Re: Fake modifies clinic

1

I'm not so sure about that. There are parts of the world where vaccination programmes and the distribution of anti-retrovirals are seen as a CIA plot. This doesn't exactly help counter that view.


Posted by: Ginger Yellow | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 10:29 AM
horizontal rule
2

In contrast to actually handing out fake vaccines? Surely that is much worse.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 10:43 AM
horizontal rule
3

There are parts of the world where vaccination programmes and the distribution of anti-retrovirals are seen as a CIA plot.

Boulder, Colorado, for example.


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 10:44 AM
horizontal rule
4

Being suspected of simultaneously vaccinating and using children's blood to carry out political plots could definitely be worse than being suspected of giving useless vaccines.


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 10:45 AM
horizontal rule
5

From the point of view of the hepatitus?


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 10:47 AM
horizontal rule
6

Just demand the needle after you get the vaccination and nobody can collect DNA by protecting you from polio.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 10:50 AM
horizontal rule
7

From the point of view of the hepatitus?

From the point of view of someone who doesn't see the point of this particular vaccination in a world so full of other dangers.


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 10:53 AM
horizontal rule
8

That should be in the depression thread, no?


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 10:54 AM
horizontal rule
9

I thought one needed follow up shots for the Hep B vacc to be effective? Did they get those, too?


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 10:55 AM
horizontal rule
10

7: Would those people have gone to the clinic anyway? Giving somebody a fake vaccine is falsely telling them they have protection from a disease which means they might not take precautions against catching that disease.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 10:57 AM
horizontal rule
11

9: The Hep B vaccine has proven to be longer lasting that first thought.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 10:59 AM
horizontal rule
12

Just demand the needle after you get the vaccination and nobody can collect DNA by protecting you from polio.

That would only fuel your paranoia, Moby.


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 11:02 AM
horizontal rule
13

Hepatitis B is transmitted the same ways as Hepatitis C and HIV, so hopefully you'd still be taking basic precautions even with the vaccine.

What I'm imagining here are people who, probably because of religion or cultural tradition or suspicion of outsiders, have to be talked into taking any vaccine, by convincing them that it won't do them any harm or hamper their lives in any way. If you want to control a disease in a large geographical area, you probably have to work with communities who don't want to interfere with God's will, and try to find a way to vaccinate them anyway. Or else they'll ruin it for everybody by damaging herd immunity and making the disease continue to be endemic.


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 11:03 AM
horizontal rule
14

Giving out fake or real vaccines affects only the people who actually went to that particular clinic -- giving out fake vaccines would have been evil, but small-scale evil because the numbers are low. Letting it be known worldwide that vaccination clinics are likely to be a CIA plot has the potential for keeping a whole lot more people from getting vaccinated.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 11:04 AM
horizontal rule
15

Or what Ned said.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 11:04 AM
horizontal rule
16

A classic ruse de guerre, I should think.


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 11:06 AM
horizontal rule
17

So what I'm saying is I'm not actually talking about this vaccination program in Pakistan. Just explaining how dangerous it can be for would-be vaccination campaigns to be suspected of doing ANYTHING ELSE besides just giving little injections based on altruistic motives.


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 11:06 AM
horizontal rule
18

14 suggests that they should have been more discrete.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 11:08 AM
horizontal rule
19

Or even discreet.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 11:09 AM
horizontal rule
20

I'm having a hard time making sense of the post title. Am I missing something obvious?


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 11:11 AM
horizontal rule
21

vaccination clinics are likely to be a CIA plot

"Likely to be" seems quite an overstatement.


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 11:11 AM
horizontal rule
22

14: Also, giving vaccines that don't actually work will probably do more to prevent people from accepting vaccines than the CIA plot thing plus the very specific evil done to the people getting the fake vaccines.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 11:12 AM
horizontal rule
23

20: Yes.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 11:13 AM
horizontal rule
24

The real question is, why are our tax dollars being used to protect Osama bin Laden's family from hepatitis?

20: It was a fake (vaccination clinic), not a (fake vaccination) clinic.


Posted by: eliot | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 11:14 AM
horizontal rule
25

Except it wasn't a fake vaccination clinic either. It was a vaccination clinic run under false pretenses.


Posted by: eliot | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 11:17 AM
horizontal rule
26

Oh. I'm slow.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 11:18 AM
horizontal rule
27

Yeah, that was my first thought, that no one should cast doubts on vaccination programs. I was noticeably saddened by the tactic.


Posted by: Megan | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 11:22 AM
horizontal rule
28

Maybe you have hepatitis from brushing your tongue with your toothbrush.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 11:22 AM
horizontal rule
29

26 to 28.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 11:23 AM
horizontal rule
30

Or something like that.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 11:23 AM
horizontal rule
31

Also, giving vaccines that don't actually work will probably do more to prevent people from accepting vaccines than the CIA plot thing plus the very specific evil done to the people getting the fake vaccines.

