7 ms·

Those IDs are not meant to 1) show your medical history which is a protected right and 2) is used as a way to coerce a medical intervention which is against fre

Those IDs are not meant to 1) show your medical history which is a protected right and 2) is used as a way to coerce a medical intervention which is against free and informed consent. Forcing medical interventions in the name of the public good has always degenerated in the worse atrocities and abuses in history.

junon 5y ago
> against free and informed consent This is a problem - it is often not very informed. As for medical history, we have to show vaccination records for a number of things - school, travel sometimes, certain lines of work. Proof of vaccination against a highly mutation-prone virus in the midst of a pandemic doesn't reveal anything more about you than it would about anyone else - which is specifically allowed via HIPAA, for example. It's no more medical history than knowing your age. These points don't really stand up for me. It's like saying "I choose to believe they cause autism, I've been informed by my other Facebook Mom group members, thus I do not consent." None of it is based on science or rationality, in my opinion.
- hervature 5y ago
  What about waiting for full FDA approval? I agree that your Facebook Mom groups are full of BS but why are PhD earners more hesitant than only high school educated [1]. [1] - https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.20.21260795v1.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.20.21260795v...
  - howinteresting 5y ago
    The Pfizer vaccine has already received full FDA approval, and Moderna is expected to get it shortly.
    - linuxftw 5y ago
      While this is technically true, it's only because the FDA abandoned all previous procedure for full approval.
      - junon 5y ago
        Expedited approval in the middle of a pandemic is not the same as "abandoning all previous procedure".
        linuxftw 5y ago
        Except that it is. They were already able to distribute the product under EUA. The push for 'full approval' was entirely political. What's the bar for full approval? Whatever the FDA says it is. Usually that includes convening the advisory committee. That didn't happen. Recently, 3 members resigned from said committee. While these resignations weren't about the vaccines, they were about a lack of trust in FDA (interim) leadership. If you want to continue to believe everything is just okie-dokie, knock yourself out, but you're not going to convince anyone.
        junon 5y ago
        > If you want to continue to believe everything is just okie-dokie, knock yourself out Seeing as how I'm in Germany and I have close friends at RKI, I choose to believe them - as they are unequivocally the experts on the topic - over American politics. > but you're not going to convince anyone. Please argue in good faith next time.
        Retric 5y ago
        People avoiding vaccination and thus dying because the FDA hasn’t done full approval is more than a political issue. It’s a real heath issue and exactly the kind of public health problem the FDA is concerned with. The general public doesn’t understand that expedited approval was a well understood category years before COVID and designed exactly for situations like this. Check the way back machine of your feeling paranoid. As to the actual science we have vastly more data on COVID vaccinations than most drugs or vaccines the FDA is approving. It really isn’t some ad hoc process it’s well designed procedures and massive quantities of scientific data.
    - hervature 5y ago
      Exactly, I'm just pointing out that there were (and still are in my opinion) valid scientific and rational thinking for being hesitant of getting the vaccine.
      - howinteresting 5y ago
        I am fine with people being hesitant to get the vaccine, as long as those people are fine with being excluded from all non-essential social activities. Where my sympathies really like is with people who *want" the vaccine but cannot get one due to circumstances (no paid time off, live in an inaccessible area, under the control of an anti-vaxxer, etc.)
      - junon 5y ago
        > valid scientific and rational thinking for being hesitant of getting the vaccine. Care to expand what these "scientific" reasons are?
        hervature 5y ago
        I think the landscape for child and newborns is not entirely understood. Given that long COVID is rare in children, the personal risk tradeoff for a child is unclear at best. I would be hesitant to vaccinate my children (if I had any). Certainly if they were homebound.
        junon 5y ago
        That's a different point than before, though. That's child vaccination vs. general population vaccination.
        hervature 5y ago
        Just because certain subgroups of people have valid reasons does not mean it applies to the general populace.
        5y ago
  - snovv_crash 5y ago
    Full FDA approval has happened though. It was basically just a formality that anti-vaxxers managed to find. At this point the vaccines are known to be safe, they have billions of doses given.
    - TeeMassive 5y ago
