29 October 2021 - 1:57 pm
On the 15th October 2020, so over a year ago, the Behavioural Insights and Sciences for Health technical advisory group of the World Health Organisation had a meeting and published a report on the outcome of the discussion that revolved around three questions. The report is titled “BEHAVIOURAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR ACCEPTANCE AND UPTAKE OF COVID-19 VACCINES” and is published as a PDF on the WHO website (mirror).
The three questions on the topic of “Acceptance and Uptake of Safe and Effective Vaccines for COVID-19” were:
- What behavioural interventions can promote uptake?
- How to forewarn against risk compensation?
- What behavioural interventions can promote uptake for the most vulnerable groups?
The 18 page PDF is in four main sections, with section three having three subsections (yes, 3 and 3) titled:
- Drivers of vaccine uptake
3.1 An enabling environment
3.2 Social influences
Unsurprisingly the goal of all this is described as:
While the behavioural goal is uptake of COVID-19 vaccine by the general population, achieving that goal will depend on the behaviours of other “actors” in the system – those offering the vaccination, those planning how and where to offer the vaccination, and those tasked with maximizing uptake using strategies such as persuasion and the use of trusted endorsers (or “validators”).Page 7 – https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/337335/9789240016927-eng.pdf
So obviously persuasion is not inherently evil, but it does depend on why people are being persuaded, who by, and if it really is in the best interests of those being persuaded, or those doing the persuading. Seeing as any conversation around motivations, conflicts of interest or the dismissal of blatantly evidenced safety issues are being routinely purged from public discourse and generally forbidden as topics of discussion, even asking the question regarding the persuaders and their motivations gets you banned from YouTube and branded a right-wing extremist, it seems like it’s a more than valid inquiry.
As those paying attention will already know, those behavioural studies and insights groups long ago identified key drivers for most things they want to “nudge” the public into doing, and this is no exception. The document describes:
Behavioural research identifies three categories of drivers of vaccine uptake, in addition to people having the necessary knowledge: 1) an enabling environment; 2) social influences; and 3) motivation.
In the section about “enabling environment” they describe having systems where the “default” is that you’re “opted-in”, and that needing to then “opt-out” generally increases uptake. This is well known and why lots of sales techniques include things you need to specifically opt-out of, as a large proportion of people just won’t, for various reasons. When it comes to cookies in your browser you need incessant popups seeking your permission, as your privacy and data is so precious that the default of being opted-in is illegal according to GDPR, but the WHO wants vaccines to be opt-in by default. Hmmm.
The listed environmental factors are:
- The quality of the experience of being vaccinated
- The default
- Health regulations or mandates
That last one is noteworthy as they ask the question “Is vaccination mandatory to engage in certain activities, such as employment, education, travelling abroad or enrolling in day care?” which is currently rolling out in Italy. If you want to be able to earn a living in Italy, you must have had your ever increasing number of State injections for COVID-19. It is reported that:
Any worker who fails to present a valid COVID-19 health certificate will be suspended without pay after five days, but cannot be sacked. Those non-vaccinated could also be fined up to €1,500.https://www.euronews.com/2021/09/16/italy-set-to-be-first-in-europe-to-require-all-employees-to-have-covid-health-pass
They can’t sack you, but they can suspend you without pay and if you tried to work “unvaccinated” you “could be fined”. Mussolini would be proud.
According to the WHO, this is just a use of strategies that “include removing barriers in the environment and designing services and policies to support people’s intended behaviours and circumstances” because funneling the public into “intended behaviour” by blackmailing them into taking an unnecessary non-vaccine that is making them ill and even killing them is just what you do as a World Health Organisation.
The WHO document then goes on to the next section regarding “Social Influences”. This subject is introduced with the sentence:
Sometimes, barriers to vaccine acceptance and uptake are the product of unfavourable social influences and/or insufficiently favourable ones.
…and they note that:
Predominant narratives in the media can also skew people’s perception of what the majority believe and do.
