The establishment just launched a full-blown attack against medical freedom and people concerned about the safety and efficacy of vaccines, with so-called “anti-vaxxers” and exemptions to mandatory vaccines in the crosshairs. The United Nations World Health Organization, led by a known communist, recently called “vaccine hesitancy” one of top threats to “global health” in 2019. To deal with it, the UN WHO recommended that vaccines be mandated and that those who refuse to submit be punished, among other strategies. Establishment mouthpiece the New York Times, meanwhile, ran a totalitarian screed calling for state and federal authorities to crack down on vaccine skeptics. Critics, though, are crying foul.
The largely discredited UN WHO, which recently honored a genocidal mass-murderer as “Goodwill Ambassador,” launched the first salvo in the attack this month when it labeled “hesitancy” about vaccines as one of the top 10 threats to “global health” that it intends to combat. Among the key policies pushed on national governments and dictators by the WHO’s “Strategic Advisory Group of Experts” (SAGE) are “mandating vaccinations” and “sanctions for non-vaccination.” What sort of punishment refusers ought to receive was not specified by the globalist “health” organization’s self-styled “sages.” However, if they were truly medical experts, they would know that medicine by coercion goes contrary to all legitimate medical ethics. More on WHO later.
The media seized on the WHO’s attack to launch phase two of the campaign. In an editorial headlined “How to Inoculate Against Anti-Vaxxers,” the radical New York Times editorial board cited WHO’s jihad on vaccine hesitancy as justification for its own effort to instigate official persecution of concerned parents. Among other strategies, the Times celebrated the elimination of religious, philosophical, and all other exemptions to mandatory vaccine statutes in the state of California, thereby forcing all parents to vaccinate their children in order to attend school. “Other states ought to follow this lead, and the federal government should consider tightening restrictions around how much leeway states can grant families that want to skip essential vaccines,” the Times said.
Setting aside the editorial board’s ignorance or hatred of the U.S. Constitution — the feds have no constitutional power to impose “restrictions” or give “leeway” to state governments in their vaccine policies — the policies they are demanding are downright totalitarian. Following a measles outbreak in California in which many of the victims were already vaccinated, totalitarian state lawmakers funded by Big Pharma seized the opportunity to smash liberty. The chief stooge behind the push to eliminate the exemptions was State Senator Richard Pan, a far-left Democrat who was the top recipient of pharmaceutical industry cash. Of course, the same pharma companies buying lawmakers to mandate drugs also bought lawmakers to exempt themselves from liability when their vaccines kill and maim people.
But the New York Times and many other establishment mouthpieces want the California model to go national. And so does the United Nations. In its list of top threats to global health, WHO put a giant bullseye on the backs of loving parents who simply ask questions about the safety and efficacy of vaccines. “Vaccine hesitancy — the reluctance or refusal to vaccinate despite the availability of vaccines — threatens to reverse progress made in tackling vaccine-preventable diseases,” the WHO claimed, throwing out more unsubstantiated numbers about an alleged two to three million deaths prevented each year by vaccines while claiming another 1.5 million could be prevented if more people received vaccines.
The UN has developed a multi-pronged approach to deal with surging skepticism. “There is no single intervention that addresses all instances of vaccine hesitancy,” it said, calling for “interventions” that are “targeted” to groups who have not received all the vaccines that WHO and Big Pharma think they should receive. “Accordingly, each country should develop a strategy to increase acceptance and demand for vaccination, which should include ongoing community engagement and trust-building, active hesitancy prevention, regular national assessments of concerns, and crisis response planning.” These so-called interventions include bringing religious leaders on board, using the “mass media” for propaganda, “mandating vaccinations,” “sanctions for non-vaccination,” “non-financial incentives,” and more.
Aside from mandating vaccines and punishing those who will not submit, the WHO SAGE also calls on governments to train health workers to deal with people and parents who are hesitant or concerned about the shots. “Countries [governments] should further undertake education and training of health care workers to empower these to address vaccine hesitancy issues in patients and parents,” the organization’s conclusions and recommendations report states. “In addition, vaccine hesitant behaviours within health care workers should be addressed.”
And of course, the WHO has a plan to do that. In a WHO training guide for health workers, the controversial UN organization explains that one of the ways “vaccine hesitancy” is expressed is when parents ask: “What are the risks in providing vaccines to my child?” Apparently the UN believes it is a problem that parents want to know about the risks of injecting unknown chemicals and viruses (some grown on the tissue of aborted children) into their own children — something that sounds especially bizarre when one realizes that the risks listed in the vaccine package insert typically range from paralysis and dangerous allergic reactions to brain swelling and even death.
The training then gives strategies for convincing parents to comply, often using manipulation, and even provides misleading or downright false answers to possible questions parents might ask. “Can vaccines cause harmful side effects, illness and even death?” the hesitant parent in the program asks. “No, vaccines are very safe,” the health worker is told to say, even though that is demonstrably false, and every vaccine maker in the world acknowledges that vaccines can cause harmful side effects, illness, and even death. Ironically, even the presentation itself later contradicts this, stating: “Serious adverse events or death are VERY rare.” Either they are rare or they do not happen — both cannot be true simultaneously.
An obvious pattern of dishonesty emerges in the WHO training program for health workers on vaccine hesitancy. Another sample question asked by hesitant parents, for instance, is listed as: “Can vaccines cause the infection they are supposed to prevent?” The health worker is told to tell parents that, “Inactivated vaccines do not have live germs and cannot cause infections.” And yet, right after telling parents vaccines cannot cause the infections, the WHO admits that vaccines “rarely” cause the infections to “occur.” This is what normal people would call lying. Apparently, health workers are supposed to build “trust” by telling deliberate, provable lies to their clients (or victims, as the case may be).
That is just a small sample of the dishonesty and the demonstrable lies included in the propaganda workshop for health workers. Another question listed that may be asked by hesitant parents: “Is protection from natural infection more effective protection?” The response is easily debunked: “With vaccines, the immune system is stimulated to develop protection without infection, hence it is more effective.” Of course, every doctor in the world would recognize that as a lie — natural immunity to diseases such as chicken pox lasts for life, while immunity acquired through vaccines often wears off over the years, thereby exposing patients to added risks of getting diseases later in life, when they might be more dangerous.
Because those strategies alone have not stemmed the tide of concerns, the UN work was underway on developing “additional tools to help understand and develop interventions on hesitancy.” One is to propagandize “younger individuals” about vaccines so as to “shape future vaccine beliefs and behaviour,” the WHO said. Another is demanding that “civil society organizations,” typically tax-funded AstroTurf groups, get involved in “enhancing demand for vaccination and in helping to address vaccine hesitancy.”
The UN-backed establishment campaign to mandate more and more vaccines and even remove exemptions from those unethical mandates is a complete violation of the essential medical ethic on informed consent. And critics say these sorts of mandates are dangerous. “The relationship of patient and physician is shattered; in administering the vaccine, the physician is serving as the agent of the state,” explained Executive Director Jane Orient, M.D. with the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), calling such mandates a violation of medical ethics and even the Hippocratic Oath.
In short, their strategies for countering “hesitancy” include lying to parents and punishing people who refuse to comply. And then they have the nerve to attack those who are “hesitant.” Regardless of what one believes about the risks and safety of vaccines, it is unethical, immoral, and wrong to force medical treatments on people. And it is wrong to lie to people. And the UN and its propagandists are advocating for both. Americans should ignore Big Pharma-funded propagandists parroting UN talking points and demand that health freedom and parental rights be respected nationwide. And while they are at it, they should insist that Big Pharma be liable for its products, just as is every other industry in America.