      There are no way to know the long terms effects (if you do please provide the plans of your time traveling machine to nearest patent office). The drug companies are not only under total immunity but also will get paid regardless if the vaccine works or not in the long term. The reporting of adverse effects is probably getting suppressed, for example OSHA is now admitting it won't record vaccines adverse effects so it doesn't discourage vaccinations (https://ogletree.com/insights/osha-revokes-guidance-on-recordability-of-covid-19-vaccine-reactions/ https://ogletree.com/insights/osha-revokes-guidance-on-recor...). There were vaccines that were deemed "safe" yet were scrapped because they weren't (Dengue vaccine, Guillain-Barré of the 1979 flu vaccines). The immunity of the vaccines is fading after a few months and Pfizer is now talking about bi-annual booster shots and daily pills. Personally I got my two shots of Pfizer, which is considered the safest, because it made sense to me. But even then I got adverse effects making me not want another booster shot. Calling people "anti-vaxxers" is because they do not want to take an experimental vaccines (mRNA vaccines are not vaccines in the traditional definition) is just intellectual laziness.
      - himinlomax 5y ago
        > There are no way to know the long terms effects Vaccines almost never have long term side effects, and there is no reason to believe the vaccines at hand have any reason to have any. But maybe it does. What's the probability? Based on those priors, extremely low. Not zero, but extremely low. The disease, on the other hand, definitely has long term side effects. We know that. If the risk of infection was low, you'd have a point. Maybe. But the fact is, without vaccine, everyone stands a very significant chance of getting infected. The very small risk of long term side effects is just ridiculous compared to those of the disease, and unlike the vaccine, the disease does not care about your "freedom."
  - arrosenberg 5y ago
    If it’s not a PhD in biochemistry or something similar, then it’s not relevant to their decision making abilities. FDA approval is based on having enough data to determine efficacy and safety - with so many administered doses at this point there is no question about either of those things.
    - hervature 5y ago
      Is your argument that only "PhD in biohemistry or something similar" can make decisions about the vaccine? I think that's incredibly patronizing to the vast majority of humanity. There is literally vaccines that earned FDA approval in recent memory that were later found to cause problems in babies [1]. If people are concerned about vaccines, the best way to deal with it is to address concerns, show them the data. Not calling them stupid for not having a PhD. [1] - https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history....
      - junon 5y ago
        > Not calling them stupid for not having a PhD. GP simply stated that we should be consulting experts in the fields, not laypeople, when it comes to things of a scientific nature. These were your words, not theirs.
        hervature 5y ago
        They said: > If it’s not a PhD in biochemistry or something similar, then it’s not relevant to their decision making abilities In my opinion, that is much closer to "if you don't have a PhD in biochemistry, you can't don't deserve to make a decision (i.e. stupid)" than "listen to experts".
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        arrosenberg 5y ago
        I was responding to the comment of "Even people with PhDs are questioning it...". A PhD in English Lit isn't going to help you understand how vaccines, mRNA or viral transmission models work. Listen to experts in those topics.
  - himinlomax 5y ago
    > What about waiting for full FDA approval? Because it's pointless, and because the pandemic is killing people right now, not whenever some arbitrary administrative milestone is achieved. But most importantly, because people who bring that point up are typically completely ignorant of what medicine approval entails, why the process is there in the first place, and why it normally takes so long. Just one element among several: it usually takes a long time because diseases take time to develop and we lack test subjects. Here the disease spread very rapidly, develops insanely fast, and thus judging the efficacy is nearly immediate. As for safety, vaccines almost never have long term side effects, so the risk is low to begin with, whereas the risks of the disease are huge. In short, this is a specious argument, and a ridiculous proposition on the face of it born of ignorance and motivated by a rebeliousness as callous as it's puerile.
  - jokethrowaway 5y ago
    FDA approval is worthless. The chance of long term effects is not very high. You'll likely survive covid without pneumonia and you'll likely survive the vaccine without an aneurysm. The reason I was hesitant was: - It doesn't stop the spread - I already had covid / the risks of covid are mostly minuscole for healthy young people - New variants will drop the efficacy In the end, I did it only because I was planning to travel (which ended up being wise, given the requirements). And I still had to waste money getting tested.
pessimizer 5y ago
> 1) show your medical history which is a protected right Your medical history is not a "protected right." The people who provide medical care to you are not allowed to release your medical records without your consent.
- TeeMassive 5y ago
  > Your medical history is not a "protected right." What are you talking about? It is under the 5h and 14th amendments and under similar rights in other jurisdictions. https://healthcare.uslegal.com/records/sources-of-protection-of-medical-information/constitutional-right-to-privacy/ https://healthcare.uslegal.com/records/sources-of-protection...
