CIA’s fake Hepatitis B vaccine program in Pakistan helped fuel vaccine distrust(vox.com)
vox.com
CIA’s fake Hepatitis B vaccine program in Pakistan helped fuel vaccine distrust
https://www.vox.com/first-person/22256595/vaccine-covid-pakistan-cia-program
83 comments
Given all you know about how unworthy of trust these institutions are now, why do you think this time is any different?
I don't know, and I weight the odds and wage a bet given the various sources of information I have and my knowledge of human nature.
Unlike most of my vaccine enthusiast friends, I don't blame people that want to avoid it, I get the sentiment.
I'm not thrilled at the idea of getting the shot despite being a strong vaccine proponent, but I have made the appointment. Maybe it will turn out to be the wrong decision, however I took it with the best of my knowledge and abilities. And that's all what we can do.
Unlike most of my vaccine enthusiast friends, I don't blame people that want to avoid it, I get the sentiment.
I'm not thrilled at the idea of getting the shot despite being a strong vaccine proponent, but I have made the appointment. Maybe it will turn out to be the wrong decision, however I took it with the best of my knowledge and abilities. And that's all what we can do.
>I took it with the best of my knowledge and abilities.
You would be really surprised at how much of one's knowledge sits on assumptions and believes that are not well founded. It is like how grownups are sometimes stumped by the questions of a curious kid, which make it clear that somethings they thought they knew, wasn't so.
This was my experience, and like most people, I used to trust authorities and scientists, and "studies". This is the position where we all start, and diverge from it as we become more aware about the politics involved and how the incentives are aligned, how powerful media, how research is funded and can be flawed, how peer review "appear to work" when in-fact it does not in practice etc, all of which are further confirmed by historical observations.
You would be really surprised at how much of one's knowledge sits on assumptions and believes that are not well founded. It is like how grownups are sometimes stumped by the questions of a curious kid, which make it clear that somethings they thought they knew, wasn't so.
This was my experience, and like most people, I used to trust authorities and scientists, and "studies". This is the position where we all start, and diverge from it as we become more aware about the politics involved and how the incentives are aligned, how powerful media, how research is funded and can be flawed, how peer review "appear to work" when in-fact it does not in practice etc, all of which are further confirmed by historical observations.
> You would be really surprised at how much of one's knowledge sits on assumptions and believes that are not well founded
I would not, I am perfectly aware of it, just like I'm aware I'm not able to go through walls.
And now what ? Knowing it doesn't change the fact I have to go through the door anyway.
The best we can do is all we can do, there is nothing else, your point is kinda moot.
I would not, I am perfectly aware of it, just like I'm aware I'm not able to go through walls.
And now what ? Knowing it doesn't change the fact I have to go through the door anyway.
The best we can do is all we can do, there is nothing else, your point is kinda moot.
when you live through enough you know that nothing in life is 100% other than death and taxes. it's all probabilities. If you want to think the government is injecting nanites then go ahead. Fed government has a decent history the past 40 years or so. I trust them more than I do most people other than my close friends and family. I've seen people die from covid, it's not a hoax and I don't believe the vaccine is either.
Most people hesitating to vaccinate don't believe it's a hoax, but rather believe that if something goes wrong by accident, which in an accelerated procedure on a complex system in the middle of a crisis is not unheard of, the people in charge won't disclose what we need to know, take responsabilities or the make the right decisions.
Despite going to get vaccinated, I don't think it's an unfair line of reasoning.
Despite going to get vaccinated, I don't think it's an unfair line of reasoning.
> The COVID crisis is as much a trust crisis than a health crisis
Noam Chomsky pointed that out as early as a year ago [0], but most people who really should hear it just don't want to it seems, content with shaking their heads and othering.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiCeqySVhCE&t=1255s
Noam Chomsky pointed that out as early as a year ago [0], but most people who really should hear it just don't want to it seems, content with shaking their heads and othering.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiCeqySVhCE&t=1255s
Worth reading about the forced sterilization of refugees with HIV at Guantánamo Bay in 1991 as well:
> The blood of these refugees had tested positive for HIV, and Camp Bulkeley, where they were detained, was set up as what Michael Ratner calls “the world’s first and only detention camp for refugees with HIV.” Subsequently, the women in that facility who were found to be HIV positive were subjected to forced permanent or semipermanent sterilization.
