Tucker Carlson Interviews Alan Dershowitz About His Stance on Mandatory Vaccination
By Anne Dachel
Professor Alan Dershowitz was on Tucker Carlson Tonight on May 20th to discuss his controversial opinion on a mandatory COVID 19 vaccine.
Here Dershowitz qualified his views about the circumstances that would allow forced vaccination of the entire population. Notice how many times he talked about the need for the vaccine to be proven safe.
Tucker Carlson: …In some rare cases, sometimes not that rare, [vaccines] can hurt people.
Does the government still have a right to endanger you be forcing you to take it?
Professor Deshowitz made these comments in response:
The Supreme Court has said yes. It is not a debatable issue constitutionally….
Then Deshowitz explained his views of the “moral issue” involved in forced vaccination.
I think one can make a plausible argument that nobody should be required to be subjected to a dangerous vaccination to help other people. That’s a plausible argument.
I think we should continue to debate that….
…I wouldn’t require people to take a vaccine unless it was proved very, very safe…
I general, if the vaccine was proved extremely safe, then the state has a right to compel you to take it….
What you don’t have the right to do is to circulate in society without being vaccinated, if the vaccine is proved to be very safe.
Carlson: There is so much lying about vaccines…
Deshowitz: You have to have rule of reason. If the vaccine is very effective and very safe…
Professor Dershowitz went on to use his 10 year old great-grandson as someone who might not need the vaccine as children are not generally affected.
Actually I highly doubt that the powerful forces pushing a fast-tracked COVID vaccine will let anyone opt out.
Anne Dachel is Media Editor for Age of Autism.
This video keeps starting automatically every time I log on the AofA - it's probably a shortcoming of my computer. However the frequent repetition of the opening section has enabled me to spot a flaw in Prof. Dershowitz' argument. He says the state can call you up to fight in wars thus endangering your life for the protection of society. But actually, there is conscientious objection, at least here in the UK, and I'm fairly certain you have it in USA as well. You are not required to throw your babies into the line of fire. A parent has the God-given, or you could say, ethical, responsibility to protect her/his child from harm, and cannot therefore be required to consent on behalf of the child, who has no voice of his/her own, so conscientious objection should be available to the parent. This would be called a religious, or philosophical, exemption.
Posted by: Grace Green | June 03, 2020 at 12:07 PM
Thank you David, I have never panicked.
Too much panicking has gone on for a great number of years, starting with the Swine Flu of 1976- 77, in which I finally received just on of the series of three shots for, before it came out in the news that so very many were becoming paralyzed.
In which some boys in a big class of 200 student took a chance of not getting an "A" and had a field day of fun and jokes at the embarrassment, and expense of the infectious disease professor that had been preaching to us during every class that we needed to get that Swine flu shot.
And so it has gone almost every year since.
Are you hearing this Cia?
Take a breath.
And have a drink of water, but you are taking a chance on that cause two minutes or so some one drowns in it. .
Posted by: Benedetta | May 25, 2020 at 05:03 PM
David,
You are not David L.? If that is the case, I was mistaken and I apologize.
Posted by: Cia | May 25, 2020 at 02:17 PM
Cia
I have to repeat that I have not said anything in Feb about an article on the susceptibililty of Asians. I rarely visit this site. I don't know what else I can say so please don't make that assertion again.
Nevertheless you have provided interesting info to consider on the different amounts of ACE 2 expressed in different groups. I had not read that but it sounds feasible and worth noting.
I hope that much more biochemistry will be unveiled in the coming year. It's early days now and theories are starting to emerge but I'm sure this will get more refined.
As to whether Nature are lying to cover things up, I can't say, but in a matter of such widespread impact, I'm sure there are people who have some desire to control the narrative and certainly, there is precedent for that. You'd like to think scientific journals were above that but these days, who knows?
