Bureaucrats study how to shape-shift your mind— at your expense— and keep the findings secret

• By Rebel News

Help fund our ATIPs

Help cover the cost of our access to information requests.

Donate

In an internal federal government memo showed that top bureaucrats sought messaging to ensure Canadians remained blissfully unaware and uninformed about the novel COVID-19 vaccines and their adverse events.

This memo proves that the government is collaborating with behavioural experts to manipulate citizens to comply with state backed propaganda.. and it’s all funded by them.

The memo defines behavioural science as the combination of “insights and methods from psychology, neuroscience and other social sciences to understand human behaviour and support positive choices. Pandemic response continues to require large-scale behaviour-change to slow down the transmission of the virus.”

Documents obtained by Blacklock’s details the immense government measures taken to ensure that you were behaviourally swayed to fully and unquestionably comply with government sanctioned public health measures. And they say that the same data will be used to manipulate you again in the future, at the whim of every other government sanctioned agenda to come.

Yet this secret collection of behavioural science research is a breach of an Act of Parliament.

It’s a contravention of the Federal Accountability Act, which mandates that “all public opinion research charged to taxpayers must be made available to the public within six months.”

The memo in question was first published in May 2021 by the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC), on behalf of the Government of Canada and Impact Canada.

The Impact Canada unit was announced in Budget 2017 to “help government departments accelerate the adoption of innovative funding approaches to deliver meaningful results to Canadians.”

“In March 2020, it quickly pivoted to support the Governments COVID-19 response with it’s centralized skills and resources,” the memo read.

So it became the COVID propaganda arm of the government.

In general it looks like that’s what Impact Canada is – “a whole of government framework for scaling up and mainstreaming “outcomes based” policy/program methods, such as challenges, pay for results and behaviour science.”

Impact Canada “bridges the gap between police development and effective implementation.”

It’s “housed in the Privy Council Office” and relies on fellowship programs to deliver and execute “novel policy and program methods.”

Impact Canada is mostly comprised of a Behavioural Science team. It includes 32 bureaucrats – many from the PHAC, and others from Agriculture and Climate Change Canada – who are tasked with ensuring you are nudged into compliance with whatever government policy flavour of the day ensues.

The memo in question focused on a particular study that enrolled participants into an experiment that presented them with an allegedly “fictious news report of an AEFI [adverse event following immunization] that described a recent death with a possible link to a recent COVID-19 vaccination.”

The memo defines behavioural science as the combination of “insights and methods from psychology, neuroscience and other social sciences to understand human behaviour and support positive choices. Pandemic response continues to require large-scale behaviour-change to slow down the transmission of the virus.”

Participants of the study were shown a handful of differently framed messages in response to the news report from one to three different sources – from the government of Canada, a top Canadian medical professional or a spokesperson for the vaccine manufacturer.

The messages were either unrelated to the event (Control I) , current approved ML [machine learning] responses to serious AEFI (Control II) or one of five different messages framed with a behavioural science lens (Control III).

Two sets of messages were presented at different times in the experiment – ones that we still see and hear today – the first, that the report has been flagged and will be investigated but there is no confirmed link between the vaccine and the event and the second, concluding message, that the investigation took place and found that there was no link between the AEFI and the vaccine.

The key findings show that Impact Canada discovered that responsive messaging “makes a difference and leveraging insights from the behavioural sciences can further amplify this impact.”

They say the “kitchen sink” message frame – yes, the old idiom of “everything but the kitchen” – was the most effective communication strategy.

that’s what the behaviour experts were doing – throwing everything but the kitchen at Canadians to downplay and disregard vaccine reactions so as not to compromise the safe and effective narrative.

A bunch of behaviour experts got together to figure out that the “kitchen sink” was the most effective communications approach, reducing the concerns about vaccine safety by 17 percentage points!

Remarkably, some participants were immune to the public health propaganda.

“Communications approaches do not work equally for everyone. Participants who endorsed misinformation statements about COVID-19 vaccines were unaffected by any messaging frame,” the memo reads.

The study separated participants from those who displayed belief in COVID-19 vaccine misinformation between those who did not and found that the “misinformation believers” were not affected by message framing.

Those susceptible to misinformation (i.e. the critical thinkers) were not swayed at all by message framing or behavioural manipulation.

In fact, they only became more critical when exposed to propaganda.

On the contrary, those not
suspectable to misinformation, (i.e. those most likely to blindly follow), were most swayed by behavioural science messaging (i.e. manipulation).

Yet recommendations are redacted, as though Impact Canada does not want the public to know how they plan to unleash manipulative messaging and propaganda in the future. Even though, as stated by Blacklocks, this is in conflict with the Federal Accountability Act, since this was taxpayer funded public interest research.

They say that one year into the pandemic, they had to increase the acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines and combat the rampant spread of misinformation in what is coined as a “most pressing aspect of the response effort.”

(That’s right, it wasn’t building hospital capacity, training more healthcare staff, promoting healthy lifestyle habits, healthful nutritional choices, or lowering stress; no, the government was focused on influencing you to blindly accept novel injections and follow state backed media.)

“The government must strike the right balance between ensuring the safety of the vaccine and promoting public awareness while also ensuring public confidence in the safety of the vaccine remains consistent with the governments,” states the study objective.

Impact Canada will extract the key insights to inform future message creation to new context and events.

The regime identified six barriers that either affect the way someone would react to an AEFI report or either diminish or exacerbate their confidence in the program. It includes things like confusing you with the understanding of probabilities – relative versus absolute risks.

The study controlled elements that affected perceived severity of a vaccine reaction and used different framing techniques to see which ensured confidence was not compromised, then they measured how responsive participants were to the messaging.

So, will the team leading this research – Dr. Mark Morrissey, Dr. Andrew Abela, or Dr. Lauryn Conway
– comply with the Federal Accountability Act and publish this research in full, including the redacted recommendations section or will openness and transparency once again be compromised by Canadian government agencies?

The general media contact at Impact Canada did not respond to Rebel News’ request by the time of this report.

Canadians better hold onto their critical thinking caps, they’re going to need them.