> The blood of these refugees had tested positive for HIV, and Camp Bulkeley, where they were detained, was set up as what Michael Ratner calls “the world’s first and only detention camp for refugees with HIV.” Subsequently, the women in that facility who were found to be HIV positive were subjected to forced permanent or semipermanent sterilization.
I think it’s quite important to note that the CIA didn’t run a “fake vaccination” campaign, the vaccines were very much real. It compromised existing vaccination programs and used them to collect intelligence.
They didn’t inject water into kids, it compromised the trust in the program sure but there is no need to make it sound even worse than it is.
They didn’t inject water into kids, it compromised the trust in the program sure but there is no need to make it sound even worse than it is.
Well, it was a front for something else. "Fake" in that sentence belongs to "program", not to "vaccine".
With sympathies, that's not your counterparties' problem. You're not entitled to a good-faith interpretation of your arguments online, and when you're accusing others of acting in bad faith, you really aren't.
Expecting everyone to know "what you mean", especially as a journalist whose literal skillset is writing, is poor.
Expecting everyone to know "what you mean", especially as a journalist whose literal skillset is writing, is poor.
> You're not entitled to a good-faith interpretation of your arguments online, and when you're accusing others of acting in bad faith, you really aren't.
So if someone says something critical of you, in your mind it makes more sense to be sloppy and self-serving about your interpretation of what they said, than if they say something nice? That's your outlook, and I don't share it. And that's ignoring the weird implication of that poster identifying with the CIA and me with whoever wrote the title, which I don't quite follow either.
So if someone says something critical of you, in your mind it makes more sense to be sloppy and self-serving about your interpretation of what they said, than if they say something nice? That's your outlook, and I don't share it. And that's ignoring the weird implication of that poster identifying with the CIA and me with whoever wrote the title, which I don't quite follow either.
> it compromised the trust in the program sure but there is no need to make it sound even worse than it is.
But this is worse than just that. This is an example of "post-truth", those kind of thing make people think "okay, the anti-vax side is lying, but the pro-vax side is lying too". It is because of this kind of comportment that so antivax tell themselves (and others when they are caught) "Okay, i'm lying, but i believe in the cause, i'm sure i'm right, and well, i have to lie to match my opponents, cause the truth takes the stairs, and lies the lift".
I'm taking Vax and anti-vax here, but you can make the same argument for less dangerous "truthers".
But this is worse than just that. This is an example of "post-truth", those kind of thing make people think "okay, the anti-vax side is lying, but the pro-vax side is lying too". It is because of this kind of comportment that so antivax tell themselves (and others when they are caught) "Okay, i'm lying, but i believe in the cause, i'm sure i'm right, and well, i have to lie to match my opponents, cause the truth takes the stairs, and lies the lift".
I'm taking Vax and anti-vax here, but you can make the same argument for less dangerous "truthers".
That "everybody is lying" disease is what creates dangerous sociopaths. I'm almost certain it's impossible to get cured of it once you reach a certain threshold. It literally distorts your view of the world in a way that makes you harmful to others. And since you interpret your interactions with people through that lense it's impossible to help you.
You should assume intelligence agencies are lying to you to further a certain goal. This is a completely healthy assumption. Of course that is valid for any agency in any country.
A short look at history supplies a lot of empirical evidence for that.
Your analysis of antisocial personality disorder is very unscientific and not at all in line with definitions.
A short look at history supplies a lot of empirical evidence for that.
Your analysis of antisocial personality disorder is very unscientific and not at all in line with definitions.
I have another form of this: I constantly think people are playing/fucking with me and behing dishonest just to make me feel good, and anyone that tries to tell me otherwise just fits perfectly in my lenses. I don't try to do it though and try to be nice and honest
CIA is lying and WPO is lying.This creates just healty paranoia. Trust but verify.
Anything can be used to justify your own biases to shift responsibility unto others (blame game). That's a personal responsibility to clear up, not someone else's. If one cannot function in an imperfect society, that only hurts oneself in the end.