Posted by: David | May 25, 2020 at 06:01 AM
https://www.britannica.com/event/1968-flu-pandemic
Cia, I don't know when you were born, but I was certainly alive in 1968/9 when Hong Kong flu was around. According to this article between 1 and 4 million people died. I wasn't alive, obviously, when Spanish flu devastated countries, but the death toll was estimated to be between 25 and 50 million.
Certainly, media propaganda has very many believing that this Corona virus is the biggest 'killer' in the history of the world. The facts are very different
Posted by: susan welch | May 25, 2020 at 05:49 AM
David,
I found it. It's CD147, or basigin, which gives the virus another way to invade host cells. And it's what helps the virus attack the heme to release the iron into the bloodstream, which both causes often fatal effects there and leaves the cells bereft of the necessary heme, which kills them. Another reason why HCQ is so therapeutic: it protects the heme from attack both by CV and by malaria.
Tim,
Sure, you can say "only" * number of people die of cancer, heart attacks, starvation, gun violence, war, terrorism, or, really, anything at all. So we shouldn't worry about any cause of massive suffering and death, should just let it be, sit back and accept them? Not many would agree with you. Coronavirus is the most serious epidemic disease since the Spanish flu, which was probably worse, but we haven't seen the end of this yet, and this is the most serious one in the lifetime of anyone now living.
Posted by: cia | May 24, 2020 at 08:12 PM
David,
You said that most people do not have the proclivity to have severe or fatal cases of Covid. What difference does it make? They have found that the elderly, and those with certain comorbidities found in half of all mature adults, tend to have worse or fatal cases, but that many who do not fall into any of these categories often get severe or fatal cases as well. We're not going to say Oh, well, getting rid of half the population over forty wouldn't be a bad thing in the long run. Too bad they had to suffer so much before they checked out. But more for me, right? These people constitute a significant portion of every human population in the world, you cannot separate them out as being vulnerable to a severe or fatal case, but for the rest of us it's just a mild cold, so who cares?
CV also has another receptor site besides ACE-2, probably because it was genetically engineered. I'll have to look for it.
Posted by: cia | May 24, 2020 at 07:52 PM
David,
What I was saying was that since the Nature article published in April to which I was referring was lying to protect those involved, nothing it publishes on this subject may be taken at face value.
Several people, including you, discussed a couple of articles at the beginning of February, including an article by Chinese scientists who suggested that Chinese males were more susceptible than others to serious cases of coronavirus. That is what I was saying had since been proven to be untrue as so many hundreds of thousands of other ethnicities and both sexes, had been stricken and died of Covid since February. At the time I believed the Chinese study, but when I read about the people dying in Washington State at the end of February, I realized that the study had been wrong and I had been wrong to have believed it was true.
I found two comments from Feb. 1 discussing this, and also a comment I just found under the Chinese study, the link to which is found at the bottom of your comment reproduced here. It was not racist to hypothesize this: there are many physical traits attributable to genetics which have a racial component. But in this case, the theory that Asian men were particularly prone genetically to have severe or fatal cases of Covid turned out to be wrong, or it is not more than somewhat more prominent in them as in other groups.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.01.26.919985v1.full
"If I understand it correctly (bit of a cold so a bit foggy) this virus may target Asians mostly (like SARS). They say Asians have more lung cells of a type AT2 that expresses an enzyme ACE2, which provides a receptor that allows the virus to infect the cell. Once the infection takes hold it down-regulates ACE2 expression. Paradoxically ACE2 helps reduce the severity of symptoms. Once it is down regulated symptoms might become more severe.
This may explain a 2 step approach we see. Initially no symptoms or more likely no noticeable symptoms. Then after ACE2 is down regulated more severe symptoms , at least in some people. So not a long incubation period, it just seems that way.
With flu it comes on fast but after symptoms are gone you are still infectious for a time even though you look healthy. This is true with some other infectious diseases so it is not unusual that healthy looking people can spread virus
This is still a cold virus. Its really not anymore serious than influenza or a nasty cold, at least not that the numbers show. More details on the ages and comorbidity of victims, as well as ethnicity could shed more light on matters but keeping people in the dark helps transmit fear which seems to be the main objective.
