One way to “persuade” people to get vaccinated is to simply strip them of their rights. Sure, the Government won’t tie you down to get it, but good luck enjoying your life otherwise. This is David Williams, the Chief Medical Officer of Ontario.
A point of clarification: the research into “vaccine hesitancy” isn’t about CREATING safe vaccines. Instead, it’s about CONVINCING people that they already are. Big difference.
1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”
The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, obscuring the vile agenda called the “Great Reset“. The Gates Foundation finances: the WHO, the US CDC, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the BBC, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Also: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; and the International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here, and here. The media is paid off, and our democracy compromised, shown: here, here, here, and here.
This infographic uses autism as an example. The trick is to be conclusive (but vague), in stating that there are no harmful effects. It recommends not saying anything meaningful or specific, in order to make it harder to pin down.
4. Only Be “Honest” With Vaccine Accepters
This chart gives different techniques depending how willing to the person is to accept vaccines at all. It suggests being somewhat open about the risks, but emphasizing that they are rare. For the reluctant people, the guidelines say to focus on “building rapport” to get them to take it, but doesn’t specify to list what’s actually in the vaccines. As for the “refusers”, the recommendation is a mild form of gaslighting. Avoid giving direct answers, and focus on the risks of not being vaccinated.
5. Have A Script/Technique Already Prepared
Start early:
Take advantage of prenatal appointments and the first few postnatal appointments. A mixed-methods study showed that parents who delayed or refused vaccines were twice as likely to start thinking about vaccines before their children’s births. A randomized controlled trial showed that adherence to the immunization schedule improved with a single prenatal education session, and another showed benefit from stepwise education interventions prenatally, postnatally, and 1 month after birth. At these appointments, parents can be provided with opportunities to ask questions and with credible take-home materials, websites, or tools.
Present vaccination as the default approach:
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends a presumptive approach to discussions about vaccinations and restating the recommendation after addressing parents’ concerns. A cross-sectional study found that parents were significantly more likely to resist vaccine recommendations if the provider used a participatory rather than a presumptive initiation format (odds ratio of 17.5, 95% CI 1.2 to 253.5) and that when providers pursued the original recommendations, almost half of initially resistant parents subsequently accepted the recommendations. While a follow-up cross-sectional study showed that the presumptive initiation format had a lower-rated visit experience, it was still associated with higher parental vaccine acceptance at the end of the visit.
Be honest about side effects when asked, and reassure parents of a robust vaccine safety system:
A 2014 systematic review showed that serious adverse events associated with vaccines are extremely rare. Perceived risk might be lowered by acknowledging that vaccines might result in mild side effects and very rarely serious adverse events. The Canadian vaccine safety system has 8 components, including an evidence-based approval process, manufacturer regulations, independent recommendations for vaccine use, and ongoing monitoring of adverse events. It has been shown in a randomized controlled trial that providing general information on the adverse event reporting system might increase trust and vaccine acceptance among adults. However, no similar study was found for childhood immunization.
Tell stories in addition to providing scientific facts:
According to a survey of primary care physicians in the United States, the most common communication practices deemed very effective for convincing skeptical parents were personal statements by physicians about what they would do for their own children and about their personal experiences with vaccine safety among their patients. Stories and images highlighting the effects of VPDs improved attitudes toward vaccination according to a randomized controlled trial, especially for individuals who had lower confidence in vaccines. However, another randomized controlled trial showed that dramatic narratives and images resulted in no significant change in intention to vaccinate and even decreased intention among those who had the least favourable perception. However, this study tested Web-based messages only. Although more evidence is needed on the topic, storytelling, which has commonly been used by the antivaccine movement, has been proposed as a possible messaging technique to supplement evidence-based information.
Build trust with parents:
A recent review found that parental trust in a provider helps ensure vaccine compliance. A qualitative study reported that a mother’s trust is obtained when a provider spends time discussing vaccines, does not deride her concerns, is knowledgeable, and provides satisfactory answers. Other qualitative studies identified respect, empathy, and tailored information as aspects of communication competence.
Address pain:
Pain associated with vaccination is a concern for many parents and children. Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines have been developed to reduce vaccination-associated.
Focus on protection for the child and community:
Necessity of vaccines is the top concern from Canadian parents, and a study conducted in Quebec found that one of the strongest factors associated with parental vaccine hesitancy was the belief that VPDs were not serious. A study conducted in the United States had similar findings. To highlight the importance of individual protection, the use of motivational interviewing could be considered. A recent Canadian randomized controlled trial showed that motivational interviewing on maternity wards increased the intention to vaccinate by 20% and the likelihood of complete vaccination status by 9%. A systematic review concluded that there might be some parental willingness to vaccinate children for the benefit of others; however, its relative importance as a motivating tool is uncertain.
Note that throughout this, there is no suggestion that the doctor have a frank and open discussion about what is actually in vaccines, the gaps in knowledge, or the long term effects. The recommendation is to build trust, so that the patient will not ask difficult questions and just take it. The entire approach can be described as “shut up and trust me”. Again, doctors are guided to be vague when answering questions.
6. Set Up Actual Vaccine Hesitancy Clinic
Again, the focus is on “building trust” and “forming a relationship”, but never a focus on educating the patient on what is in the vaccines, and the long term effects. Also, guilt trip the people by implying that it’s necessary in order for life to return to normal.
7. Social Media Manipulation, Censorship
There are many ways to “put one’s thumb on the scale” to ensure that the right, pro-vaccination messages are what is seen and heard online. Some techniques include:
(a) Flood social media with pro-vaxx content
(b) Automatically direct people to Government sites
(c) Take down sites which contradict the Government
(d) Get certain accounts demonetized
(e) Manipulate search algorithms
8. Deliberate Gaslighting Of Critics, Skeptics
There is the option of intentionally smearing people as emotional and bigoted for asking legitimate questions about masks and vaccines. While this CBC video explicitly claims to oppose shaming and humiliation, it’s tone seems to support exactly that.
9. Not Limited To Current “Pandemic”
No, this situation isn’t unique to 2020. Governments and NGOs have for many years been looking at ways to get more people vaccinated.
10. Patients Not Provided Real Information
Much of the research involves techniques of “building a relationship”, or of “building a rapport”, or of “being sympathetic”. This does nothing to address the litany of legitimate concerns and questions that many have about the chemicals being injected into their bodies.
Even more disturbingly, there aren’t recommendations that physicians and nurses take the time and effort to research and understand exactly what the chemicals are.
In fact, much of the published research explicitly recommends avoiding real discussion, especially with people who have done their homework — so called “vaccine refusers”. In effect, it encourages health care workers to betray their oath and obligations regarding informed consent.
If this is health care, then the entire system is broken beyond repair.
A telltale sign of deception is when a person is asked increasingly direct questions, but remains vague about the answers. That is exactly what is implied with these techniques to overcome “vaccine hesitancy”.
Go onto Health Canada’s site and search the term “vaccine hesitancy”. You will find over 200 papers, studies, and listings — some very in depth work. Keep in mind, this is ONLY Health Canada. See #6 for mandatory CV-19 vaccines.
1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”
The rest of the series is here. See the lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes. There is a lot more than most people realize. For background, check this and this article. The Gates Foundation finances many things, including: the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, and individual pharmaceutical companies.