You're in the shadow of an article about the US government running a vaccination program as the precursor to a violent massacre/assassination/kidnapping escapade that could theoretically trigger a war (although the Pakistanis are realpolitik savvy enough just to lie down and take it).
Vaccine programs have some unexpected risks to them. It might make a country question the US's involvement in a vaccine rollout.
Vaccine programs have some unexpected risks to them. It might make a country question the US's involvement in a vaccine rollout.
Seems silly to make this into vaccination distrust when it should be government distrust.
They can get DNA from any charitable mission that gives moments of physical contact. They would have had to add extra steps to the vaccination process to get a good sample anyway.
They can get DNA from any charitable mission that gives moments of physical contact. They would have had to add extra steps to the vaccination process to get a good sample anyway.
Topical example, people claiming that "well it could have come from a lab" were effectively bucketed with people who said "this is a communist bioweapon!".
It happens, but is relatively rare, that scepticism of a COVID vaccine is allowed to stand on its own in an internet discussion. Being distrustful of the government can literally get people attacked as though they wanted to inject themselves with bleach.
Pointing out that the government is untrustworthy and suggesting maybe we should move slowly will get people hit with being anti-science. Facts or free choice be damned.
It happens, but is relatively rare, that scepticism of a COVID vaccine is allowed to stand on its own in an internet discussion. Being distrustful of the government can literally get people attacked as though they wanted to inject themselves with bleach.
Pointing out that the government is untrustworthy and suggesting maybe we should move slowly will get people hit with being anti-science. Facts or free choice be damned.
I don't see the problem, except for manufactured outrage and fueling such.
All current vaccines for COVID-19 are in experimental phase. They've been tested enough to be deemed safe enough. AstraZenica/Jansen was found to have rare cases of deadly side-effects, so many countries banned it. Other countries decided that it is safe enough compared to continued lockdowns or outbreaks. The new methods of making vaccines means it is very similar to the virus itself, but without causing viral outbreak. So by experts they are deemed to be much safer than catching the virus, which everybody eventually will - vaccinated or not. The relatively short time do have concerns that there might be side-effects that haven't been found yet, but medical authorities have in a distributed manner accepted the risks in all countries.
It's good to ask questions, but the questions should be made in good faith and based on concrete findings and facts, not based on unjustified distrust. Maybe some authorities deserve that, but states are made up by the people, and the people must fix that themselves.
This discussion thread is just all over the place, to shift blame rather than own up to a difficult situation.
There should be no automatic acceptance of experimental vaccines, but there are processes and concerns that have already been settled for this one. All medicine carry potential of severe and deadly side-effects, so testing, continued monitoring and scaling of usage is of paramount importance, also for trust in vaccine programs.
There's just no perfect solution at hand, and the crisis is ongoing.
All current vaccines for COVID-19 are in experimental phase. They've been tested enough to be deemed safe enough. AstraZenica/Jansen was found to have rare cases of deadly side-effects, so many countries banned it. Other countries decided that it is safe enough compared to continued lockdowns or outbreaks. The new methods of making vaccines means it is very similar to the virus itself, but without causing viral outbreak. So by experts they are deemed to be much safer than catching the virus, which everybody eventually will - vaccinated or not. The relatively short time do have concerns that there might be side-effects that haven't been found yet, but medical authorities have in a distributed manner accepted the risks in all countries.
It's good to ask questions, but the questions should be made in good faith and based on concrete findings and facts, not based on unjustified distrust. Maybe some authorities deserve that, but states are made up by the people, and the people must fix that themselves.
This discussion thread is just all over the place, to shift blame rather than own up to a difficult situation.
There should be no automatic acceptance of experimental vaccines, but there are processes and concerns that have already been settled for this one. All medicine carry potential of severe and deadly side-effects, so testing, continued monitoring and scaling of usage is of paramount importance, also for trust in vaccine programs.
There's just no perfect solution at hand, and the crisis is ongoing.
> based on unjustified distrust. Maybe some authorities deserve that, but states are made up by the people, and the people must fix that themselves.
