How the US Government Markets Vaccine Acceptance to the General Public

Remember how the Obama Admin made propaganda legal? Here is your first real look at what that looks like.

This is how they construct a narrative on vaccines. And yes, this is what they did. The government decided that vaccination was our route out of the pandemic, so they pushed it, and their chosen partner for this was the media, specifically, the press.

The US government approach has been linked to vaccination from the beginning and there have been three phases to this:

1. Isolation

2020 was the year of the lockdown. It was a time of the world facing a virus with no known cure. The only strategy U.S. public health officials could produce was to isolate people from each other, to slow down the transmission rate of the disease. Even at the very beginning, the U.S. commitment to put the country’s fate in the hands of big pharma to rush vaccine research to market was the core of the plan. Americans were paid to cooperate using a series of emergency financial relief laws to tide the country over until vaccines became available.

2. Emergence of vaccines

In 2021, the vaccines came out of the laboratory and began to be injected into the country’s cadre of emergency workers, to be followed by at risk persons and eventually, the general population. These vaccines brought to bear an amazing array of science ranging from disease molecule analysis, genetic engineering, and artificial intelligence techniques that delivered messenger RNA vaccines in record time. One of the legacies of the Trump administration, this was science fiction-speed technology, the kind of thing that will likely accelerate the pace of finding cures for many other diseases on the future.

3. Marketing vaccine acceptance

So, the federal government decided to market vaccine acceptance, but not by distributing information through the official pathway of public health departments. Instead, the U.S. government hired the media to become their marketing agencies to sell vaccine acceptance to the US population.

According to Blaze Media’s Chris Pandolfo’s report on March 3rd, “The federal government paid hundreds of media companies to advertise the COVID-19 vaccines while those same outlets provided positive coverage of the vaccines.”

Each phase of the pandemic response produced effects in the populace that remain and are not exactly the best, and in the case of 2 proceeding to 3, one phase prompted the next.

The phase of isolation which, if you are hanging your hat on vaccination as the only possible response, is the only way to mitigate illness and death in the populace effectively ended up subdividing the people into about three camps:

1. Those who embraced it and vocally wanted it to be the new normal
2. Those who openly resisted it and government efforts to use it as a management tool
3. And the more silent group that decided to put up with it until we got vaccines

As you can guess, these groups never went away, not really, and they also are still at each others' throats, just in different ways. And it set up what we saw when vaccines become available.

When the vaccines became available, there was a noticeable rift in the scientific community between those who embraced the vaccines right away and those in both the scientific and academic arenas who were more in favor of the slower, more data driven approach. The dissenting voices were skeptical of the missing years of laboratory trials, and that heated discussions made their way into social media and from there into the general public.

Again, we have more social divisions:

1. Those who fervently embraced vaccines as their lifeline and wanted to ban anyone not vaccinated from all social participation
2. Those who refused all COVID vaccines as poison
3. Those who viewed them as acceptable to get out of isolation

It was at this point that state and local groups and citizens themselves began to fragment, and the idea of vaccination as the only way to herd immunity began to be in jeopardy, so this is when the marketing strategy was put into place. This goes back to the third phase above. The government paid news organizations to run positive stories on vaccination, to run promotional spots on vaccination, etc.

In response to a FOIA request filed by TheBlaze, HHS revealed that it purchased advertising from major news networks including ABC, CBS, and NBC, as well as cable TV news stations Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC, legacy media publications including the New York Post, the Los Angeles Times, and the Washington Post, digital media companies like BuzzFeed News and Newsmax, and hundreds of local newspapers and TV stations. These outlets were collectively responsible for publishing countless articles and video segments regarding the vaccine that were nearly uniformly positive about the vaccine in terms of both its efficacy and safety.

You can see they even went so far as to hit outlets traditionally thought of as more conservative, so no one was safe from this. So when you have normally level-headed relatives suddenly flipped into vaccine zealots, you know why.