2. Motivational Interviewing
Abstract
According to the World Health Organization, vaccine hesitancy is among the top threats to global health and few effective strategies address this growing problem. In Canada, approximatively 20% of parents/caregivers are concerned about their children receiving vaccines. Trying to convince them by simply providing the facts about vaccination may backfire and make parents/caregivers even more hesitant. In this context, how can health care providers overcome the challenge of parental decision-making needs regarding vaccination of their children?
Motivational interviewing aims to support decision making by eliciting and strengthening a person’s motivation to change their behaviour based on their own arguments for change. This approach is based on three main components: the spirit to cultivate a culture of partnership and compassion; the processes to foster engagement in the relationship and focus the discussion on the target of change; and the skills that enable health care providers to understand and address the parent/caregiver’s real concerns.
With regard to immunization, the motivational interviewing approach aims to inform parents/caregivers about vaccinations, according to their specific needs and their individual level of knowledge, with respectful acceptance of their beliefs. The use of motivational interviewing calls for a respectful and empathetic discussion of vaccination and helps to build a strong relationship.
Numerous studies in Canada, including multicentre randomized controlled trials, have proven the effectiveness of the motivational interviewing approach. Since 2018, the PromoVac strategy, an educational intervention based on the motivational interviewing approach, has been implemented as a new practice of care in maternity wards across the province of Quebec through the Entretien Motivationnel en Maternité pour l’Immunisation des Enfants (EMMIE) program.
To be absolutely clear, the above research, and what follows has nothing to do with research into CREATING safe vaccines. Instead, the goal is to CONVINCE you that they already are.
3. Challenges And Approaches
Because causes of vaccine hesitancy and determinants of vaccine acceptance are complex and multidimensional, there is no “magic bullet” that can address vaccine hesitancy and enhance vaccine acceptance. A summary of the findings from 15 published literature reviews or meta-analysis of the effectiveness of different interventions to reduce vaccine hesitancy and/or to enhance vaccine acceptance reveals that simply communicating evidence about vaccine safety and efficacy to those who are vaccine hesitant has done little to stem the growth of hesitancy related beliefs and fears (41). Furthermore, failure to properly and systematically evaluate the relevance and effectiveness of these interventions across the spectrum of vaccine hesitant individuals and specific vaccines makes it difficult to know whether the results can be transferable or suitable for widespread implementation.
Should the public health community respond to anti-vaccination activists (48)? Leask suggests that adversarial approaches against such activists can in fact enliven the battle and contribute to a false sense that vaccination is a highly contested topic (49). Most of the time, pro-vaccine advocates should “play the issue, not the opponent” (49). Efforts should be made to stop them only when anti-vaccination activists’ advice could lead to direct harm.
Future public health vaccine promotion efforts need to embrace Internet and social media possibilities and proactively promote the importance and safety of vaccines rather than adopt a reactive approach to anti-vaccination activists’ arguments (47,50,51). The role of social media in vaccine hesitancy creates a need to develop appropriate strategies for online communication. Such strategies should aim to provide vaccine supportive information, address misinformation published online and correspond to parents’ needs and interests (29).
In a parallel with the climate change scam, a technique suggested is to be dismissive of the idea that there is any debate. If you can’t win with facts, then avoid the discussion altogether.
It’s interesting that the recommendation is to avoid engaging with people “vaccine deniers” who bring well researched and well thought out arguments.
4.Best Practices For Addressing Hesitancy
1. Identify target audience and establish trust
“Understanding the perspectives of the people for whom immunization services are intended, and their engagement with the issue”, wrote Goldstein and colleagues, “is as important as the information that experts want to communicate” (8). The amount, content and type of information that is needed to move a vaccine-hesitant individual toward vaccine acceptance differs greatly from the basic information needed by a person who is already favourable to vaccination and intends to vaccinate. Research has shown that vaccine-hesitant individuals are “active information-seekers” that are looking for “balanced” information presenting both pros and cons of vaccination in order to make an informed decision about vaccines (9,10). Their information needs are usually not fulfilled with typical information from public health authorities, as this information generally does not usually provide references to scientific studies and is often perceived as focusing on the benefits of vaccines and not discussing the potential risks of vaccines (11). Addressing those who are strongly anti-vaccines merit specific strategies. This is not the subject of the current paper but will be addressed in a future CANVax Brief.
5. Test communication prior to launching
It is important to test a communication material prior to launching to make sure it is working as intended for the target audience. The results might be surprising: a study showed that information given in frequency formats (e.g. one out of 10 infants will have a fever after a vaccination) were perceived as more risky than the same information conveyed in probabilistic terms (e.g. 10% of infants will have a fever after a vaccination) (27). Studies have also shown that as many as one out of two adults do not have the necessary skills to interpret probabilities and other mathematical concepts
This works just like commercial marketing. Target your audience, and avoid getting into “factual” arguments with people who have actually done their homework.
5. Progress Against Vaccine Hesitancy
Fortunately, researchers like Dr. Ève Dubé, with Université Laval are looking into this important issue. Dr. Dubé is an anthropologist, a researcher, and a professor, who works on vaccine hesitancy. Her research aims at understanding the social, cultural, and political contexts that influence individuals’ and groups’ beliefs and practices around vaccination.
She works with various health organizations to transfer research into practice.
One of the aims of her research program is to address vaccine hesitancy by supporting parents to make informed vaccination decisions and by ensuring that healthcare providers are prepared to communicate effectively with vaccine-hesitant parents.
She is currently leading different projects on vaccine hesitancy such as a study based on interviews with vaccine-hesitant parents to look at information sources on vaccination and information needs and preferences of parents to make an informed decision about vaccination. She is also leading a project to develop and pilot-test interventions to address vaccine hesitancy around the HPV vaccine in the context of school-based programs in Canada.
Vaccine hesitancy is a very, VERY widely researched field. A lot of money is tied up in ensuring that people don’t start asking the wrong questions and putting the pieces together.
Ève Dubé also co-authors the next piece, which includes entertaining the idea of making this coronavirus vaccine mandatory.
6. Legislating Vaccine Compliance
Given that queries have also been raised in the press about whether coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine(s), when available, should be made mandatory for some or all in Canada, this Canadian Vaccination Evidence Resource and Exchange Centre (CANVax) Brief provides an overview and brief discussion of what mandatory childhood vaccination means followed by discussions of scope and framework factors to consider. Also discussed are the reported outcomes, including reports of unintended consequences.
COVID-19 vaccines and consideration for a mandatory approach
While a poll in Canada in late April 2020 reported strong support amongst the general public for making COVID-19 vaccination mandatory (21), this strategy can only be considered when these vaccines become widely available in Canada. Given that a mandatory program has costs both in terms of implementation and monitoring (5), decisions need to rest on what additional benefit is hoped to be achieved. If vaccine uptake is already expected to be high amongst groups deemed necessary for the control of the spread of COVID-19, then the added costs of a mandatory program are likely not justified. In contrast, if the rates of uptake are low and the ease of access and other strategies known to improve uptake have been addressed, then a mandatory approach may be worth pursuing. Careful attention must be paid to whether this will be an incentive or penalty program, how it will be monitored and by whom (5).
At least some honesty here. It is acknowledged in writing that the public is wondering if CV-19 vaccines will ever become mandatory. Interestingly, it doesn’t address that concern. Instead, it just defers the issue until later.
This is a 2011 publication, but the World Health Organization sets national standards for what vaccinations countries need apparently.
