web analytics

Compulsory Vaccination – Compulsory Sterlization, Public Health Tyranny

“The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in the 1927 decision, Buck vs. Bell

Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.

John Holdren, science ‘czar’ to Barack Obama.

If you are going to respond to this post, actually read it first.  People replying to this post without exhibiting awareness of the actual content of this post will be flamed mercilessly.

I am not against vaccination.  I am against compulsory vaccination.

(By ‘compulsory’ I mean whatever it is that US courts mean when using the word, such as when the California appeals court upheld legislation mandating vaccination, which it described–feeling no further elaboration was necessary–as compulsory vaccination.  Quoting from Brown vs. Smith (2018): “compulsory immunization has long been recognized as the gold standard for preventing the spread of contagious diseases” and that it is within the ‘police powers’ of the state, and therefore “nothing further need be said.” pg 10.)

From my experience, that opening will go in one ear of pro-compulsory-vaxxers and out the other, but I’m going to say it anyway, and hope against hope that this will ‘immunize’ myself from the typical conditioned responses that they usually spew.

Imagine, if you will, a car manufacturer was protected by US law so that people who were injured or killed by their car could not be sued directly for damages.   Instead, car manufacturers were literally immunized from such lawsuits.  Injured parties could only submit their petitions to a government agency set up to receive those petitions.  Whenever this agency paid out money to injured parties, they would always be sure to say things like, “Being awarded compensation for a petition does not necessarily mean that the [car] caused the alleged injury.” Hell, most of the time, they won’t even try to find out if the car cause the injury!

Furthermore, the compensation that people do receive does not even come from the car manufacturer.  Instead, every purchase of a car includes a tax, paid by the consumer, which goes into settlement fund.

The car manufacturer is therefore free and clear to sell as many cars as they want with little to no concern that his product might actually harm people, since it does not have to worry about being held liable nor even be worried it might have to pay damages.  Think about how much money they would make, hand over fist.

Does this seem like a healthy arrangement for the public?

Of course, car makers do not enjoy such a sweetheart deal.  No, they are fully accountable to the public for its products.

But this arrangement is actually the one that vaccine makers have in the United States.  Beginning in the late 1980s, legislation was passed which completely insulated vaccine makers from lawsuits.  The government stepped in as the final arbiters on whether or not someone is harmed and warrants a settlement.  Payouts were made from a program funded by those who take the vaccines themselves.  Talk about a sweet-heart deal!

If this is new to you, stop.  Do not comment.  Do not reply to this post.  Spend some time educating yourself.  Discover for yourself that I am telling the truth.  I do not want to hear ANY of your ignorant drivel in the comments on this post.  Seriously.

I’ll even hold your hand a little.  Here is the government webpage for the program: NVICP.   Start googling that for even more information.  Be sure to make yourself aware of the Adverse reaction reporting system, too.  This searchable database will scare the shit out of any reasonable person wondering if vaccines themselves cause harm.   Apparently, they do quite a bit of harm.  Ah!  Except:

“VAERS is not designed to determine if a vaccine caused a health problem…”

Right.  As it says on the NVICP page:

Being awarded compensation for a petition does not necessarily mean that the vaccine caused the alleged injury. In fact:

Almost 80% of all compensation awarded by the VICP comes as result of a negotiated settlement between the parties in which HHS has not concluded, based upon review of the evidence, that the alleged vaccine(s) caused the alleged injury.

This is supposed to make you feel better about vaccines.  If not striving to determine conclusively if vaccines are actually causing harm to people actually comforts you, there is something seriously wrong with you.  Seriously wrong.

You’re also supposed to pass over the logical corollary, which is that 20% of the awards come in cases where the HHS has concluded, based upon the evidence, that the vaccines (allegedly!) caused the injuries (allegedly!)