So let it run its course, humans will develop herd immunity. It will either mutate itself out of existence or mutate enough to become endemic with most humans having partial immunity which minimizes symptoms. The ear between viruses and humans has been a constant war for millions of years with our collective immune systems upgrading to meet each new threat. There are always casualties though, mostly the elderly or sick."
Posted by: Pft | February 01, 2020 at 05:19 PM
"Pft and all, Structural analyses confidently predict that the Wuhan coronavirus uses ACE2 as its host receptor. According to their modeling, although the binding strength between 2019-nCov and ACE2 is weaker than that between SARS-Cov and ACE2, it is still much higher than the threshold required for virus infection. Of note, the 2 male donors have a higher ACE2-expressing cell ratio than all other 6 female donors (1.66% vs. 0.41% of all cells, P value=0.07). In addition, the distribution of ACE2 is also more widespread in male donors than females: at least 5 different types of cells in male lung express this receptor, while only 2~4 types of cells in female lung express the receptor. This result is highly consistent with the epidemic investigation showing that most of the confirmed 2019-nCov infected patients were men (30 vs. 11, by Jan 2, 2020). We also noticed that the only Asian donor (male) has a much higher ACE2-expressing cell ratio than white and African American donors (2.50% vs. 0.47% of all cells). This might explain the observation that the new Coronavirus pandemic and previous SARS-Cov pandemic are concentrated in the Asian area. ACE2 is previously known as the receptor for SARS-Cov and NL634–6.
Alarmingly, our data predict that a single mutation [at a specific spot in the genome] could significantly enhance [the Wuhan coronavirus's] ability to bind with human ACE2," the investigators write. For this reason, Wuhan coronavirus evolution in patients should be closely monitored for the emergence of novel mutations at the 501 position in its genome, and to a lesser extent, the 494 position, in order to predict the possibility of a more serious outbreak than has been seen so far.
Severe infection by 2019-nCov could result in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and sepsis, causing death in approximately 15% of infected individuals. 2019-nCoV also potentially recognizes ACE2 from a diversity of animal species - pigs, ferrets, cats, orangutans, monkeys and humans (except mice and rats) with similar efficiency, implicating these animal species as possible intermediate hosts or animal models for 2019-nCoV infections.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/01/200131114755.htm
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.01.26.919985v1.full"
Posted by: David L | February 01, 2020 at 09:54 PM
comment under the biorxiv study linked above:
o Rich B ✓ᵀᴿᵁᴹᴾ breitbart banned Philip • 2 months ago
"I think what you'll find is while the morbidity rate remains relatively constant among the races because of SARS-CoV-2 clever usage of furin, the mortality rates (which are due to pneumonia) will be higher for those who have increased levels of ACE2 in their lungs, such as Asians and specifically Asian males, regardless of underlying medical conditions (suppressed immune system, old age, etc)
As the body sends white blood cells to the lungs to fight the infection, those with more cells to be infected will suffer from the unintended consequences of more infection areas to fight."
Posted by: cia | May 24, 2020 at 07:43 PM
Total world-wide deaths this year are over 23,000,000. Contrast this to at most 350,000 corona-virus deaths. Corona-virus deaths are 1.5% of total deaths.
How can this justify the economic and psychological devastation of the lockdowns?
How can this justify a vaccine mandate? Bill Gates himself projects 700,000 deaths or serious injuries from a corona virus... so the cure would indeed be much worse than the disease.
Finally, the deaths from coronavirus reflect the extremely poor standard of care. Ventilators and other inappropriate treatments killed most of these people. With better care, the death rate would be dramatically reduced, and current treatment protocol are doing much better.
Posted by: Tim Lundeen | May 24, 2020 at 03:12 PM
Cia, You are quoting the wrong article. The one I am talking about has nothing to do with any ethnicity. You should be more careful before you run off like that.