12. WHO’s July 9, 2020 Guidance
How to prevent transmission
The overarching aim of the Strategic Preparedness and Response Plan for COVID-19(1) is to control COVID-19 by suppressing transmission of the virus and preventing associated illness and death. To the best of our understanding, the virus is primarily spread through contact and respiratory droplets. Under some circumstances airborne transmission may occur (such as when aerosol generating procedures are conducted in health care settings or potentially, in indoor crowded poorly ventilated settings elsewhere). More studies are urgently needed to investigate such instances and assess their actual significance for transmission of COVID-19.
In this latest version, the World Health Organization has removed earlier comments about there being no evidence to support wearing masks. Now, the deadliest virus in history can be stopped by a simple piece of cloth.
Note: the World Health Organization doesn’t have an issue with mass vaccination of an entire population during this “pandemic”. They just want people to be safe, apparently.
14. “Vaccine Hesitancy” Is Just Marketing
They refer to it as overcoming vaccine hesitancy. However these are marketing techniques to convince people that these vaccines are safe, and only crazies are questioning it.
Some of the techniques include pretending to care about people’s concerns, and feigning a legitimate relationship. Also, strong critics should be treated dismissively, and questions evaded. It should not be even entertained that there might be serious questions about these drugs.
There is a strong parallel with the climate change hoax. Both use psychological manipulation to ward off valid questions about what is going on.
This is just a small sample of the work deployed to convince people that these are safe. There is much more to look into.
Refusing to inject yourself (and family) with chemicals created by outsiders is apparently just a relationship problem. Nothing to do with what is actually in them, or the history of destroyed lives.
1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”
The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes. The Gates Foundation finances: the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the British Broadcasting Corporation, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Also: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work; the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed; and The International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here, and here.
The topic of vaccine hesitancy was introduced in Part 8 of the coronavirus series. Now will explore a more organized group, which is the Vaccine Confidence Project. As the name implies, the group is researching in ways to make vaccines an easier sell to the public.
Note: They are not researching ways to MAKE vaccines more safe. Instead they are researching ways to CONVINCE people that they are safe. The goals are really quite different.
Also worth noting that several of the groups funding this project also have lobbying and financial ties to the Canadian Government. The conflicts on interest here cannot be downplayed.
In the next section the VCP group states — in their own words — what the goals of the program are. Just know that this project is being funded by the pharmaceutical industry, and other vested interests.
Also worth pointing out: this project is not just an isolated case. There are many, MANY more groups conducting research into vaccine hesitancy. Consider this as glorified market research.
4. What Is Vaccine Confidence Project?
Vaccine confidence concerns the belief that vaccination – and by extension the providers and range of private sector and political entities behind it – serves the best health interests of the public and its constituents. The Oxford English Dictionary defines confidence as “the mental attitude of trusting in or relying on a person or thing”. In light of that, we are not examining the well-studied domain of supply and access barriers to vaccination, but rather what is typically called the “demand” side of immunisation. However, our focus on confidence takes the “demand” rubric a step further than the more traditional notion of building demand through increasing knowledge and awareness of vaccines and immunisation to understanding what else drives confidence in vaccines, and the willingness to accept a vaccine, when supply, access and information are available. In other words, understanding vaccine confidence means understanding the more difficult belief-based, emotional, ideological and contextual factors whose influences often live outside an immunisation or even health programme but affect both confidence in and acceptance of vaccines.
The purpose of the project is to monitor public confidence in immunisation programmes by building an information surveillance system for early detection of public concerns around vaccines; by applying a diagnostic tool to data collected to determine the risk level of public concerns in terms of their potential to disrupt vaccine programmes; and, finally, to provide analysis and guidance for early response and engagement with the public to ensure sustained confidence in vaccines and immunisation. This initiative also defines a Vaccine Confidence Index™ (VCI) as a tool for mapping confidence globally.
Despite the historic success of immunisation in reducing the burden of childhood illness and death, episodes of public concerns and rumours around vaccines have occurred around the world, spreading quickly and sometimes seriously eroding public confidence in immunisation and ultimately leading to vaccine refusals and disease outbreaks.
This project seeks to address these unmet needs and monitor public confidence in immunisation programs by listening for early signals of public distrust and questioning and providing risk analysis and guidance to engage the public early and pre-empting potential programme disruptions.
In their own website, CVP describes their work as “information surveillance for early detection of public concerns”. In other words, the focus isn’t on creating safe and effective vaccines, but rather on convincing people that they are. The techniques involve amount to little more than emotional and psychological manipulation.
5. Partners/Funders Of Vaxx Confidence
Funders of Vaccine Confidence Project
European Commission
European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA)
Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI)
GlaxoSmithKline
Merck
University College London
Partners of the Vaccine Confidence Project
Brighton Collaboration
Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC)
Chatham House
European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)
European Commission
European Medicines Agency
Gallup International
Imperial College London
International Pediatric Association
International Vaccine Institute
LVCT Kenya
National University of Singapore
ProMED
Public Health England (PHE)
Public Health Foundation of India
Sabin Vaccine Institute
World Health Organization (WHO)
Yes, we have spent considerable time recently in this registry. This is the Office of the Lobbying Commissioner. Keep in mind, this only applies to people/groups who are lobbying at the Federal level. It doesn’t cover Provincial or Municipal influence peddling.
According to registry records, Yoo-Seok Hong, President of GlaxoSmithKline, has lobbied the Federal Government 187 times since becoming registered in 1996. GSK is listed as a funder of the Vaccine Confidence Project.
Looking at the same registry, Merck Canada is listed as having lobbied the Federal Government 103 times since they became registered in 2001.
This was addressed in Part 2 of the series, but worth bringing up again. VIDO-InterVac has partnered with the International Vaccine Institute. The IVI is based in South Korea, and gets funding from the Gates Foundation and the United Nations. VIDO-InterVac and IVI have their partnership working with the University of Saskatchewan.
This was covered in Part 13 of the series, but repeated here. Theresa Tam sits on the Independent Oversight and Advisory Committee for the WHO Health Emergencies Programme. In other words, she sits on a World Health Organization Board at the same time she is the Chief of Public Health in Canada. Her colleague, Geeta Rao Gupta, previously worked for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. In fact, after the United States, the Gates Foundation is the largest contributor to the World Health Organization.
The European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations lists many partner organizations, several of whom have lobbied governments in Canada.
This was previously covered in Part 4 and Part 5 in the coronavirus series. GAVI, the Global Vaccine Allience (funded largely by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation), lobbied the Federal Government 20 times between 2018 and 2020.
Additionally, the Center for Disease Control (CDC), located in the United States, is heavily funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. It greatly influences their decision making.
To repeat from before: this project has nothing to do with MAKING vaccinations safe or effective. Instead, the effort is to CONVINCE people that vaccines are safe and effective. This has nothing to do with conducting any sort of medical research whatsoever.
6. VCP’s Twitter Page
To begin with, the account was only created in February 2020, and has an extremely low following. But let’s take a look and see who they are connected to on Twitter.
This is just a few of them. However, there is nothing to see here, and we should all just move along.
7. Tricks To Beat “Vaccine Hesitancy”
The World Health Organization has done considerable research on the subject of “vaccine hesitancy”. This of course is the natural reaction of people to be reluctant to put needles of unknown substances into their bodies.
