Recent searches
Search options
Administered by:
Pentagon ran secret anti-vax campaign on social media
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-covid-propaganda/
I have finally read the article and can say that the headline is absolutely misleading to the point of being absolutely correct. They ran an op to indeed discredit a "vax", but not the broad idea of vaccination -- rather, a specific vaccine coming from a specific country (well, 2 in total to be precise).
Reuters journalist[s] goes to great lengths in mental gymnastics to connect different narratives [to sensationalize the article] by covering his ass with a scientific research that presumably demonstrates that skepticism towards a single vaccine spills over to broad uncertainty about the whole vax idea.
The stanza "Chinese vaccines ... less effective than the ..." is mind bending on its own as the actual numbers are 60% inactivated vs ~97% mRNA. Why is writer using word "less" instead of "CATASTROPHICALLY LOWER"? Would've fitted article tone very well.
Having said that, you really shouldn't pour shit on other vac producers while holding up [or not able to] supply of your own vac.
The comparison only matters if both were available. At the time of the campaign’s start mRNA was not yet available, and didn’t become available in PHIL for a good while after the US started using it. 60% was the only level of protection available to Filipinos, so discrediting it in any way would serve only to harm people.
@DavidM_yeg re alternatives availability, that doesn't seem to be true.
First batch (600k?) of Chinese vaccines arrived on Feb 28.
First batch of AstraZeneca (480k) arrived on March 4.
< 1 week difference.
US mil should not have shat on philis heads, but chinese should not have started crapping on US first.
That’s the biggest pile of bullshit ever.
Using Filipinos as pawns in empire games is just wrong. Full stop.
Promoting anti-science memes, damaging societies, encouraging the spread of diseases - illness, disabilty, and death - is just wrong. Full stop.
No amount of both-sidesing or global power-play relativism excuses that and the impression that that’s what you’re doing stinks.
You are amplifying the [flimsy] narrative and you continue to get sucked into it.
You've got to be very naive (or detached from reality) to believe there could be countries, governments out there existing in a void, in a vacuum, only by themselves, self-sufficient, unobstructed and uninfluenced by external forces. Modern world is cruel, if not ruthless. If there's a void, it will be filled, one way or another, whether you want it or not.
Now getting back to the second statement that's been brought up -- whether Phillis were severely damaged by the campaign in question --- we get back to numbers, and specifically the fatality rate (deaths per population). We open the stats and we see -- surprise surprise (but not for me) -- they weren't significantly affected, they have [exactly] the same numbers as Japan. Call me a racist, but they are very genetically similar, so it's safe to assume they have had the same severity of exposure and the same course of illness as the Japanese.
@cek No, that's not how this works. There is no surgical precision psy-op. You run a nonfactual campaign against a specific vaccine, you undermine the people's understanding that vaccines work. You run an anti-vaxx campaign in the Philippines, it leaks into the global zeitgeist and definitely contributes to vaccine paranoia on the other side of the planet.
The Pentagon is a threat to global health.
Sinovac was 60% effective and mRNA vaccines were 97% effective. That's a fact. The campaign said China is the virus, don't take Sinovac, when Sinovac was the only vaccine available in the region. That's murder.
We now have 2 narratives factually debunked:
* That the Campaign was discrediting the only available vaccine thus leaving populace defenseless
* That the Campaign against single vaccine severely affected fatality rate in Philippines
US mil made a mistake for sure (the existence of the article itself proves that), but the data speaks for itself.