Did the OECD massage the covid response and vaccine uptake messaging?

Short answer? yes.

According to the OECD

“– public trust in COVID‑19 vaccines and vaccination will be as essential as the effectiveness of the vaccines themselves”

So the principle that was placed as the most important messaging appears that public trust is a paramount. therefore anything that erodes ‘public trust’ has to be eliminated. would that include true communications of personal adverse events. This is a misguided policy and might be responsible for fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation.

In what world can public trust not be eroded. In what world can true communications not reach the public for the public to use their own discernment.

In what context does the OECD place ‘public trust’ in a product over the principles outlined by Nuremberg?

informed consent was displaced by ‘ the importance of public trust’ and therefore uptake of the mdical expermient or product.

Seems like the OECD policy paper is going head to head with the Nuremberg principles. In order to inoculate human beings, without the benefit of informed consent they wanted to protect public trust.

It seems like the very use such principles were outlined for.

Paper that with the evidence of excess deaths in OECD countries that took off at the time or just after inoculations took place.

Consider that when we gave public health officials more of a run in our life we also dropped our life expectancy.

Do you think , like I was do, that the OECD was pressuring their member countries to place ‘public trust’ above Nuremberg principles.

do you read this differently?

this is the OECD. No chump change organization.

With the release of the twitter files and the messaging of censorship across all OECD nations, should we assume this policy paper had a meaningful impact on executive branches of the governments in OECD nations?

I predict lawyers are going to start suing NGOs. And well just maybe they should.

Take for instance the following instructional OECD Policy paper. Who decides the role of governments? The duty of the elected officials to their constituents? Nah. Such a tired version of the Republic or Democracy (as your Nation state very well might still be.) No it’s the OECD baby. Setting their benchmarks on standards that matter to globalists. And advocating about Public Trust ahead of the principles of Informed Consent. this was the cornerstone of health care for decades.

OECD Policy Responses to Coronavirus (COVID-19)

Enhancing Public Trust In Covid 19 Vaccination The Role Of Governments Oecd

7.63MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Please down load and analyze.

“Enhancing public trust in COVID-19 vaccination: The role of governments”

what a title. Not protect the citizens and ensure they get full informed consent. but the role of governments in ignoring Nuremberg and focusing instead on the trust necessary to vaccinate as many as possible.

10 May 2021

“Key messages

While the development of COVID‑19 vaccines has been an extraordinary success, vaccinating most of the global population is an enormous challenge, one for which gaining – and maintaining – public trust in COVID‑19 vaccines and vaccination will be as essential as the effectiveness of the vaccines themselves. Moreover, the experience with COVID‑19 will likely shape confidence in other vaccines making it even more important to build confidence at this time.

Trust in vaccination, and in the ability of governments to communicate, and to successfully deliver a vaccination programme, is critically dependent on:

• the extent to which the government can instil and maintain public confidence in the effectiveness and safety of the vaccines;

• the competence and reliability of the institutions that deliver them;

• the principles and processes that guide government decisions and actions in vaccine procurement, distribution, prioritisation, and administration;

• the capacity and effectiveness of regulatory agencies in handling issues and communicating consistently as events arise, while retaining public confidence in their review processes; and

• the effectiveness of the public engagement and communications that accompany these.

Given the speed at which COVID‑19 vaccine development has taken place it is important for governments to emphasise that no developmental or regulatory corners were cut in the process, as:

• development was facilitated by extensive prior research, unprecedented levels of international collaboration among researchers, and massive public investment in R&D and manufacturing capacity; and

• approval processes were accelerated, in part through procedures that allow the acceptance of more preliminary evidence in circumstances of public emergency; and with COVID‑19 products accorded the highest priority by regulators.

Successful vaccination campaigns also require governments to partner and support community organisations to conduct extensive and well-managed community engagement. A thorough understanding is needed of different populations’ specific concerns, prior experiences both with vaccination and the health system in general, religious and/or political affiliations, and socio-economic status. It is also important to ensure that government actions are open to public scrutiny, and that public institutions engage with the population, by:

• Proactively releasing timely information on vaccination strategies, modalities and accomplishments in disaggregated, user-friendly and open source formats;

• Enhancing transparent and coherent public communication to address misinformation and the “infodemic”; and

• Engaging the public when developing vaccination strategies, and in the form and content of key communications.

Finally, fairness is a hallmark of human behaviour that underpins social cohesion and trust. Governments must therefore manage public expectations and explain why it is fair that particular population groups within a country are prioritised for vaccination.”

In their value section they discuss the information disclosed to the public as being informing citizens what the government is doing.

“Government Mandate: Inform, consult and listen to citizens:

Concern Affecting Trust: Ability to know and understand what government is doing; Engagement opportunities that lead to tangible results;

Openness”

The government informs the citizens essentially what the government is doing. Very vague and not informed consent. tangible results relates to maintaining public trust and therefore the vaccine uptake.

It is just pretty gross. All the pretty words look and sound good. they hit the right notes. But they fall short. Here is a review of the background that established the principles of Informed Consent.

