You Can Thank The CIA For The Return Of Polio, Even Though The Media Conveniently Ignores This
from the seems-important dept
Oh, vaccines. Sure, here in the US we're dealing with the return of diseases like measles, mumps and whooping cough due to people who are very confused about how vaccines work. But the big news last week on the vaccine front has to be the return of polio, which has freaked out the World Health Organization, who declared it a public health emergency.The return of polio is also due to an ill-informed anti-vaccine campaign -- not one driven by people confused by a fraudulent study, but rather by the Taliban. Many of the new cases are in Pakistan and a variety of nearby countries. The Taliban has been arguing for a while that vaccinations and vaccination drives are really efforts by western intelligence and/or imperialism.
The problem is: the CIA basically confirmed that for them by using a fake vaccination campaign to find Osama bin Laden a few years ago. Suddenly, crazy rumors about vaccination programs simply being fronts for the US intelligence community weren't just more reasonable, they were flat out confirmed. And, soon after that was all revealed, suddenly the rates of polio shot up? Right around the same time that polio vaccination workers started getting killed in Pakistan?
And yet... almost none of the media coverage of the WHO's new emergency warning mentions the CIA connection. The two NY Times articles above don't mention it at all.
We see this same sort of thing from the US intelligence community all the time. It never seems to do any sort of realistic cost-benefit analysis, assuming that it needs to "find the bad guys at all costs." But some of those "costs" can be immense. Bringing back the threat of polio around the globe is a massive cost. Yes, bin Laden was a very bad person, but was it worth bringing back a polio epidemic?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cia, journalism, pakistan, polio, vaccines
Companies: who, world health organization
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
/Sarc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CIA Achievements
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: CIA Achievements
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: CIA Achievements
One would think though, in light of current public opinion, they would want to highlight some successes or maybe reason for existence via their public relations arm, the State Department. Could be critical down the road and things brought out at the last moment might be suspect.
And changes are coming. Actual form remains to be seen, but change is inevitable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: CIA Achievements
If the CIA published a bunch of documents showing their latest successful assassinations or how well they did destabilizing a regime, would you believe what you were looking at?
Do they leak the documents and hope people don't think they are conspiracy theories?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: CIA Achievements
Assuming there is an operation or two they might actually be proud of, they get a third party to 'disclose' it to an appropriate news agency as a source under the guise of a 'leak'. Leave corroborating evidence spread around. The State Department gets to reply, well, we didn't do that (wink, wink) but didn't it turn out great?
Everybody wins, except those parties extremely sanctioned during the op, along with their friends and family, and maybe whole tribe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: CIA Achievements
(It was also later revealed that the tactics were used with less success in the Mandate of Palestine, against Zionist Terrorists (as they were then called).)
The CIA could also leak their excuses for things like the Laos campaign, their involvement in the drugs trade, and so on. Everyone knows they did it, and it seems unlikely that their excuses would make them look any worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: CIA Achievements
Well, except for those two drug planes of theirs that crashed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: CIA Achievements
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: CIA Achievements
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Quoting Heidi Larson, senior lecturer at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, in a commentary published by The Guardian, "There must have been a better, more ethical, way. This choice of action has jeopardised people's trust in vaccines, and in particular the polio-eradication campaign, now so close to success – broken trust that will take years to restore."
But then again, expecting government agencies and for politicians to actually bear the costs of their decisions. Nope, that's for little people. In this case, little brown people...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.reviewonline.com/page/content.detail/id/499348/UN--Spread-of-polio-now-a-world-hea lth-emergency.html?isap=1&nav=5041
and
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/10/cia-polio-vaccine- hoax_n_2450726.html
and
http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/06/world/asia/pakistan-polio-vaccination/index.html
and
http://dukepoliticalreview.org/polio-and-the-hunt-for-bin-laden/
and
http://www.correntewire.com/pr ice_of_cia_s_bin_laden_glory_killing_100000_polio_cases
and
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/mar/ 02/aid-groups-cia-osama-bin-laden-polio-crisis
and
http://fpif.org/cia_vaccination_program_to_catch_bi n_laden_makes_middle-east_even_more_suspicious_of_vaccinations/
and
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/10/ health/cia-vaccine-ruse-in-pakistan-may-have-harmed-polio-fight.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
and
http: //www.onislam.net/english/news/asia-pacific/456377-bin-laden-haunts-pakistan-polio-vaccination.html
a nd
https://theconversation.com/nabbing-osama-with-a-vaccine-scam-a-threat-to-global-health-7044
and
htt p://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/22/19043539-pakistan-aid-workers-pay-the-ultimate-price-for- the-killing-of-osama-bin-laden?lite
and
http://world.time.com/2012/07/15/how-a-ban-on-polio-vaccinatio n-in-parts-of-pakistan-puts-the-entire-world-at-risk/?iid=gs-main-lede&utm_source=BNT+July+16%2C +2012--AoH&utm_campaign=BNT+07162012&utm_medium=email
I'd say that there is global consensus that they ARE causatively related. Moreover, the underlying instability of region does not explain the timing: wouldn't it be an amazing coincidence if that instability, which has been around for a LONG time, triggered a backlash against polio vaccinations that just happened to coincide with the CIA's ruse?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really?
