Alan Dershowitz Claims Americans Have No Constitutional Rights To Refuse To Be Vaccinated - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15094329
SpecialOlympian wrote:Yeah we got rid of polio, but are vaccines worth it?

I'm a person who thinks they're very smart and I have a lot of stupid questions. Also, I will never Google anything, it's your job to educate me.

Sure, I could get my idiot spawn vaccinated against chicken pox. Or they could get it the natural way at a pox party. Getting shingles later in life will make them better people.

I got the chicken pox the natural way when I was very young, Now at the age of 76, I still have not gotten shingles to make me a better person. Could that my problem?
#15094339
Doug64 wrote:In this case, Dershowitz is almost right. On the one hand, I don't know any clause of the Constitution granting the federal government the right to require you to take a vaccine, with the exception of mandatory vaccinations of people joining the military services (including the National Guard). On the other hand, I don't know any clause of the Constitution that denies the states (where the police power lies in the US system) the right to require mandatory vaccinations. The only clause I think would be applicable in the latter case is the 1st Amendment's Freedom of Religion clause and even there, as @Ter implcitly pointed out, there is nothing preventing state and local governments as well as private businesses from requiring vaccinations for use of facilities or hiring, etc. At least for the more dangerous diseases.


There's been a mammoth amount of historical revisionism in the air when it comes to public health and state power. A couple of generations ago it was standard practice to isolate TB patients long-term in institutions. From bitter experience public health authorities knew that TB patients, unless directly monitored, would not finish their course of medication - and eventually become infectious again.

The Constitution says squat about the rights of individuals. It only specifies what Congress may not do (and by later amendment, state legislatures).
#15094417
SpecialOlympian wrote:Yeah we got rid of polio, but are vaccines worth it?


The polio vaccine infected hundreds of millions of people with cancer viruses that ended up killing millions:

Cancer Risk Associated With Simian Virus 40 Contaminated Polio Vaccine
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10472327/

Emergent Human Pathogen Simian Virus 40 and Its Role in Cancer
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl ... 46384title

The polio vaccine also gives people polio:

How The Oral Polio Vaccine Can Cause Polio
https://www.npr.org/2019/11/16/78006800 ... ause-polio
#15094516
SpecialOlympian wrote:Yeah we got rid of polio, but are vaccines worth it?

I'm a person who thinks they're very smart and I have a lot of stupid questions. Also, I will never Google anything, it's your job to educate me.


LOL the vaccine manufacturers and infectious disease experts admit that they don't even understand the coronavirus yet. How can they come out with a vaccine when they don't even know if the virus will burn out before their hypothetical vaccine is ready?

In the last alleged H1N1 pandemic, they created a vaccine and made too much of it when it wasn't even needed, obviously.

These deranged kooks want to inject people with kind of undisclosed nanoparticles. They want to “play Legos with proteins,” as King put it.

You want to inject that shit while after the so-called "experts" are done playing around with whatever? Go right ahead then, my friend.

Regarding polio, they don't even use the same kind of vaccine now as they did back then. Why are you bringing up polio? Do you think that the same people who are working on polio vaccine are working on the coronavirus vaccine?

As you ponder that, go read a constitutional lawyer's response to how Dershowitz is wrong.

The man in questioned was never forcefully vaccinated, he was simply made to pay a fine.

Dershowitz and Mandatory Vaccination Laws

A Constitutional Lawyer Says What?

In mid May 2020, in an interview, the famous Harvard Law professor – once known as a
defender of individual freedom – Alan Dershowitz, said the following: “if you refuse to be vaccinated, the state has the power to literally [sic] take you to a doctor's office, and plunge a needle into your arm.”

To be fair, later in the interview, Dershowitz articulated what justice would look like under a mandatory vaccination regime. He opined, “they should give you an alternative, live in your home ... but never, ever, leave your home ...” Thanks, Alan.

Dershowitz declared that the state of American law on bodily integrity, as stemming from Supreme Court precedent, namely Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905). But he also claimed, without any specific citations, that there are “cases, after cases, after cases, that the public health permits reasonable actions to prevent the spread of communicable diseases ...”

There is just one small problem with his analysis. Dershowitz is completely wrong.

Mainstream Legal Opinion and Misreading Jacobson

Professor Dershowitz is not alone in his mistaken belief (or policy preference). Even the editors at the World Net Daily want you to resign yourself – like cattle marching through the slaughter-house – to the notion that one day, you and your children will be poisoned in the name of freedom, science, and goodness.