  - Retric 5y ago
    Not in case of vaccinations. https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/school-immunization-exemption-state-laws.aspx https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/school-immunization-exe... Medical data does have various protections in the US, but it’s far more limited than just blanket protection.
    - TeeMassive 5y ago
      Your link doesn't say anything about the confidentiality of vaccine status. What are you even talking about? Immunization status is considered protected information according to the HIPAA and the ADA, and similar laws exist in other jurisdictions. https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/employment-law/pages/coronavirus-employee-vaccination-status.aspx https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/... https://www.eeoc.gov/wysk/what-you-should-know-about-covid-19-and-ada-rehabilitation-act-and-other-eeo-laws https://www.eeoc.gov/wysk/what-you-should-know-about-covid-1... https://www.hipaajournal.com/is-it-a-hipaa-violation-to-ask-for-proof-of-vaccine-status/ https://www.hipaajournal.com/is-it-a-hipaa-violation-to-ask-...
      - Retric 5y ago
        > confidentiality of vaccine status The requirement to provide the information says otherwise. Your sexual orientation is private information your employer can’t ask about, your vaccination status isn’t protected. Providing it can be required for employment. Your third link even says: The EEOC confirmed “there’s no indication that there’s any federal law that would be violated by the employer asking this question.”. It also in most cases it can be a requirement for employment.
howinteresting 5y ago
Vaccinations are already forced on e.g. school-going kids in the name of the public good, for very good reasons!
- TeeMassive 5y ago
  They're often not forced for mundane tasks such as going to the restaurant or the gym. And the vaccines were administered for decades prior and for diseases far more dangerous than Covid19.
  - howinteresting 5y ago
    Both of them are nonessential tasks, definitely far less essential than school.
    - TeeMassive 5y ago
      Freedom and the pursuit of happiness are also essential.
shkkmo 5y ago
> Forcing medical interventions in the name of the public good has always degenerated in the worse atrocities and abuses in history. Then you have examples of the "worst atrocities and abuses in history" that were due to schools requiring vaccinations?
- TeeMassive 5y ago
  Is this a joke? Japan's Unit 731 The Nazi medical experiments MK Ultra in the US and Canada and elsewhere in the world Lobotomy and the other psychiatric abuses The human atomic bomb and nuclear radiation experiments Tuskegee syphilis experiments Buck v. Bell which game way to +70k forced sterilizations, which by the way relied upon Jacobson v. Massachusetts where the State forced vaccination upon someone who had adverse effects.
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    Every one of those examples has nothing to do with requiring vaccinations to attend schools. Only the last one has any relation to vaccine mandates at all and the causal link there is somewhat tenous given the sordid particulars of Buck v Bell (including the deliberate incompetence of Buck's lawyer). It isn't clear that case would have gone differently without the Jacobsen v. Massachusetts precedent. Given the strength which which you made your claim, I thought you would have better evidence to support it. I do think that the medical attrocities you list have had a lasting and deleterious effect on public trust of government medical ethics and contribute significantly to vaccine hestitancy.
    - TeeMassive 5y ago
      > Every one of those examples has nothing to do with requiring vaccinations to attend schools. You're making a distinction without making a meaningful difference. They have everything to do with requiring a medical intervention by the state, which has led to abuse in the past. Jacobson led to Bell v. Buck which led to forced sterilizations. And I should have mentioned King Leopold using Congolese as vaccine test subjects. > Only the last one has any relation to vaccine mandates at all and the causal link there is somewhat tenous given the sordid particulars of Buck v Bell (including the deliberate incompetence of Buck's lawyer). It isn't clear that case would have gone differently without the Jacobsen v. Massachusetts precedent. Having a bad lawyer is irrelevant the judges still have to know the law. And Jacobson was crucial in the decision because it negated the limit the State has on bodily integrity. Also given that you backup your claims with no arguments, they could simply be dismissed with no arguments, but they needed to be addressed nonetheless. > Given the strength which which you made your claim, I thought you would have better evidence to support it. Forced medical procedures lead to abuses. I've given many historical examples. Your counterpoints are not supported by any meaningful counter-examples. > I do think that the medical attrocities you list have had a lasting and deleterious effect on public trust of government medical ethics and contribute significantly to vaccine hestitancy. Coercion and total lack of accountability aren't exactly the best marketing strategy.

