Collateral damaged be damned, all for simple revenge. Thanks to U. S. actions, a generation will be skeptical of vaccines. Not exactly Nazi levels of evil, but at a minimum it gives credence to every "CIA conspiracy" out there.
But that's all old news, including TFA. What I want to know is, which heads rolled after this? Oh, none? Because we caught bin laden and "USA! USA! USA!"?
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.
While there are severe (and problematic) limits to judicial oversight of these programs, the CIA et al are subject to oversight by the executive (i. e. the presidency). While there were times in the past when the three-letter agencies had too much power to be effectively controlled (the J. Edgar Hoover era mostly), the possibility of a de facto coup is rather remote today.
Specifically, President Obama could have easily prosecuted the torturers. His decision not to do so was motivated by the long-standing custom of not using criminal prosecution against your predecessors.
More recently, just a handful of Republicans doing the right thing would have prevented Gina Haspel from becoming CIA chief, which would have been a rather encouraging message.
Yes, neither of those things happened. But the reason was spinelessness and political expediency, not fear of the "deep state".
De facto coup? I didn't say anything about anything remotely like that... How about when did Congress or the CIA in Washington, DC approve the purchase of the Predator drones run for years in Pakistan and Yemen before people got wind of it and they signed up with the military to make the program semi-legit? They didn't. They just decided to buy a bunch of drones and start tele-killing people on their own. They got ahold of the drones somehow, and went for it. Who in DC approved the fake vaccination program? No one did. Permission was never asked for.
I'm not afraid of a 'deep state' or anything of the sort. I think it's just a bunch of people who realized that they have carte blanche to do literally whatever they want, and that no government on the planet can or will bring them to task. So they do what they want. There's certainly still a legitimate portion of the agency, those at Langley and all who run normal intelligence operations, but they don't seem to have much connection and certainly no control over those operating however they please with no regard for law.
I don't actually know how they jive their multitude of active operations destroying democratic movements (which are not conspiracy theories, I'm only referring to the documented ones). I presume, very cynically I suppose, that they have concluded that democracy is a nice story to tell the naive civilian children, but that in harsh reality there has to be 'hard men' in the shadows making 'hard decisions' and putting boots on some throats to construct and protect the artificial bubble of happiness the US enjoys. I think, very not cynically, that they are absolutely and completely wrong on this mark and that they are profoundly immoral and destructive to the world in general, including the US in their misguided quest. Democracy is right and works ok enough. The alternatives are indefensible philosophically.
When I hear things like about the drone program, I never understand why there isn't more controversy. The CIA is a CIVILIAN organization. They are in no way military or affiliated with the military. They have no mandate to execute military operations or use military resources, equipment, or tactics. It would seem to me that they committed some sort of fundamental and very cardinal error there...
I don’t know about most of your claims, but I do know about the drone program and you are so completely wrong about that it makes me question the rest of your unsourced statements.
The CIA’s drone program had direct approval including explicit budget line items since the Clinton administration.
the consequent need for repairs prompted a budgetary row between the Air Force and CIA, with, in hindsight, the measly sum of $3 million dollars further delaying the project and prompting direct budget amendments from the Clinton White House in the summer of 2000.
The CIA’s use of drones for assignations started with direct presidential approval: The bureaucratic deadlock was broken on September 17, 2001 when Bush signed a finding that created a secret list of high-value targets that the CTC was authorized to kill
I can't edit this now, but I'd be pretty interested in the reasoning behind the downvotes.
It's fine to be cynical about the CIA of course, but is it just that people don't like the CIA and so they downvote people pointing out actual completely sourced facts which make the CIA look just slightly less terrible?
Because I think the inability to reconcile history with what people's views are is a pretty interesting thing.
What happened to the CIA when they were caught spying on and hacking the congressional committee that's supposed to give them oversight, with the specific intention of deleting evidence before the committee? Jack shit.
One of the issues with the vaccination debate (in my opinion anyway) is that there's no ability to have a decent discussion. Especially online on sites like Reddit and even here on HN, you either support vaccines or you are literally the worst person on the planet. It's a bit disappointing.