Using emotive BBC/CNN type language about 350 000 deaths etc as a tool to try and embelish your case is poor form as well.
I have no idea whether the virus was engineered or not, nor whether it escaped or not. I merely pointed out that these authors considered that there was a mutated ACE2 receptor that had a high afininty for the covid19 RBD.
The 12 nucleotide PRRA or RRAR may or may not have been inserted. I don't have enough evidence to say one way or the other. Do you?
Posted by: David | May 24, 2020 at 02:48 PM
David,
With five and a half million in the world having been diagnosed with CV in the world so far, 350,000 horrible, painful, lonely, terrifying deaths in every case, affecting six continents and millions of races and ethnic groups other than East Asian, most of us realized back in February that the study you cited about only ethnic Chinese, primarily men, being affected, was just wrong.
You’re talking about this Nature article?
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9
It was interesting primarily for its blatant dishonesty. It just stilt says that it was UNLIKELY for the coronavirus to have been the result of biotech genetic manipulation, that it was probably natural. But the horseshoe bats carrying this type of CV were from a cave a thousand miles from Wuhan and bats were in hibernation by October, the time when this genome was postulated to have originated. So how did bats in hibernation a thousand miles away have the opportunity to poop on pangolin who had been rescued from a smuggling operation in Wuhan?
The Nature article breezily recognizes the strangeness of the PRRA gene insertion which gave the virus its furin cleavage site, but only mention it in passing four times, saying they had no idea what its function was, all the while knowing perfectly well that it was to make it more deadly, that it was NOT a mutation, which only changes one letter to another, R, A, T, G, so sure, if A changes to T, calls for different amino acids, sure, it could be natural, but NOT a whole inserted sequence, PRRA, which is SPECIFICALLY for the immense gain of function of adding a furin cleavage site. And this specific sequence has already been inserted into other viruses by biotechs IN ORDER to give them furin cleavage sites to make them more deadly.
And so we have a bunch of scientists cooperating cranking out this Nature article to try to conceal that the virus is the result, not of natural processes, but of bioengineering designed to increase the function of the virus. Exactly what they were getting millions to do.
I think probably the virus escaped accidentally. An American expert said two years ago that that lab was very careless in its procedures designed to not allow viruses to escape. But who knows? The one certain thing is that the authors of this Nature article were circling the wagons to protect their own. It’s going to be interesting when the world learns that some arrogant whiz kids tinkered with the virus to make it more deadly and then carelessly let it get out, so that the world is in meltdown on every level as a result of their actions.
David, I’ve provided a link. Maybe you should read it again.
Posted by: Cia | May 24, 2020 at 02:10 PM
BN
I was thinking about the issue of people on ACE inhibitors but I can't recall seeing much information. You would be tempted to think ACE inhibitors would be at least partially protective against covid simply because if the ACE inhibitor is blocking the ACE2 receptor (which it is supposed to do) then that site would not be available to the virus. I suppose it depends on whether the drug and the virus are interracting with the same part of the receptor and if the presence of one inhibits the other. My guess is you'd have to do some trials unless you had some really spcific modelling power. It's difficult to understand how taking an ACE inhibitor would place you at greater risk. It's not my field though so I am only giving an intuitive response.
Posted by: David | May 24, 2020 at 09:52 AM
Excellent article on Dr. Mercola’s site today, including an interview with Dr. Meryl Nass.
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/05/24/how-did-coronavirus-originate.aspx
Includes information pertinent to what David discusses below.
Posted by: Laura Hayes | May 24, 2020 at 08:27 AM
David
Are people taking certain types of medications more at risk for instance blood pressure tablets that inhibit ACE 2 receptors working in the body.
Posted by: BN | May 24, 2020 at 04:31 AM
People who know nothing about the science of viruses must rely on experts. Not all experts agree of course but certain experts hold sway in points of debate. The Journal “Nature” is a favourite of the establishment. Quoting Nature is like quoting the bible.