Under this arrangement, the questioning of whether vaccines were effective or safe disappeared from the official narrative seen by Americans. Only the outlets that were not part of the marketing effort continued to cover the reservations of the academics; and these were then almost universally labeled as “fake news” by social media censors.

But the actual collusion is the product of officialdom. In her substack commentary on these events, former NewsMax correspondent Emerald Robinson noted that organizations like FOX News and Newsmax, not only participated in the vaccine marketing program, but never informed their conservative viewers they were part of the government’s effort.

So they're running news they are paid to, and not telling you where the news is being to them from. Further, they are determining that anything not fed them is "fake". So outlets like RedState where I got this was likely labeled fake because it's been publishing some vaccine skeptical stuff all along right along with the rest of its blog group.

In 2022, the federal government’s goal is to close the gap to full vaccination of the US population. In February, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued $66.5 million to eight organizations to market vaccine acceptance to harder to reach groups throughout the country.

The eight organizations are,

Association of Asian/Pacific Community Health Organizations, San Francisco, CA $9.8M
Center for Global Health Innovation, Inc., Atlanta, GA $9.8M
Eyes NJ A NJ Nonprofit Corporation, Fairfield, NJ $6.3M
The Medi, Inc., Charleston, SC $2.2M
The Morehouse School Of Medicine, Inc., Atlanta, CA $9.6M
Project Hope-The People-To-People Health Foundation, Inc., Washington, DC, $9.6M
Public Health Institute, Oakland, CA $9.8M
University of Arkansas System, Little Rock, AR $9.8M

So, when you see their public service announcements show up, now you know where it comes from.

And the effort continues. You can see here the groups that have received government money to keep producing pro-vax spots, so if you see them, you know who's really pushing it.

Helps push things along when you cook up the bug as well.

A lot of effort put into this global circus to push a dark agenda that's been in the works for many years behind the stage of political theater. A great effort in fact.

I think that that law of allowing propaganda to be used against Americans was passed in the end of Busch's administration but it was not used much and exploited only moderately during Obama's first term. Half way through Obama's second term the Democrats started abusing it severely. but people still did not elect Hillary because she was just too bad at not covering up all of her wrongdoings while under Obama. But the Democrats started exploiting that after Trump got elected, I think they gave the law change some viagra.

No matter what, we got what we got now, don't expect to get the truth from MSM or politicians anymore, things are just going to get a lot worse before the whole thing collapses.

a reply to: ketsuko

These same outlets invariably castigate any suggestion of 2020 voter fraud, all carry the same "Putin evil" narrative, and all push the idea that inflation is transitive... meaning COVID isn't the only topic the federal government has paid them to tightly control reporting on. The USA media in 2022 looks an awful lot like Goebels' Nazi propaganda machine.

I kept an open mind towards the vaccine as long as I could, hoping it wouldn't be a disaster. The thing that sent me 1,000% against it was how hard they've been pusing to get this cocktail of whatever it is into every man, woman and child on the planet.
The pandemic went away as the virus weakened and Ukraine heated up, yet we're still seeing 'healthcare workers' and even little school children on TV 24/7 begging everyone to get the shot.

It's going to be decades- ifever- before we find the true purpose of getting this cocktail into us all.

I learned a long time ago that being pressured into something your gut tells you isn't right never turns out well, be it from our peers or (ESPECIALLY) the government.

I hope the people suffering from Long Covid Vaccine eventually make a full recovery, and I hope all who have put this experimental drug into their bodies don't suffer ill effects months or years from now.

God help us all.

Personally, I think you missed a 4th group in each of those lists.
(both being located between 2 & 3)

originally posted by: ketsuko
1. Those who embraced it and vocally wanted it to be the new normal
2. Those who openly resisted it and government efforts to use it as a management tool
3. And the more silent group that decided to put up with it until we got vaccines

2.5 Those who complied occasionally (mainly just a mask every now and then), but for the most part didn't really change very much about their life.

originally posted by: ketsuko
1. Those who fervently embraced vaccines as their lifeline and wanted to ban anyone not vaccinated from all social participation
2. Those who refused all COVID vaccines as poison
3. Those who viewed them as acceptable to get out of isolation

2.5 Those who didn't think it was necessary for them to get vaccinated, because they didn't feel they were at risk of catching the disease. (and also not afraid of what may happen if they did catch it)

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I am well aware. This is just the first time someone has pulled it out into the light and connected the dots for us. It's all there.

a reply to: BrokenCircles

I think those groups you mention mainly fit into the last categories if you think about it.