Edit: Ah there's the downvotes, new record, thanks for proving my point.
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.
How is it "pretty fucking clear" when you have real people contradicting what you say is clear. I personally know people who have regressed after being vaccinated.
Autism is a label slapped on a whole host of conditions that likely have different etiology and obviously different presentation of symptoms. But there are definite cases of healthy, speaking children regressing to a non-verbal state after being vaccinated. You found some of them on Facebook yourself.
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.
MMR isn't risky though. It doesn't kill people, especially not two children in a row. The chances of a reaction to MMR in that situation are astronomical. If that story is true, the common variables there are the nurse, equipment, location etc. Which points to a cause there, not the vaccine.
It's anecdotal crap, told in way that relates directly to other parents "told the nurse not do it" to help with the virality of the story. You can't draw an opinion on MMR from that, least not from all vaccinations.
> 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).
This seems to be a distorted retelling of events that happened earlier this month. [0] It was in Samoa, not Tahiti; from all accounts I am find only the second child’s parents (two hours, not mere minutes, after the first) declined the vaccine, having heard about the first incident.
And there is little reason at this point to think this story about the MMR vaccine supports your point about risky vaccines; it is much more likely that it is about mishandling the vaccine at the particular facility. Because MMR is given all around the world, and cluster incidents like this happen at an extremely low rate (and are fairly consistently shown to be medical errors—such as injecting the wrong thing, e.g., by staff using something other than water as the diluent—and not problems with the vaccine itself.)
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.
This is a classic "shifting of blame". Notice how no one other than the Taliban & it's ilk protest vaccine use!!!
The blame here lies with the Taliban and co. Not with the CIA. Anyone can pose as anything - from mailmen to drivers were rigged to catch bin-laden. Should the CIA's use of fake mail-men and drivers be condemned?
Stop lending credence to the horse-shit pedaled by unreasonable terrorists/tyrants - if not vaccines they'd blame cell phones, or regular phones, or roads, or ….
Imagine if members of the Taliban pretended to be US doctors and collected a sample of your DNA without your knowledge. Who would you blame any resulting outrage on?
>Stop lending credence to the horse-shot pedaled by unreasonable terrorists/tyrants
It's hard to consider their lack of trust "unreasonable." They have proof that we've done this before, and we've shown a willingness to kill them without much regard for the civilian cost.
I think your understanding of spycraft is naïve. If you are a target of an international spy agency, like Osama was, trust nothing or no-one.
CIA is blameless. They didn't mass infiltrate the vaccination program of the entire country, or state or city. Then ran a targeted mission on a particular neighborhood, which is what spy agencies do and are supposed to do.
Again, this is a blatant and obvious shifting of blame.
1. the Pakistani state protected and harbored Osama --> their fault.
2. Informing them about the mission would have jeopardized it as Pakistan plays both sides routinely --> Pakistan's fault.
3. Osama was a ruthless murderer of innocents, and a target of international spy agencies --> his fault
>Again, this is a blatant and obvious shifting of blame.
The CIA has publicly said they ran this fake vaccination program, and that program is at least partially responsible for the hostility towards polio workers we are seeing today. Even if you view the fake vaccination program as a necessary step for some reason, the CIA is still to blame for what we are seeing now.
As for the rest of what you said, I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make.
What “horse-shit” are they peddling? If they’re saying that vaccine programs are being used by the US to kill people, they’re right. That’s the whole problem: it’s no longer horse-shit.
"vaccine programs are being used by the US to kill people,"
That couldn't be further from the truth. They infiltrated the vaccination program of one single street to catch the world's most wanted terrorist. They aren't on a mass killing campaign via vaccinations!
Again - stop lending credence to the distortions pedaled by terrorists.
Here's the kind of credence you're lending to terrorist's narratives:
"How ISIS' use of trucks to kill pedestrians poses a grave threat to us all" - Despite ISIS' use of vehicles to mow down pedestrians, I think we can safely agree that vehicles don't pose a threat to the civilized world.
In a similar vein, an isolated incident of targeted infiltration of a vaccination campaign doesn't endanger anyone - unless you lend credence terrorist narratives that it does
The 'narrative' is that the US will co-opt programs as critical and important as vaccination to meet it's temporary geopolitical goals. That is demonstrably and objectively true.