So, in April 2020 an article appeared in Nature on the origin of covid19. It is a technical article and you need training in chemistry, biochemistry and microbiology to understand the article. Luckily, I do have that training although I do not work in virology.
The article says that covid 19 binds strongly to the ACE 2 receptor in humans (and ferrets and cats). They know this on the basis of structural studies and biochem experiments. However, the small section of molecules on covid 19 that do the actual binding are unique to covid19 and, surprisingly, computer simulations predict that covid 19 should not bind as strongly as it seems to. Why then does it bind so strongly?
This band of highly credentialed experts suggest that the reason is that in some people the ACE2 receptor is different. They assume this difference has just occurred by natural mutation in some people and there’s no telling when that happened.
The most obvious conclusion from this is that most people do not have this mutated ACE 2 receptor and therefore most people will have a low probability of serious illness. There are of course many other factors implicated in serious cases but if you have the common ACE 2 receptor instead of the mutated one then you are at a big advantage.
Two things are required for an infection. One is the virus must hit and engage the ACE2 receptor on the host cell. The second requirement is the host cell and the virus have to “open up” to allow virus contents to enter the host. This involves a cleavage site on the virus. Covid19 has a unique (so far) cleavage site and why that is so and what it means is not clear at present to these experts. Dolores Cahill says the unique cleavage site was genetically engineered but I have not seen evidence for that yet.
Anyway, the take home message is that most people do not have the mutated ACE2 receptor and thus should have very low risk of infection. People in the know already knew that the risk of serious illness was low even before this discovery was made. They knew just from observation and statistics.
This has not stopped politicians and the media from spreading panic all over the world and hence you not only see people wearing masks but they are now attacking those who don’t. We are bordering on hysteria in some cases. I don’t know exactly why there has been this relentless push to panic the world. Is it a case of “better to overreact than under react” or is it a case of, this will make vaccine mandating easier and kill off vaccine opposition forever? I don’t know.
It’s no good blaming the media either, they are so scientifically dumb that they don’t even realise when they are being played by pharma and scientists. It is really hard to know the truth here and much has yet to be discovered and published on the facts of this whole crisis. Who is to say whether the wider populace will ever know the truth?
In the meantime, just be aware that you are not getting the “whole truth” from mainstream media and politicians. Bless them all, but they are just repeating what they are told. You can also discount just about anything doctors say too. Doctors are experts in clinical science and that’s what they have to be and, that’s what’s important when you’re lying sick in hospital. They know very little however, about the discoveries and lab techniques that have sprung from the biotech revolution that started in the early 1990s. They are never taught this stuff because there is not enough time to make them experts in everything. Similarly, the experts who wrote the Nature paper would be hopeless in a hospital setting.
So, stay calm and don’t believe everything mainstream media tells you about how high the risks are. The detrimental economic, social and indirect health consequences of the path that has been chosen for us are much greater than the virus in my view. I’m happy to debate things at the molecular level with any readers interested.
Posted by: David | May 23, 2020 at 05:12 PM
Cia,
Have whatever vaccine you want.
Over the last couple of months, your level of fear concerning Covid 19 which you have expressed in many comments seems to me to be disproportionate to what we are seeing play out.
‘You seem to be assuming that if I am not part of the Plandemic or protest in the streets without masks crowd, and I definitely am not, then I must be a pro-vaccine shill.’ No, you are wrong. I questioned whether you were trying to placate people so they would ‘not rise up in time to fight mandates’ because I thought Blind Freddy could see that universal mandated vaccines for adults was where we were heading; a Covid 19 vaccine approval would help the mission be accomplished but mandates will be pushed for even without it. I thought you had more insight than Blind Freddy; I could therefore not understand how you could possibly say ‘I don’t think they will mandate it.’ Because Trump said it must be left to individual choice? Even you went on to say in your reply to my comment ‘Individual states may try to mandate it.’ Seems contradictory to me.