Improving vaccination demand and addressing hesitancy
Increasing and maintaining vaccination uptake is vital for vaccines to achieve their success. Addressing low vaccination requires an adequate understanding of the determinants of the problem, tailored evidence-based strategies to improve uptake, and monitoring and evaluation to determine the impact and sustainability of the interventions.
Hesitancy in relation to vaccination may affect motivation, causing people to reject it for themselves or their children. Hesitancy can be caused by individual, group, and contextual influences, as well as any vaccine-specific issues.
Given the potential for hesitancy to rapidly undermine vaccination coverage in specific settings, it is important that all countries take steps to understand both the extent and nature of hesitancy at a local level, on a continuing basis. 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
It’s fair to take from this, that the efforts to understand hesitancy do not at all seem rooted in any altruistic motivation. Rather, they seem designed to form the basis to manipulate and otherwise persuade people into taking something that could be extremely harmful to them.
Meeting participants, from left to right: Kerrie Wiley, Neetu Abad, Gilla Shapiro, Alina Lack, Wenfeng Gong, Nick Sevdalis, Julie Leask, Monica Jain, Gustavo Correa, Noel Brewer, Saad Omer, Cornelia Betsch, Charles Wiysonge, Gillian SteelFisher, Lisa Menning, Eve Dubé
In May 2019, a group of people got together to come up with ways to make mass vaccination an easier sell to the public. Read the report and decide whether this is harmless enough.
In addition to the above research, there are questionnaires that are available. Asking and probing for certain types of information will give the illusion that you are concerned with the person’s well being.
In January 2015, this paper was released, giving insight into the various reasons people are likely to avoid taking vaccines. It also provided helpful information to convincing the subject that it was still in their best interest.
There is of course more research available on the subject. But the point is that it has been extensively studied. A cynic might wonder if the WHO spends more effort researching ways to pitch vaccines to the public than they do researching to see if they are actually safe.
8. Programs Operate In Canada
Several such programs are already in operation in Canada, and are funded. Yes, Canada already has programs to combat “vaccine hesitancy”.
9. Tip Of The Iceberg
This article just scratches the surface of what is out there. Do a simple search, or go on YouTube and look up videos under the heading “vaccine hesitancy”. It is shocking the number of hits that will come up.
Why is there so much research being done on overcoming “vaccine hesitancy”? Quite simply, it is economics. Vaccines that are used globally are worth a lot of money. Therefore, considerable money and resources must be spent in convincing potential customers that it is a worthwhile product. Think of it as a glorified marketing strategy.
In the various videos, you may notice that the marketers never address the legitimate concerns people have about the safety of vaccines. Rather, they are going through the motions of “appearing to address” the concerns. Not the same thing.
Understand that this is little more than psychological manipulation in order to push an agenda. The well being of the people involved is a secondary concern — if it is one at all.
The Canadian Government has adopted significant portions of the WHO’s vaccine agenda, including expanding it to include more and more items. Parliament has approved (see last article) increased funding for research and supply of more vaccines. The Government and Gates’ people seem to be in lockstep ideologically.
Even worse than the government simply going along with this is the propaganda elements. They refer to it as “overcoming vaccine hesitancy”. In practice, this amounts to little more than psychological manipulation in order to convince people that these vaccines are safe. Both the Canadian Government and the World Health Organization engage in this very shady tactic.
For some perspective on the vaccine agenda, let’s look at a partial timeline of events that are happening in Canada and elsewhere.
TIMELINE:
2000 – GAVI (Global Vaccine Alliance) formed
2003 – Nat’l Immunization Strategy Report released
2010 – At WEF, Gates announces $10B to develop vaccines
2014 – Research done into “vaccine hesitancy”
2015 – Journal of Vaccine article on “vaccine hesitancy”
2016 – $25M Committed in 2016 budget for more immunizations
2016 – ID2020 launched by Gates
2017 – M132 passed, to get more funding for big pharma
2018 – GAVI/Crestview lobbies Canadian politicians/bureaucrats
2018 – CANimmunize app launched for smartphones
2018 – HoC Committee on Health approves M-132
2018 – Measuring Behavioural, Social Drivers of vaxx meeting
2019 – Recommendations of M-132 formally adopted
2019 – Working Group (Gates/GAVI) to promote vaxx agenda
2020 – Canada’s economy is unnecessarily crashed
2020 – PM, Premiers talk about mandatory vaxx in Canada
The following sections will cover both initiatives that the Canadian Government has undertaken, as well as the public relations efforts to combat what they refer to as “vaccine hesitancy”.
4. CANimmunize Mobile App
In 2018, the CANImmunize App was released publicly. See this original YouTube video. If putting all your records on some app is becoming more mainstream, what’s to stop there from eventually being a biological record?
The CANimmunize app is promoted on the page. So the Government of Canada sees this as a totally valid and legitimate pathway to take. But don’t worry, as bad as that is, there are worse things to be considered.
There is of course ID2020, which Bill Gates is a major supporter of. He is in favour of creating a digital ID for everyone, and even goes as far as to propose embedding immunization records into people’s skin.
Preamble
Over the past several years, the Advisory Committee on Population Health and Health Security (ACPHHS) has supported development of a national approach to addressing immunization issues in Canada. During this period, numerous meetings and consultations with federal, provincial, and territorial (F/P/T) public health representatives and other relevant stakeholders were undertaken to identify and develop collaborative approaches to strengthening immunization in Canada.
The value of this collaborative work was reflected in the February 2003 First Ministers’ Accord on Health Care Renewal, which included direction to Health Ministers to continue their pursuit of a national immunization strategy. The 2003 Federal Budget provided $45 million over five years to assist in the continued pursuit of a national immunization strategy, as directed by First Ministers. Specifically, Health Canada is to receive $5 million in 2003-04 and $10 million in 2004-05 and ongoing. This funding will enable strengthened collaboration with the provinces, territories and key stakeholders to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of immunization programs in Canada, but will not be used for vaccine procurement
All of this seems harmless enough, but in 2003, a report had been released about the Government’s agenda of boosting vaccinations across Canada.
6. Nat’l Immunization Objectives: 2016-2021
Our next steps: NIS objectives 2016 – 2021
While immunization coverage in Canada today is good, we are not reaching any of the coverage goals set in 2005, leaving Canadians vulnerable to preventable illness. Furthermore, while rates of vaccine preventable diseases in Canada are low, recent measles and pertussis outbreaks demonstrate that Canadians are still at risk.
In its 2016 Budget, the Government of Canada committed $25M over five years to increase immunization coverage rates. While all NIS priorities are important, given the shared responsibility for immunization in Canada, and respectful of the collaborative, ongoing work of the NIS, F/P/T partners have worked together to establish a set of short term objectives that can capitalize on this new investment, leverage momentum and build from the 2013 priorities to provide F/P/T focus for the next five years.
This page outlines in extremely broad strokes the agenda for 2016 to 2021
7. CDA Immunization Partnership Fund
Today, not enough Canadians are vaccinated. As a result, Canadians are still at risk for needless illness and death from infectious diseases that could be prevented through vaccination. Recognizing this public health challenge, the Government of Canada committed $25 million in Budget 2016 to increase vaccination coverage in Canada.
The page does however go into considerable detail about “overcoming vaccine hesitancy”. This is short amounts to efforts to CONVINCE people that vaccines are safe.
increasing demand for vaccination
addressing gaps in
knowledge
attitudes
beliefs
And below we will get to some specific efforts being launched.