junon 5y ago

> against free and informed consent This is a problem - it is often not very informed. As for medical history, we have to show vaccination records for a number of things - school, travel sometimes, certain lines of work. Proof of vaccination against a highly mutation-prone virus in the midst of a pandemic doesn't reveal anything more about you than it would about anyone else - which is specifically allowed via HIPAA, for example. It's no more medical history than knowing your age. These points don't really stand up for me. It's like saying "I choose to believe they cause autism, I've been informed by my other Facebook Mom group members, thus I do not consent." None of it is based on science or rationality, in my opinion.

hervature 5y ago
What about waiting for full FDA approval? I agree that your Facebook Mom groups are full of BS but why are PhD earners more hesitant than only high school educated [1]. [1] - https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.20.21260795v1.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.20.21260795v...
- howinteresting 5y ago
  The Pfizer vaccine has already received full FDA approval, and Moderna is expected to get it shortly.
  - linuxftw 5y ago
    While this is technically true, it's only because the FDA abandoned all previous procedure for full approval.
    - junon 5y ago
      Expedited approval in the middle of a pandemic is not the same as "abandoning all previous procedure".
      - linuxftw 5y ago
        Except that it is. They were already able to distribute the product under EUA. The push for 'full approval' was entirely political. What's the bar for full approval? Whatever the FDA says it is. Usually that includes convening the advisory committee. That didn't happen. Recently, 3 members resigned from said committee. While these resignations weren't about the vaccines, they were about a lack of trust in FDA (interim) leadership. If you want to continue to believe everything is just okie-dokie, knock yourself out, but you're not going to convince anyone.
        junon 5y ago
        > If you want to continue to believe everything is just okie-dokie, knock yourself out Seeing as how I'm in Germany and I have close friends at RKI, I choose to believe them - as they are unequivocally the experts on the topic - over American politics. > but you're not going to convince anyone. Please argue in good faith next time.
        Retric 5y ago
        People avoiding vaccination and thus dying because the FDA hasn’t done full approval is more than a political issue. It’s a real heath issue and exactly the kind of public health problem the FDA is concerned with. The general public doesn’t understand that expedited approval was a well understood category years before COVID and designed exactly for situations like this. Check the way back machine of your feeling paranoid. As to the actual science we have vastly more data on COVID vaccinations than most drugs or vaccines the FDA is approving. It really isn’t some ad hoc process it’s well designed procedures and massive quantities of scientific data.
  - hervature 5y ago
    Exactly, I'm just pointing out that there were (and still are in my opinion) valid scientific and rational thinking for being hesitant of getting the vaccine.
    - howinteresting 5y ago
      I am fine with people being hesitant to get the vaccine, as long as those people are fine with being excluded from all non-essential social activities. Where my sympathies really like is with people who *want" the vaccine but cannot get one due to circumstances (no paid time off, live in an inaccessible area, under the control of an anti-vaxxer, etc.)
    - junon 5y ago
      > valid scientific and rational thinking for being hesitant of getting the vaccine. Care to expand what these "scientific" reasons are?
      - hervature 5y ago
        I think the landscape for child and newborns is not entirely understood. Given that long COVID is rare in children, the personal risk tradeoff for a child is unclear at best. I would be hesitant to vaccinate my children (if I had any). Certainly if they were homebound.
        junon 5y ago
        That's a different point than before, though. That's child vaccination vs. general population vaccination.
        hervature 5y ago
        Just because certain subgroups of people have valid reasons does not mean it applies to the general populace.
        5y ago
- snovv_crash 5y ago
  Full FDA approval has happened though. It was basically just a formality that anti-vaxxers managed to find. At this point the vaccines are known to be safe, they have billions of doses given.
  - TeeMassive 5y ago