Again, it depends on what "people" you're talking about. I don't want to sound like Colonial Magistrate Sir Skeffington Ormsley-Smythe talking about the simple ways of the savages of the Upper Bongo, but a lot of people who get vaccinated do so without any expectation that it's going to work. The motivation is more because the people trying to do the vaccination seem well-meaning and may be handing out useful things, so why not indulge them. Especially when there's dozens of things you might die from and this is not one of the things you especially worry about.


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 11:28 AM
horizontal rule
32

I'm looking for a citation, but IIRC there are actually millions of things you can die from.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 11:30 AM
horizontal rule
33

When it comes to side effects of the war on terror, the vaccination under false pretenses of Pakistani children is probably one of the happier stories to be told, I should think.


Posted by: eliot | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 11:30 AM
horizontal rule
34

I found it. There are 3,645,432 things you can die from.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 11:32 AM
horizontal rule
35

Linkfail is rarely fatal in most patients. Please consult your physician before trying Linkfail.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 11:33 AM
horizontal rule
36

When it comes to side effects of the war on terror, the fact that existence of absolute proof that Americans coming into your town to vaccinate children could be CIA agents won't make it more difficult to conduct public health outreach in troubled states a bit, and definitely won't make what was already a dangerous, ill-paid, but incredibly necessary job more dangerous is probably one of the happier stories to be told by liars, I should think.


Posted by: Beefo Meaty | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 11:36 AM
horizontal rule
37

I don't want to sound like Colonial Magistrate Sir Skeffington Ormsley-Smythe talking about the simple ways of the savages of the Upper Bongo,

Although it would be terribly amusing if you did, what?


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 11:41 AM
horizontal rule
38

Colonial Magistrate Sir Skeffington Ormsley-Smythe....

Pronounced "Sudden Early-Smith," for reasons lost to human memory.


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 11:56 AM
horizontal rule
39

OT: I saw former NYT restaurant critic Frank Bruni on the street today. I didn't yell "Thanks for making George W. Bush look benign, fatty," because I'm a feminist I'm very mild-mannered in most circumstances.


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 12:02 PM
horizontal rule
40

A story breaking about a vaccination fake-clinic collecting DNA for the CIA is not as bad as a story breaking about a fake-vaccination fake-clinic collecting DNA for the CIA.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 12:15 PM
horizontal rule
41

It wasn't Americans vaccinating people; that would not have been spy-style. Even worse!, you say, because now the vaccines themselves are implicated! And I guess so, maybe, kinda, but I'd really like to see some evidence of angry Pakistani mobs burning boxes of vaccine before I get worked up myself.

I mean: America gives a heap of money to Pakistan, and they know it's because American wants to kill to get the bad guys living there, but that doesn't make them refuse the money.

Now, the article says that someone was actually allowed to enter the bin Laden compound to administer followup shots. I'm regrettably certain that future criminal masterminds will not allow unknown nurses to enter their compounds to administer vaccines from now on. But this chilling effect is, I submit, fairly minor, and it also suggests that the society is already fairly trusting of vaccines.


Posted by: eliot | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 12:21 PM
horizontal rule
42

I don't think you have to come from Upper Volta to be suspicious of government-sponsored vaccinations. I mean, there's already lots of people around here, as Knecht alludes to in 3, who are suspicious of vaccines just for their vaccine-ness. I'm not personally going to turn down my next tetanus shot due to fears of CIA DNA-gathering, but certainly I'd be a little suspicious if someone just showed up at my door tomorrow offering to vaccinate me. ("It's free!" they'd say, and I'd say "How do I know you're not with the CIA?" and they'd say "The CIA is prohibited from carrying out operations against US citizens on US soil" and I'd say "Yeah right, I've heard that one before!")

Anyhow, yeah, the fallout from this particular incident is likely to be relatively minor, not least because it's not like there isn't already sufficient evidence by the shit-ton that would make most people in the Third World somewhat suspicious of Americans bearing gifts.


Posted by: Natilo Paennim | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 1:17 PM
horizontal rule
43

I guess I already said this, but the post title is really immensely important. This isn't like the government secretly wiretapping your phone even though you're not a terrorist; this is like you patronizing an ice cream van without realizing that it's full of CIA surveillance equipment. Even burning hatred of the CIA, I think, wouldn't make you decide to boycott ice cream once you found out the truth about the van.

(Unless the CIA actually is after you, but in that case, you probably should be suspicious of everything! Or seek professional help.)


Posted by: eliot | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 1:32 PM
horizontal rule
44

Thank you, eliot, for once again demonstrating the wisdom of the analogy ban.