Creation of a Canadian Immunization Resource Centre (CANVAX)
This project, led by The Canadian Public Health Association, is designed to provide ready access to the latest evidence-based products and tools via the online Canadian Vaccination Evidence Resource and Exchange Centre. The Centre primarily targets those who are responsible for the planning, development and promotion of immunization programs, and aims to increase their understanding, awareness and capacity to enhance vaccine acceptance and uptake in Canada.
Decreasing Vaccine Hesitancy: Enhancing the knowledge and skills of health care professionals
This project, led by the Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS), has developed a workshop and an online education module on vaccine hesitancy. These courses will provide health care providers with a better understanding of the common causes of vaccine hesitancy and the most effective ways to counsel their patients and families to make informed decisions. Additionally, CPS has reinstated the online version of its Education Program for Immunization Competencies (EPIC), which is designed to help health care professionals provide accurate and complete information to their patients about immunization.
Examining and overcoming barriers to vaccine hesitancy in Yukon
Yukon Health and Social Services is implementing a project with the goal of understanding the factors that contribute to vaccine uptake and incomplete/non-vaccination. The data that is gathered will be used to inform evidence-based strategies aimed at improving vaccination service delivery and uptake in Yukon.
HPV Vaccination in Schools: Developing effective strategies for increasing vaccine coverage
The Institute national de santé publique du Québec, in collaboration with the ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux du Québec, will develop and evaluate different strategies designed to increase vaccination coverage rates in select elementary schools within the province. These parent-focused strategies include motivational interviewing, education, decision making tools, and reminders to submit consent forms
Immunize Nunavut: Using data to inform practice
Immunize Nunavut, led by the Department of Health in Nunavut, will improve the quality of vaccination data that will then be used to inform tailored interventions aimed at increasing vaccination coverage rates and to strengthen existing vaccination delivery programs
(COMPLETED)
Enhancing adult immunization coverage in Prince Edward Island
This project, led by the Prince Edward Island Department of Health and Wellness, has implemented a multi-faceted, province-wide initiative to increase adult vaccination rates by working with health care providers to increase their ability to identify under and unvaccinated individuals through the development and use of an Immunization Assessment Tool. As well, this project will enhance health care provider’s ability to communicate more effectively with their patients about vaccination.
(COMPLETED)
Implementation of an educational strategy to promote immunization based on motivational interviewing techniques in maternity hospitals in Québec
In collaboration with provincial partners, the Centre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et Services de l’Estrie – Centre hospitalier universitaire de Sherbrooke implemented this project to increase infant vaccination coverage rates in Quebec. To do this, health care providers from the 13 largest maternity wards in Quebec received training in motivational interviewing techniques specific to infant vaccination. Motivational interviewing allows health care providers to better address the concerns of parents who are reluctant to vaccinate their children and to support them in their decision-making process regarding infant vaccination.
What is particularly disturbing here is that about half the programs seem focused on promoting and selling the vaccines. It comes across as propaganda the way they are worded.
However, it is about to get much, MUCH creepier than this. The World Health Organization has done extensive research on it. Parties including UNICEF, the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC), Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation all got together to discuss how to better pitch vaccines to the public.
8. Tricks To Beat “Vaccine Hesitancy”
The World Health Organization has done considerable research on the subject of “vaccine hesitancy”. This of course is the natural reaction of people to be reluctant to put needles of unknown substances into their bodies.
Improving vaccination demand and addressing hesitancy
Increasing and maintaining vaccination uptake is vital for vaccines to achieve their success. Addressing low vaccination requires an adequate understanding of the determinants of the problem, tailored evidence-based strategies to improve uptake, and monitoring and evaluation to determine the impact and sustainability of the interventions.
Hesitancy in relation to vaccination may affect motivation, causing people to reject it for themselves or their children. Hesitancy can be caused by individual, group, and contextual influences, as well as any vaccine-specific issues.
Given the potential for hesitancy to rapidly undermine vaccination coverage in specific settings, it is important that all countries take steps to understand both the extent and nature of hesitancy at a local level, on a continuing basis. 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
It’s fair to take from this, that the efforts to understand hesitancy do not at all seem rooted in any altruistic motivation. Rather, they seem designed to form the basis to manipulate and otherwise persuade people into taking something that could be extremely harmful to them.
Meeting participants, from left to right: Kerrie Wiley, Neetu Abad, Gilla Shapiro, Alina Lack, Wenfeng Gong, Nick Sevdalis, Julie Leask, Monica Jain, Gustavo Correa, Noel Brewer, Saad Omer, Cornelia Betsch, Charles Wiysonge, Gillian SteelFisher, Lisa Menning, Eve Dubé
In May 2019, a group of people got together to come up with ways to make mass vaccination an easier sell to the public. Read the report and decide whether this is harmless enough.
In addition to the above research, there are questionnaires that are available. Asking and probing for certain types of information will give the illusion that you are concerned with the person’s well being.
In January 2015, this paper was released, giving insight into the various reasons people are likely to avoid taking vaccines. It also provided helpful information to convincing the subject that it was still in their best interest.
There is of course more research available on the subject. But the point is that it has been extensively studied. A cynic might wonder if the WHO spends more effort researching ways to pitch vaccines to the public than they do researching to see if they are actually safe.
9. Vaccine Hesitancy Parallels Climate Scam
Although this may initially seem absurd, there is a parallel between overcoming “vaccine hesitancy” as the WHO and others call it, and selling the climate change scam to the public.
Consider the reviews done of Maxwell Boykoff here, here, and here. Boykoff, in his book Creative Climate Communications, outlined an extensive array of psychological and sociological tactics used to convince people that they were in danger from climate change.
In order words, the research was done into manipulation techniques. The same thing can be seen with vaccine hesitancy research.
10. Canada/WHO Vaccine Targets Of 2025
Now that the anxiety is out of your system, let’s look a bit into Canada’s objectives and targets for mass vaccinations.
As part of the National Immunization Strategy objectives for 2016-2021, vaccination coverage goals and vaccine preventable disease reduction targets were set based on international standards and best practices. The goals and targets are consistent with Canada’s commitment to World Health Organization (WHO) disease elimination targets and Global Vaccine Action Plan, while reflecting the Canadian context.
According to this, Canada’s goals are consistent with the commitments made to the Global Vaccine Alliance Plan, and to disease reduction targets.
Vaccination Coverage Goals by 2025
Vaccination coverage goals were developed for infants, childhood, adolescent and adult vaccines that are publically funded in all provinces and territories (PT). Progress toward the national vaccination coverage goals will be reported based on the data collected using national coverage surveys. Vaccine coverage monitoring at the national level takes into account variations in PT vaccination programs.
Infants and Children
To ensure children are protected through routine vaccination, a high vaccination coverage goal of 95% has been established for all childhood vaccines by two and seven years of age.
This level of vaccination coverage is based on the level of population protection required for measles, the most easily-spread vaccine preventable disease.
Don’t worry. Once you have been cured of your vaccine hesitancy, the Government has an extensive array of pharmaceuticals and medications that you will able to get for free. Don’t worry that many of these are being developed by people who think the world is overpopulated. Nothing to see here.
The catalyst for GVAP was the call by Bill and Melinda Gates at the 2010 World Economic Forum for the next decade to be the ‘Decade of Vaccines’.
Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, established in 2000, was making newer vaccines accessible to the poorest countries, while the Global Immunization Vision and Strategy, launched in 2006, provided a common vision and specific strategies for protecting more people against more diseases. New vaccines were being developed that held even greater promise.