On August 20, 1947, the trial of 23 physicians and bureaucrats charged with crimes against humanity and war crimes for medical experiments conducted on concentration camp inmates concluded in Nuremberg, Germany.¹⁸ The verdict of the International Military Tribunal, a trio of American judges empowered under international law adopted by the Allied powers, set forth a series of 10 basic rules for the conduct of human experiments that has become known as the Nuremberg Code.¹⁹ The Nuremberg Code represents the first explicit attempt to regulate the ethical conduct of research experiments with human subjects and is notable for the emphasis it places on voluntary consent. A section of the ruling entitled “Permissible Medical Experiments” states, “…certain basic principles must be observed in order to satisfy moral, ethical and legal concepts” in human subjects research.¹⁸ The first of these concepts is the voluntary consent of the human subject. In further statements, the court defined the specific context and meaning for this concept:

This means that the person…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.¹⁸

The whole paper is an interesting read. This was the script that OECD countries seemed to follow as developed by the OECD (not a particularly strong set of scientists, more McKinzie et al type of PR pundit)

First they ask

“How it was possible to develop and approve COVID-19 vaccines so rapidly”

Then they say this is how to answer:

“A number of factors contributed to the speed with which successful COVID‑19 vaccine candidates were able to be developed and tested. These include:

• SARS‑CoV‑2 is genetically close to various other coronaviruses that have been the subject of previous investigation in the past decade, so vaccine R&D did not start from a zero base, even for the newer technological platforms (e.g. mRNA and non-replicating viral vectors);

• Development was facilitated by extensive knowledge gained with previous vaccines, coupled with unprecedented levels of engagement and collaboration among researchers internationally;

• A large number of vaccine candidates have been, and are continuing to be developed and tested in parallel, using a variety of different platforms, increasing the chances that one or more would prove successful;

• Some vaccine candidates (and two of the products already authorised) rely on a novel messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) platform, which allows them be developed, modified and manufactured more rapidly than vaccines using traditional platforms;

• Governments invested heavily both in R&D and in manufacturing capacity, the latter to enable the production of large quantities of vaccine before the results of the phase III trials were available, and in many cases potentially absorbing the full financial risks of R&D failure;

• The scale and severity of COVID‑19 underscored the urgency of vaccine development. This drove intensive investment and faster development processes, via for example running trials in parallel that in other circumstances would be conducted sequentially and by combining trial phases I and II, to assess safety and immune responses;

• The combination of the high prevalence of COVID‑19 in many locations and rapid clinical trial recruitment accelerated the demonstration of efficacy in preventing symptomatic infection.

Besides the use of emergency procedures, other factors that helped to accelerate the process of approval included:

• National regulatory agencies engaging with COVID‑19 vaccine developers, and supporting the research and development effort indirectly, in some cases by providing early scientific advice on the most appropriate study designs for generating robust data;

• Regulatory review being expedited via a process known as “rolling review”, whereby developers submit tranches of data incrementally as they become available rather than waiting to assemble a complete dossier before submission;

COVID‑19 products being accorded the highest priority by regulators, with additional resources applied to enable rapid, intensive review of dossiers.”

doesn’t that sound like the PR campaign we heard.

Just how involved is the OECD in creating the massaging of messaging. What do they do behind those closed door meetings.

The kicker has to be mandating the use of behavioural scientists to increase the uptake or as they see it maintain public trust in the vaccines.

“Communication needs to be balanced and contextualised, to clearly convey what is and is not known, and to avoid reinforcing hesitant people’s cognitive biases, and it should ideally be informed by the expertise of behavioural scientists and risk communication experts.”

In wonder what those judges in the Nuremberg trial would have thought of employing behavioral scientists to overcome people’s spidey senses, while prioritizing only public trust in vaccines.

And anyone who says referencing Nuremberg is anti-Semitic and means I don’t know how horrific the Holocaust was, can sit on it and rotate. That is a Mckinzie or ilk devised silencing trope. Using Nuremberg to enforce enormous power and to prevent the questioning of medical experiments is indeed a perverted use of the Holocaust and those individuals who attempt to do so are the ones who need absolute shaming. Do not for one second believe that if you reference the principles of informed consent you need silencing. That is the new brand of CCP in our lives. God forbid we cannot learn from history because if we mention history it means we diminish the events and those words cannot be tolerated in this new form intolerance that requires silencing without addressing the actual argument:

The actual argument;

Does prioritizing public trust in vaccines and therefore in vaccine uptake, and providing the actual messaging content for nations, create a liability to those harmed.

Given OECD knew about Informed Consent, was this negligent misinformation or fraudulent. was this a conspiracy to commit fraud.

And notably, without any conformity to the principle and informed consent set out by Nuremberg. transparency over what governments’ are ‘doing’ is not transparency about the adverse consequences to the individual due the infection medical product, or experiment.

Now that we hear the product should more likely be referred to a gene therapy, how many of us would have ‘consented’ to modifying our genetic structure.

You know who probably knew the product was gene therapy? the OECD.

I believe they participated in the deprivation of the citizens of their rights. they actively promoted the opposite value. the uptake of the experimental gene therapy and inoculation by billions of individuals without at all referencing informed consent. Referencing the value ‘openness’ is like calling heroine safe because it doesn’t have impurities. saying the word ‘openness’ does not meet Nuremberg. It meets PR massaging of the values to create the impression of the duty being met.

The shift to the greater good over the rights of the individual is a massive Marxist shift that dilutes protection, denudes Citizens of their Bill of rights, and medical rights.

Did the OECD set up all nations to ab initio violate informed consent.

I say yes.

What do you say?