It's disenfranchisement that even allows organizations like the CIA to do some of the things they do without fear of punishment. Pulling back completely is the last resort, not the first thing anyone ever tried. Also, it's up to Americans to change the CIA, not people in Pakistan. They react to it, but you can hardly blame them.
It's disenfranchisement that even allows organizations like the CIA to do some of the things they do without fear of punishment. Pulling back completely is the last resort, not the first thing anyone ever tried. Also, it's up to Americans to change the CIA, not people in Pakistan. They react to it, but you can hardly blame them.
Not that I disagree with your arguments per se, but look how many times you used 'should'. It should, we should etc.
Well, world isn't some theoretical ideal piece about how the world should be, humans are not as they should be, and these things are so much apart that its kind of pointless to be such idealist. Because proposed solutions will not work as intended, or at all.
Well, world isn't some theoretical ideal piece about how the world should be, humans are not as they should be, and these things are so much apart that its kind of pointless to be such idealist. Because proposed solutions will not work as intended, or at all.
I used "should" two places, both hypotheticals.
Of course people will see the same situation in different perspectives, so perhaps any call for reason and leniency is made in vain.
Of course people will see the same situation in different perspectives, so perhaps any call for reason and leniency is made in vain.
I think a lot of people are more worried about corruption on the board of Pfizer than they are about foreign CIA operations. They can also be worried about government corruption at the same time since there are clear lines of influence between pharma execs and elected officials.
Why are titles like this allowed on HN?
Where do you see this? I'm trying to find a source, and many articles (even from years ago) are calling it a "fake vaccination program", and none mention that the vaccines were real.
Edit: I've done some more research, and it does seem the vaccines were real, but they only administered 1 of 3 doses before moving out of the original poor neighborhood they started in. They then moved to a richer neighborhood more near Osama bin Laden, and I'm not sure how many doses were administered there (maybe none? other then maybe some in Osama bin Laden's compound).
Either way, I think you're also being slightly dishonest here. It was real vaccines, but only 1 of 3 doses, so probably not very effective.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2011/07/cias-fake-vaccinatio...
Edit: I've done some more research, and it does seem the vaccines were real, but they only administered 1 of 3 doses before moving out of the original poor neighborhood they started in. They then moved to a richer neighborhood more near Osama bin Laden, and I'm not sure how many doses were administered there (maybe none? other then maybe some in Osama bin Laden's compound).
Either way, I think you're also being slightly dishonest here. It was real vaccines, but only 1 of 3 doses, so probably not very effective.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2011/07/cias-fake-vaccinatio...
Taking DNA samples under the cover of healtcare is pretty bad.
They may as well have been fake. It was a three dose vaccine, and only one dose was ever administered.
From a different article: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/11/cia-fake-vacci...
> In March health workers administered the vaccine in a poor neighbourhood on the edge of Abbottabad called Nawa Sher. The hepatitis B vaccine is usually given in three doses, the second a month after the first. But in April, instead of administering the second dose in Nawa Sher, the doctor returned to Abbottabad and moved the nurses on to Bilal Town, the suburb where Bin Laden lived.
I don't know if this changes anything. It feels closer to fake from where I'm standing.
I'm pro vax. Playing fast and loose with public health makes me feel fairly odd.
> In March health workers administered the vaccine in a poor neighbourhood on the edge of Abbottabad called Nawa Sher. The hepatitis B vaccine is usually given in three doses, the second a month after the first. But in April, instead of administering the second dose in Nawa Sher, the doctor returned to Abbottabad and moved the nurses on to Bilal Town, the suburb where Bin Laden lived.
I don't know if this changes anything. It feels closer to fake from where I'm standing.
I'm pro vax. Playing fast and loose with public health makes me feel fairly odd.
I have a naive question: why would CIA interfere other countries? Why can't the US just leave other countries alone and mind our own business? I can imagine that some people and some entities would want to mess up with the world, but why would American people support such activities?
>>>why would CIA interfere other countries? Why can't the US just leave other countries alone and mind our own business?
Because our entire economic system is built on dominating international finance via the PetroDollar. Countries are starting to wise up to how this is a raw deal for them and want to explore other arrangements. The US will fight that tooth and nail, by every means available. The death of the PetroDollar will likely bring the death of American hegemony and Pax Americana, and include a crippling economic crisis for the US with the expected quality of life impacts on the citizens as well.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/forex/072915/how-petro...
https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/01/06/new-hillary-...