A quick search online finds three prominent articles, all citing Jacobson, all insist that the only conclusion we can see is that the U.S. Constitution holds that the State (just group of men and women – often coercing us through violence) has every right to force you to be injected.

(A) 2006 – a medical doctor and then law student, Sarah Fujiwara, writing in the AMA Journal of Ethics [sic], described a hypothetical circumstance where SARS cases are found in Canada, centered on a college student (Joseph), who has not been exposed. Dr. Fujiwara asks, ‘if the State of Illinois mandates a new experimental SARS vaccine, can Joseph refuse?’ Referencing case law and invoking abstract notions about her hypothetical unexposed Joseph somehow being both contagious and a risk to others, Fujiwara concludes:

(1) “Real liberty for all cannot exist if each individual is allowed to act without regard to the injury that his or her actions might cause others; liberty is constrained by law”;

(2) “it is immaterial whether ... the vaccine is actually effective, so long as it is the belief of state authorities that the mandatory vaccine will promote common welfare ... (drawing on the language of Jacobson, 197 at 35);

(3) “The only exception to a mandatory vaccination is an offer of apparent or reasonably certain proof, to the state board of health [sic], that the vaccination would seriously impair health or probably cause death” (she offers Jacobson at 38, but there is no language in the opinion that describes exceptions or appeals to the Board of Health); and

(4) Consequently, our student, Joseph, does not have a valid argument against the mandatory vaccination.

It is most apparent, from her brief review of Jacobson, that Dr. Fujiwara never read the case, does not know the pertinent facts, and or has no idea about the evolution of legal doctrines related to Constitutional law and due process since 1905.

(B) 2019 – a lawyer for the Congressional Research Service, Wen Shen, presented a memo titled: An Overview of State and Federal Authority to Impose Vaccination Requirements. Citing Jacobson, Shen finds that States have absolute power to require any and all vaccines. Shen (2019) claims that:

“In 1905, the Supreme Court in Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts upheld a state law that gave municipal boards of health the authority to require [sic] the vaccination, of persons over the age of 21, against smallpox.”

Shen (2019) mischaracterizes the legal issues in the case. Henning Jacobson brought a due process challenge to a criminal law – a law that granted him no opportunity to raise a defense. Jacobson , 197 U.S. at 17.

The case did not center on a forced injection – there was no force, and there would be no injections. Rather the challenge centered on the propriety and legality of imposing criminal penalties for those who refused to play a form of Russian Roulette.

In regards to the ruling of both the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts and the U.S. Supreme Court, each upheld, as valid, a criminal law, which had express exemptions for unfit children, but none for unfit adults. Jacobson , 197 U.S. at 17.

Children were exempted from the fine upon showing a doctor’s note that they were unfit candidates for vaccination
(and parents of such children were not liable for fines either). See R.L. c. 75, § 139 (1902).

As for adults like Jacobson, the rule read like this: get a shot, lest you receive a $5 fine, or remain imprisoned until the fine is paid. See Jacobson at 14.

Please note, writing the opinion for the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Harlan claimed that the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled that if Jacobson refused to pay a fine or refused to be vaccinated, that he could be imprisoned indefinitely.

However, no statutory reference is cited to support the notion that sanctions included imprisonment. Still, at that time judges were permitted to issue incarceration orders against defendants who refused to pay fines. See, for example, Chapter 215 from the Public Statutes of Massachusetts of 1881.

All this aside, at a time when no laws could mandate quarantine of a healthy person, the particular text of the opinion from the Massachusetts high court omits any discussion of imprisonment (or even quarantine or home detention). See Commonwealth vs. Pear 183 Mass. 242 (1903). In siding against Jacobson, and explaining the extent of the penalties, Massachusetts Chief Justice Knowlton concluded:

“If a person should deem it important that vaccination should not be performed in his case, and the authorities should think otherwise, it is not in their power to vaccinate him by force, and the worst that could happen to him under the statute would be the payment of the penalty of $5.” Commonwealth vs. Pear, 83 Mass. 242 at 248 (1903).

When the Supreme Judicial Court held that Jacobson could only be fined, and the U.S. Supreme Court upheld that ruling, why would Wen Shen announce that the courts have held that
vaccination can be forced?

