Cornelia Betsch, one of the busiest psycho-manipulators for the vaccination establishment and during Covid times a member of the Corona Expert Council, heads the German branch of an EU project called Jitsuvax with her Erfurt psychology squad loyal to the government. It researches and disseminates psychological tricks for doctors to use to overcome vaccination hesitancy.
The name of the five-country project, which is led by the University of Bristol, is derived from the martial art of jiu-jitsu, which is also its program. For as in jiu-jitsu, the opponent is to be beaten with his own strength and his own weapons. That in itself is questionable on two levels.
On the one hand, people who are sceptical about a certain vaccination, for example about the experimental mRNA “vaccinations” against Covid-19, and who express this publicly, are summarily declared and treated as “opponents.” They are generally accused of base motives and unfair means as well as of being clearly wrong. In either case, and as far as I could see, nowhere is there an explicit attempt to distinguish between “opponents” with nefarious motives that need to be fought and people who, for good reasons or in error, are sceptical and argue accordingly but do so without the use of unfair tricks.
On the other hand, the project consistently relies on psychological manipulation, i.e. on precisely that which the opposing side is generally accused of. This is apparently how the jiu-jitsu principle of beating the opponent with his own weapons is understood.
The project, which will run from 2021 to 2025, is funded by the EU with 3.1 million euros.
Cornelia Betsch, psychologist, professor of Health Communications, and responsible for the German part of the project, has used dubious psychological findings, among other things, to propagandise for general compulsory vaccination in 2022 in order to pacify society. Significant parts of the government then actually wanted parliament to decide in favor of such a vaccination mandate, but fortunately this push failed as sufficient remnants of democratic decency in the Bundestag prevailed.
15.11.2022 | According to five German social scientists in an essay in the journal Nature Human Behaviour, general compulsory vaccination would help reduce the polarisation of society. How do they arrive at this? It has nothing to do with science, but a lot to do with bias, tricks and academic detachment from life.
The manner in which they work is described by the Jitsuvax people in their first annual report of May 2022 as follows:
We have measured in a large-scale, cross-national survey of HCPs which anti-vaccination arguments found in the JITSUVAX taxonomy were difficult for HCPs to tackle. In parallel, we collected data from 1,250 UK participants that indicated which arguments the public found more persuasive. These steps helped us to select arguments to focus on.
The team crafted customised refutations for the selected anti-vaccination arguments, which are delivered as part of fictional scenarios of a HCP interacting with a patient or a member of the public. We will test the selected refutations in separate experiments with HCPs and with members of the public.
The manipulation scientists distinguish eleven problematic personal attitudes as “roots” of vaccination scepticism, including conspiracy belief, distrust of authority, religious attitude and insistence on autonomy. For them, there are no legitimate reasons for vaccine scepticism.
So if someone concludes not to have their child vaccinated against Covid because it has been shown that vaccination does not help against contagion and transmission, and because the risk of serious side effects, at least for children, is greater than the risk of serious damage to health from Covid, then the cause must be identified as one of the eleven mental defects. Clearly, the possibility that the authorities made a mistake and the vaccination recommendation for children and infants was wrong is excluded. For the manipulation scientists, truth is a flexible thing that always depends on what the authorities are saying at the moment.
Financial interests of manufacturers are irrelevant
Let’s take a look at an example of a sceptic’s argument that vaccine doctors have more difficulty with. The arguments is:
Information from companies about vaccines is motivated by financial interests
Pathological mistrust is identified as the cause of such scepticism.
The difficulty stems from the fact that there is a lot to the argument. The amount and frequency of penalties leveled against pharmaceutical companies for criminal activities are more reminiscent of the Mafia than of organisations to which one would entrust one’s health without reservations.
Within the framework of the “emphatic refutation strategy” propagated by the manipulation scientists, what cannot be denied is first to be conceded, so that it can then be dragged into generality on a larger level and watered down:
Distrust towards authorities is sometimes justified. Some people, for example, may be concerned about vaccines because the pharmaceutical industry does profit from them. The pharmaceutical company Pfizer for example had made £27 billion from its Covid vaccine as of February 2022. Private companies in all industries have an interest in earning money with their products. Critically questioning the motives of industries is important.
Then the argument is turned against the sceptics:
Profits aren’t limited to pharmaceutical companies. There is also a strong financial motive among those who encourage others not to get vaccinated as they profit from getting people to buy their alternative products.
There are no independent regulators for alternative products, unlike for vaccines, where independent scientists and non-governmental organisations all over the world evaluate their safety and effectiveness and are not under any company’s direction. In fact, they are required to publicly declare any conflict of interest, including financial payments received.
The information these independent experts provide serve as the best available guidance on vaccines.
So Jitsuvax recommends to falsely pretend that scepticism about certain vaccines and the promotion of alternative products (that a private person may sell) fall into the same category. Clearly, such a scenario applies to only an insignificant fraction of public vaccine sceptics. Underpinned by this false equation, all sceptics are then accused of having “strong” financial interests, which is rarely the case. And where it is the case, these financial interests are thousands or millions of times weaker than those of the pharmaceutical companies. At best, it is then a question of thousands of euros or dollars, and not many billions.
It is also pretended that health authorities are above reproach and that there is no institutionalised corruption that may be due to the revolving doors between regulatory authorities and pharmaceutical companies, through which high-ranking staff move back and forth between the two worlds. Furthermore, it is apparently not an issue that the pharmaceutical companies demand to be shielded by governments against claims for damages and that the approvals were only emergency use approvals with waivers of all the usual standards. The fact that German Health Minister Karl Lauterbach, whom we are supposed to trust unconditionally, has repeatedly falsely claimed that vaccinations are free of side effects should also not give us pause for thought, and neither should the fact that he has in the past drawn negative attention to himself with courtesy studies for dangerous drugs. But if it does give us pause, we are considered pathologically suspicious.
So, while the sceptics’ argument about conflicts of interest needs no psycho tricks and describes a social reality, the proposed counter-argument is based on foul semantic and psychological tricks and only gives the appearance of describing relevant facts.
Human body without healing potential
The many levels of the project’s website are full of such grossly distorted and false representations. To give just one more example, the manipulation scientists write in all seriousness and without any qualification the following:
“Some people reject vaccination on the basis of the false belief that the body has ‘natural healing potential.'”
One has to be more than narrow-minded to seriously think that the body has no potential to cope with disease or injury. Mankind would then have barely managed to survive until the invention of the supposedly sole life-saving vaccines. However, the authors attribute to those who think thus sensibly all sorts of mental weaknesses or diseases as the cause of their wronghtink.
Based on the current state of knowledge, anyone who thinks about this undogmatically can hardly deny that for large sections of the population, trusting in the body’s natural ability to heal is an alternative to the Covid vaccination – one that is clearly worth considering or even preferred. Therefore, a doctor would have to concede this in a discussion regarding vaccine information, all the more so when a patient expresses such concerns. Instead, the manipulation scientists around Betsch would ask of doctors to disregard their medical responsibility and to dismiss the belief in the healing potential of the body as false doctrine.
A repeat offender
Ms Betsch was also co-author of a highly dubious study published in Preprint in November 2021, according to which the Covid crisis in Germany at the time was predominantly caused by the unvaccinated, a claim readily embraced by politicians and backed up with falsified statistics, which was later proven as grossly false.
“Scientists” who let themselves be paid by the government to develop foul psychological tricks with which the government can manipulate citizens are a disgrace to science. They do great harm to democracy.
WHO members pass resolution on manipulation of public opinion
Find multiple languages on CHD Europe