I don’t understand your final paragraph. I gave Kawasaki Disease as an example of how reactions to vaccines are put out as anything but, as we saw recently with it being pushed as being yet another consequence of Covid 19. The rest of that paragraph reads like the one shared script from the BBC (UK), ABC (USA) and ABC (Australia); all exaggerated, one-sided, information censored and at least in their case, with an agenda.
BTW I didn’t know that I had a crowd. Good to know since I’ve been feeling pretty isolated.
Posted by: Julie | May 23, 2020 at 04:29 PM
https://kenfm.de/bill-gates-predicts-700000-victims-from-corona-vaccination/
Posted by: Bayareamom | May 23, 2020 at 02:40 PM
Again - did not check for typos prior to posting my last comment.
Sorry about that...
Posted by: Bayareamom | May 23, 2020 at 01:02 PM
IMHO, even should any vaccine be proven completely proven and effective/safe, SAID VACCINE SHOULD NEVER BE MANDATED FOR ANYONE.
There are a proven number of ways to sustain health. What works for one person, may not be ideal for another.
If someone were to choose a so called safe/effective vaccine feeling the vaccine will help them maintain optimal health, have at it.
Just don't tell ME I have to use the same vaccine for my own health maintenance.
Again, as if this hasn't been said on numerous occasions, if you receive a vaccine you have been told will prevent you from getting sick from whatever disease, why on earth should you care if someone has not been vaccinated with same vaccine? If the vaccine works, it works.
True herd immunity refers to NATURAL immunity; no such thing as herd immunity when referring to vaccination.
Posted by: Bayareamom | May 23, 2020 at 01:02 PM
Angus,
Absolutely.
Posted by: Julie | May 23, 2020 at 10:37 AM
Julie,
I have never given a thought to placating anyone about anything.
No vaccine is safe, but there is a continuum of vaccines from sometimes dangerous to very often dangerous, bearing in mind the background of some level of autoimmunity always evoked by all vaccines.
That is only part of the picture, however. Most vaccines are very effective in preventing the targeted disease for some period of time. When a person believes that he is in greater danger from a specific disease than from the vaccine for it, he should be able to take the vaccine. I think it’s a good thing as a general rule for children to get the tetanus series (the DT in the US at this time). If polio came back here, I’d recommend that series. If I lived in the Amazon, I’d recommend the yellow fever vaccine. Just to give examples of when I think the danger of the disease outweighed the risk of the vaccine. Recommend, not mandate, there should be no mandates.
You can protest mandates all you want. I completely agree that there must be no mandates. I saw at Natural News yesterday that Trump had said he would not mandate the CV vaccine, that it must be left to individual choice. Individual states may try to mandate it.
You seem to be assuming that if I am not part of the Plandemic, or the protest in the streets without masks crowd, and I definitely am not, then I must be a pro-vaccine shill. I don’t care. Protest all you like, but you better do it wearing masks. I support laws which would have you arrested otherwise for endangering public health.
Kawasaki’s from CV? You have not read my comments here. You are running with a mob, you’ve seen I support the lockdown, masks, testing, contact tracing, and forced isolation of positives, and your crowd has decided that living like it’s 2019 is more important than saving the lives of millions of people, and anyone who disagrees is a pharma minion. Me, me, me. Who gives a damn about anyone else? I think it’s infantile and contemptible.
Posted by: Cia | May 23, 2020 at 09:53 AM
The question should be asked vaccinated v`s unvaccinated test please.Dershowolf .
Pharma For Prison
MMR RIP
Posted by: Angus Files | May 23, 2020 at 04:10 AM
I’ve read that Tucker’s son has autism and he knows that vaccines cause autism.