Seems in Afghanistan at least they're allowing the workers in...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In this situation, I would not blame the CIA for the sudden spread of polio. The nutters in the Taliban would use any excuse, whether it be vaccines or little puppy dogs. They are the blame for the spread of Polio.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
When the CIA confirms that they are doing this the average man on the street can point to that and say "see, these vaccines are fake!"
It does not take terrorists to spread the truth, news does a good job of that.
So are news reporters also to blame for reporting the facts? or are only Taliban responsible for spreading facts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If you want to shift the blame away from those who are truly guilty, go right ahead, but I'm going to put the blame squarely where it's due.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
...and so, IF taliban 'doctors' came into your neighborhood offering free medical services of some type, AND it subsequently turned out it was all a hoax to entrap someone you never dealt with, WHAT would be YOUR reaction THE NEXT TIME someone/anyone came into your village claiming to be doctors there to help ? ? ?
um, the smart and prudent thing to do, would be to kill them...
THAT is the evil the spooks have sown (and don't think for ONE SECOND they give a shit...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps it would be a bit extreme in a basically law-abiding area, but if you place it in the context of an area where there's a general underlying fear for safety, and it's not such a huge leap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Put into a more complete perspective, the CIA and the Taliban are cut from the same cloth. The both have culpability in the consequences of those affected.
When you attack others using what is available, particularly when you use what should be of benefit to others to take out an enemy, then you are responsible for the consequences. If you build distrust in something, you cannot then say that that something is useful and good.
Eating your cake and having it too.
Don't forget that the CIA, NSA, FBI, etc are all guilty of killing innocents (or at least destroying their lives). It, unfortunately, is the nature of all such organisations to fall to this level, irrespective of how noble they may have started out as.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The Taliban is not "defending" itself, at least, not from attack. The Taliban is using polio as a political pawn in its games. To the extent that the Taliban is defending itself, it is not a physical defense, but ideological defense (i.e., we don't like what you are doing, we are going to stop this program).
Question: Are you defending yourself when the majority of your victims (medical workers and patients) are your own people? We are defending ourselves by killing our own people, so there, take that!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Put it this way, cognitive dissonance is not just the problem of the west but affects all kinds of people around the world. The way they see things has all the appearance of "defending themselves" irrespective of whether the attacks are physical or ideological or other.
I cannot say that there is any reasonableness to their actions. Just that their actions are a result of their perspective. Remember, that Sunni and Shi'ite don't really mix and there is a lot of bad blood between the two major groups of Islam. Also don't forget that the Taliban are (from their perspective) the "good guys" here fighting against the "devil" that is the USA. Whether they are justifiable viewpoints is another matter.
If you look at the "right wing" and "left wing" political spectrum, I have come across many at both ends that would (if they had the power) quite simply terminate their opposition. In the Taliban case, they have the power at this point in time and are quite willing to use it. Their opposition (the CIA, NSA, and other spooks) do likewise, except they try hard to keep it from the light of day.
The answer to your question is a resounding "Yes" as demonstrated by the mindset of the USA government and LEO's and other security forces. The reality, however, is "No", it is in effect cutting your nose off to spite your face.
Cognitive dissonance is a problem with people, and it seems to be a bigger problem with the more power one obtains.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So yes, the CIA has part of the blame to carry. They didn't do it on purpose, but out of incompetence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wrong comment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wrong comment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Am I supporting them, no. Killing indiscriminately serve no purpose other than create control by terror. This is the actions of the Taliban, and all of their ilk, as well as the actions of CIA, NSA and their ilk..