Comparisons with ISIS are unfounded in mind. We're expected to hold ourselves to a higher standard than that. ISIS is such a rock bottom standard it's sitting in a lava pool in hell.
How's the elimination of the most wanted terrorist who reshaped geopolitics a 'temporary geopolitical goal'? Your deduction is neither demonstrable, nor is it objective.
We're drifting into debating opinions, which is typically a dead end.
Suffice to say that the elimination of Osama - the killer of over 10,000 innocent Americans, and head of a terrorist organization with hundreds of thousands of members and sympathizers, was high priority for America, across the political spectrum
The opinions don’t even matter here. The fact is that the US subverted a vaccination program in order to kill people. Whether you think that was net good or bad is irrelevant.
In a similar vein, an isolated incident of targeted infiltration of a vaccination campaign doesn't endanger anyone - unless you lend credence terrorist narratives that it does
To quote the link Scientific American article:
The distrust sowed by the sham campaign in Pakistan could conceivably postpone polio eradication for 20 years, leading to 100,000 more cases that might otherwise not have occurred, says Leslie F. Roberts of Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health. “Forevermore, people would say this disease, this crippled child is because the U.S. was so crazy to get Osama bin Laden,” he argues.
and
As outlined in a letter signed by the deans of a dozen prominent schools of public health that was sent to the White House, President Barack Obama should direct all U.S. military and intelligence agencies to refrain from using a medical or humanitarian cover to achieve their objectives.
So I think your point that there is no danger and it lends credence to terrorist narratives to say it does is difficult argument to make. It's public health officials in the US saying that when they criticized Obama.
Imagine terrorists used ambulances as vbieds to get through checkpoints easily. Now ambulances get stopped and search extensively even with patients and on route to them. Still think the blame lies with the tyrants who stop and search ambulances or with the scum that pretends to be emergency medical services?
Hiding as medical personal for military reasons is as disgusting at it gets. And for a very good reason people doing this will normally be prosecuted as war criminals. But sadly US based war criminals dont get prosecuted but promoted and celebrated.
Doctors and nurses life are at risk and people dont get vaccines anymore because the US government sanctioned the exploitation of the special status medical personal have. They might as well have painted a Red Cross on the Seals Helicopter.
I have mixed feelings. I feel like vaccinations are important and choosing to use that for cover is risky.
At the same time any covert operation someone will pose as someone they are not or use their role in a way ... covertly. If someone discovers this and decides to take action against everyone or every organization that also includes those roles.... I don't think that's the CIA's fault.
If a doctor intentionally chose to kill someone I knew, and I chose to kill doctors, that would not be ok and it would be my fault. Same goes with the Taliban and anyone else who behaves similarly.
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.
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.
Apparently they have found that certain genes are expressed differently in people they consider religious fanatics. And the proposal was to administer a virus through a vaccine that would restrict the expression of that gene.
53 comments
[ 4.2 ms ] story [ 102 ms ] threadBut that's all old news, including TFA. What I want to know is, which heads rolled after this? Oh, none? Because we caught bin laden and "USA! USA! USA!"?
While there are severe (and problematic) limits to judicial oversight of these programs, the CIA et al are subject to oversight by the executive (i. e. the presidency). While there were times in the past when the three-letter agencies had too much power to be effectively controlled (the J. Edgar Hoover era mostly), the possibility of a de facto coup is rather remote today.
Specifically, President Obama could have easily prosecuted the torturers. His decision not to do so was motivated by the long-standing custom of not using criminal prosecution against your predecessors.
More recently, just a handful of Republicans doing the right thing would have prevented Gina Haspel from becoming CIA chief, which would have been a rather encouraging message.
Yes, neither of those things happened. But the reason was spinelessness and political expediency, not fear of the "deep state".
I'm not afraid of a 'deep state' or anything of the sort. I think it's just a bunch of people who realized that they have carte blanche to do literally whatever they want, and that no government on the planet can or will bring them to task. So they do what they want. There's certainly still a legitimate portion of the agency, those at Langley and all who run normal intelligence operations, but they don't seem to have much connection and certainly no control over those operating however they please with no regard for law.
