NJ's answer to selectively acknowledged public health crisis: increase vaccination spending
Another $1 million for vaccine programs in NJ.
Gov. Phil Murphy wants to increase New Jersey’s investment in immunizations in the wake of COVID-19, a proposal that coincides with the emergence of measles cases in the state and falling vaccination rates here and elsewhere.
Murphy called for committing an additional $1 million in state funds to New Jersey’s vaccine preventable disease program — an umbrella for a half-dozen specific immunization efforts — in the annual budget that takes effect July 1.
I’m wondering if this has anything to do with the recent NIH decision to terminate a number of research grants related to vaccine hesitancy. I love RFK Jr’s redirection towards informed consent, but not everyone does. Governor Murphy famously called New Jerseyans who called for choice "the ultimate knuckleheads.”
I don’t know how that money will be spent, but I do know that it keeps vaccines in the headlines and provides another opportunity to promote a narrative; one where people who opt out of vaccines - thanks to a failed attempt to remove religious exemptions and additional distrust in vaccines due to “misinformation” during COVID - are responsible for spreading measles and other infections. This is the story they want to keep telling. And every dollar spent on vaccination programs is another chance to tell that story in a variety of ways.
… (Senator Joe) Vitale said he would like to see some of the proposed state funding for vaccinations be directed toward awareness and education. “We need education on the reasons the vaccines save lives and stop pandemics,” he said. (emphasis mine)
That’s a very particular kind of education, as it limits the discourse to influence our behavior. It’s called propaganda. The remainder of the article demonstrates the kind or Orwellian repetition that keeps state-sanctioned narratives in place.
We spend billions on this.
Underlying that is a lucrative cottage industry within the field of behavioral science that is designed to get in your head and gain your compliance.
Designing the next mass vaccination campaign will require ideas and techniques from behavioral economics. History and current events have shown how failing to consider features of human behavior, from individual biases in information processing to the relationships between people and policymakers, frustrated public health efforts. Behavioral economics can inform how a vaccination campaign needs to deliver processes and information necessary to help people decide to vaccinate, especially when mandates to vaccinate are not possible. Such campaigns need to employ both “nudges” (i.e., promote action) and remove “sludge” (i.e., break down blockers) to influence decisions directly.
Woven into the messaging is the notion that vaccinating is a responsible and compassionate response for the good of the community. This is not rooted in science. Vaccine messaging also ignores or minimizes the risks of vaccine injury while amplifying exaggerated risks of “vaccine preventable diseases.” Both of these things have the real world impact of sowing fear and division. Informed parents who refuse to vaccinate their children are then deemed selfish, ignorant and dangerous. This allows the government to intervene. The largely manufactured fear is then used to justify mandates… for the greater good.
This pattern emerges repeatedly with vaccine policy-making. But very few people stop to notice whether policies and laws, once enacted, achieve their stated goals. Consider the flu shot mandate for preschoolers from 2007:
The new mandates "will have a direct impact on reducing illnesses, hospitalizations and deaths in one of New Jersey's most vulnerable populations -- our children," Jacobs said in a statement.
But did they result in reducing illness, hospitalizations and deaths? What direct impact did flu shot mandates have in New Jersey? Eighteen years later, here’s how things look:
"This is the worst we've seen in at least 15 years," said Dr. Greg Sorkin, chair of emergency medicine at Bergen New Bridge Medical Center in Paramus.
A more aggressive strain, low vaccine rates and immunity problems after the COVID-19 pandemic have been discussed by health experts in trying to explain the bad season.
Correlation is not causation when it comes to vaccine-injury, but somehow health authorities readily link bad flu seasons to “low vaccination rates” without any causal evidence. And they keep pursuing the same tactic as our collective health declines. No one ever wonders if flu vaccination campaigns might be making things worse, despite research that suggests that it can.
They also use an “anything but the vax” approach when it comes to rising autism rates.
So it’s not surprising that the same people who impose a nearly impossible bar for causal evidence when it comes to vaccine-injury, are making flying leaps to conclusions about measles. It’s the unvaccinated. Never mind that NJ’s latest measles case was someone (with undisclosed vaccination status) who presented with “presented with measles following recent international travel.” The problem is always the unvaccinated.
Maybe these authorities genuinely believe that vaccines are the answer. Regardless, government officials and public health authorities need to think outside the shot if they’re also genuine about avoiding an authoritarian approach.
Perhaps they can take some advice from Sayer Ji:
Rather than relying solely on mass vaccination, a more holistic approach to measles prevention could include:
Adding Vitamin A to the CDC measles protocol, as it reduces measles mortality by up to 87%.
Encouraging Vitamin C, D, and Zinc supplementation to strengthen immune resilience.
Genotyping all measles cases to distinguish wild-type from vaccine-strain infections.
Acknowledging the potential risks of vaccine-induced measles and vaccine shedding, rather than dismissing them…
At the very least, the conversation should remain open--not shut down in the name of “settled science.”
And regarding vaccine hesitancy, I have some advice of my own: the people who raise concerns about vaccines are not enemies of science. They are its conscience. Listen to them.
I’ve taken a world view that BC now stands for “Before Covid” and see a profound difference between how we’ve perceived health (or lack of it) before and after 2020. This is especially true for all the shots and many other policies and opinions while the powers that be are still using their earlier methods of brainwashing us all to believe that they have all the answers. And for the shrinking minority of the mostly intelligent MSM addicted, this plan of action still works. And that’s why politicians with obvious ties to Pharmaceutical Industries still bark them out at every occasion like they did at the RFK Jr confirmation hearing.
But for the rapidly expanding number of skeptics like those of us who have witnessed firsthand the fallacies of the entire agenda, it’s pretty clear that we ain’t buying it. And that’s something that they are going to have to get used to.
He's gotta go...