As I said before, they are cut from the same cloth, just different sides for whom they are working.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
?Rhetorical
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not so much a failure of cost benefit analysis
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
vac-prog
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: vac-prog
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: vac-prog
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This Is Icke-y
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Give me a break
I would like to see the real damn demographics.
Google CDC Polio Map and find out where this is all happening.
We are receiving MORE diseases from the influx of illegals AND people just visiting USA while they are sick as shit. The Hotspots for this stuff is near border airports and cities.
No noes we have to blame more whackos.
At the end of the day EVERYONE is confused about how medicine works EVEN THE DAMN DOCTORS!!!
Its simple, these vaccines work, if people don't want them let them do as they freaking please! We are a Nation of Liberty, this includes people freely making STUPID DECISIONs just like the stupid slant in the first paragraph of this article.
The involvement of any alphabet soup agency does not surprise PERIOD!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Give me a break
Now, there is a reason why as many people as possible should get vaccinated. It's called herd immunity. The general idea is that if one person cannot get the vaccine (allergic reaction or too young) they cannot get sick because no one else can carry the disease.
That's the idea anyways and that's why lots of people fight so hard against the fraudulent misinformation being spread around.
It's their fault if they're stupid, but if they're willing to learn, then it's your fault if you don't tell them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Give me a break
The anti-vac folks are no where near 'at risk' comparted to the other countries actually listed in the WHO article itself. Just want to point out that the one-sided swipe against the anti-vac people is leaving out other people that need good blaming too.
I don't think anyone is against informing people of anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Give me a break
Just because we know a lot compared to several years ago still does not make up for what we do not know. I have worked in too many clinics and pharmacies and read too much medical documentation to believe so ignorantly.
Doctors are not special, they have a wealth of knowledge that can really help people, but people respect physicians far more than they deserve sometimes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Give me a break
Jenny McCarthy! I blame Jenny McCarthy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Give me a break
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Probably not a result of the CIA
As the article in the link below explains, the Taliban was refusing vaccination in Pakistan long before the CIA ever showed up, and polio was never eliminated in Pakistan. While the CIA link MAY have enhanced the Taliban's existing position, it does not appear to have been the cause of polio expanding in multiple countries (unless the CIA has been running bogus vaccination campaigns in all the listed countries longer than we thought).
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/06/health/world-health-organization-polio-health-emergency.h tml?_r=0
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Probably not a result of the CIA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Probably not a result of the CIA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Probably not a result of the CIA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/11/cia-fake-vaccinations-osama-bin-ladens-dna
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm struggling to see these consequences as unintended.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
War, war never changes
Cost/Benefit analysis doesn't matter to people when their "gut feeling" says something is wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New Day, New Blame
http://www.dawn.com/news/1053984
http://www.irinnews.org/report/97743/battling-militants-ban- on-polio-vaccines-in-pakistan-s-north-waziristan
And here is an article where a chief who banned the vaccines blames the ban on drone strikes, and then throws in an off-hand way that maybe vaccines are a CIA plot.
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/06/18/12283097-taliban-bans-pakistan-polio-vaccinations -over-drone-strikes?lite
Let's not forget that in 2001 a story was going around in Pakistan that the US was using immunizations to sterilize people.
In 2007, long before the CIA activity, physician Abdul Ghani, who was in charge of polio immunizations in one of the areas with high numbers of cases, was killed in a terrorist bombing. What? Terrorists were targeting people associated with immunizations before the CIA? Say it ain't so!
Apparently, while some places in Pakistan like to blame drones, maybe a CIA plot, 9/11, and green men from Mars, the number of refusals for religious reasons in Pakistan is down:
http://www.dawn.com/news/698270/who-rejects-polio-rumours
Next time it will be yet another excuse. The reality is that the Taliban are in control, and they are not permitting vaccination. The reasons are merely for their convenience, and blaming the CIA, while amusing and great fodder for blogs like TechDirt, is just one in a series of scapegoats for the Taliban to keep doing what they have been doing.
The excuses of the Taliban alternative between amusing, ironic, and sad. Stop doing something or we will kill more of our people. Yeah, that's a winning strategy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: New Day, New Blame
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: New Day, New Blame
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: New Day, New Blame
Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 15, @02:08PM (#43839)
"This was covered last year in Scientific American. Leslie F. Roberts of Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health estimates 100,000 more polio cases will occur in Pakistan alone over the next 20 years due to the CIA and Obama's actions in killing their White Whale.