I don't actually know how they jive their multitude of active operations destroying democratic movements (which are not conspiracy theories, I'm only referring to the documented ones). I presume, very cynically I suppose, that they have concluded that democracy is a nice story to tell the naive civilian children, but that in harsh reality there has to be 'hard men' in the shadows making 'hard decisions' and putting boots on some throats to construct and protect the artificial bubble of happiness the US enjoys. I think, very not cynically, that they are absolutely and completely wrong on this mark and that they are profoundly immoral and destructive to the world in general, including the US in their misguided quest. Democracy is right and works ok enough. The alternatives are indefensible philosophically.
When I hear things like about the drone program, I never understand why there isn't more controversy. The CIA is a CIVILIAN organization. They are in no way military or affiliated with the military. They have no mandate to execute military operations or use military resources, equipment, or tactics. It would seem to me that they committed some sort of fundamental and very cardinal error there...
The CIA’s drone program had direct approval including explicit budget line items since the Clinton administration.
the consequent need for repairs prompted a budgetary row between the Air Force and CIA, with, in hindsight, the measly sum of $3 million dollars further delaying the project and prompting direct budget amendments from the Clinton White House in the summer of 2000.
The CIA’s use of drones for assignations started with direct presidential approval: The bureaucratic deadlock was broken on September 17, 2001 when Bush signed a finding that created a secret list of high-value targets that the CTC was authorized to kill
https://www.lawfareblog.com/origins-drone-program
It's fine to be cynical about the CIA of course, but is it just that people don't like the CIA and so they downvote people pointing out actual completely sourced facts which make the CIA look just slightly less terrible?
Because I think the inability to reconcile history with what people's views are is a pretty interesting thing.
I can read anything, and you're obviously a CIA PR cleaner.
Don't trust the CIA mopping division.
You got it free, for trolling the public minds. The trucking mocca. Enjoy the truckery
Edit: Ah there's the downvotes, new record, thanks for proving my point.
Would it be proper to discuss BMW's production of planes in WW2 when an article about one of their electric cars is posted?
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.
Autism is a label slapped on a whole host of conditions that likely have different etiology and obviously different presentation of symptoms. But there are definite cases of healthy, speaking children regressing to a non-verbal state after being vaccinated. You found some of them on Facebook yourself.
I'll leave you with the CDC's factsheet on MMR: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/vis/vis-statements/mmr.pdf
Please read the "Severe events occur very rarely": * Deafness * Long-term seizures, coma, or lowered consciousness * Brain damage
So whatever "very rarely" means, you can be sure you will see lots of cases when you vaccinate 4 million babies every year in the U.S.
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.
That doesn't say anything about vaccines.
You know what be helpful? If you actually named these risky vaccines, so we can look at these good, scientifically backed reasons.
Thanks! :)
It's anecdotal crap, told in way that relates directly to other parents "told the nurse not do it" to help with the virality of the story. You can't draw an opinion on MMR from that, least not from all vaccinations.
This seems to be a distorted retelling of events that happened earlier this month. [0] It was in Samoa, not Tahiti; from all accounts I am find only the second child’s parents (two hours, not mere minutes, after the first) declined the vaccine, having heard about the first incident.
And there is little reason at this point to think this story about the MMR vaccine supports your point about risky vaccines; it is much more likely that it is about mishandling the vaccine at the particular facility. Because MMR is given all around the world, and cluster incidents like this happen at an extremely low rate (and are fairly consistently shown to be medical errors—such as injecting the wrong thing, e.g., by staff using something other than water as the diluent—and not problems with the vaccine itself.)
[0] https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/world/two-babies-die-in-samo...
and see also:
https://www.radionz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/362706/...
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.
The doctor was denied a lawyer and given a 33 year prison sentence. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/may/23/doctor-bin-lad...
The blame here lies with the Taliban and co. Not with the CIA. Anyone can pose as anything - from mailmen to drivers were rigged to catch bin-laden. Should the CIA's use of fake mail-men and drivers be condemned?
