How the CIA’s Fake Vaccination Campaign Endangers Us All

I don't think that was the reason. I think no heads rolled because heads can't roll for things like this. The CIA, at least the portion of it which conducts operations like this, has no oversight or ability to be punished whatsoever. They raise their own funding, maintain their own army, navy, and air force, and conduct operations internationally without the slightest but of input from the US government. In every way that matters except name, they are a fully autonomous international criminal cartel. We learned about the whole 'run their own army, navy, and air force and fund their own ops' stuff way back in the 80s when Oliver North testified before Congress (which is on YouTube buts its hours and hours of testimony)... and nothing was done. I don't think it's an exaggeration to refer to them as the single biggest threat to democracy that exists. They actively prop up dictators in order to prevent democratic movements from gaining control in many countries because they fear democratically elected leaders in those places might not be pro-American. At least I think that's why they do it. It might just be because the dictators give them a place where they can hide drugs or whatever.

FYI the date is in the "Rights & Permissions" link at the bottom of their articles. In this case it's dated May 1, 2013. The beginning of the article does note that the events happened ~2 years before the publishing date though.

You’ll damage public trust in whatever you pose as.

Let’s say you pose as a hotel bellhop. Following your exposure, hotel bellhops will be less trusted by the public, just like this.

Except that lack of public trust in bellhops doesn’t have any serious consequences. A few people will carry their own bags instead of getting help, maybe. Big deal.

Poss as doctors distributing vaccines, and you’ll hurt vaccination rates and people will does. That’s qualitatively different.

But imagine a less one-sided scenario: You have the job of national security, with the presumption that $HUGE_NUMBER of lives are impacted. You have a medical aid group allegedly doing something good. But you know they could be a cover for a force trying to do something that would threaten that $HUGE_NUMBER. There's a cost-benefit analysis that goes into deciding how much of an obstacle you put up in front of said group. It might be minor, such as checking credentials, or posting a dedicated solider/analyst/guide to keep track of things, or scheduling delays, or perhaps denying/delaying access to different areas.

There are a lot of ways to respond that aren't on the "kill doctors" side of your example and yet still impair the $GOOD_DEED. To avoid such debates, It makes sense on both a humanitarian level as well as a public moral-high-ground marketing level to have a line you don't cross even when an individual case looks to justify it. <Insert MIB speech about there's always a crisis here>

It's against the Geneva Conventions to use hospitals as military bases, or to attack hospitals. The idea that no country should mix public health and military operations is mutually agreed on, and is to help keep war, for lack of a better word, "civilized".

If you start doubting that doctors are truly just trying to save lives, then the line between civilians and soldiers becomes so blurry that war can become even more horrible than it already is. Countries must hold firm that civilians doctors must not be ever construed as soldiers, for the safety of those doctors, and the people they treat.

This isn't what the article was about. Hence, the downvotes.

I actually went on a facebook group where they encouraged anti-vacination discussion. It quickly devolves into anecdotes from parents who describe things like their unvaccinated child not getting sick much, or how their first child was vaccinated and completely changed into a different child, but their second child is perfect without vaccines.

The science is pretty-fucking-clear on vaccinations that have been approved for use by the general public. There is no debate, there is no autism link, your kids won't die from a state-run vacination programme. Any "debate" is just conspiracy theories being bounced around by people who want to feel bigger than their doctor / nurse / scientists / other people.

I noticed this to. Some vaccines are very risky, and there are really good reasons (backed by scientific evidence) to be concerned with risks. Just a while ago in Tahti, a family asked a nurse not to vaccinate their new born child. The nurse did it anyway, and the infant died within 3 minutes. A second family, minutes after, told the nurse also not to do it. The nurse did it anyway, and the second infant died. Apparently there were riots and the government had to come in a seize the vaccines (MMR).

I'm not antivax, I'm actually pro-vax but with caution. I am trying to sign up to take an experimental vaccine under trial II because I think it would help benefit society and I understand the risks. The previous vaccine put people in wheel chairs and I'm more then willing to take that risk to see if it is effective.

But you got people paying $39.99 for Internet and now all the sudden they think they can play Doctor on the Internet and have opinions about vaccines without any idea how they work or the real risks involved.

> there's no ability to have a decent discussion

similarly with trying to get a decent discussion about flat Earth. Vaccines are effective and one of the most amazing tools for combatting infectious disease known to humanity. The science shows that modern vaccines are safe.

Given that, the lack of debate isn't surprising.