The CIA, Obama, and the American people should be ashamed.
This is the article:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-cia- fake-vaccination-campaign-endangers-us-all/ [scientificamerican.com]"
http://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=1855&cid=43839
The scientific American article says
"Taliban commanders banned polio vaccinations in parts of Pakistan, specifically citing the bin Laden ruse as justification.
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."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-cia-fake-vaccination-campaign-endangers-us-all /
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: New Day, New Blame
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why not use real vaccines?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why not use real vaccines?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity
While I doubt this operation, by itself, is single handedly responsible for the return of polio it certainly didn't help and possibly even contributed to the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why not use real vaccines?
While the operation certainly was not helpful with respect to the vaccination effort, it is important to remember that the vaccination programs were already distrusted in several Islamic countries for other, previous (and probably false) rumors, and vaccination workers were killed before the present CIA story came to light (which it did as early as 2012, and possibly earlier). It is also important to note that Taliban in Pakistan did not make that much of a deal of the fake vaccination program, pointing to drone strikes as being the reason for stopping the vaccination program, and, oh yeah, that fake vaccination program for good measure.
Fundamentally, while the activity was abhorrent because the medical effort was fake (though the medicine was real), and a fake medical effort potentially makes targets of medical workers, the reality is that not only was the story given little attention in the West when it first popped a couple of years ago, apparently the Taliban and Al Quaeda did not consider it a very big deal either.
It would be [not so] amusing if the next round of attacks on medical workers in Pakistan blamed the deaths on reports of fake vaccination programs reported on TechDirt, and pointed to this particular post as evidence that the problem was clearly pervasive and ongoing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Why not use real vaccines?
and if any harm was/is caused by this it's not a result of Techdirt's reporting it's a result of the CIA's actions. The solution is for the media to report it so that the public can put pressure on the government to stop doing this and hopefully put pressure on the government to potentially punish the decision makers responsible for this misconduct (ha ha ha).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why not use real vaccines?
and your hypothetical about someone seeing this article and reacting by killing medical workers is far less likely than the potential harm the CIA may have caused by deploying this program (even if it went unreported on Techdirt). Your rant against what's most likely to cause harm, the CIA's actions or Techdirt's reporting, is backwards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why not use real vaccines?
http://www.niemanlab.org/2013/05/when-the-media-traditional-or-new-gets-a-suspect-wrong-what-ar e-the-legal-ramifications/
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2013/07/trayvon _martin_verdict_racism_hate_crimes_prosecution_and_other_overreactions.html
http://www.policymic.com/ articles/20938/sandy-hook-shooting-how-the-media-screwed-up-the-reporting-of-this-tragedy
http://gnov isjournal.org/files/Paul-Hitlin-False-Reporting-on-the-Internet.pdf
https://knightcenter.utexas.edu/b log/00-13581-need-speed-leads-erroneous-reports-arrest-boston-marathon-bombing
Okay, enough examples. I can see reporting the story when it happened, as it was, in multiple places. I can even see doing a retrospective (i.e., here's a story that I missed when it was covered by a hundred other news organizations). But Masnick reported it like no one else did when it happened two years ago. Lots of organizations and blogs reported it.
Maybe Mike was on vacation, but the reporting happened. Reading the post above, I initially thought he was revealing something no one knew about, and he was revealing some super secret. Nope, EVERYONE knew, and it was WIDELY reported. Mike is just reporting it two years late. Nothing like being Johnny on the spot, or reporting a fire after the barn is gone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why not use real vaccines?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why not use real vaccines?
Interestingly, there was a TON of media coverage when this incident happened. Here are a few of the dozens of stories on this issue when it popped up:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/11/cia-fake-vaccinations-osama-bin-ladens-dna
http://www .nature.com/news/2011/110714/full/news.2011.418.html
http://news.sciencemag.org/2011/07/cias-fake-vac cination-drive-angers-public-health-world
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/world/asia/12dna.html?_r= 0
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/scocca/2011/07/no_one_is_immune.html
Media did report it, in a TON of places. Media is unable to help when no one bothers to read a story.
