CIA’s fake Hepatitis B vaccine program in Pakistan helped fuel vaccine distrust
vox.com
vox.com
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.
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.
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.
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.
Despite going to get vaccinated, I don't think it's an unfair line of reasoning.
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.
> 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.
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.
Expecting everyone to know "what you mean", especially as a journalist whose literal skillset is writing, is poor.
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.
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".
Vaccine programs have some unexpected risks to them. It might make a country question the US's involvement in a vaccine rollout.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Of course people will see the same situation in different perspectives, so perhaps any call for reason and leniency is made in vain.
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.
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.
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...
> 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.
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
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.
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...
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.
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.
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...
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.
Very much not true in general
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 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.
> 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...
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.
I am sure the person interviewed in this article is vaccinated meanwhile.