Because the current talk about mass vaccination is really a discussion about the drive for a national program, a federal mandate, Shen (2019) offers some discussion about federal versus state authority. Under the U.S. Constitution, matters of public health (general police power) are limited to state jurisdiction. At present, without an Amendment, neither Congress nor the President can impose a mandatory vaccine scheme for the nation.
#15094588
maz wrote:mistaken belief

Using Jacobson, States have absolute power to require any and all vaccines:

It is within the police power of a State to enact a compulsory vaccination law... The possession and enjoyment of all rights are subject to such reasonable conditions as may be deemed by the governing authority of the country essential to the safety, health, peace, good order and morals of the community. Even liberty itself, the greatest of all rights, is not unrestricted license to act according to one's own will. It is only freedom from restraint under conditions essential to the equal enjoyment of the same right by others. It is then liberty regulated by law.

U.S. Supreme Court
Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)


:)
#15094602
Sivad wrote:The polio vaccine infected hundreds of millions of people with cancer viruses that ended up killing millions:

Cancer Risk Associated With Simian Virus 40 Contaminated Polio Vaccine
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10472327/

Emergent Human Pathogen Simian Virus 40 and Its Role in Cancer
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl ... 46384title


No. No one hot cancer.

The polio vaccine also gives people polio:

How The Oral Polio Vaccine Can Cause Polio
https://www.npr.org/2019/11/16/78006800 ... ause-polio


Only the oral vaccine, and not often.
#15094653
ingliz wrote:Using Jacobson, States have absolute power to require any and all vaccines:

It is within the police power of a State to enact a compulsory vaccination law... The possession and enjoyment of all rights are subject to such reasonable conditions as may be deemed by the governing authority of the country essential to the safety, health, peace, good order and morals of the community. Even liberty itself, the greatest of all rights, is not unrestricted license to act according to one's own will. It is only freedom from restraint under conditions essential to the equal enjoyment of the same right by others. It is then liberty regulated by law.

U.S. Supreme Court
Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)

:)


It is not a reasonable condition to be forced to take a vaccine that might endanger your health. If Dershowitz is using that argument that you don't have the right to infect others with your virus, when there is no proof that you even have a virus, then the argument can be raised that the government doesn't have the right to force you to take a a chemical substance that could potentially harm you for life.
#15094659
maz wrote:It is not a reasonable condition to be forced to take a vaccine that might endanger your health. If Dershowitz is using that argument that you don't have the right to infect others with your virus, when there is no proof that you even have a virus, then the argument can be raised that the government doesn't have the right to force you to take a a chemical substance that could potentially harm you for life.


1. The government does not have to prove that someone has the virus before requiring a vaccine.

Vaccines are supposed to prevent someone from getting the infection.

2. You do not have a right to infect others. That much is true. And when there is a lethal virus currently killing tens or hundreds of thousands in the country, it is reasonable to believe that the state has an obligation to prevent the spread of the lethal infection by reasonable and proportional means.

3. All medical treatments have possible side effects that may cause lifelong problems. If the likelihood of these negative effects is lower than the likelihood of similar negative effects from Covid-19, this is not a rational reason to forego the treatment and risk infecting others.
#15094689
Pants-of-dog wrote:No. No one hot cancer.


:knife:

New Developments About the Association of SV40 With Human Mesothelioma

Review Oncogene
. 2003 Aug 11;22(33):5173-80. doi: 10.1038/sj.onc.1206552.

M Carbone 1, H I Pass, L Miele, M Bocchetta

Abstract
Simian virus 40 (SV40) has been detected in human tumors in over 40 different laboratories. Many of these reports linked SV40 to human mesotheliomas. The Vaccine Safety Committee of the Institute of Medicine (IOM), National Academy of Sciences, USA, recently reviewed the evidence associating polio vaccines and/or SV40 with human tumors. The IOM conclusions about polio vaccines and human cancer were: (1) 'the evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relation between SV40-containing polio vaccines and cancer' because the 'epidemiological studies are sufficiently flawed'; (2) 'the biological evidence is of moderate strength that SV40 exposure from the polio vaccines is related to SV40 infection in humans'. The epidemiological studies were considered flawed because it was not possible to distinguish reliably among exposed and nonexposed cohorts. Concerning SV40, the IOM concluded that (1) 'the evidence is strong that SV40 is a transforming virus; (2) the evidence is of moderate strength that SV40 exposure could lead to cancer in humans under natural conditions' (IOM, 2002). Similar conclusions were reached at an International consensus meeting on SV40 and human tumors held at the University of Chicago in 2001. G Klein and C Croce, who chaired the final panel that reviewed all the published evidence linking SV40 to human tumors, stated that 'the presence of SV40 in human tumors has been convincingly demonstrated' (Klein et al., 2002). In addition, a workshop organized by the Biological Carcinogenesis Branch of the National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, chaired by J Pagano, has reached similar conclusions (Wong et al., 2002). Therefore, three independent scientific panels have all agreed that there is compelling evidence that SV40 is present in some human cancers and that SV40 could contribute to the pathogenesis of some of them. It should be noted that the presence of SV40 in mesothelioma and other human tumor types has been challenged by a research team that has consistently reported negative findings (Strickler et al., 2001). However, a member of this research team has recently acknowledged - in sworn testimony -sensitivity problems and possible irregularities that raise concerns about these negative reports (MacLachlan, 2002). These revelations, together with the conclusions of the three independent panels mentioned above, appear to bring to an end the apparent controversy about the presence of SV40 in human mesotheliomas and brain tumors.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12910254/





Only the oral vaccine, and not often.