Posted by: Cia | May 22, 2020 at 07:15 PM
Cia, are you trying to placate us so that we will not rise up in time to fight mandates? Since when has 'having more dangers' ever stopped them from putting these vaccines onto the market or mandating them? You know as well as anyone that any side effects will be put down to being from the disease itself, saying that it is a new symptom of Covid 19 (if indeed side effects are even allowed to be noticed) or coincidence. Ever heard of Kawasaki Disease from Covid 19? Adverse effects from other vaccines have been 'rolling in' for years. How often has that resulted in a vaccine being removed from the market? Australia has already started to work on the people's psyche, recently 'softening' them up with mandatory flu vaccines for the players of one code of football in order for them to be able to play, as well as mandatory vaccination for all workers in aged care and all relatives/visitors if they wished to visit their elderly relatives/friends. This is ostensibly so that if they were to get Covid 19, they would not have to deal with the flu at the same time. This was despite Australia having 101 deaths in a population of 25 million. With no liability anywhere, will they be worried about side effects? I think not. I think most of us are aware of why they have done such an amazing job of scaring people with this Covid 19 (Covid 1984, I should say) and it has nothing to do with reality.
Posted by: Julie | May 22, 2020 at 07:12 PM
Jonathan,
"...what if we were to argue in court that vaccines can be mandated, but only if they pass a double-blind placebo test?"
Absolutely not for a long list of reasons, including they already declare vaccines to be safe, deny solid research clearly showing they aren't, and no matter what trials they do in the future, with so much research fraud, we should never give up bodily autonomy for any reason. These are criminals we're dealing with. They will rig the game as they are rigging it now and have been for decades. Do not give them an inch.
Posted by: Linda1 | May 22, 2020 at 06:53 PM
Does anyone know where they QUICKLY did the STUDY that shows that everyone is spreading CV19 for weeks without showing any symptoms ?
Or did they just make up this SMALL part of the problem ?
I would suppose this damn STUDY would be easy to find.
Posted by: go Trump | May 22, 2020 at 06:32 PM
@ Jonathan Rose
A major problem with establishing safety is healthy user bias. The people who think they have a significant risk of injury will refuse the vaccine. But if only healthy, low-risk people take it, then we don't know the risk profile for others. And how can it be legal to force enough high-risk people to take it to establish safety?
And if there is any risk, and there always is, then mandates are forcing me to play Russian Roulette with my life. How can that be right?
Posted by: Tim Lundeen | May 22, 2020 at 05:46 PM
Notice the remark that went totally unchallenged.....
Carlson: "There is so much lying about vaccines…"
What do you mean people are lying about vaccines??????????
This should never have been ignored.
Posted by: Anne Dachel | May 22, 2020 at 04:49 PM
I don’t think they’ll mandate it. We know already that a vaccine for this disease will have even more dangers than most vaccines, starting with ADE. Once they’ve vaxxed a few people, and the adverse reactions start rolling in, they will never again be able to say that it has been proven safe.
The author interviewed said that he’d take the vaccine, but also that his ten year old great grandson should not be forced to take it because in his age group, the disease would probably not be dangerous enough to warrant mandating it. ??? He lost the train of the argument. The whole point was that mandates were justified in order to protect OTHERS, no matter what the risks to yourself. So the kid would HAVE to take the vaccine to prevent Mr. Dershowitz from getting it. his own risk-benefit profile would not be relevant.
I don’t think this is going to be an issue. There would be massive protests and myriad lawsuits citing the adverse reactions which are certain to occur. It may or may not be effective, but it will not be safe. No other vaccine has ever been safe, why would this one be any safer?
Posted by: Cia | May 22, 2020 at 01:27 PM
Well well well, this is a very promising development. On national prime time television, Tucker Carlson says that vaccine injuries are not all that rare, and that public health officials lie about that. He and Dershowitz agree that there should be free and open public debate about vaccination. True, Dershowitz also says that the government can enforce vaccine mandates, but only if vaccines are safe and effective -- and that may give us a legal opportunity. What if we were to concede the point that the government can mandate safe vaccines, but then argue that in fact vaccines are not safe, or at least not as safe as they could be? When Del Bigtree pointed out that vaccines are not subject to double-blind placebo tests, Dershowitz seemed startled (he may not have been aware of that), and he granted that mandated vaccines must be fully safe. The US Supreme Court will never rule that vaccine mandates are unconstitutional (Dershowitz is right about that), so what if we were to argue in court that vaccines can be mandated, but only if they pass a double-blind placebo test? That would be consistent with the Jacobsen decision (which did not grant the government a blank check to mandate any vaccine it wants) and consistent with the Fourth Amendment, and it would effectively disqualify every vaccine I can think of. But we couldn't be accused of being "anti-vaxxers", and our opponents would be placed in the awkward position of arguing against a reasonable safety procedure.