PREFACE
The Global Vaccine Action Plan 2011–2020 (GVAP) was developed to help realize the vision of the Decade of Vaccines, that all individuals and communities enjoy lives free from vaccine preventable diseases. As the decade draws to a close, it is time to take stock of the progress made under GVAP and to apply the lessons learned to the global immunization strategy for the next decade. This report has been prepared for the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization (SAGE) by the SAGE Decade of Vaccines Working Group (Annex 1).
Development of GVAP The Decade of Vaccines Collaboration was launched in 2010 to develop a shared plan to realize this vision. The Collaboration was led by WHO, UNICEF, Gavi, the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, coordinated by the Instituto de Salud Global Barcelona, Spain, and funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. A Leadership Council, comprising executives of the lead organizations and a representative of the African Leaders Malaria Alliance, provided sponsorship and strategic guidance.
HISTORY
Ministers of health unanimously endorsed GVAP at the 2012 World Health Assembly; the monitoring and evaluation framework was endorsed a year later. In the following years, Regional Vaccine Action Plans and national multi-year plans were developed or updated to align with GVAP. African stakeholders went further to build political will for immunization, convening the Ministerial Conference on Immunization in Africa in 2016. This meeting launched the Addis Declaration on Immunization, through which heads of state and ministers of health, finance, education and social affairs as well as local leaders made ten specific commitments to promote health on the African continent through continued investment in immunization.
The global monitoring, evaluation and accountability process was the only aspect of GVAP with dedicated resources. In this effort, GVAP indicators were added to the WHO/UNICEF Joint Reporting Form and SAGE established the Decade of Vaccines Working Group to assess progress and draft recommendations for course corrections. Through the decade, countries reported annually, WHO and partner agencies compiled progress reports, and the SAGE independent assessment report and its recommendations were reviewed annually as a standing agenda item at the World Health Assembly
12. World Economic Forum: 2010 Gates
In 2000, Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance was launched at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos, with an initial pledge of $750 million from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Gavi brings together key influencers from the public and private sectors to save children’s lives and protect the population’s health by increasing the equitable use of vaccines in lower-income countries. To date, the Vaccine Alliance has contributed to the immunization of 760 million children, saving more than 13 million lives.
The World Economic Forum has completely embraced the vaccination agenda, and heralds it as some salvation for humanity. it many times provided a platform for Gates and his vaccine push.
13. Would You Trust This Man?
(Bill Gates and depopulation, from 2011, clip from video)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gc16H3uHKOA
(Bill Gates and depopulation, from 2011, entire video)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WFa4bHC0Do
(Bill Gates, improved health care, overpopulation)
(Bill Gates: health and population correlation)
(Bill Gates: vaccines and Ebola virus)
Gates talks about improving the health and well being of mothers in the 3rd world by use of vaccines, and that it would lead to a lower population. However, it seems illogical that improving the health would lead to less children being born. Gates counters that parents will simply choose to have less children if they knew the ones they had would be healthier.
Gates has also spoken about the world being overpopulated, and claims it is causing environmental problems. One should be extremely concerned about taking vaccinations from someone who is interested in depopulation.
The research that the World Health Organization and its partners have done into “vaccine hesitancy” is downright creepy. If the vaccines produced are what they claim to be, it shouldn’t be a hard time pitching them for others to take.
The Canadian Government seems on board with the vaccination agenda. (See previous articles on this subject in Section #1). The Prime Minister and various Premiers openly call for mass vaccines. M-132 passed in Parliament, making it easier to fund future research. The University of Saskatchewan has long conducted research with partners that are Gates and UN funded. The Government has been lobbied at least 20 times on behalf of GAVI by Crestview Strategy, and the bureaucrats themselves seem to be okay with it.
CLICK HERE, for an intro to the climate change scam. CLICK HERE, for Disruptive Innovation Framework. CLICK HERE, for humanizing transitions, energy justice.
CLICK HERE, for Max Boykoff’s article in Scientific American. CLICK HERE, for Boykoff’s war on science, part I. CLICK HERE, for Boykoff’s war on science, part II.
2. A Shoutout To Uppity Peasants
It’s only fair to cite the source of these articles, as in the person who shared them. They came from a Prairie Nationalist who’s frequently busy sharpening her pitchfork. Go check out Uppity Peasants for this and other topics.
3. Context For This Article
The topic of climate propaganda has been covered on this site several times (see links in Section #1). However, rather than doing a complete review for each of the remaining articles, a brief commentary will be added.
It’s downright creepy how the emotional manipulation and shameless hucksterism of climate change are treated seriously in academia. Rather than admitting there “may” be something wrong with climate research, the idea is to double down and look for alternative ways to sell the scheme.
Still, if plunging into the messed up world of climate propaganda appeals to you, then you have two options:
(a) Get professional help; or
(b) Keep reading more.
4. Heuristic Of Creative Destruction
Moving beyond the heuristic of creative destruction: Targeting exnovation with policy mixes for energy transitions Martin David Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Germany.
Scholars looking at policy mixes for the energy transition and seeking to facilitate a move away from fossil-based structures are increasingly addressing the opposite side of innovation. To describe this, the article introduces the concept of exnovation, referring to attempts to end fossil-based technological trajectories in a deliberate fashion. It applies a framework that encompasses innovation and exnovation alike in order to investigate the policy mix of the German energy transition. Beside finding that energy transition policy mixes need to emphasize regulatory instruments more in order to bring about decarbonization, the article also describes some general aspects of the policy mix design required to govern the innovation-exnovation nexus.
Typically, most people want to ADVANCE their societies, but this one considers doing the opposite: leading the public down a less developed lifestyle in order to combat climate change.
5. Bringing About Disruptive Change
A heuristic for conceptualizing and uncovering the determinants of agency in socio-technical transitions Mert Duygana, Michael Stauffachera, Grégoire Meylanb
There has been a growing interest in transition studies on the role of agency in bringing about disruptive change. Previous studies have examined how actors perform institutional work to create legitimacy and transform institutions. In doing so, they have provided insights into specific practices and strategies that actors follow. This paper seeks to complement existing studies by elucidating the foundations of agency that transforms institutions through institutional work. Drawing on institutional sociology and organizational studies, resources, discourses and networks of actors are identified as key elements enabling institutional work practices. The agency of each actor is conceived of as dependent on the configurations it possesses with respect to these elements. A heuristic is presented that helps to determine the configurations associated with a strong agency in empirical settings and use Swiss waste management as an illustrative case example. The heuristic enables a systematic analysis of agency across different organizational fields.
Some research into methods and techniques for bringing about serious and disruptive changes in Western society deemed necessary for environmental protections.
6. Disruption & System Transformation
Disruption and low-carbon system transformation: Progress and new challenges in socio-technical transitions research and the Multi-Level Perspective Frank W. Geels
This paper firstly assesses the usefulness of Christensen’s disruptive innovation framework for low-carbon system change, identifying three conceptual limitations with regard to the unit of analysis (products rather than systems), limited multi-dimensionality, and a simplistic (‘point source’) conception of change. Secondly, it shows that the Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) offers a more comprehensive framework on all three dimensions. Thirdly, it reviews progress in socio-technical transition research and the MLP on these three dimensions and identifies new challenges, including ‘whole system’ reconfiguration, multi-dimensional struggles, bi-directional niche-regime interactions, and an alignment conception of change. To address these challenges, transition research should further deepen and broaden its engagement with the social sciences.