Isn’t it great that an organization which bends over backwards to assure people that their payouts do not imply the vaccines are necessarily the cause of the harm is the same organization put in charge of evaluating the petitions?  Gee, they sound impartial, don’t they?  Doesn’t sound like they have their thumbs on the scales, does it?  Does it sound like they represent the citizens, or the vaccine makers?

We could elaborate on this theme for quite a while, but perhaps we might want to skip to the bottom line.

4.1 billion.

$4,100,000,000.

That is how much money has been paid out to people since the program was established.   That is a lot of cash.

A reasonable person would think that, contrary to all of the assurances that vaccines are perfectly safe, the reality is that, in point of fact, vaccines have demonstrable risks.  In at least 20% of the time, our government itself has concluded that harm has been done.

Many times when people argue for compulsory vaccination, they insist that vaccines pose no risk whatsoever.  Perhaps I have just been unlucky, but in the 20 or so times when I’ve personally engaged in conversations with ‘pro-compulsory-vaxxers’ (henceforth, PCVers) only a couple of them even knew that vaccines are known to generate adverse reactions.  They didn’t even know that much!  (This did not stop them from thumping their chests, insisting that they were OH so much smarter than anti-vaxxers–which, I will remind you, I am not one of.)

But vaccines themselves do pose a risk.   As with every other sphere of public life, the people being asked to bear a risk ought to be able to decide for themselves if they are going to take that risk and have the right to hold directly accountable those who through negligence cause harm.  Moreover, if we know there is a risk to certain things, the ones at the nexus of delivering that risk–doctors, nurses, public health officials, the vaccine makers themselves–should ensure people are informed of those risks.

When I am asked to get a vaccine at the doctor’s office, there is a hand-out provided which has a very muted presentation of risks.  The vaccine insert which comes with the actual vaccine is not provided.  No surprise there, since if people read the insert, it would scare the hell out of people.  My doctor is a little better than this, since I have made it very clear to them that I want all of the available information.  Still, I am confident that if people didn’t ask for the information, they wouldn’t make people aware that it exists.  They certainly would not bring up the existence of the VICP, or point out it has paid out 4 BILLION in damages!

Given the fact that vaccines do actually carry a risk, it is immoral to make taking them mandatory.

And that brings us to the inspiration for this post:  the measles outbreak in New York, where the mayor is now requiring vaccination, on penalty of a $1,000 fine.

Let’s just take this rationally for a moment.   The number of cases of the measles in America since the year 2000 is less than 4,000.   Aren’t you curious about how many of those people died?  The number is very, very small.  Here, you find out the number yourself.

Meanwhile, according to the VICP data itself (already linked to via the NVICP page above), 1,197 (162 measles, 1035 MMR) people have reached the vaccine court stage of proceedings since 1988.  80 were claims of death.  Without admitting anything–naturally!–almost half of these people received payments (457).

No surprise again, but the NVICP does not provide a searchable database as with VAERS, so it would take some sleuthing to parse out deaths from injuries. At least in broad strokes, though, you can see that relative to the number of cases of measles versus the number of injuries that the NVICP ‘admitted’ to, 10,000 or so cases of measles (going all the way back to 1988) compared to 457 paid out injuries, the ‘risk vs benefit’ equation is not nearly straight forward enough to say that the risk of getting the measles, and being injured by it if you get it, substantially exceeds the risks posed by the vaccine itself, and therefore warrants making the vaccine mandatory and compulsory.

By the by, you’ll be happy to know that the MMR vaccine is not the only one acknowledged to be associated with injury and death–acknowledged enough to pay out 4 BILLION dollars, anyway.  Taking all of the vaccines together, 20,000+ injuries and deaths have made it to the court, with 6,465 claimants getting money.  A lot of money:  3.8 billion dollars!

Perhaps suggesting that vaccine makers themselves might be getting a little careless with their product, it is interesting to note that the amount paid out every year is on an upward trend.   In 2010, 179 million dollars was paid out.  IN 2015 it was 204 million.  In 2019, which we aren’t even halfway through yet, 119 million has already been paid out.  Yipes!