    There are no way to know the long terms effects (if you do please provide the plans of your time traveling machine to nearest patent office). The drug companies are not only under total immunity but also will get paid regardless if the vaccine works or not in the long term. The reporting of adverse effects is probably getting suppressed, for example OSHA is now admitting it won't record vaccines adverse effects so it doesn't discourage vaccinations (https://ogletree.com/insights/osha-revokes-guidance-on-recordability-of-covid-19-vaccine-reactions/ https://ogletree.com/insights/osha-revokes-guidance-on-recor...). There were vaccines that were deemed "safe" yet were scrapped because they weren't (Dengue vaccine, Guillain-Barré of the 1979 flu vaccines). The immunity of the vaccines is fading after a few months and Pfizer is now talking about bi-annual booster shots and daily pills. Personally I got my two shots of Pfizer, which is considered the safest, because it made sense to me. But even then I got adverse effects making me not want another booster shot. Calling people "anti-vaxxers" is because they do not want to take an experimental vaccines (mRNA vaccines are not vaccines in the traditional definition) is just intellectual laziness.
    - himinlomax 5y ago
      > There are no way to know the long terms effects Vaccines almost never have long term side effects, and there is no reason to believe the vaccines at hand have any reason to have any. But maybe it does. What's the probability? Based on those priors, extremely low. Not zero, but extremely low. The disease, on the other hand, definitely has long term side effects. We know that. If the risk of infection was low, you'd have a point. Maybe. But the fact is, without vaccine, everyone stands a very significant chance of getting infected. The very small risk of long term side effects is just ridiculous compared to those of the disease, and unlike the vaccine, the disease does not care about your "freedom."
- arrosenberg 5y ago
  If it’s not a PhD in biochemistry or something similar, then it’s not relevant to their decision making abilities. FDA approval is based on having enough data to determine efficacy and safety - with so many administered doses at this point there is no question about either of those things.
  - hervature 5y ago
    Is your argument that only "PhD in biohemistry or something similar" can make decisions about the vaccine? I think that's incredibly patronizing to the vast majority of humanity. There is literally vaccines that earned FDA approval in recent memory that were later found to cause problems in babies [1]. If people are concerned about vaccines, the best way to deal with it is to address concerns, show them the data. Not calling them stupid for not having a PhD. [1] - https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history....
    - junon 5y ago
      > Not calling them stupid for not having a PhD. GP simply stated that we should be consulting experts in the fields, not laypeople, when it comes to things of a scientific nature. These were your words, not theirs.
      - hervature 5y ago
        They said: > If it’s not a PhD in biochemistry or something similar, then it’s not relevant to their decision making abilities In my opinion, that is much closer to "if you don't have a PhD in biochemistry, you can't don't deserve to make a decision (i.e. stupid)" than "listen to experts".
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        arrosenberg 5y ago
        I was responding to the comment of "Even people with PhDs are questioning it...". A PhD in English Lit isn't going to help you understand how vaccines, mRNA or viral transmission models work. Listen to experts in those topics.
- himinlomax 5y ago
  > What about waiting for full FDA approval? Because it's pointless, and because the pandemic is killing people right now, not whenever some arbitrary administrative milestone is achieved. But most importantly, because people who bring that point up are typically completely ignorant of what medicine approval entails, why the process is there in the first place, and why it normally takes so long. Just one element among several: it usually takes a long time because diseases take time to develop and we lack test subjects. Here the disease spread very rapidly, develops insanely fast, and thus judging the efficacy is nearly immediate. As for safety, vaccines almost never have long term side effects, so the risk is low to begin with, whereas the risks of the disease are huge. In short, this is a specious argument, and a ridiculous proposition on the face of it born of ignorance and motivated by a rebeliousness as callous as it's puerile.
- jokethrowaway 5y ago
  FDA approval is worthless. The chance of long term effects is not very high. You'll likely survive covid without pneumonia and you'll likely survive the vaccine without an aneurysm. The reason I was hesitant was: - It doesn't stop the spread - I already had covid / the risks of covid are mostly minuscole for healthy young people - New variants will drop the efficacy In the end, I did it only because I was planning to travel (which ended up being wise, given the requirements). And I still had to waste money getting tested.

pessimizer 5y ago

> 1) show your medical history which is a protected right Your medical history is not a "protected right." The people who provide medical care to you are not allowed to release your medical records without your consent.