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/36733213.pdf <-about the Iranian oil bourse
Because our entire economic system is built on dominating international finance via the PetroDollar. Countries are starting to wise up to how this is a raw deal for them and want to explore other arrangements. The US will fight that tooth and nail, by every means available. The death of the PetroDollar will likely bring the death of American hegemony and Pax Americana, and include a crippling economic crisis for the US with the expected quality of life impacts on the citizens as well.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/forex/072915/how-petro...
https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/01/06/new-hillary-...
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/36733213.pdf <-about the Iranian oil bourse
It is naive. Countries are always, --always-- spying on each other and interfering. Look at how much China, England, France, Iran, and Russia interfere with other countries if you're actually trying to be fair. It's not just the CIA, it is the way of the world and will always be that way unless somehow a world government is in place or human nature evolves to actually trust other humans.
I can understand spying, but I don't understand interference, as in toppling another regime, or as in invading another country like Iraq in the name of democracy. The latter looks pure evil to me.
do point out how any of those countries have "interfered" externally compared to the American track record. We maintain an unprecedented network of military bases throughout the world. We destabilized South America, the Middle East, and Asia. Even the worst offender in your list, Russia, does not compare. Putting Iran and China in there is laughable, frankly.
Is there anything the CIA has done in its history that was good for the United States? It seems this agency is doing far more harm to the United States than to protect it. It seems like an agency of lawless lunatics that are accountable to no one thinking they are doing something good but causing enormous damage.
I actually like Jackson Pollock’s art. That’s all I can think of.
From the FBI's own definition:
International terrorism : Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups who are inspired by, or associated with, designated foreign terrorist organizations or nations (state-sponsored).
Struggling to see how the CIA isn't a terrorist organisation at this point.
International terrorism : Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups who are inspired by, or associated with, designated foreign terrorist organizations or nations (state-sponsored).
Struggling to see how the CIA isn't a terrorist organisation at this point.
The whole history of the US is filled with terrorist activities and violation of human rights. It has overthrown more governments, killed more who politically opposed. The only reason why the US has the slightest thread of anything resembling credibility in the international space, is convenient willful ("diplomatic") ignorance.
Almost every major instability and geopolitical conflict can be traced directly to US involvement and/or weapon deals.
That isn't to say that our world would be rocey without it. Just that, it is the way it is, and pretending otherwise would be puzzling. It's not a secret.
Here is a very small part of it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_interventions_by_the...
Almost every major instability and geopolitical conflict can be traced directly to US involvement and/or weapon deals.
That isn't to say that our world would be rocey without it. Just that, it is the way it is, and pretending otherwise would be puzzling. It's not a secret.
Here is a very small part of it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_interventions_by_the...
So is every other country's history full of the same. Let's stop acting like the USA is unique in this. I will call out hypocrisy wherever I see it.
Most countries have some dark past, sure, and of course some more than others. But, in terms of consistency, extent and persistence, none come even close to the US. Just look at the Wikipedia article article I linked, and also this one: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in...
Just pointing out what is known history shouldn't be considered hypocrisy. Nor did I claim the US was alone in doing "bad stuff". So, I suppose you identify your argument as a straw man?
You are more than welcome to counter argue the actual point, by suggesting a present day contender.
Just pointing out what is known history shouldn't be considered hypocrisy. Nor did I claim the US was alone in doing "bad stuff". So, I suppose you identify your argument as a straw man?
You are more than welcome to counter argue the actual point, by suggesting a present day contender.
Sure the US has instigated plenty of crap but your comment is hyperbolic to the point of insanity and belittles damn near every regional power on the globe.
People are perfectly capable of starting wars with each other without the help of the US and if these people truly need help getting to the point of shooting each other the US is not the only nation with an intelligence agency capable of helping them out.
People are perfectly capable of starting wars with each other without the help of the US and if these people truly need help getting to the point of shooting each other the US is not the only nation with an intelligence agency capable of helping them out.