Golly, it sure seems like there are some ‘adverse reactions’ out there!  Why would anyone think there might be a problem with the vaccines?  By Jove, I just don’t know!!!!!!

Maybe instead of threatening people with $1,000 fines if they don’t get vaccinated, De Blasio should be offering to pay them $1,000 if they do get vaccinated.  Better yet, De Blasio should offer to pay for their medical expenses should any of them get an adverse reaction, since the vaccine makers themselves aren’t going to be paying anything.  And no more of this business of, “Well, we understand you *think* you suddenly fell gravely ill because of the vaccine, but we’re not going to investigate it to find out.”  No, vow to get to the bottom of such claims forthwith.  Perhaps if it was his own money, or even the money of the government’s (as opposed to money provided by the ones taking the vaccines themselves), there would be more interest in finding out when and if vaccines actually were causing harm.

I know, ridiculous!  Finding out if something actually causes harm before paying out 4 billion dollars!  Absurd!  And so funny how the news never seems to cover these payouts… but I digress.

I have been creating ‘reasonable doubt’ as to whether or not vaccines are indeed ‘safe’ enough to justify making them compulsory, now let me take a minute to speak to their presumed effectiveness.  Obviously, any part of an argument for why something should be compulsory should go beyond merely whether or not it is harmless, but whether or not it can be trusted to do what it is claimed to be able to do.

To return to our car manufacturer, it would be like requiring everyone to buy a car on the grounds that it was completely safe and effective, only to discover that not only do cars sometimes have serious malfunctions, but on occasion, they won’t even run, either.  Or, like requiring people to buy health insurance, but then having deductibles that are so ungodly high that you can’t use it, anyway.  You can see how that would be a problem, and it is for every other sphere of our existence–but not vaccines.

Now we risk really getting into the weeds on things.

Again, I am NOT against vaccination(s).  I am against COMPULSORY vaccination.  I believe it is reasonable to believe that vaccines have been helpful and can still be helpful.  But it would be lying to say that they have been 100% beneficial, with no harm caused to anyone.  It would be lying to insist that they are 100% effective, as though it were really the case that if everyone got a particular vaccine, that would be the end of the story.  It would be lying to credit the reduction in cases and mortalities to vaccines alone.  And I am not a liar.

Limiting myself to the measly measles, since that is the annual cause of agitation by the public health community and is presently blowing up into outright tyranny in New York, there is ample evidence that it is not 100% effective.

Of course, pro-compulsory-vaxxers who have at least some experience debating these issues will quickly argue that ‘no one really thinks it is 100% effective.’  But you have to press them before they’ll admit that, which is one of the reasons why they aren’t trusted in the first place, because up to that point, the prevailing message is just a blunt “the vaccine is effective” and that becomes what people believe.  This deception undermines the very confidence they are trying to build, because the minute that someone discovers the truth, the credibility of the PCVs is shot.  I could produce a hundred news reports, etc, right now, where there is no hint that the vaccines might not be effective. Take this New York Times article as a case in point.  I will refer to this article again later in the post.

(It is always a thrill to debate a newly minted PVC debater who is so ignorant, he still believes–and regurgitates–what he has only read in news reports to that point.  You have to drown him in sources–from his own side, mind you–before he relents.  Not that he changes his viewpoint, because frankly his viewpoint was never about facts and evidence in the first place.  Which is ANOTHER reason why PCVs aren’t trusted.)

If the idea is that the measles vaccine is ‘safe and effective’ then obviously, if you don’t want to get the vaccine, your route is clear:  get the vaccine.  And if someone else does not get the vaccine, and they have the measles, then you should be safe, right?  Right?

This is where things get entertaining.  After conceding that, in point of fact, the measles vaccine (in the US, that means the MMR) cannot be counted on to confer immunity, they then say, “And that’s why we all need to get vaccinated!”  lol.  But… even if we all took the vaccine, there would still be measles outbreaks, because… the vaccine cannot be counted on to confer immunity!  Are they even listening to themselves talk?

