The efficacy data was based on clinical trial batches though, and the challenge seemed to be with lower manufacturing quality in the large scale commercial batches : "changes were made in their processes to ensure that the integrity was improved and brought in line with what was seen for clinical trial batches."
To be honest, we do also have real world data now (Israel mainly) that confirms the benefit/risk balance to be extremely good.
What exactly of the above makes this a "misinformation campaign" (a term so vague as to be misinformation itself)? Nowhere in what you say above says the data are falsified or wrong.
Hackers have leaked data from organizations almost as long as there were computers - and giving them to journalists and/or posting them just as often. People also did it before computers.
The difference being that then we saluted getting access to raw data, whereas now we are being conditioned to consider them "misinformation".
> A closer investigation of the published material has revealed that not all of the documents were published in their integral, original form and may have been taken out of context. Whilst individual emails are authentic, data from different users were selected and aggregated, screenshots from multiple folders and mailboxes have been created and additional titles were added by the perpetrators in a way which could undermine trust in vaccines.
Seems like "manipulated" is EMA code-speak for "published the parts that make us look bad".
"manipulated data" sounds like Orwellian double speak from the company.
I remember the planned parenthood video, where they where haggling over prices for parts. Planned parenthood claimed it was a manipulated video too. Because it was an excerpt. They even locked up somebody for making the video. Never mind that the full unedited video was also released on the internet.
And a few years earlier I watched a documentary on CBC about a black market in body parts. Little bits and pieces used during surgery. Which this totally corroborated.
I'm not sure where you got your info, but PP was totally vindicated after 15 states investigated.
It sounds like they got people together to go after PP and then it didn't turn out that way.
Doesn't that cut against the dystopia in your imagination where things are predetermined?
If there's actual proof the PP video was legitimate surely it's in that criminal case. Provide specific and high quality proof on specific instances, making wide generalizations does not make it convincing.
I like this point. I wish it would be reported as an "influence operation" rather than "misinformation". The most effective propaganda is 80% true.
Setting aside the misinformation / disinformation rhetoric for a moment, a product that gets injected in virtually every human being alive needs to go through a generous amount of scrutiny to ensure it works as intended and does not cause more harm than good.
Biotech is a vastly complex field and taking the stance of "it works, trust me" is not exactly wise.
The leaked information requires analysis to identify the valid and relevant parts which should be treated as feedback for health policies and vaccine development.
It could just as likely be a hacker acting out of altruism, similarly to the one who broke into that italian company a few years ago. If someone didn't trust that the megacorp was acting in good faith, what they did here is probably the most effective (though morally ambiguous) way to hold them accountable.
The only question now is, are we going to brush their work aside without examination, blithely labelling it "misinformation", without any further thought?
We do what we can with what information is offered to us. Lies, half-truths, and all.
It's all so tiresome…
I could think of half a dozen parties with interest and the means to push this story in either direction. It's axiomatic that a story that's been covered is of interest to anyone. The response to a story implicitly carries on that property. The specific nature of the interests involved are not always clear.
Here, I reserve judgement. Time will tell.