This gem takes the BUSINESS concept of disruptive innovative framework which is meant to introduce new products and technologies into the market. It then tries to apply it to the CLIMATE CHANGE industry in getting changes made.
7. Fighting Opposing “Regime” Against Change
Regime Resistance against Low-Carbon Transitions: Introducing Politics and Power into the Multi-Level Perspective
Frank W Geels University of Manchester and King Abdulaziz Universit
Abstract
While most studies of low-carbon transitions focus on green niche-innovations, this paper shifts attention to the resistance by incumbent regime actors to fundamental change. Drawing on insights from political economy, the paper introduces politics and power into the multi-level perspective. Instrumental, discursive, material and institutional forms of power and resistance are distinguished and illustrated with examples from the UK electricity system. The paper concludes that the resistance and resilience of coal, gas and nuclear production regimes currently negates the benefits from increasing renewables deployment. It further suggests that policymakers and many transition-scholars have too high hopes that ‘green’ innovation will be sufficient to bring about low-carbon transitions. Future agendas in research and policy should therefore pay much more attention to the destabilization and decline of existing fossil fuel regimes.
This paper views political and media types who are skeptical of the climate change industry as “resistance” and studies way around them. No real sense that they may bring up valid points. Instead, they are an obstacle to progress.
8. Humanizing And “Energy Justice”
Humanizing sociotechnical transitions through energy justice: An ethical framework for global transformative change
Kirsten Jenkins, Benjamin K. Sovacoolb, Darren McCaule
Poverty, climate change and energy security demand awareness about the interlinkages between energy systems and social justice. Amidst these challenges, energy justice has emerged to conceptualize a world where all individuals, across all areas, have safe, affordable and sustainable energy that is, essentially, socially just. Simultaneously, new social and technological solutions to energy problems continually evolve, and interest in the concept of sociotechnical transitions has grown. However, an element often missing from such transitions frameworks is explicit engagement with energy justice frameworks. Despite the development of an embryonic set of literature around these themes, an obvious research gap has emerged: can energy justice and transitions frameworks be combined? This paper argues that they can. It does so through an exploration of the multi-level perspective on sociotechnical systems and an integration of energy justice at the model’s niche, regime and landscape level. It presents the argument that it is within the overarching process of sociotechnical change that issues of energy justice emerge. Here, inattention to social justice issues can cause injustices, whereas attention to them can provide a means to examine and potential resolve them.
The social justice nonsense which universities push is about to get a new member, so-called “energy justice”. Consider this a bastardized child of cultural Marxism and the climate change scam.
9. Regime Destabilization, Pulp & Paper
Explaining regime destabilisation in the pulp and paper industry
Kersti Karltorp, Björn A. Sandén
abstract
.
A transition to a carbon neutral society will require a shift from fossil to renewable resources. This will affect the conversion of biomass and related industries such as the pulp and paper industry. The purpose of this paper is two-fold: first, to describe and analyse the transformation processes in the Swedish pulp and paper industry and the adoption of biorefinery options, and second, to demonstrate how conceptualisations from strategic management can be used to describe regime destabilisation. The industry’s adoption of biorefinery options has been modest so far, but there is development along two trajectories. The first centres on gasification and the second on separation and refining. Such diverging strategies in response to external pressure can be explained by differences that exist between firms. Signs of increasing firm divergence, or ‘regime fragmentation’, might indicate the entry into a phase of regime destabilisation, and a critical point in a transition.
Sure, let’s make the pulp and paper industry completely unprofitable and put all of those workers out on the street. Rather than finding better solutions, let’s sabotage what already exists. While it is true you can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs, this seems excessive.
10. Apply Pressure To Destabilize Industries
Sequence and alignment of external pressures in industry destabilisation: Understanding the downfall of incumbent utilities in the German energy transition (1998–2015) Gregor Kungla, Frank W. Geels
ABSTRACT
This article makes two contributions to the emerging research stream on regime and industry destabilisation in the transition literature. First, we replicate the multi-dimensional framework developed by Turnheim and Geels with a more contemporary study that has closer links to sustainability transitions. Drawing on a wide range of primary and secondary sources, we analyse the destabilisation of the German electricity industry, which faced multiple external pressures: renewable energy technologies, nuclear phase-out policy, the financial-economic crisis, and negative public debates. Second, we elaborate the role of multiple pressures in industry destabilisation, focusing in particular on their sequence and alignment. We inductively identify patterns such as the ‘masking effect’ of highly visible macro-shocks, ‘perfect storm’ pattern, a ‘killer blow’ effect, and spillover dynamics between external environments.
Not sure what to add to this. If industries are considered to be environmentally unsound, let’s apply various pressures in order to destabilize and destroy them.
11. Politically Accelerated Transitions
Conditions for politically accelerated transitions: Historical institutionalism, the multi-level perspective, and two historical case studies in transport and agriculture Cameron Roberts, Frank W. Geels
ABSTRACT
This article investigates the conditions under which policymakers are likely to decisively accelerate sociotechnical transitions. We develop a conceptual framework that combines insights from historical institutionalism and the Multi-Level Perspective to better understand the political dimension in transitions, focusing particularly on the mechanisms of political defection from incumbent regime to niche-innovation. We distinguish two ideal type patterns, one where external (landscape) shocks create a ‘critical juncture’ and one where gradual feedbacks change the balance of power between niche-innovation and regime. We also identify more proximate conditions such as external pressures on policymakers (from business interests, mass publics, and technologies) and policy internal developments (changes in problem definitions and access to institutional arrangements). We apply this framework to two historical case studies in which UK policymakers deliberately accelerated transitions: the transition from rail to road transport (1920–1970); and the transition from traditional mixed agriculture to specialised wheat agriculture (1920–1970). We analyse the conditions for major policy change in each case and draw more general conclusions. We also discuss implications for contemporary low-carbon transitions, observing that while some favourable conditions are in place, they do not yet meet all the prerequisites for political acceleration.
This is basically the same concept as before: gutting and destroying various industries. However, this one involves using political pressure in order to achieve it.
12. Plant Based Milk?
Rage against the regime: Niche-regime interactions in the societal embedding of plant-based milk
Josephine Mylana, Carol Morris, Emma Beech, Frank W. Geel
This paper engages with the debate on niche-regime interactions in sustainability transitions, using a study of plant-based milk and its struggles against the entrenched liquid dairy-milk regime, which has various sustainability problems. Plant-based milk isunder-studied, so our empirical contribution consists of an exploration of its diffusion in the UK. We make three conceptual contributions. The first calls for a bidirectional analysis that addresses niche-orientedactivities by incumbent actors, in addition to the outward-oriented activities by niche advocates presented in most studies of niche-regime interaction.The second contribution nuances Smith and Raven’s fit-and-conform and stretch-and-transform typology: using a societal embedding framework which distinguishes four environments, we suggest that hybrid patterns are possible in which innovations follow a ‘fit’ pattern in one environment but ‘stretch’ in another. The third contribution highlights th epotential role of cultural meanings in galvanizing transitions by eroding positive associations that support theregime and stabilise consumer purchasing.
Plant based milk?
Okay, hello unemployed dairy farmers.