There are more cases of vaccine induced polio than wild polio.
#15094698
Pants-of-dog wrote:@Sivad

Thanks for the evidence showing that not a single case of cancer was traced back to these vaccines.



So you're pretending you don't speak english again? :lol:

"three independent scientific panels have all agreed that there is compelling evidence that SV40 is present in some human cancers and that SV40 could contribute to the pathogenesis of some of them."


So the IOM and two other panels found that SV40 in humans came from the polio vaccine, that SV40 can cause cancer in humans, and that SV40 is present in many tumors found in humans. And the PoD person takes this as "evidence showing that not a single case of cancer was traced back to these vaccines". :lol:
#15094700
Sivad wrote:So you're pretending you don't speak english again? :lol:

"three independent scientific panels have all agreed that there is compelling evidence that SV40 is present in some human cancers and that SV40 could contribute to the pathogenesis of some of them."



Yes, it must be my poor English.

Please explain how “could contribute” somehow means “almost certainly caused”. Thanks.

So the IOM and two other panels found that SV40 in humans came from the polio vaccine, that SV40 can cause cancer in humans, and that SV40 is present in many tumors found in humans. And the PoD person takes this as "evidence showing that not a single case of cancer was traced back to these vaccines". :lol:


Yes, that is what your evidence says.

They found evidence for a causal chain, but they did not find evidence that this causal chain actually ended up causing cancer.

You also failed to support your claim that polio vaccines cause more polio than wild polio.
#15094707
Pants-of-dog wrote:2. You do not have a right to infect others. That much is true. And when there is a lethal virus currently killing tens or hundreds of thousands in the country, it is reasonable to believe that the state has an obligation to prevent the spread of the lethal infection by reasonable and proportional means.


So in theory, the person who gets the vaccine will be prevented from someone else giving them the vaccine. Or do I have that wrong as well?

Pants-of-dog wrote:3. All medical treatments have possible side effects that may cause lifelong problems. If the likelihood of these negative effects is lower than the likelihood of similar negative effects from Covid-19, this is not a rational reason to forego the treatment and risk infecting others.


you seem to be saying that there is an acceptable number of people who can be killed, maimed or suffer temporary or life long health issues from getting a vaccine. Any idea of what that number of people would be in a population of say, 300,000,000 people?

There is one thing that I noticed about the media's coverage of the cronyvirus; they immediately go all the way back to 1918 and the Spanish Flu.

They like to skip right over the 1976 Swine Flu vaccine scandal, because this event is still fairly fresh in minds of the people who lived through it.

They like to skip over the 2009 H1N1 alleged crisis because it is even more fresh in the public's mind. You may or may not know that they rushed to produce an H1N1 vaccine, but they had actually produced two times too much, and too late.

A good number of people did not take the vaccine because they were skeptical, and then there were a bunch of stories about politicians getting access to one vaccine and how the entire thing was a WHO scam. The media quietly stopped reporting on the virus and magically the crisis just went away.

I don't remember any of the1976 Swine Flu, but I researched it a lot during the 2009 H1N1 media hysteria. I remember watching this video expose of the 1976 scandal at that time. It is very instructive.



Pants-of-dog wrote:3. All medical treatments have possible side effects that may cause lifelong problems. If the likelihood of these negative effects is lower than the likelihood of similar negative effects from Covid-19, this is not a rational reason to forego the treatment and risk infecting others.


The Long Shadow of the 1976 Swine Flu Vaccine ‘Fiasco’

In the spring of 1976, it looked like that year’s flu was the real thing. Spoiler alert: it wasn’t, and rushed response led to a medical debacle that hasn’t gone away.

“Some of the American public’s hesitance to embrace vaccines — the flu vaccine in particular — can be attributed to the long-lasting effects of a failed 1976 campaign to mass-vaccinate the public against a strain of the swine flu virus,” writes Rebecca Kreston for Discover. “This government-led campaign was widely viewed as a debacle and put an irreparable dent in future public health initiative, as well as negatively influenced the public’s perception of both the flu and the flu shot in this country.”