Stop lending credence to the horse-shit pedaled by unreasonable terrorists/tyrants - if not vaccines they'd blame cell phones, or regular phones, or roads, or ….
>Stop lending credence to the horse-shot pedaled by unreasonable terrorists/tyrants
It's hard to consider their lack of trust "unreasonable." They have proof that we've done this before, and we've shown a willingness to kill them without much regard for the civilian cost.
CIA is blameless. They didn't mass infiltrate the vaccination program of the entire country, or state or city. Then ran a targeted mission on a particular neighborhood, which is what spy agencies do and are supposed to do.
Again, this is a blatant and obvious shifting of blame.
1. the Pakistani state protected and harbored Osama --> their fault.
2. Informing them about the mission would have jeopardized it as Pakistan plays both sides routinely --> Pakistan's fault.
3. Osama was a ruthless murderer of innocents, and a target of international spy agencies --> his fault
How is any of the above CIA's fault?
The CIA has publicly said they ran this fake vaccination program, and that program is at least partially responsible for the hostility towards polio workers we are seeing today. Even if you view the fake vaccination program as a necessary step for some reason, the CIA is still to blame for what we are seeing now.
As for the rest of what you said, I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make.
That couldn't be further from the truth. They infiltrated the vaccination program of one single street to catch the world's most wanted terrorist. They aren't on a mass killing campaign via vaccinations!
Again - stop lending credence to the distortions pedaled by terrorists.
"How ISIS' use of trucks to kill pedestrians poses a grave threat to us all" - Despite ISIS' use of vehicles to mow down pedestrians, I think we can safely agree that vehicles don't pose a threat to the civilized world.
In a similar vein, an isolated incident of targeted infiltration of a vaccination campaign doesn't endanger anyone - unless you lend credence terrorist narratives that it does
Comparisons with ISIS are unfounded in mind. We're expected to hold ourselves to a higher standard than that. ISIS is such a rock bottom standard it's sitting in a lava pool in hell.
You've really proven nothing
How is it not?
Suffice to say that the elimination of Osama - the killer of over 10,000 innocent Americans, and head of a terrorist organization with hundreds of thousands of members and sympathizers, was high priority for America, across the political spectrum
To quote the link Scientific American article:
The distrust sowed by the sham campaign in Pakistan could conceivably postpone polio eradication for 20 years, leading to 100,000 more cases that might otherwise not have occurred, says Leslie F. Roberts of Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health. “Forevermore, people would say this disease, this crippled child is because the U.S. was so crazy to get Osama bin Laden,” he argues.
and
As outlined in a letter signed by the deans of a dozen prominent schools of public health that was sent to the White House, President Barack Obama should direct all U.S. military and intelligence agencies to refrain from using a medical or humanitarian cover to achieve their objectives.
So I think your point that there is no danger and it lends credence to terrorist narratives to say it does is difficult argument to make. It's public health officials in the US saying that when they criticized Obama.
Edit: downvoted, huh? Well, sorry, but facts are facts even if you don’t like them.
Hiding as medical personal for military reasons is as disgusting at it gets. And for a very good reason people doing this will normally be prosecuted as war criminals. But sadly US based war criminals dont get prosecuted but promoted and celebrated.
Doctors and nurses life are at risk and people dont get vaccines anymore because the US government sanctioned the exploitation of the special status medical personal have. They might as well have painted a Red Cross on the Seals Helicopter.
At the same time any covert operation someone will pose as someone they are not or use their role in a way ... covertly. If someone discovers this and decides to take action against everyone or every organization that also includes those roles.... I don't think that's the CIA's fault.
If a doctor intentionally chose to kill someone I knew, and I chose to kill doctors, that would not be ok and it would be my fault. Same goes with the Taliban and anyone else who behaves similarly.
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.
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>
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.
And yeah, it's predictable blowback. Especially given the conspiracy theory that HIV was intentionally spread through vaccination programs.
But whatever, the title needs to include (2013).
Apparently they have found that certain genes are expressed differently in people they consider religious fanatics. And the proposal was to administer a virus through a vaccine that would restrict the expression of that gene.