TeeMassive 5y ago
> Your medical history is not a "protected right." What are you talking about? It is under the 5h and 14th amendments and under similar rights in other jurisdictions. https://healthcare.uslegal.com/records/sources-of-protection-of-medical-information/constitutional-right-to-privacy/ https://healthcare.uslegal.com/records/sources-of-protection...
- Retric 5y ago
  Not in case of vaccinations. https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/school-immunization-exemption-state-laws.aspx https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/school-immunization-exe... Medical data does have various protections in the US, but it’s far more limited than just blanket protection.
  - TeeMassive 5y ago
    Your link doesn't say anything about the confidentiality of vaccine status. What are you even talking about? Immunization status is considered protected information according to the HIPAA and the ADA, and similar laws exist in other jurisdictions. https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/employment-law/pages/coronavirus-employee-vaccination-status.aspx https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/... https://www.eeoc.gov/wysk/what-you-should-know-about-covid-19-and-ada-rehabilitation-act-and-other-eeo-laws https://www.eeoc.gov/wysk/what-you-should-know-about-covid-1... https://www.hipaajournal.com/is-it-a-hipaa-violation-to-ask-for-proof-of-vaccine-status/ https://www.hipaajournal.com/is-it-a-hipaa-violation-to-ask-...
    - Retric 5y ago
      > confidentiality of vaccine status The requirement to provide the information says otherwise. Your sexual orientation is private information your employer can’t ask about, your vaccination status isn’t protected. Providing it can be required for employment. Your third link even says: The EEOC confirmed “there’s no indication that there’s any federal law that would be violated by the employer asking this question.”. It also in most cases it can be a requirement for employment.

howinteresting 5y ago

Vaccinations are already forced on e.g. school-going kids in the name of the public good, for very good reasons!

TeeMassive 5y ago
They're often not forced for mundane tasks such as going to the restaurant or the gym. And the vaccines were administered for decades prior and for diseases far more dangerous than Covid19.
- howinteresting 5y ago
  Both of them are nonessential tasks, definitely far less essential than school.
  - TeeMassive 5y ago
    Freedom and the pursuit of happiness are also essential.

shkkmo 5y ago

> Forcing medical interventions in the name of the public good has always degenerated in the worse atrocities and abuses in history. Then you have examples of the "worst atrocities and abuses in history" that were due to schools requiring vaccinations?

TeeMassive 5y ago
Is this a joke? Japan's Unit 731 The Nazi medical experiments MK Ultra in the US and Canada and elsewhere in the world Lobotomy and the other psychiatric abuses The human atomic bomb and nuclear radiation experiments Tuskegee syphilis experiments Buck v. Bell which game way to +70k forced sterilizations, which by the way relied upon Jacobson v. Massachusetts where the State forced vaccination upon someone who had adverse effects.
- shkkmo 5y ago
  Every one of those examples has nothing to do with requiring vaccinations to attend schools. Only the last one has any relation to vaccine mandates at all and the causal link there is somewhat tenous given the sordid particulars of Buck v Bell (including the deliberate incompetence of Buck's lawyer). It isn't clear that case would have gone differently without the Jacobsen v. Massachusetts precedent. Given the strength which which you made your claim, I thought you would have better evidence to support it. I do think that the medical attrocities you list have had a lasting and deleterious effect on public trust of government medical ethics and contribute significantly to vaccine hestitancy.
  - TeeMassive 5y ago
    > Every one of those examples has nothing to do with requiring vaccinations to attend schools. You're making a distinction without making a meaningful difference. They have everything to do with requiring a medical intervention by the state, which has led to abuse in the past. Jacobson led to Bell v. Buck which led to forced sterilizations. And I should have mentioned King Leopold using Congolese as vaccine test subjects. > Only the last one has any relation to vaccine mandates at all and the causal link there is somewhat tenous given the sordid particulars of Buck v Bell (including the deliberate incompetence of Buck's lawyer). It isn't clear that case would have gone differently without the Jacobsen v. Massachusetts precedent. Having a bad lawyer is irrelevant the judges still have to know the law. And Jacobson was crucial in the decision because it negated the limit the State has on bodily integrity. Also given that you backup your claims with no arguments, they could simply be dismissed with no arguments, but they needed to be addressed nonetheless. > Given the strength which which you made your claim, I thought you would have better evidence to support it. Forced medical procedures lead to abuses. I've given many historical examples. Your counterpoints are not supported by any meaningful counter-examples. > I do think that the medical attrocities you list have had a lasting and deleterious effect on public trust of government medical ethics and contribute significantly to vaccine hestitancy. Coercion and total lack of accountability aren't exactly the best marketing strategy.