I was thinking the idea that the US are “helping people” was debunked since the war in Iraq.
The only way that was first debunked by the war in Iraq would be if people picked up a world history book that started with the war in Iraq. I cannot think of an exception where the US didn't chose their interest over a democratically elected governance.
so the conflicts the US instigated were inevitable, and the US might as well have gotten involved for its own benefit? I hope this is not what you're saying but it sure sounds like it is.
Pretty sure the world would be peaceful, holding hands and singing kumbaya without the US, especially Latin America.
[deleted]
I don't get the struggle. They are and have probably always been a terrorist organisation by anyone's definition.
Seeing how the FBI have been inspiring, training and generally helping out with lawfare operations and "soft"-coups around the globe, they don't have much of an upper hand either!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Institute_f...
https://theintercept.com/2019/06/09/brazil-archive-operation... https://nacla.org/news/2019/07/01/lawfare-unmasked-brazil https://www.brasilwire.com/folha-brazilian-lawmakers-fbi-and... https://www.brasilwire.com/how-fbi-controlled-operation-topp...
Seeing how the FBI have been inspiring, training and generally helping out with lawfare operations and "soft"-coups around the globe, they don't have much of an upper hand either!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Institute_f...
https://theintercept.com/2019/06/09/brazil-archive-operation... https://nacla.org/news/2019/07/01/lawfare-unmasked-brazil https://www.brasilwire.com/folha-brazilian-lawmakers-fbi-and... https://www.brasilwire.com/how-fbi-controlled-operation-topp...
That's a pretty poor definition, but many common ones are. For me the key component of terrorism is the terror part, it's the use of violence to intimidate a population.
So for example if you are targeting specific people or organisations, or infrastructure as targets due to their activities or capabilities then the goal is functional. You are trying to destroy or damage an asset or capability, any intimidation is incidental. Terrorism is where it's the fear itself that's the weapon.
Yep, that does mean some governmental operations count. Shock and Awe comes dangerously close, if the intended target of the S&A is a civilian population.
So for example if you are targeting specific people or organisations, or infrastructure as targets due to their activities or capabilities then the goal is functional. You are trying to destroy or damage an asset or capability, any intimidation is incidental. Terrorism is where it's the fear itself that's the weapon.
Yep, that does mean some governmental operations count. Shock and Awe comes dangerously close, if the intended target of the S&A is a civilian population.
People also wonder how african americans can be so hesitant to take the vaccines here in the US when every school kid learns about the Tuskegee Syphilis Study...
Every school kid is absolutely not taught this.
In public school they are taught this. Maybe not is some private schools I suppose. It's part of the standard curriculum
> In public school they are taught this.
Very much not true in general
Very much not true in general
Many black ones are...school or otherwise.
I get that the Tuskegee study is a huge influence on vaccine hesitancy, but I think its impact is emotional, not rational.
If you look at the fact, the big controversy was that the study participants were given zero treatment, while their doctors were telling them at they were being treated. At the time the study began, this was barely reasonable, because there were some strong indication that syphilis treatments caused more harm than good and the doctors wanted to measure it.
Ten years later, when penicilin had been long confirmed to be effective against syphillis, this was beyond monstrous.
But still, I don't think this is a reasonable argument against vaccination. The black people in the experiments weren't being injected mystery substances. The core of the scandals is that they were given placebos without their consent. I don't see how one could reasonably look at this and say "Okay, I'm never going to accept a vaccine ever". You're basically forcing yourself into the same experiment the government put these people in.
If you look at the fact, the big controversy was that the study participants were given zero treatment, while their doctors were telling them at they were being treated. At the time the study began, this was barely reasonable, because there were some strong indication that syphilis treatments caused more harm than good and the doctors wanted to measure it.
Ten years later, when penicilin had been long confirmed to be effective against syphillis, this was beyond monstrous.
But still, I don't think this is a reasonable argument against vaccination. The black people in the experiments weren't being injected mystery substances. The core of the scandals is that they were given placebos without their consent. I don't see how one could reasonably look at this and say "Okay, I'm never going to accept a vaccine ever". You're basically forcing yourself into the same experiment the government put these people in.
