> 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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

> 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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

> 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.

Taking DNA samples under the cover of healtcare is pretty bad.

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

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.

They may as well have been fake. It was a three dose vaccine, and only one dose was ever administered.

Why are titles like this allowed on HN?