Imagine this – you’ve just learned you are pregnant. Emotions flood over you. Regardless of any decisions you make concerning the pregnancy, one thing is certain – your life is forever changed in this moment.
Fast forward to your first obstetrical appointment. Waiting nervously to meet your ob-gyn doctor, you make a mental checklist of issues you want to discuss. You presume conversations you are about to have with your doctor will be confidential. You also presume the medical opinions your doctor is about to give will be transparent and honest, in the best interests of you and your baby, and based on your ob-gyn’s independent medical judgment.
Spoiler alert: some conversations you will have with your ob-gyn have been pre-determined – namely, whether you should consent to take the COVID-19 “vaccine” while you are pregnant. Should you refuse your ob-gyn’s recommendation to take the COVID-19 shot, this will likely be recorded in your medical record, potentially shared with governmental officials, and you’ll be asked again to comply in future appointments.1 In what amounts to the ultimate patient betrayal, these pre-arranged COVID-19 “vaccine” discussions are not necessarily the product of your doctor’s independent medical judgment and do not provide informed consent about the known and unknown risks of the shots to both mother and baby. Rather, these conversations are likely fashioned to push the HHS’s/CDC’s pro-COVID-19 “vaccine” narrative, in what seems to be an attempt to capture ob-gyn doctors and their patients across two continents.
ACOG
Meet the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Founded in 1951, ACOG holds itself out as the “premier professional membership organization for obstetricians and gynecologists” and is the leading organization representing physicians and specialists in obstetrical care.2 ACOG is entrenched across two continents – it has more than 60,000 members and is composed of 12 geographic districts made up of 98 sections spanning North, South, and Central America.3
HHS and COVID-19 Community Corps
Next, meet the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). On April 1, 2021, HHS formally announced the launch of a COVID-19 “vaccine” propaganda machine called COVID-19 Community Corps – a vast marketing enterprise which exploited private entities and individuals across the country to push the COVID-19 “vaccines.”4 As part of the COVID-19 Community Corps, HHS awarded billions of federal dollars to recruit what HHS referred to as “trusted community leaders” who could push the “vaccines” within our most private relationships.5 Much like modern-day trojan horses, these “trusted messengers” would be unique in their ability to permeate all facets of private life.6 As HHS explained on its COVID-19 Community Corps announcement page – a page which has now been taken down with even the original URL removed7 – “Research shows that, when making the decision to get vaccinated, people want to hear from people they trust, such as medical professionals, their own family and friends, and leaders in their community.”8 These HHS “trusted messengers” infiltrated every nook and cranny of our personal lives, in ways and areas that traditional advertising dollars simply couldn’t reach.
Along with many other influential nonprofit medical organizations, ACOG jumped on board as a founding member of COVID-19 Community Corps9 – ultimately receiving millions in HHS/CDC grant money10 and later recklessly endorsing COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy, even though the clinical trials failed to include pregnant women.
And ACOG is not alone – of approximately 275 organizations listed by HHS as COVID-19 Community Corps founding members, 25 are health and medical organizations.11 Other influential “founding member” medical organizations included the American Medical Association, American Nurses Association, American Medical Women Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics12 – although women and children seem to be at higher risk for some types of COVID-19 “vaccine” injuries.