I remember a story from a long time ago where a huge ruckus was caused in a company from a reported incident. Everyone was running around gathering information to figure out how to respond. Teams were formed, calls were made, and contingencies were mapped. The only problem is, the incident happened several years earlier, and the response was for a problem that had already gone away. In the aftermath of the needless debacle, the question was asked as to how we were trying to address an issue that happened years earlier. Apparently, someone did not do their homework, and the date associated with the reporting on the original incident was somehow "lost" (the blame fell on a document with automatic dating; it looked like the report was brand new, when in reality it was relatively old).
Could the same thing happen here? Given that TechDirt is highly popular in Pakistan and India, I would say, maybe. However, the reactions would be for something that has already been considered in Taliban politics. On the other hand, they may decide to hold up recent news stories as evidence that those damn Americans are doing it again, even if they are not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why not use real vaccines?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why not use real vaccines?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why not use real vaccines?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why not use real vaccines?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why not use real vaccines?
People report on stuff all the time. The vast majority of the time, the reporting does not harm. However, reporting on certain issues has led to riots, burning of cities, murders, you know, generally undesirable stuff. When the reporting neglects to point out the limitations of the reporting clearly and abundantly (hey, we know the entire world already knew about this issue, but we didn't, so we are going to discuss it two years later - just remember, this is an OLD issue, so don't get your boxers in a bunch), then the results can be even more disastrous.
No one has said, even once, that the reporting should not be done, only that care be taken to point out clearly that a story is not different from the dozens of other, previously issued stories on the same issue. Otherwise, there is a risk that readers leap to the unfounded conclusion that an issue that happened several years ago is happening again, which leads to the murders of more medical workers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why not use real vaccines?
You apparently didn't even read the article
"the CIA basically confirmed that for them by using a fake vaccination campaign to find Osama bin Laden a few years ago. "
It's not the fault of techdirt that you can't be bothered to read.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why not use real vaccines?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why not use real vaccines?
You missed the point. You were trying to argue that there is always a potential that harm could come from someone misinterpreting something.
"No one one will ever be confused and no harm will ever come of something when taken in its proper context with appropriate disclaimers. Yeah, right, Mr. Orson Wells. ... Never underestimate the ability of people to misunderstand information, and worse, to taken action based on that false information."
My point is that this is no excuse to not report on something (otherwise why are you even bringing it up and what is it that you are trying to argue/prove?).
and I would like to see you prove any harm coming from this Techdirt article. But I can't ever expect any proof for your baseless speculation because you expect everyone to take your nonsense seriously on face value.
Or I suppose you could bang your head against a wall and harm yourself do to the fact that no one cares about your dumb opinion and that could ultimately be considered 'harm' caused by this article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why not use real vaccines?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why not use real vaccines?
So, if the Taliban go on a renewed round of killing medical workers, I would say that dredging up the old stories helped lead the Taliban to do that, as much as the CIA creating a fake vaccination program every did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why not use real vaccines?
"And yet... almost none of the media coverage of the WHO's new emergency warning mentions the CIA connection."
That is, almost none of the current media coverage of the WHO's new emergency warning mentions the CIA connection.
My mistake (again). So I'm retracting my concession since my concession was that Techdirt got something wrong here and they didn't (wow ... I've really been slow lately).
Anyways, the media coverage over the WHO's new emergency warning not mentioning this is probably because it's kinda off topic. That doesn't excuse what the CIA did and the possibility that they did cause real harm (certainly much more harm than anything Techdirt's reporting may have caused). That you seem to marginalize any potential harm caused by the CIA and instead focus on your imaginary harm caused by Techdirt probably shows what kinda evil person you are and how you hate Techdirt because they do a good job defending a true position that you don't want to see defended since you personally benefit from having others hold an opposing position. You would rather us be fed nothing but the mainstream media propaganda.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why not use real vaccines?
I marginalize the harm by the CIA only because the people halting polio vaccines and killing medical workers (you know, like the Taliban), marginalized CIA activities. If the Taliban really wanted to raise a stink about the fake CIA vaccination program, they would have done it three years ago. Oh, they were too busy halting the vaccination program for drones to make fake vaccination programs a scapegoat at the time...my bad. Now the Taliban is a little thin on scapegoats, so maybe fake CIA programs, which are clearly ongoing based on recent reporting, is a good scapegoat this time.
Oh, and I rarely listen, read, or watch, mainstream media.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why not use real vaccines?
It was "Anonymous Coward, May 12th, 2014 @ 3:52pm" that said "the reality is that not only was the story given little attention in the West"
which, if true, would suggest that it didn't get the attention it deserved. Then again, one should always fact check before taking the word of a shill railing against techdirt and responding since nothing you shills say is any reliable and you're always contradicting yourselves and one another.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why not use real vaccines?
