We must not allow transparency from interfering with coercive injections

Imagine the following scenario: you’re the Russian government. You rush out an unproven genetic injection developed in cooperation with a cattle tag-obsessed banker. But there’s a problem: nobody wants it, forcing you to make your genetic slurry compulsory for tens of millions of people.

Naturally, you withhold data on post-vaccination complications because the safety of your unproven goo is unassailable; anyone who whines about the lack of transparency is labeled an internet terrorist. A group of internet terrorists create an unofficial VAERS-like system for monitoring vaccine-linked deaths, which of course you shut down as soon as possible.

Meanwhile, you aggressively backpedal on the boastful claims you’ve made about your unproven slurry—turns out it doesn’t do much and might actually be making things worse!

Gref says Danke sehr.

The Russian people begin to grumble. They sense this might be a massive scam. One of their elected representatives asks for rudimentary data to help reassure them that it isn’t a scam. But it is a scam, so what do you do?

You say transparency would be “inappropriate” because publicly available data might damage the reputation of your unproven, mandatory slurry:

Total, awe-inspiring disdain for basic decency.

This is really special:

“Publishing information on the number of deaths among people vaccinated against COVID-19 is inappropriate, since such information does not objectively reflect any relationship between deaths and vaccination and may cause a negative attitude towards vaccination,” the Ministry of Health said in response to a request from State Duma deputy Vladimir Plyakin.

There’s nothing more to type.