It's never reasonable to lie to people about the medical care being given. It's a reasonable argument against vaccination because they were lied to about what they were given.
If you wish to narrowly interpret this as purely 'they didn't give treatment when they could', that's one way of looking at it - but obviously anyone who is refusing a vaccine because of it is looking at this instead as I cannot trust a word these people say about the medical treatments they are giving me, because if for a moment they thought they could benefit at my expense in so doing, they have historically demonstrated that they will.
If you wish to narrowly interpret this as purely 'they didn't give treatment when they could', that's one way of looking at it - but obviously anyone who is refusing a vaccine because of it is looking at this instead as I cannot trust a word these people say about the medical treatments they are giving me, because if for a moment they thought they could benefit at my expense in so doing, they have historically demonstrated that they will.
Also things like the following, appear to be just as bad..
> There are early episodes in which radioactive fallout is dismissed as not a major health concern, as something that could be handled very easily. A thorough head-to-foot examination will reveal any accumulation of radioactive material. Vigorous sweeping with a broom removes contaminated dust and dirt from shoes and clothing.
Note that this is many years after Hiroshima.
https://www.matconlist.com/2019/01/the-atomic-veterans-deser...
> There are early episodes in which radioactive fallout is dismissed as not a major health concern, as something that could be handled very easily. A thorough head-to-foot examination will reveal any accumulation of radioactive material. Vigorous sweeping with a broom removes contaminated dust and dirt from shoes and clothing.
Note that this is many years after Hiroshima.
https://www.matconlist.com/2019/01/the-atomic-veterans-deser...
Reminds me of the documentary Cold Case Hammarskjold where they discover the apartheid era South African government had set up fake medical clinics to infect (Black) Africans with HIV.
[deleted]
or the introduction of "nonlethal agents" in an attempt to create widespread addiction among the black population.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Coast
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Coast
The vaccines were real in this case though. The CIA used the program to gather intelligence but they weren’t distributing disease.
I linked this in another parent:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/11/cia-fake-vacci...
> In March health workers administered the vaccine in a poor neighbourhood on the edge of Abbottabad called Nawa Sher. The hepatitis B vaccine is usually given in three doses, the second a month after the first. But in April, instead of administering the second dose in Nawa Sher, the doctor returned to Abbottabad and moved the nurses on to Bilal Town, the suburb where Bin Laden lived.
I don't know if that changes anything. It does appear that they didn't "effectively" vaccinate people when it was convenient.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/11/cia-fake-vacci...
> In March health workers administered the vaccine in a poor neighbourhood on the edge of Abbottabad called Nawa Sher. The hepatitis B vaccine is usually given in three doses, the second a month after the first. But in April, instead of administering the second dose in Nawa Sher, the doctor returned to Abbottabad and moved the nurses on to Bilal Town, the suburb where Bin Laden lived.
I don't know if that changes anything. It does appear that they didn't "effectively" vaccinate people when it was convenient.
One reason why you shouldn't host foreign intelligence agencies in turn for money.
Gee whiz, thanks America.
Misleading to call it a "fake vaccination program", it's rather a "covert DNA collection program".
Only 1 out of necessary 3 jabs was administered. Hence it was fake, the purpose was not getting people protected + secret operation, but just to collect intelligence. It's like calling Tuskegee operation good because some African Americans later got a bit medical help and maybe even compensated.
I see, thanks, I missed this detail.
[deleted]
Talk about unintended consequences of 9/11.
This article is from Feb 1, 2021! I understand some hesitancy at this time, as everything was brand new.
I am sure the person interviewed in this article is vaccinated meanwhile.
I am sure the person interviewed in this article is vaccinated meanwhile.
The difference between Feb 1, 2021 and August 3, 2021 is not that much when it comes to something being new in the medical world.
The difference between Feb and Aug is 500 million(!) vaccinated people. This is huge by any margin.
[deleted]
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/28/ethiopian-wome...
The COVID crisis is as much a trust crisis than a health crisis. The internet made the people deeply aware of how little the people in power actually cares about the average citizen or customer, and now that we really, really need the mass to have confidence in the institutions, it's getting hard to play the "for real, we are good this times guys" card.