On February 4 1976, a young soldier named David Lewis died of a new form of flu. In the middle of the month, F. David Matthews, the U.S. secretary of health, education and welfare, announced that an epidemic of the flu that killed Pvt. Lewis was due in the fall. “The indication is that we will see a return of the 1918 flu virus that is the most virulent form of flu,” he said, reports Patrick di Justo for Salon. He went on: the 1918 outbreak of “Spanish flu” killed half a million Americans, and the upcoming apocalypse was expected to kill a million.

Spanish influenza was another form of swine flu, di Justo writes, and researchers at the Centers for Disease Control thought that what was happening could well be a new, even deadlier strain that was genetically close to the 1918 strain.

To avoid an epidemic, the CDC believed, at least 80 percent of the United States population would need to be vaccinated. When they asked Congress for the money to do it, politicians jumped on the potential good press of saving their constituents from the plague, di Justo writes.

The World Health Organization adopted more of a wait-and-see attitude to the virus, writes Kreston. They eventually found that the strain of flu that year was not a repeat or escalation of the 1918 flu, but “the U.S. government was unstoppable,” di Justo writes. They had promised a vaccine, so there needed to be a vaccine.

This all happened in the spring, with emergency legislation for the “National Swine Flu Immunization Program,” being signed into effect in mid-April. By the time immunizations began on Oct. 1, though, the proposed epidemic had failed to emerge (although Legionnaires' Disease had, confusing matters further.)

“With President Ford’s reelection campaign looming on the horizon, the campaign increasingly appeared politically motivated,” Kreston writes. In the end, one journalist at The New York Times went so far as to call the whole thing a “fiasco.” Epidemiology takes time, politics is often about looking like you’re doing something and logistics between branches of government are extremely complicated. These factors all contributed to the pandemic that never was.

The real victims of this pandemic were likely the 450-odd people who came down with Guillain-Barre syndrome, a rare neurological disorder, after getting the 1976 flu shot. On its website, the CDC notes that people who got the vaccination did have an increased risk of “approximately one additional case of GBS for every 100,000 people who got the swine flu vaccine.”

Several theories as to why this happened exist, they say, “but the exact reason for this link remains unknown.” As for the flu shot today, the CDC writes, if there is any increased risk it is “very small, about one in a million. Studies suggest that it is more likely that a person will get GBS after getting the flu than after vaccination.
#15094711
maz wrote:So in theory, the person who gets the vaccine will be prevented from someone else giving them the vaccine. Or do I have that wrong as well?


You have that wrong as well.

Do you understand what a vaccine is and how it works?

you seem to be saying that there is an acceptable number of people who can be killed, maimed or suffer temporary or life long health issues from getting a vaccine. Any idea of what that number of people would be in a population of say, 300,000,000 people?


The number is significantly less than the number of people who would be killed, maimed or suffer temporary or life long health issues from getting the disease prevented by said vaccine.
#15094733
Pants-of-dog wrote:
They found evidence for a causal chain, but they did not find evidence that this causal chain actually ended up causing cancer.


Okay so this time you're not pretending you don't speak English, you're doing the old deliberately obtuse routine. The PoD person is saying that since it hasn't been proven to an absolute metaphysical certainty that SV40, a cancer causing virus found in human cancers, did in fact cause the cancers in which it was found, then we have to conclude that it hasn't caused any cancers in any humans ever.

That is some fakakta epistemology that no reasonable person would ever endorse because if we actually adhered to that standard we couldn't even say that smoking causes cancer. In fact we'd have to pretty much dispense with causal explanations altogether.
#15094739
Sivad wrote:Okay so this time you're not pretending you don't speak English, you're doing the old deliberately obtuse routine. The PoD person is saying that since it hasn't been proven to an absolute metaphysical certainty that SV40, a cancer causing virus found in human cancers, did in fact cause the cancers in which it was found, then we have to conclude that it hasn't caused any cancers in any humans ever.

That is some fakakta epistemology that no reasonable person would ever endorse because if we actually adhered to that standard we couldn't even say that smoking causes cancer. In fact we'd have to pretty much dispense with causal explanations altogether.


People can read it for themselves and decide what is written.

You have still not provided any evidence for your claim about polio.

They are building a Russian Type nuclear reactor..[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Hamas are terrorist animals who started this and […]

It is possible but Zelensky refuses to talk... no[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

@skinster Hamas committed a terrorist attack(s)[…]