Alan Dershowitz: "you have NO right NOT to be vaccinated...plunge a needle into your arm"
Just began to watch this, covers a lot of territory; the clip of Dershowitz's statement is at around 8 minutes in. Jude
Watch on facebook
This past weekend, Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz appeared on Crowdsource the Truth with host Jason Goodman and made some strong statements regarding the medical freedom of individuals in the U.S.
Speaking of the current “warp speed” efforts to develop a vaccine against Covid-19, Mr. Dershowitz said, “You have no Constitutional right to endanger the public and spread the disease even if you disagree. You have no right not to be vaccinated. You have no right not to wear a mask...If you refuse to be vaccinated, the state has the power to take you to a doctor’s office and plunge a needle into your arm.”
In what is being called “Del vs. Dershowitz”, today’s Highwire with Del Bigtree featured a debate on mandatory vaccines between one of the world’s most recognized attorneys and one of the leaders of the rapidly growing medical freedom movement.
Re: Alan Dershowitz: "you have NO right NOT to be vaccinated...plunge a needle into your a
It amazes me that anyone is allowed to get away with advocating mandatory vaccinations. A moment's reflection reveals that such a measure is far beyond what is necessary, and can have only one motive, which is to increase centralized control of the public.
This is the point: If vaccinations are effective, then anyone who has been vaccinated has protection against anyone who has not been vaccinated. Arguments about "herd immunity" are irrelevant, in the face of this premise. The claim that the unvaccinated are a threat to everyone else is clearly false. They may well pose a danger to each other, but they have presumably accepted that risk. And that is everyone's right, as long as it poses no risk to anyone else. The whole argument for mandatory vaccinations depends on the self-contradictory idea that the vaccinated, supposedly beyond danger, are endangered by the unvaccinated.
The last time I proposed this argument, someone replied that there are some people so sensitive and frail that they cannot receive vaccinations. Therefore the unvaccinated are still a threat, at least to this small class of people. Fair enough; but the solution to this is pretty clearly to quarantine those few people for their own safety, rather than to close down the entire economy, which is catastrophic for so many.
I implore everyone who hears any argument for mandatory vaccination to ask its advocate why such a draconian solution is necessary, if the vaccines are really effective. I don't think there is a sound argument in response to this, but if there is, I'd like to hear it.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Jude Iam:
Just began to watch this, covers a lot of territory; the clip of Dershowitz's statement is at around 8 minutes in. Jude
Watch on facebook
....
Re: Alan Dershowitz: "you have NO right NOT to be vaccinated...plunge a needle into your a
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by comodin:
It amazes me that anyone is allowed to get away with advocating mandatory vaccinations. A moment's reflection reveals that such a measure is far beyond what is necessary, and can have only one motive, which is to increase centralized control of the public.
This is the point: If vaccinations are effective, then anyone who has been vaccinated has protection against anyone who has not been vaccinated. Arguments about "herd immunity" are irrelevant, in the face of this premise. .
a couple of things. No, a "moment's reflection" reveals no such thing. It may to you, but you can't say that everyone who spends even a moment thinking about it will reach the same conclusion. They may, they may not. Spend longer than a moment, it still doesn't guarantee they'll draw the same conclusions you do.
Your attributed motive is even more of a stretch. Whether you believe we're continually dodging centralized attempts to control the public or not is a personality trait, not an evidence-based evaluation of reality.
And finally, your premise is just that - a premise, not a fact, if you mean the vaccinated have excellent protection. Sure, the more accurately stated premise is that they have some protection. But I'd say a bigger premise is that with sufficient numbers of vaccinated people, the virus will have trouble moving from host to host. That's very different, and that's what herd immunity really is.