…which is no surprise at all, and is the main tool that is used by those that wish to push humanity in their desired direction, on all matters not just so-called vaccines. They break the social influences down and list “Five strategies to harness social influences” which are:
- Making social norms in favour of vaccination more salient
- Highlighting new and emerging norms in favour of vaccination
- Leveraging the role of health professionals
- Supporting health professionals to promote vaccination
- Amplifying endorsements from trusted community members
All those things are literally describing pro-vaccine propaganda. There is nothing there about how people’s lived experiences will contribute to organic social discourse as to how well these vaccines are working and so others who were perhaps reluctant initially will see the positive effects for themselves. Nope, none of that. This is all artificial social engineering, leveraging allegedly “trusted” people and health professionals to convince people to have it, regardless of what those people actually want, experience or need. Creating new “social norms” i.e. normalising the abnormal is top of the list. They describe it like this…
Communication efforts to promote the perception that “most people are getting vaccinated” – if credible and true – are likely to increase vaccination acceptance.
The addition of the word “true” in there is just a precaution to avoid looking like they are advocating promoting lies, but it is last on the list of requirements which tells you quite a lot. Promoting the “perception”, and ensuring it is “credible” is the most important thing. Do we see billions of pounds spent on promoting antibiotics as treatments for infections? Nope. I have never seen a TV advert, billboard, leaflet or received letters, texts and emails evangelising about antibiotics. That’s because they don’t need to. The idea of vaccines is not new, so the notion that because antibiotics have been in widespread use for decades is the reason no promotion is needed is irrelevant. Some people are allergic to some antibiotics, so you couldn’t justify it on the idea that they are 100% safe either. It’s because people’s lived experiences contribute to their decisions as to what medical interventions they will voluntarily accept, and which ones they feel they don’t need or want. This was always the case, but now that is not an option. The WHO, who’s biggest donor after the USA is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation who’s express purpose is to create and expand vaccine markets, and make money under the banner of philanthropy, have decided that the entire world needs to be bombarded with propaganda, social coercion and influences to take this particular “vaccine”.
Their plan which we have seen implemented over the last year includes:
Conversations guided by motivational interviewing, a collaborative method of interaction aimed at exploring people’s real reasons for hesitancy and strengthening their own motivation for change, can facilitate vaccination.
Recommendations from providers have also been shown to be more effective when the opportunity to get vaccinated is presented as an expectation (the default) rather than an option – i.e., presuming that people will want vaccination
Yes that’s right. We need to conduct “motivational interviews” to “facilitate vaccination”, and make it an expectation rather than an option, as what people actually want is not really a consideration.
If it isn’t clear to you yet how calculated this has all been, how globalist organisations like the WHO, financed by vaccine market making billionaires, that almost every country in the world is legally beholden to, have colluded to use human behaviours against humanity to engineer “vaccine uptake”, this document should make that as plain as day.
Then we get to the coincidentally numbered section 3.3 – Motivation. The second paragraph in this section says:
If people perceive that they are at low risk of contracting COVID-19, or that the consequences of becoming infected will not be severe, they will be less willing to get vaccinated. Some people may try to compare the risk of getting infected with that of taking a new vaccine, and determine that between the two, the risk of COVID-19 is lower. As it is difficult for most people to understand and assess risks, these risk perceptions are often formed using mentalPage 11 – https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/337335/9789240016927-eng.pdf
shortcuts. For instance, people often judge the likelihood of events by how readily they come to mind (“availability heuristic”). As a result, they may downplay some risks (e.g. the likelihood and consequences of getting infected), while exaggerating others (e.g. the likelihood of adverse events following vaccination) based on personal experience or rumours.
This paragraph alone is why we’ve seen a programme of fear and the threat level amplified beyond all reasonable levels that would constitute precaution. The suggestion that “it is difficult for most people to understand and assess risks” speaks volumes. This is typical of the kinds of people that push this kind of propaganda. They really do think the public is stupid, and incapable of doing something they do every single day, which is assess risk. We assess risk while we’re driving, while we’re deciding on activities, what to eat, drink and what choices we make about our health. There are some people who are more or less risk averse, and some who are more or less responsible with the choices they make, but the condescending notion that “most people” find assessing risk “difficult”, so the WHO needs to assess it for you and tell you to take an injection that for many demographics is evidently statistically more risk than what we’re told is COVID-19 shows this is nothing to do with protecting public health, but just about increasing “uptake”, regardless of the human cost.