As for WHO, given that Pakistan has more than a decade of resistance to vaccination programs, and a history of killing medical workers associated with vaccinations prior to 2011, I doubt they consider the fake vaccination program a relatively minor incentive to the Taliban to resist vaccination that they have been resisting for a very long time already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Why not use real vaccines?
Which, if true, it wasn't given the attention it deserves. This deserves attention and the mainstream media ignoring this is consistent with their nature as an entity not interested in reporting but as one interested in feeding us propaganda.
You really don't know how inept and morally lacking you sound with your post. Beyond just marginalizing what the CIA did (or at least marginalizing their effects, despite your disclaimer claiming that their activity was abhorrent) you then misdirect by turning your focus on speculating imaginative harm that maybe caused by Techdirt's reporting. This, fundamentally, shows a hatred for Techdirt.
You could have much more reasonably argued that the WHO and the media covering the WHO didn't mention this in recent polio discussions because it's past and off topic to the discussion (what should we do going forward) but instead you found some crazy way to distract from the issue and claim that Techdirt maybe causing harm. No evidence required, just the speculative possibility that they maybe causing harm is enough for you to marginalize any harm caused by the CIA and point out the potential harm caused by Techdirt and claim they are possibly the true villains.
If you really don't see how this post looks to a normal reader and how it really makes you and those that oppose Techdirt look bad then you are really living in your own world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why not use real vaccines?
New York Times
CBS
CNN
ABC
NBC
For goodness sake, even SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN covered the story. The story was apparently a big deal back in 2011 and 2012, because just about all the big news outlets covered it.
As for TechDirt, I could just as easily have said renewed reporting by multiple sources, because I doubt that reporting on one blog would generate much of anything. It is called being slightly facetious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why not use real vaccines?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why not use real vaccines?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why not use real vaccines?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why not use real vaccines?
Let's take a simple example, that of the New Town school shooting. As I flipped channels, I saw all sorts of stuff presented as fact by each of the major outlets, including CNN. There were only two, somewhat major, problems.
First, none of the so-called facts were provided by the police spokesperson, because the police were trying to figure out the details before they gave a press conference. So, second, the media made stuff up to fill the vacuum, based on what, I am unsure.
Sadly, the New Town story is hardly isolated. Officials typically like to get their facts straight before holding some sort of news conference, but media is pushing, pushing, pushing for information, whether it exists or not. It seems that if the media can't find facts, it will substitute rumor and speculation, even if such cannot be corroborated.
Is it any wonder that trust of the media is pretty much at an all time low?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/157589/distrust-media-hits-new-high.aspx
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For all the good it will do...
(No, I can't. I'm not a US citizen.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
VATICAN
The ww1, ww2 the coming WW3 as documented in 1798 are all constructs of the Vatican. Israel was given to the Rothschild's after ww1 for funding the british on the Vatican's say so. Washington, London, Israel and Vatican are all crown states and the Vatican uses the swiss guard for protection and in return switziland doesn't get attacked, ever!
Jews are been set up to be killed by Jesuits and that's the truth! Stop being sheep and following the properganda and use that decoder in your head for what its for! Thinking! Use your brain you zombies ad its fucking obvious!
The roman empire never died and this as been going on for 1000's of years butnyou all live in fear! Fictional events actually realised! I.e, false and not true! You make it true in your head and believe it! Phy ops!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: VATICAN
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bad bad boy
errr.... just a reminder here.
Bin Laden was not a "very bad person".
He was a CIA asset, taking orders from Washington.
The very bad deeds he did were in the line of duty to the American Government.
He did not get the "bad guy" label until after he refused to follow CIA orders. Then he became a scapegoat, but escaped.
In case you also forgot, the Bin Ladens were such good friends of the Bush family that George and the younger Bin Laden would often hold hands while walking. The Bin Ladens who were in America were escorted out of America by the Fed after 9/11, for their safety.
Amazing how quickly we forget the little details when in need of material to shore up the national fantasy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Return of polio.
Most of those who think of NGOs and Western ways as agents of evil are utterly ignorant of the world beyond the range of their sight, and are the real reason for the backwardness of those parts of the world.
Also, it doesn't help that Pakistan has a poisonously bitter nationalism rooted in its founding, tenaciously held onto by its military and intelligence services.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]