3 ms·

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 ab

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.
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    > You're making a distinction without making a meaningful difference. You made an very strong "always" claim. All that is needed to refute such a claim is a single counter example. I brought up school vaccination requirements because I believe they are an important exception to the principle you put forward. (I could probably have also picked border entry vaccination requirements.) In my view, you should have made a weaker claim, such as that forced medical interventions have a history of problematic abuse and have lead to atrocities. As a result, new types of forced medical intervention (and generally any type of violation of body sovereignty) should be approached with extre caution. > Having a bad lawyer is irrelevant the judges still have to know the law. This is factually and obviously false. If lawyers aren't needed to help judges to decide cases fairly and in accordance with the law, then why so we have them and why do we pay them so much money?

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.
- shkkmo 5y ago
  > You're making a distinction without making a meaningful difference. You made an very strong "always" claim. All that is needed to refute such a claim is a single counter example. I brought up school vaccination requirements because I believe they are an important exception to the principle you put forward. (I could probably have also picked border entry vaccination requirements.) In my view, you should have made a weaker claim, such as that forced medical interventions have a history of problematic abuse and have lead to atrocities. As a result, new types of forced medical intervention (and generally any type of violation of body sovereignty) should be approached with extre caution. > Having a bad lawyer is irrelevant the judges still have to know the law. This is factually and obviously false. If lawyers aren't needed to help judges to decide cases fairly and in accordance with the law, then why so we have them and why do we pay them so much money?