Don’t bother explaining the science, just use religious and military leaders to get people vaccinated President of the European Research Council says

 World Economic Forum agenda contributor, Maria Leptin believes governments shouldn’t use science to persuade their citizens into taking experimental mRNA injections. Instead, all that’s needed is to co-opt the “religious establishment” to manipulate people’s behaviour or for a better result, get an Army General to convince the population that the country is at war.

At WEF’s Davos meeting at the beginning of this year, a panel discussion was held to discuss how the world can shift its covid strategy from pandemic response to endemic management. The panellists were Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel, WEF Executive Committee member Shyam Bishen, former CEO of GAVI and co-creator of COVAX Seth F. Berkley, Harvard’s Michelle Williams and President of the European Research Council Maria Leptin.

“The covid-19 pandemic illustrated [ ] the difficulties and the risks of science denial … how do you see the situation now, has it improved or not?” the moderator from Euronews, Sasha Vakulina, asked Leptin. 

“I wish it had improved,” Leptin responded, “and I am passionate about science.”  But she thinks the science behind vaccines shouldn’t be explained and the public should be kept in the dark.  Leptin believes vaccination campaigns shouldn’t be carried out with informed consent but imposed on populations by manipulative or coercive means.  Presumably, this tactic is most useful when evidence-based science doesn’t support “the science” and populations are likely to challenge it.  

“Two of the countries which were most successful in getting good coverage of vaccination based this not at all on getting their citizens to try and understand the science,” she said.

“One is Bhutan, which, where they were very successful in preparing a campaign and involved [ ] they were sensitive to the country’s needs, to the citizens’ needs, involved informing the religious establishment and in fact using them in finding the right time and date and they got fantastic coverage.  No science was explained.

“The other example I know of is Portugal, where the campaign was handed to a retired Army General. And the Army General just treated the country as his troops and he rallied the troops.  He declared it as a war that the country, in patriotic passion, was going to fight together.  And they had up there, I think, they were leading in Europe. if not the world.  So, no science.  Let’s remember that.

“Good planning, good [ ] thinking and integration in one country and the right sort of attitude in another.”

Further reading:

• The COVID-19 vaccination campaign in Bhutan: strategy and enablers, Infectious Diseases of Poverty, 5 January 2022
• In Portugal, There Is Virtually No One Left to Vaccinate, The New York Times, 1 October 2021

Covid injections have been and are still one giant experiment on the populations of the world. A significant detail all the panellists and the moderator failed to acknowledge is, in both examples that Leptin extolled, no informed consent was freely given by the recipients of the experimental injections. 

Leptin and her fellow panellists need to refresh their memories about the contents of the most important document in the history of the ethics of medical research – the Nuremberg Code.

The first of the ten codes to come out of Nuremberg in 1947 is: The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.  The New England Journal of Medicine (“NEJM”) gives more details:

This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision.

This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.

The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.

Fifty Years Later: The Significance of the Nuremberg Code, NEJM, 2 April 1998

How does a person who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment obtain the necessary voluntary consent of a participant without explaining any science?

Featured image: Maria Leptin, President of the European Research Council

https://expose-news.com/2023/11/22/dont-bother-explaining-the-science-just-use/