[blotter_paper]

I mean, the vaccines were real. They were just also a front for a government sponsored DNA heist. Given the actions of the US government, it seems reasonable in the current political climate to refuse vaccines and other on-site medical treatment if you don't want your DNA stolen. In recognition of the communal failure to protect privacy which has led to these programs being potential DNA theft operations, vaccination providers should start letting people take their needles home to self-administer vaccines. Whether or not it's likely in any given case is irrelevant, the government used medicine to steal DNA so now we can't trust medicine. Medicine needs to reinvent itself so that vaccines can be widely deployed without risking further data breaches, and the only way they can really do that is by not collecting the data -- even on a needle.

[daddylonglegs]

ISTR that the vaccines offered needed several applications spaced over days or weeks; and that the CIA agent did not return to administer the follow up shots. So the vaccines were real but ineffectively administered.

You could create a culture of - after every injection - sterilising the needles in the presence of the injectee. This would be moderately burdensome but wouldn't avoid the need for blood samples for medical diagnostics so wouldn't really protect against malicious actors taking the role of medical professionals. That sort of behaviour simply shouldn't be acceptable to anyone, not even spies.

As pointed out in other threads, the DNA of your relatives is almost certainly in multiple databases already and that will probably be enough to identify you (or at least narrow things down to a few people). We need laws and cultural standards (in all the cultures) for how that information is controlled and used but I have no idea how we get there.

[blotter_paper]

First paragraph: I don't recall reading that in any of the coverage I saw at the time, but I'm not super skeptical of this claim.

Second paragraph: if I don't trust the magician/doctor not to make the needle reappear after it goes in the waste basket, I don't see why I would trust them to not substitute some other liquid for the sterilizing fluid. Even an on-site incenerator is hard to trust, if we're assuming CIA involvement. These people actually hired a magician (John Mulholland) to write a document explaining magician stagecraft to CIA officers as part of the MK-ULTRA program -- they tried to destroy it when they realised congress was going to request those documents, but a copy survived and got republished decades later. I wouldn't trust my own eyes to notice when a well trained agent swapped needles in front of me, and I can't imagine any on-site procedure I would trust as much as taking a needle home with me. As for blood tests, I don't see why I should have to opt into these to recieve vaccines. Medicine can be modular.

Third paragraph: I get that the cat is out of the bag for most people in my country -- I have second-degree relatives who are already in the database. This isn't (yet?) the case for many people living in the third world, which is where most of the backlash to this practice actually occured. I also think that insisting on practices that make future generations more difficult to track are reasonable, even if it will take some time for the genetics to get swashed around enough for these efforts to matter.

[daddylonglegs]

This might be wrong but it was reported in some publications at the time: "In March health workers administered the vaccine in a poor neighbourhood on the edge of Abbottabad called Nawa Sher. The hepatitis B vaccine is usually given in three doses, the second a month after the first. But in April, instead of administering the second dose in Nawa Sher, the doctor returned to Abbottabad and moved the nurses on to Bilal Town, the suburb where Bin Laden lived."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/11/cia-fake-vacci...

I think we'll have to agree to disagree over the possibility or desirability of running low-trust vaccination campaigns. FWIW I upvoted your first comment, even though I disagree with part of it.

Edit: missing word - think

[blotter_paper]

> I think we'll have to agree to disagree over the possibility or desirability of running low-trust vaccination campaigns.

I can happily agree to disagree about such things, but I will point out that you still have to live in a world with crazy idealists like myself who will become potential disease vectors if not provided a low-trust mechanism for vaccinating themselves. That isn't intended as a threat, just food for thought when considering cost/risk analysis from your own worldview.