles to vaccine acceptance using linguistically and culturally competent messaging. (Me: Pick any culture and the messaging was a lie.)

“… Third, public health officials should develop a robust COVID-19 vaccine educational campaign harnessing traditional and social media, with a particular focus on involving social influencers and targeting misinformation …”

My comment: Note it’s not just “social media” that had to help with the requisite messaging, but “traditional media” (aka the indispensable stenographers of the captured corporate media).

***

… “Fourth, frontline health care workers should be taught how to make strong recommendations for COVID-19 vaccination, including, if relevant, sharing their personal experiences with COVID-19 and the vaccine.”

***

An example of a doctor sharing a personal vax experience might be: “Mr. Jones, I can tell you I got the vaccine two weeks ago. As you can tell, I haven’t died or suffered any serious medical conditions … yet.”

A more candid personal experience might be: “As part of our informed consent conversation, I should also disclose that vaccine bonuses pay for my Country Club membership and my daughter’s tuition to Brown.”

Article Information

Corresponding Author: Sarah Schaffer DeRoo, MD, Division of General and Community Pediatrics, Children’s National Hospital, Washington, DC.

My comment: Note that a doctor who works at a prestigious pediatric clinic is the corresponding author and is/was pushing Covid vaccines for children, who had and still have a 0.000 percent mortality rate from Covid.

As I’ve written numerous times, to pick up a “death risk” for children, the IFR decimal point must extend out to four digits - factual information that, indeed, might make some parents “vaccine hesitant” … and an example of information that is never revealed in JAMA editorials.

Writer gratuities via Ko-Fi.