Posted by: Jonathan Rose | May 22, 2020 at 11:56 AM
Good! Then LET’s talk about safety, shall we? Bring up to him VAERS and the Vaccine Court, how Big Pharma can’t be sued, etc., and Dershowitz’s argument quickly falls apart. Then tell him his 10 year old WON’T have the luxury of an option anyway... will he still be willing to sacrifice his own, then? Oh - too late, you said the govt can force you, right? As if the issue was ever about safety! When will he wake up? Tucker needs more than one segment with him, to talk about the Nuremberg Code, et al.
Posted by: Marianna | May 22, 2020 at 10:13 AM
Re: “Professor Dershowitz went on to use his 10 year old great-grandson as someone who might not need the vaccine as children are not generally affected. Actually I highly doubt that the powerful forces pushing a fast-tracked COVID vaccine will let anyone opt out.“
The self-appointed head of international vaccination policy, Bill Gates, says: “My hope is that the vaccine we have 18 months from now is as close to “perfect” as possible. Even if it isn’t, we will continue working to improve it. After that happens, I suspect the COVID-19 vaccine will become part of the routine newborn immunization schedule.“
Ref: Gates Notes: What you need to know about the COVID-19 vaccine: https://www.gatesnotes.com/Health/What-you-need-to-know-about-the-COVID-19-vaccine
Posted by: Elizabeth Hart | May 22, 2020 at 09:30 AM
I guarantee you .. Dershowitz will soon "disappear" from being interviewed on the issue of "mandatory vaccines" .. there is no way the extremely powerful public health and pharma/vaccine lobbyist will allow Dershowitz "access" to ANY PUBLICLY TELEVISED DEBATE ON THE SUBJECT OF VACCINE "SAFETY AND EFFICIECNCY ' … especially against educated and well informed representatives of the "SAFE VACCINES" (better known as "anti-vaxxers) widespread and growing community. As a majority of Supreme Court said .. vaccines are UNAVOIDABLY UNSAFE.
Dershowitz's 30 minutes with Del Bigtree reveals he has little to no knowledge of vaccines today .. his opinions appear based solely upon SMALLPOX and POLIO vaccines … having expressed no knowledge of the 16 vaccines .. 72 doses .. children are required to take.
The issue of 'INFORMED CONSENT" was briefly touched by Del and was quickly dispatched as Dershowitz used it to describe the anti-Semitic attacks he has received .. never actually addressing whether or not people have any right to INFORMED CONSENT. I don't blame Dershowitz for being outraged being compared to Nazi Germany doctor who were the prime examples for installing INFORMED CONSENT as a HUMANITARIAN RIGHT .. but .. he must be forced to declare either people have a right to INFORMED CONSENT or they don't???? Does he believe INFORMED CONSENT DOES NOT APPLY WITH VACCINES … IF SO … WHY????
Dershowitz has called for a national public debate on whether or not a covid vaccine SHOULD BE MANDATED … a public national debate our community has called for DECADES if history is our guide … DERSHOWITZ WILL NEVER HAVE OPPORTUNITY FOR THAT NATIONAL DEBATE .. as there seems to be TWO FORBIDDEN SUBJECTS .. one is that national debate .. the other is that vaccinated v unvaccinated study to ascertain which group is HEALTHIER throughout their lives.
Mark my words …. Dershowitz will disappear from television as quickly as night becomes day.
Posted by: Bob Moffit | May 22, 2020 at 07:35 AM