It was Dr Fauci’s wife who drafted the policy to intimidate vaccine resistors. The newly discovered document comes amid debate over Fauci’s choice to support research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology on “killer” bat coronaviruses.
- EXPLOSIVE: Here’s what was uncovered in Hunter Biden’s iCloud Hack
- MAJOR PEER REVIEWED STUDY: Moderna Vaccine Increases Myocarditis Risk By 44 Times In Young Adults
- MUST READ: High Level International Bankers Simulate The Collapse Of Global Financial System
- BIG STORY: Wuhan Lab Isolated Monkeypox Strain In 2020
- EXPLOSIVE: Ukraine Biolabs Used Fever Carrying Mosquitoes To Spark Dengue Pandemic In Cuba
Anthony Fauci’s wife, who also heads the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center’s Department of Bioethics, wrote an article justifying the morality of firms “pressuring employees to get vaccinated” and “embarrass[ing] vaccine resistors.”
The study, titled “The Ethics of Encouraging Employees to Get the COVID-19 Vaccination,” (read below) was financed by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Clinical Center and the National Human Genome Research Institute, and included Fauci’s wife, Christine Grady, as one of the authors.
The report was published in March 2022 in response to efforts by the White House and Democratic Party legislators across the country to make COVID-19 vaccination mandatory for federal and state employees.
Grady’s paper focuses on the “ethics of encouragement strategies aimed at overcoming vaccine reluctance (which can be due to resistance, hesitance, misinformation, or inertia) to facilitate voluntary employee vaccination.”
Subscribe to GreatGameIndia
Grady and her three co-authors explain why it is “ethically acceptable” to “subtly pressure employees to get vaccinated”:
The study asserts that vaccine mandates might be “ethically appropriate” if “clear articulation about the consequences of not complying with the policy.”
“In that circumstance, employees have a choice between getting vaccinated or accepting the consequences of a choice to remain unvaccinated,” it explains.
Other strategies listed by Grady for increasing COVID-19 vaccination rates within a company include providing “targeted statistics (such as 75% of the company or unit have been vaccinated) to spur competition or even implicitly embarrass vaccine resistors.”
“There can be social consequences associated with peer communication about vaccination, such as stigma and ostracization of those not vaccinated,” the paper asserts.
“Individuals who choose to make the workplace less safe for others through their vaccine refusal should be able to foresee the possibility of this kind of social consequence,” it goes on to say, seemingly endorsing the aforementioned “stigma and ostracization” of COVID-19-unvaccinated individuals.
“When a policy is tied to group vaccination metrics, unvaccinated employees may feel implicit (or explicit) pressure from peers or supervisors to help the group meet its return-to-work goals,” Grady and her co-authors said before calling the technique “ethically appropriate”:
The newly discovered document comes amid debate over Fauci’s choice to support research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology on “killer” bat coronaviruses. Furthermore, given her husband’s role in establishing America’s COVID-19 reaction and vaccination protocols, Grady’s important role in regulating the morality of NIH research and policy appears to constitute a conflict of interest.
Read the full paper below: