> The flip side that wasn't discussed This has been discussed ad nauseam. Nature isn't a foreign policy magazine, so it's not really the greatest place for adv

> The flip side that wasn't discussed This has been discussed ad nauseam. Nature isn't a foreign policy magazine, so it's not really the greatest place for advising how the US should respond to a disinformation campaign. But communicating about healthcare policy seems to be reasonably in its area of expertise. > The flip side that wasn't discussed is the belittling and censoring of voices that were skeptical of the narratives, which engendered even more distrust The disinformation campaign was allowed to got on essentially unchecked for a long time because it was politically sensitive to speak publicly about it. As we started to get more confirmation that it was being funded by foreign governments (e.g. [0]), pushback against the disinformation became stronger. > Their strategy of information control backfired, and they doubled down. Now we've got a huge swath of US citizens that will never take the vaccine. I am highly skeptical there is any evidence for the causality you are implying here. A disinformation campaign like this is an attack on Americans by a foreign military. People may reasonably disagree about how it should be handled, but at some point citizens have a right to defend their country from attacks. [0] https://www.wsj.com/articles/russian-disinformation-campaign-aims-to-undermine-confidence-in-pfizer-other-covid-19-vaccines-u-s-officials-say-11615129200 https://www.wsj.com/articles/russian-disinformation-campaign...