People who have been paying attention to this topic know what kind of lunacy surrounds the PCVer’s arguments.  (Everyone except the PCVs, themselves, that is.)  For example, back a few years ago, a measles outbreak was started by someone… who had taken the measles vaccine!

What is really funny about this incident… and, I mean this is really funny… of the 4 people that this woman infected… all 4 of them were supposed to be immune to the measles!  This is comedy gold:

Ultimately, she transmitted the measles to four other people, […] Surprisingly, two of the secondary patients had been fully vaccinated. And although the other two had no record of receiving the vaccine, they both showed signs of previous measles exposure that should have conferred immunity.

So, here you have an outbreak of the measles where the first 5 individuals all should have had immunity to the measles, 3 of which were documented to be fully vaccinated!

So, contrary to the claims, even 100% ‘herd immunity’ will not end measles, as the measles vaccine itself can give people the measles, and people who got the vaccine can subsequently get the disease.  Here you had a herd of 5 (a small herd, admittedly) all supposedly immune, all of whom were infected.

And given such realities, De Blasio and his ilk have the audacity of saying things like, “The measles vaccine works. It is safe, it is effective, it is time-tested.”  Or (from the same NYT article), “[Dr. Offit said]: “I don’t think it’s your unalienable right as a United States citizen to allow your child to catch and transmit a potentially fatal infection.”

Well, dumb ass, the measles hasn’t killed anyone for years, and very few have died in the US even going back 20 years, and taking the vaccine does not actually mean you won’t “catch and transmit a potentially fatal infection.”  In the “Measles Mary” incident, 100% of the people in the first and second wave ought to have been immune, and yet they still caught the infection.

[Update 4/17/2019: now a woman is in a coma from the measles; yep, you guessed it:  she had been vaccinated. The idea that if everyone else had been vaccinated she wouldn’t have gotten the measles illustrates how these people are committed to something other than logic and evidence.  SHE was vaccinated and got it. If EVERYONE was vaccinated, people would still get it, and people with the vaccine would GIVE it, as illustrated by the “Measles Mary” incident.  What then are they committed to, if not reason and science?  My guess: Statism.]

Meanwhile, since 1988, according to VAERS, it was believed by adverse reaction reporters that at least 86 people have died from measles related vaccines.

And they have the audacity to make taking the vaccine compulsory?

Literal insanity.  Insanity if you take their arguments on their face, that is.

A couple of things more on this before I move along.

First, it so happens that the article I posted on the “Measles Mary” thing has a statement which might interest folks:

Although public health officials have assumed that measles immunity lasts forever, the case of Measles Mary highlights the reality that “the actual duration [of immunity] following infection or vaccination is unclear,”

Emphasis added.

I know what you are thinking.  Assumed?  What?  You mean this wasn’t actually empirically tested?  I thought this was established scientifically!  lol  As if.

When people find out just how many of the supposedly ‘scientific’ claims made by PVCers turn out to just be assumptions, that is yet one more thing that creates the very skepticism that the PVCers are trying to counteract.  Suggestion:  try telling the truth.  Course, the truth does not comport very well with arguments for compulsory vaccination, so I guess you have to choose:  compulsory vaccination, or credibility.

Secondly, the case of “Measles Mary” is not by any means a ‘one off.’   If you dig deeper into this issue, you find out that its really pretty well known that the measles vaccine is not nearly as effective as presented in the MSM.  If you read stuff that the public health community assumes that only fellow public health officials will read, they are quite candid about it.  Although, sometimes you need to apply a little logic.

For example, in this article discussing the number of measles cases from 2000 to 2008 (approximately 572), it says:

Among those measles cases reported during the first 7 months of 2008, 76% were in persons aged <20 years, and 91% were in persons who were unvaccinated or of unknown vaccination status.

Uh, so what about that other 9%?