Posted by: Eggplant | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 1:40 PM
horizontal rule
45

To clarify 1, I definitely think it's better that they were giving out real vaccines. But I do think it's a "big deal" that they chose vaccination as their ruse.

It wasn't Americans vaccinating people; that would not have been spy-style. Even worse!, you say, because now the vaccines themselves are implicated! And I guess so, maybe, kinda, but I'd really like to see some evidence of angry Pakistani mobs burning boxes of vaccine before I get worked up myself.

It's not necessarily Pakistan I'm thinking about. The "vaccinations/pharmaceuticals are a CIA/American plot" idea is very big in sub-Saharan Africa, and has helped the likes of Matthias Rath sell useless AIDS "cures", causing millions of needless deaths.


Posted by: Ginger Yellow | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 1:50 PM
horizontal rule
46

The "vaccinations/pharmaceuticals are a CIA/American plot" idea is very big in sub-Saharan Africa,.

Heck, it is a big issue in some communities in the United States.

I think it's almost impossible to overestimate how damaging something like this is. Even if the story turned out not to be true, it doesn't matter -- it just destroys whatever fragile trust there was. And that mistrust has a very, very, VERY long half-life.


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 2:00 PM
horizontal rule
47

Analogy ban! damn.

It's important to note that the "vaccinations are a CIA plot" idea came about when there was a lot of evidence that vaccinations are a life-saving medical technique and none that they were a CIA plot. So you really have to wonder if evidence that vaccines are a CIA plot is actually going to make a difference.


Posted by: eliot | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 2:19 PM
horizontal rule
48

32: If for a given n you can die from n bullets to the head, then you can die from n+1 bullets to the head.

You can die from 1 bullet to the head.

Therefore, by induction, the number of things you can die from is infinite.

Not sure whether it's uncountably infinite, though.


Posted by: Benquo | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 2:56 PM
horizontal rule
49

48 assumes a potentially infinite bullet supply.


Posted by: Beefo Meaty | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 3:05 PM
horizontal rule
50

Wouldn't you already be dead after you got shot in the head by the first n bullets? And there's a limit to how many bullets can hit you simultaneously.


Posted by: snarkout | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 3:15 PM
horizontal rule
51

It's true. There must be a number of bullets n such that the n+1th bullet makes no contribution to your being dead.


Posted by: Beefo Meaty | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 3:20 PM
horizontal rule
52

How many times must a man be injured before you can call him a dead man?


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 3:39 PM
horizontal rule
53

51: shoot through the same hole as many times as you like.


Posted by: Turgid Jacobian | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 4:18 PM
horizontal rule
54

53: I'm not coming on to you, Sifu.


Posted by: Turgid Jacobian | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 4:19 PM
horizontal rule
55

I don't think official statistics on "Things you can die from" consider death by five bullets to the head as a distinct cause of death from death by six bullets to the head, even if all the bullets were genuine contributors. That all gets lumped together as death by bullets to the head.


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 4:27 PM
horizontal rule
56

Cardiac arrest is the only cause of death.


Posted by: eliot | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 4:32 PM
horizontal rule
57

Cardiac arrest is the only cause of death.

Decapitate a mammal. Implant its heart into another mammal and keep it running. The original animal's heart never fails to pump blood normally for any significant amount of time. The original animal dies, and yet the cardiac never arrested.


Posted by: Turgid Jacobian | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 4:38 PM
horizontal rule
58

I'm pretty sure that "cardiac arrest" means "cessation of blood flow due to lack of a functioning heart," and so removing an animal's heart is a way of inducing cardiac arrest.

And you're going to decapitate it too? What kind of sick scientist are you?


Posted by: eliot | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 4:56 PM
horizontal rule
59

Wiki references Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine for the assertion that it is "the cessation of normal circulation of the blood due to failure of the heart to contract effectively."

Now, if the heart is contracting effectively in another mammals thorax...


Posted by: Turgid Jacobian | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 5:02 PM
horizontal rule
60

NPR said this morning that the Pakistani doctor who was recruited by the CIA to participate in the vaccination-clinic-under-false-pretenses is now under arrest in Pakistan under charges of, essentially, espionage (conspiring with foreign agents or words to that effect), the penalty for which would be death.

I see that the initial Guardian piece explains that as well.

As much as the public health ramifications of the fake-ish clinic are important, I'm finding this somewhat concerning as well.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 5:03 PM
horizontal rule
61

The death penalty part is concerning, but arresting somebody who's suspected of we-can-actually-call-it-espionage on behalf of a foreign power is pretty standard stuff.


Posted by: eliot | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 5:07 PM
horizontal rule
62

61: Yeah, I'd say so. It's beginning to look like the US really fucked up (or other descriptions of your choosing), and Pakistan is quite rightfully pissed. The Pakistani ambassador to the US sounds certainly to be pissed off, and not a fool, and not just about the bin Laden affair.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 5:20 PM
horizontal rule
63

Cardiac arrest is the only cause of death.

