Threats of House Arrest & Sacking Won’t Be Enough to Persuade People to Take the Covid Vaccine

Pam Barker | Director of TLB Europe Reloaded Project

What caught our eye about this piece about a ‘from-on-high’ mandatory vaccination policy is where it emanates from – the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM)Who is pushing this kind of stuff through the NEJM? Who decided this should be the voice of broadscale health policy?

We recall the NEJM was also the vehicle for a disturbing and entirely new policy toward healthcare for the elderly, discussed by medical journalist Rosemary Frei in an interview she gave to James Corbett back in June (see How the High ‘Covid’ Death Rate in Care Homes Was Created on Purpose [VIDEO]). She expressed concern about the new triage mechanism for healthcare access or denial, that being elderly was all of a sudden a valid criterion for REFUSAL of healthcare, the first time ever such a policy had been created. It had first appeared in a March 23 NEJM paper. Here are three paragraphs of our notes from her video:

New hospital care rationing guidelines: From the middle of March, there were new triaging guidelines created so that care should be rationed in specific ways. The NIC in the UK set guidelines, as well as the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). Each one said the main criteria for getting care, or not getting it, is age. Different parameters used to be employed, but never age. So concerning covid, priority was put on younger people for getting care. April 17, federal Canadian guidelines also said that older people should not be sent to hospital. This is a red flag.

Rationing of care: A March 23 paper in the NEJM talked about giving care to those who have more of a chance of survival, with a longer life expectancy following treatment. This completely changes the rules – that older people should now get a lower ranking in triage. Age has never been included in care guidelines but suddenly it’s included. The Canadian Medical Association adopted this same criterion for the rationing of care as recommended by the NEJM.  The lead author of the NEJM paper is the brother of Rahm Emmanuel, bioethicist Ezekiel Emmanuel of the Centre for American Progress.

The real question here is WHY this is being doneThere is clearly an agenda because it’s not only happening in Ontario. It’s been so broadly applied. Frei: it saves the government money. Government is not an ethical body, and old people are expensive. The elderly don’t contribute much to the tax base.

Recall: we were being told that hospitals were being cleared for that rush of COVID cases, and that most of us should just stay home when we were feeling sick? But when the truth got out, the elderly – the most vulnerable to the disease – were neither being sent to hospital nor treated adequately in the carehomes. Rather, they were left to rot, with even basic food, drink and normal medicines being denied according to one UK carehome workerAdvanced medical directives had already elbowed them out of necessary medical care.

Now we see a mandatory vaccination policy being pushed out by the NEJM.

See this other RT article for background on the mandatory vax policy, titled Take the jab or lose your job: Medical journal calls for a MANDATORY Covid vaccine, says ‘noncompliance should incur a penalty’.  While this article addresses the problem of vaccine resistance in the US population, likely the same propaganda-cum-coercion techniques will be used elsewhere. Of note:

With half the US population reportedly unwilling to submit to an experimental Covid-19 shot, a new scientific paper has shed light on how state health authorities might enforce compliance with vaccine mandates.

Published in the New England Journal of Medicine on Thursday, the paper outlines strategies for circumventing widespread fears over the safety of a rushed-to-market vaccine against the novel coronavirus, providing health authorities with a playbook for coercing a skittish populace.

The writers acknowledge that voluntary measures should be tried first, rather than mandating the vaccine for everyone out of the gate. However, if the target population doesn’t comply within a trial period, a mandate should be rolled out, and the penalties for refusing to submit should be harsh. Given “the costs of a failed voluntary scheme,” the writers warn, authorities should wait no more than a few weeks before rolling out a mandate if uptake falls short of expectations.

This article is worth reading for what the NEJM has to say about how we should be ‘played’. Below is a response to this attempt at propagandistic medical coercion of us all.


Threats of house arrest and sacking will not be enough to persuade people to take the Covid vaccine

The establishment’s push for a compulsory Covid vaccine is well underway, with top medical journal the NEJM the latest to call for one. But people power is against them, and no amount of propaganda will help them get their way.

Threats of house arrest and sacking will not be enough to persuade people to take the Covid vaccine

On Thursday, The New England Journal of Medicine published a perspective entitled ‘Ensuring Uptake of Vaccines against SARS-CoV-2.’ It quickly began to gain traction, with tens of thousands of views and reports in the media. Alex Berenson, a former New York Times journalist whose agitating against the Covid hysteria has been ceaseless and outstanding, brought attention to the paper on his Twitter account on Thursday.

The plan for forced vaccines

The paper is billed directly as a blueprint for foreign governments (ER: such scale!) to roll out a mandatory Covid vaccine. And although the vaccine arrival date is unknown, the authors emphasise that “states can apply [this framework] now.” The message is: it’s time to start laying the propaganda groundwork.

The paper begins with the schoolmarm-ish warning that “a recent poll found that only 49% of Americans planned to get vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2.” I don’t know about you, but to me that seems remarkably high. Perhaps President Trump’s staunchly pro-vaccine rhetoric has contributed to the figure. But it is nowhere good enough for the high-priests of the NEJM, who all of a sudden seem very concerned with achieving herd immunity via vaccination. Funny, seeing as no one in power seems to like the idea of herd immunity when Sweden (who were never aiming for it) is brought up.

Nevertheless, the authors almost win the sceptical reader over with their plea for “the best available evidence about the vaccine’s safety and efficacy.” That seems honourable – let the evidence decide. But they immediately affix that statement with “the possibility that the evidence underlying FDA approval of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines may be more modest than usual.” Sometimes you have to admire the neck of these people. No doubt soon dissenters like me will be arrested on the basis of “modest evidence.”

World’s fastest vaccine

One perfectly reasonable response to compulsory vaccines is that vaccines are not 100 percent safe. If anyone ever tries to tell you they are, you can stop listening to them immediately. In fact, nothing is 100 percent safe – not walking up the stairs, not eating your dinner.

That being the case, even the safest vaccine ever will have harmful effects for some of the citizenry. How does it look if that vaccine was forced upon the person suffering horrendous or permanent side effects under threat of prosecution?

There is a reason that most rich countries, including the US and the UK, have special funds set aside to pay compensation to people who are damaged by vaccines. But those funds will take a kicking if governments compel their entire public to take what would be the fastest vaccine ever developed. That is, unless they issue some diktat after the fact absolving themselves of responsibility in case of collateral damage. And why not? The Big Pharma firms already have.

Substantive penalties

The authors are wily enough, however, to caution politicians against criminal penalties, as they “invite legal challenges on procedural due-process grounds.” Ah, that pesky due process! Never mind though – there are plenty of other rights and privileges that can be stripped away from people without so much as an official letter in the post.

The paper, for instance, says “Substantive penalties could be justified, including employment suspension or stay-at-home orders for persons in designated high-priority groups who refuse vaccination.” Job losses and house arrest. But those are only some of the options. Technology and Big Data are handy tools, don’t you know. Just look to how China denies their citizens entry to certain buildings and transport if their ‘social credit’ score is not good enough.

Whatever ‘penalties’ politicians and bureaucrats devise for free, law-abiding people, though, we can be sure that there will be plenty of creativity on show.

Threats of House Arrest & Sacking Won’t Be Enough to Persuade People to Take the Covid Vaccine