
How the CIA’s Fake Vaccination Campaign Endangers Us All - nabla9
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-cia-fake-vaccination-campaign-endangers-us-all/
======
lern_too_spel
Details of the program: [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/11/cia-
fake-vacci...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/11/cia-fake-
vaccinations-osama-bin-ladens-dna)

The doctor was denied a lawyer and given a 33 year prison sentence.
[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/may/23/doctor-bin-
lad...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/may/23/doctor-bin-laden-cia-
jail)

------
mikestew
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!"?

~~~
otakucode
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.

~~~
matt4077
That's just a (rather cynical) conspiracy theory.

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".

~~~
otakucode
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...

~~~
nl
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_

[https://www.lawfareblog.com/origins-drone-
program](https://www.lawfareblog.com/origins-drone-program)

~~~
nl
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.

------
mirimir
Scientific American doesn't like dating articles, but this is clearly old,
Obama-era.

And yeah, it's predictable blowback. Especially given the conspiracy theory
that HIV was intentionally spread through vaccination programs.

~~~
zamadatix
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.

~~~
mirimir
OK, thanks.

But whatever, the title needs to include (2013).

------
duxup
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.

~~~
ggggtez
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.

~~~
acct1771
And yet US "accidentally" bombs Doctors without Borders facilities.

------
pandasun
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.

~~~
delbel
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.

~~~
dragonwriter
> 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.)

[0] [https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/world/two-babies-die-in-
samo...](https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/world/two-babies-die-in-samoa-
hospital-minutes-after-receiving-mmr-vaccinations-investigation-underway)

and see also:

[https://www.radionz.co.nz/international/pacific-
news/362706/...](https://www.radionz.co.nz/international/pacific-
news/362706/medical-error-likely-cause-of-samoa-baby-deaths-vaccinologist)

~~~
Robin_Message
[https://edition.cnn.com/2018/07/10/health/samoa-mmr-baby-
dea...](https://edition.cnn.com/2018/07/10/health/samoa-mmr-baby-deaths-
intl/index.html) for anyone who wants a link.