The document then goes on to say:
Judging events or situations to be risky can also lead to fear, worry and anticipated regret, all of which have been shown to be associated with the intention to accept the offer of vaccination. Among these, anticipated regret – when people expect that an unpleasant future outcome would lead them to wish they had made a different decision – shows promise as predictor of intentions and behaviour. How anticipated regret is used will determine the direction of its effect: anticipated regret for inaction (i.e., not having a vaccination and getting infected and/or infecting loved ones) has been shown to be associated with a greater likelihood of vaccination, and anticipated regret for action (i.e., having a vaccination and suffering side-effects) has been shown to be associated with a lower likelihood of vaccination
What they are talking about here is emotional blackmail and fearmongering, euphemistically referred to here as “anticipated regret”. They are describing the use of “anticipated regret” i.e. emotional blackmail and fearmongering in the direction that is associated with “greater likelihood of vaccination”, and they state it clearly. They are advocating leveraging the fear surrounding “not having a vaccination and getting infected and/or infecting loved ones“, which we see weaponised against the public daily.
Of course we see the advocating for censorship too, with this paragraph:
With the overabundance of information circulating around COVID-19 – also known as the “infodemic” – people are inevitably exposed to misinformation, rumours and false conspiracy theories, which may erode their confidence in vaccination. Developing trusted sources, fact-checking and responding to misinformation through dedicated
dashboards are some of the strategies suggested to manage infodemics.
This repeats the same strategies as the recommendations from Event 201, the “high-level pandemic exercise” held on the 18th October 2019 in partnership with The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Their take on it (point 7 in the list of recommendations) was this:
Governments and the private sector should assign a greater priority to developing methods to combat mis- and disinformation prior to the next pandemic response.https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/event201/recommendations.html
Governments will need to partner with traditional and social media companies to research and develop nimble approaches to countering misinformation. This will require developing the ability to flood media with fast, accurate, and consistent information. Public health authorities should work with private employers and trusted community leaders such as faith leaders, to promulgate factual information to employees and citizens. Trusted, influential private-sector employers should create the capacity to readily and reliably augment public messaging, manage rumors and misinformation, and amplify credible information to support emergency public communications. National public health agencies should work in close collaboration with WHO to create the capability to rapidly develop and release consistent health messages. For their part, media companies should commit to ensuring that authoritative messages are prioritized and that false messages are suppressed including though the use of technology.
Who gets to decide what “false messages” are? Well Governments and the “private sector” of course. The very organisations that have gained financially or expanded their powers beyond anything seen before in so-called democratic nations are the ones that get to decide what information is true or false, and therefore what information is permitted to exist in the public sphere and gets promoted as part of the WHO (and others) management of “perception”, all to increase “vaccine uptake”.
So the WHO then list some “strategies to tackle motivational barriers to vaccine acceptance and uptake” which are:
- Building timely trust in vaccines
- Leveraging anticipated regret in communications
- Emphasizing the social benefits of vaccination
We already looked at the “anticipated regret” thing, but for clarity so that there is no misinterpretation and it is definitely emotional blackmail and manipulation, they explain it…
Anticipated regret has been shown to be a strong predictor of vaccination, and there is potential promise in evoking it to encourage vaccination. For example, highlighting the consequences of inaction (i.e., by asking people how they would feel if they do not get vaccinated and end up contracting COVID-19 or transmitting it to loved ones) during consultations with health professionals may encourage vaccination.Page 13 – https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/337335/9789240016927-eng.pdf
Yup, there is “potential promise in evoking” emotional blackmail “to encourage vaccination”. All because you and I are not deemed capable to assess risk, and might not want their so-called vaccine that doesn’t work, and actually makes people ill.
All they are concerned about is getting this stuff into as many people as possible. They want to eliminate the “unvaccinated” and get everyone injected as then there will be no control group. No group of people who are significantly more healthy and not injected with mRNA and have their own cells generating the pathogenic spike protein. That would appear to be the reason they are so desperate to get this into everyone. Normally Governments let people make incredibly unhealthy choices and there are no consequences. No societal exclusions, no passports that stop you from working or participating in a social life. People drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes, both of which are entirely legal, the Government has no problems with but cause untold health problems.
Ask yourself why this? Why does a disease that shares more traits, including mortality and general health effects, with the “common cold” or what we know as influenza, suddenly requires this level of social engineering and outright blackmail to take what is an ineffective vaccine?