HHS and COVID-19 Community Corps: Follow the “Communication Science”
Essential to its strategy, HHS sought to identify trusted community leaders, enlist them to join its COVID-19 Community Corps, and then utilize these “trusted sources” to convince those around them to take the COVID-19 “vaccines.”13 According to a December 23, 2020 article published by CBS News, HHS ran “focus groups” to fine-tune its pro-“vaccine” message for what then HHS Deputy Assistant Sec. Weber referred to as “the moveable middle.”14 As then, Deputy Assistant Sec. Weber also reportedly noted, “Communication science says you need a messenger who resonates as trusted.”15
The focus was on finding people with not just local, but also uniquely interpersonal influence. As Harvard public health professor Jay Winsten,16 who has advised previous administrations, reportedly explained to CBS News in its December 2020 article, “You want to go for the low-hanging fruit, those that are easiest to pick and harvest.”17 Noting that the focus should be on finding locally influential people to push the vaccines, Winsten added, “People trust their own doctors, their own nurses, their own pastors, their own social networks. That’s very, very different from a distant figure.”18
Indeed, the effort was very different from using a distant figure. The marketing methods utilized by HHS to push the COVID-19 “vaccines” – including the creation of COVID-19 Community Corps – were so vastly different from any other HHS propaganda effort that an article was published in the Journal of Health Communication in April of 2022 detailing the process.19 Featuring now-retired HHS Deputy Assistant Sec. Mark Weber as lead author, the article confirms that HHS did, in fact, target interpersonal relationships.20
As Weber and his co-authors explain: “Market research impacted every element of the Campaign from the beginning – from overall strategy to early paid advertising, social media postings, and other mass communication strategies. The need for interpersonal interactions with physicians, ministers, family, and community members was clear from the initial market research conducted in the fall of 2020. While the first phase of the Campaign initially focused on mass media messages, it shifted to more of a trusted messenger, and community orientation, with outreach focused at the community level.”21
Weber’s and his colleagues’ “vaccine” marketing efforts were so successful that, after retiring from HHS, Weber apparently formed his own private company aimed at “Achieving bold goals at the Federal Level”22 – in typical revolving door fashion.
According to Weber and his co-authors, the HHS campaign to push the COVID-19 “vaccines” entered its third phase in 2022 and has evolved into a highly targeted approach using both paid and “earned” media strategies.
As explained in the article, the HHS campaign: “Focuses more on precision marketing to identify subgroups with vaccine hesitancy, working directly with communities and using trusted messengers in those communities to deliver messages without the Federal government being directly involved (even though the information may come from a Federal source).”23
Notably, the article neglects to fully explain – or even recognize – that what HHS engaged in is both deceptive and unethical. This is because HHS used persons and methods targeting trust within interpersonal relationships to push messages that the “vaccines” were safe and effective – but often, government involvement behind the messaging was not fully disclosed. In some instances, as reported by ABC News in a page now removed from the internet, government organizations recruited and paid influential individuals to offer opinions about the safety and/or efficacy of the “vaccines” – as if these were their own independent opinions.24
Near-Perfect Trojan Horses? “Communication Science” Means Access and Influence
Regarding the issue of “trust,” – a pregnant patient’s relationship with her ob-gyn is arguably one of the most intimate and sacred physician-patient relationships in all of medicine. This is not without reason – as one patient and writer notes, “They’re right next to you for the most momentous occasion of your life.”25 Pregnant mothers trust their ob-gyn doctor with the most intimate and sensitive information about their own bodies, their sex lives, and, if pregnant, about the new life growing inside of them. Their ob-gyn is one of the first persons to actually see a mother’s newborn baby, whether reading prenatal images during the pregnancy or during the birthing and delivery process. Some individuals have even reported the development of a non-romantic affection for their ob-gyn that rivals that of the baby’s father in some ways, due to the “complete vulnerability” many women reportedly experience with their gynecological and pregnancy specialists.26 In sum, government capture of ACOG would provide access to and influence over near-perfect “trojan horses” to market the CDC’s pro-vaccine message.
The Ob-Gyn “Trojan Horse”
As for ob-gyn doctors, ACOG’s 60,000 members span two continents, providing tremendous opportunity for access to those who could potentially become “trusted messengers.” In addition, ACOG’s 60,000 members steward one of the most trusted and intimate physician-patient relationships in all of medicine, thus providing tremendous opportunity for wielding influence over the vaccine-hesitant.
The Patient “Trojan Horse”
As for ob-gyn patients, women have been referred to as “A Brand’s Powerhouse.”27 This is not without good reason: marketing studies have shown that women reportedly make a full 90% of all healthcare decisions about their household.28 Convincing women to take the COVID-19 shots was almost a guarantee that they would become pro-COVID-19 “vaccine” messengers within their own families.