If cardiac arrest is "the cessation of normal circulation of the blood due to failure of the heart to contract effectively", massive and rapid blood loss would seem to be a counterexample. The heart may not be able to effectively contract in the absence of blood in the arteries and veins, but the normal circulation of blood will already have ceased.


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 5:28 PM
horizontal rule
64

"Raymond the Wolf passed away in his sleep one night from natural causes; his heart stopped beating when the three men who slipped into his bedroom stuck knives through it."


Posted by: OPINIONATED JIMMY BRESLIN | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 5:30 PM
horizontal rule
65

The heart's contractions in the absence of blood can hardly be considered effective.


Posted by: Beefo Meaty | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 5:30 PM
horizontal rule
66

Hence "the heart may not be able to effectively contract in the absence of blood", teacher Tweety. However, the cessation of normal circulation of the blood will not have been due to that; it will have been due to the outpouring of blood from openings introduced to the body.


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 5:33 PM
horizontal rule
67

I think it is plain that the definition needs to be made much more careful. I nominate nowflow.


Posted by: Turgid Jacobian | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 5:53 PM
horizontal rule
68

I thought lack of oxygen to the brain was the only cause of death.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 6:10 PM
horizontal rule
69

Are we going to have to talk about what counts as death?


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 6:12 PM
horizontal rule
70

Medicolegal Investigation of Death claims that it is "irreversible cessation of circulation and respiration after modern efforts at resuscitation."


Posted by: Turgid Jacobian | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 6:18 PM
horizontal rule
71

70: Nobody died before 1985.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 6:22 PM
horizontal rule
72

Are we going to have to talk about what counts as death?

That would seem to be an inevitable precondition for counting the number of things that can cause death.



Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 6:24 PM
horizontal rule
73

It would be, yes.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 6:31 PM
horizontal rule
74

I seem to remember learning that Guiteau's lawyers argued that the shot didn't kill Garfield, his subsequent treatment did. Garfield's doctors certainly did a bunch of things wrong, and like with McKinley, the consensus seems to be that with modern medical treatment - not just today's treatment, but even those of a few decades ago - he would have survived. Guiteau was sentenced to death. I guess it's a tough argument to make when your client really did shoot the guy.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 6:37 PM
horizontal rule
75

Afghanistan and Pakistan have a very incidence of polio relative to much of the rest of the world (I think only India is higher), and they've both been major foci of polio eradication efforts in recent years. People I know who've been working in those efforts have told me that militant groups in Afghanistan and Pakistan were making these efforts very difficult and dangerous, precisely because they believed polio vaccination efforts were actually cover for CIA activity.

Eventually, aid organizations were able to convince their antagonists that polio eradication really was not a CIA plot, and they were all able to reach a shared understanding that allowed their aid workers to operate in safely in Afghanistan and northern Pakistan. Presumably, that shared understanding just ended.

This is seriously the kind of thing that could get a lot of aid workers killed.


Posted by: L.M. | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 6:40 PM
horizontal rule
76

49: I was interpreting "what we can die from" to mean what, if it were to happen, would cause one's death. Not the things that actually have happened or will happen that resulted or will result in death

50, 51: By the same logic it would be improper to say that someone died because a ton of bricks landed on them unless exactly a ton were required. If only half a ton would have done them in, you should say they died because half a ton of bricks landed on them, which was followed by a redundant half-ton of bricks.

55: So much the worse for official statistics.


Posted by: Benquo | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 8:09 PM
horizontal rule
77

The really important point here is that it ought to be:

"fake" modifies "clinic"

Otherwise the next step is human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, and eventually mass hysteria.


Posted by: One of Many | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 9:36 PM
horizontal rule
78

Oh yeah, self? What if it means that a fake (doctor, in being fake, thereby) modifies (the hitherto genuine) clinic?


Posted by: One of Many | Link to this comment | 07-13-11 9:42 PM
horizontal rule
79

I never realized that One of Many meant All Trapped In The Same Head.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 07-14-11 6:19 AM
horizontal rule
80

Great - now we've blown our cover. If only there were some pigs we could shack up in.


Posted by: One of Many | Link to this comment | 07-14-11 8:25 AM
horizontal rule
81

YOU STAY RIGHT THE FUCK AWAY, YOU HEAR?


Posted by: OPINIONATED GADARENE SWINE | Link to this comment | 07-14-11 8:41 AM
horizontal rule
82

In support of those saying "still a big deal": http://afpak.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/07/13/the_hidden_perils_of_covert_action


Posted by: Katherine | Link to this comment | 07-14-11 7:24 PM
horizontal rule
83

I hate to say I told you so...


Posted by: Ginger Yellow | Link to this comment | 07-27-11 3:30 AM
horizontal rule