If you complied occasionally, then you were mostly just putting up with it when you had to for whatever reason. I was mainly in this group. I thought the whole theater was stupid, but I also didn't think it was the hill to die on most of the time in most situations.

And with the vaccines, even if you see them as acceptable to get out of jail so to speak, you still might decide not to do it for whatever reason. Basically, it's the meh group that will make up its mind one way or the other for personal reasons that have little to do with the crowd. I hated masks enough to get it and take the risk first time around, but as the weeks and months went on and they put us back in masks and then started making the vaccination push creepier and creepier and then more totalitarian, I started to wish I'd just decided to flip them the bird from the start.

In other words, the media blitz and narrative control made me suspicious, not more likely to want to.

a reply to: ketsuko

Also, many of us are suspicious that the US government is outsourcing many initiatives from censorship to propaganda to get around civil rights and various laws.

There is absolutely no reason that the "free and independent" press, i.e. corporate media, should be taking such money and pushing an experimental product that isn't efficacious, has no long term data, and is likely unnecessary for most individuals. Talk about corporate and government collusion! Also, this is a massive conflict of interest.

Regarding the scientific or intellectual divide, between the blind accepters versus skeptics demanding long term data and caution, the latter are far more congruent with the philosophy of the scientific method.

a reply to: Madviking

They are, but this precedent was set with climate change. The data is settled! Consensus! Blah, blah, blah ... none of it is scientific, per se, but it's what we get and what we're told. If you dissent, you're not making principled objections based on healthy skepticism or an interpretation of data that may differ but could also be valid ... Nope! You're simply in denial about the new reality as established.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Madviking

They are, but this precedent was set with climate change. The data is settled! Consensus! Blah, blah, blah ... none of it is scientific, per se, but it's what we get and what we're told. If you dissent, you're not making principled objections based on healthy skepticism or an interpretation of data that may differ but could also be valid ... Nope! You're simply in denial about the new reality as established.

Yes, it is completely Orwellian and an abuse of the process and reputation of scientific inquiry, to push politicized models and narratives, then claim that any questioners including scientists trying to falsify the model (per the scientific method) are not "following the science" and dangerous, fringe people.

As a former environmental activist and with a degree in sustainable development, climate change feels to me like the last sacred cow I loath to throw out. But after all I've seen with lies, bad data, political narratives, and power grabs in so many other realms, I now have to reconsider or be willing to.

It is the Nazi propaganda machine. Do you think we only brought over scientists in “Operation paper clip?” We brought anyone over that would help control the population. IMO , the Nazis have overtaken the USA from within. Hitlers grand invasion of the USA and one world government under the 4 th Reich is at hand. a reply to: burdman30ott6

a reply to: Madviking

Understand, I don't deny that climate changes. I don't deny that humans can have a local, regional impacts on it and those can be devastating. But I do mistrust the claims we've been fed at face value. I mistrust the proposed solution that the answer is simply to tax everything and give more control to the government. There seems to be no end to claims about the problem, but I have seen little to back up the efficacy of any of the proposed solutions.

Money by itself is not an answer, and those are missing. Social control and taxation are not solutions.

a reply to: TacoLoco75

Oh, this is a science all its own.

Remember how the Obama Admin made propaganda legal... this is what they did.

Propaganda to persuade COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake funded by government

This study tests different messages about vaccinating against COVID-19 once the vaccine becomes available. ... possible messaging that can be used ...making someone feel guilty or embarrassed for not taking the vaccine, social judgment of those who do not vaccinate and so on