13. Destructiveness Of This Agenda
Under the guise of “protecting the environment”, these academics conduct research in how to undermine and destabilize existing industries. There seems to be no concern for the workers and families who will be impacted if these efforts are successful.
Of course, there are many more authors doing this sort of work, but this is a fairly accurate representation of what is going on. Ways to impose their agenda on others.
These people are serious about it.
They really want to bring about the end of Western society.
CLICK HERE, for the Climate Change Scam Part I. CLICK HERE, for Part II, the Paris Accord. CLICK HERE, for Part III, Saskatchewan Appeals Court Reference. CLICK HERE, for Part IV, Controlled Opposition to Carbon Tax. CLICK HERE, for Part V, UN New Development Funding. CLICK HERE, for Part VI, Disruptive Innovation Framework. CLICK HERE, for Part VII, Blaming Arson On Climate Change. CLICK HERE, for Part VIII, Review Of Green New Deal. CLICK HERE, for Part VIII(II), Sunrise Movement & Green New Deal. CLICK HERE, for Part IX, Propaganda Techniques, Max Boykoff. CLICK HERE, for Part X, GG Pollution Pricing Act & Bill C-97. CLICK HERE, for part XI, Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai Explains Paris Accord CLICK HERE, for Part XII, Joel Wood and Carbon tax “option”. CLICK HERE, for Part XIII, controlled opposition going to SCC. CLICK HERE, for Part XIV, Mark Carney, UN Climate Finance Envoy. CLICK HERE, for UN global taxation efforts.
2. Why Focus On This Book?
Most “scientists” involved in the climate change business at least claim that their focus is on the science itself. However, a subset has emerged which focuses on the science of persuasion.
That’s right, the goal isn’t using scientific research to PROVE that climate change is a serious and ongoing global threat. Rather, the goal is using social science methods to CONVINCE people that the threat is real. These are two very different things.
In layman’s terms, this book reads like a propaganda manual for tricks and techniques of persuasion. There never appears a moment of doubt in Boykoff’s mind that climate change is urgent. He seems to views the public’s disengagement simply as a communications issue. As such, this book focuses on emotionally manipulative tactics to get around that.
The idea is creepy enough. The fact that there is an entire segment of academia that focuses on this area is very troubling. Unfortunately, Boykoff is entirely serious about his work. Also, the many, many sources he cites are serious.
Max’s research and creative work has developed primarily in two arenas:
(1) cultural politics of science, climate change and environmental issues = this refers to ways that attitudes, intentions, beliefs and behaviors of individuals and groups shape (and are shaped by) the perceived spectrum of possible action in the context of science-policy, climate change and environmental issues.
.
(2) transformations of carbon-based economies and societies (with emphasis on the interface of science and practical action) = this refers to decarbonization politics, policies and decision-making, with particular interest in how these activities find meaning in people’s everyday lives, as well as how they, in turn, feed back into science-policy decision-making.
4. Specific Examples From CCC Book
(Page 18) Boykoff cites some research suggesting that racial and gender politics should be injected into the subject. Supposedly, racial minorities are going to be disproportionately impacted, and that needs to be discussed openly. Also, female researchers are more likely to have their work ridiculed and mocked. Obviously that is because of sexism and not poor research. That’s right, race and gender are now dimensions in the climate change debate.
(Page 21) A technique called “pre-bunking” is introduced. This is a form of inoculation, which climate change pushers will attempt to pre-empt criticism or questions ahead of time. They do it to sew seeds of doubts in people who would otherwise see obvious problems with the research.
(Page 23) One idea is go beyond simply telling the truth. The focus here is to go beyond simply stating facts and conclusions, and to introduce a “story-telling” element to it. By doing this, people are more accepting of the story, and are less likely to pick up on deficiencies in the arguments themselves.
(Page 26) This is the start of Chapter 2. This chapter gets shifting the discussion away from a scientific one, and appealing to a more emotional issue. By framing it as a social issue, there is more of a focus on people’s ability to act. One technique suggested is to keep it “upbeat” so that others will remain optimistic that their actions will have consequences. Boykoff’s sources also suggest moving away from the “DOOMSDAY APPROACH”. This should have the effect of keeping people more engaged if their aren’t told it is hopeless.
(Page 35) There is more detail about how to turn climate change into stories. Stories in general have: main characters, villains, plot, description, complexity, some ambiguity, and conflict resolution. Boykoff talks about telling the “facts” of climate change as if it were a story. This will do wonders to keep people engaged. Interestingly, the approach is to water down the hard facts, and to focus more on a compelling narrative.
(Page 45) The book heads towards cultural politics and interdisciplinary communication. What this means is that taking different approaches, or combining approaches, may work best depending on who the specific audience is. Page 47, Boykoff begins to detail the actual communication training that climate change pushers are being given in order to more effectively market this concept. Yes, there is now formal training in how to peddle this.
(Page 50) Boykoff talks about a “building bridges” approach, something he also refers to as a “common ground” approach. This involves making some effort to find out what other people are interested in, and building a relationship with them. Climate change information will gradually be introduced via this relationship. The other people will eventually be sold on the agenda, but without realizing that was your goal all along. The entire tactic is emotional manipulation, and the worse form of bonding that can take place.
(Page 58) Boykoff discusses some of the research that has been done across demographic groups and across political leanings. He also explains that the climate change agenda can still be pitched to almost everyone, but the message needs to be shifted depending on which group you are addressing.
(Page 96) We get into the idea of adding visualizations (images) to help sell the climate change agenda. The idea here is that if people can actually see what is happening, it should compel them more strongly to act. Now, it doesn’t really matter if what people see is what is truly happening. What’s important is that they see what they should.
(Page 132) Boykoff talks about the framing climate change in certain ways. One is as a sacrifice v.s. benefits approach. This is one where the experts will outline the sacrifices needed (such as your standard of life) and various benefits that will come. Always, there is the bit about making the world a better place for those in developing countries. After all, they had no hand in this. This is a combination of guilt tripping and a call to patriotism, and put together beautifully.
(Page 190) Boykoff explains more of this “silver buckshot approach”, as opposed to the silver bullet. In short, there have to be multiple forms and paths to spread the message of climate change at any given time. Since no one technique will work on everyone, we need many streams ready to convince people of the cause. And really, that is what this book is: listing and detailing these multiple paths.
In short, Boykoff suggests inserting climate change into the discussion wherever possible. Though he doesn’t explicitly add this, it’s implied that it should be done even when the above issue has nothing to do with it.
Make the connections. And make the other people see those connections. Sometimes best if done subtly, as you don’t want your agenda to be too obvious.
The examples above are by no means exhaustive, but should demonstrate how devious and cunning the author is. He outlines technique after technique to push the narrative. And these techniques are lifted directly from psychological and sociological research. Boykoff is applying those findings in his quest to do a better job of selling climate change to the public.
5. Boykoff Avoids Actual Research
You will likely notice that Max Boykoff never gets into the so-called climate change science. He mainly avoids any real detail on how climate change research is conducted. Why is that?
It’s because this entire book shies away from telling people the hard and fast truth (at least as he perceives it), and focuses on indirect and roundabout ways of getting people on board. In short, this book is still intended to push the climate change agenda, but just shows ways to be more sneaky and dishonest about it.
Was this a worthwhile read? Yes, in the context of knowing how your enemies are lying and manipulating you. Boykoff gives an in-depth, well researched book on exactly that. If nothing else, he if very thorough in detailing these underhanded methods.