Moreover, if the COVID-19 “vaccines” were considered safe enough to administer to pregnant patients (and thereby trans-placentally to their unborn babies) – certainly they were safe enough for everyone. If HHS and CDC could pull off government capture of ACOG, and convince its ob-gyn members to push the shots on their patients, this would be a bonanza for reaching the “vaccine” hesitant – what HHS Deputy Assistant Sec. Mark Weber referred to as the “moveable middle.”29
Cooperative Agreements – Government Capture of ACOG
On February 1, 2021, ACOG was awarded the first of what would be three HHS/CDC “Cooperative Agreement” grants made during the pandemic, in which ACOG would receive over $11 million in grant money over coming years.30 But there was a catch. As the name of the grants indicates – documents obtained in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request show that ACOG’s receipt of COVID-19 grant money was conditioned on ACOG yielding substantial control over the projects which were to be funded by the grants to the CDC.31 Receipt of the grant money was also contingent on ACOG’s full compliance with CDC guidance on COVID-19 infection and control.32
And on April 23, 2021, the CDC’s guidance on COVID-19 “vaccination” for pregnant individuals was made crystal clear. On that day, CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky announced at a White House COVID-19 briefing that the CDC was now recommending all pregnant individuals should receive the COVID-19 “vaccine.”33
Perhaps unsurprisingly, following the lead of the CDC, on July 30, 2021, ACOG, along with the Society for Maternal Fetal Medicine (SMFM), recklessly began endorsing COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy,34 even though the clinical trials failed to include pregnant women.
Bound under the terms and conditions of these Cooperative Agreements grants (which ceded control to the CDC for programs involving COVID-19 grant funding), ACOG played right into the hands of the HHS’ strategy to enlist “trusted messengers” to push the COVID shots. As ACOG explains on its website, a pregnant patient’s ob-gyn had the potential for enormous influence: “[P]regnant people need to feel confident in the decision to choose vaccination, and a strong recommendation from their obstetrician-gynecologist could make a meaningful difference for many pregnant people.”35 In this case, ACOG seems to say the quiet part out loud – a recommendation from an ob-gyn could be a game changer for convincing pregnant women to take the COVID-19 “vaccines.” Here, the targets of the experimental “vaccine” campaign would be society’s most vulnerable – pregnant mothers and their unborn babies.
ACOG’s July 30, 2021, announcement strongly recommending COVID-19 “vaccination” in pregnancy was a sharp about-face from ACOG’s previous stance on the issue. Website archives show that for the months of the pandemic preceding July 30, 2021 (Dec. 2020 through July 21, 2021), ACOG’s official recommendation was to allow pregnant women the freedom to choose, stating throughout the first half of 2021: “In the interest of patient autonomy, ACOG recommends that pregnant individuals be free to make their own decision regarding COVID-19 vaccination.”36 Yet, ACOG’s recommendation abruptly changed on July 30, 2021.37 In place of patient autonomy, independent clinical judgment, and informed consent about the known and unknown risks of the COVID-19 “vaccines,” ACOG’s recommendations would now follow CDC’s guidance, announced by CDC director Walensky on April 23, 2021.
The FOIA Request
To learn more about COVID-19 funding received by ACOG during the pandemic, as well as who (and what) might have been behind ACOG’s about-face on July 30, 2021, I made a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to HHS in 2022. My request was simple – it sought only to obtain documents involving the three $11 million “Cooperative Agreement” grants HHS/CDC made to ACOG during the pandemic.38 These grants were listed on a publicly accessible open data source for federal spending, USASPENDING.gov.39 My FOIA request struck gold – triggering 1400+ pages in government databases related to these three “Cooperative Agreements” awarded to ACOG. But my request also struck a nerve – approximately half of the information produced on those 1400+ pages of federal grants was redacted by HHS, ACOG, or both. Although specific program information and details about the grants have been redacted (based upon work-product, attorney-client, trade secret, and other privileges), the FOIA documents disclose the existence of the following grant programs between CDC and ACOG…