Oh, right.  Those were people who were vaccinated.  5% of them were fully vaccinated, and 4% received only the first dose.

This is actually a very common thing to read in the literature.  I haven’t surveyed it enough to be confident enough to put a number out and defend it vigorously, but there seems to be no question that a large number of people getting the measles are people who were already vaccinated.  In the case of “Measles Mary,” recall that she did not have measles until she got the shot, and then she gave it to 4 people, all of whom should have been immune!

Here is another, just for kicks: “Of the 118, 105 (89%) patients were unvaccinated.”  So… the other 11%?  Vaccinated.

FYI, there is nothing in either of these CDC articles to suggest that any of these people died.

Do I have any problem with the assertion that even the measly measles can kill someone?  None at all.  Just be honest enough to admit that dozens of people have died from the vaccine itself, and then treat people like adults and allow them to decide for themselves which set of risks they wish to bear.

It is probably not the case, per the PCVers, that a largely unvaccinated population will be overwhelmed by the measles, resulting in many, many deaths.  If the measles were such a problem, and the unvaccinated population supposedly especially susceptible, then we would see that in the stats.

Alternate theory:  significant advances in nutrition and medicine since the 1960s have radically mitigated the negative outcomes observed prior to, say, 1935.   That this has roughly coincided with the introduction of the measles vaccine (1963) has confused our brightest minds, who fell for the ol’ correlation does not equal causation fallacy.  The improved nutrition and advances in medicine are the actual reasons why the incidents of measles and measles mortality fell, with the vaccine providing a relatively modest contribution.  Since medicine has advanced even beyond what we had in the 1960s, and nutrition in America is still quite good, there is little chance that measles could pose a threat even to a largely unvaccinated population, who, by virtue of their healthy immune systems, not only wouldn’t get the measles if exposed in the first place, but would brush it off.  Numerous charts show just such trends.

Mind blown.

This brings us to thirdly.

It is often said that this is all well and good (although this so far already takes the air out of the PVCer’s main arguments, and is enough to end all arguments for compulsory vaccination altogether), but what about those with suppressed immune systems?

Of course, when they say it, they shriek it.  You are practically Hitler now, in your heartless regard for those on chemotherapy, etc, etc, etc.

Nonetheless, what I have described above is decisive and demonstrable.  You can hurl your emotional platitudes at me all day long, and it will not change the fact that A., the measles vaccine itself can give people the measles and B., people who have the vaccine can still get the disease.  And, the vaccinated person can be infectious!

So, let’s say that you have a child who has been going through chemotherapy and has a suppressed immune system because of that fact.  Let’s say you wish to go to a public place where you have been assured, through a very careful vetting process, that every person in the gathering is completely, 100% up to date, in their vaccinations.

In that scenario, do you think your child is safe?  Do you take your child to this gathering, taking no other precautions?

If so, you are an idiot.  You may have just killed your child.  Way to go!

Fortunately, although there are people who make this kind of argument, in the real world, people enduring this situation don’t believe something so stupid as that a fully up to date population is therefore ‘safe.’  They continue to take precautions because they know truly basic facts like… wait for it… wait for it…

There are many diseases that are out there for which no vaccine exists.

Let that sink in.

Hell, even in the case of the flu, where there theoretically is a vaccine, its basically hit or miss.  If you knew anything, you would know that the flu (influenza) has many different strains.  So many, in fact, that it is impossible to create a vaccine that will cover them all.  What they do is pick a handful of the strains that they believe will be most prevalent in the upcoming flu season, and build their vaccine around that assumption.

Theoretically, at least, those who encounter those strains will be protected by their vaccine.  Alas, in numbers far higher than with the measles, those who take a correctly matched flu vaccine still get the flu.  But what if they completely botch their assessment on which flu strains will be prevalent?

Then you get a year like 2014/2015.  Ouch.  And, if I understand that chart correctly, even the ‘good years’ aren’t so good.  Only 4 of the 15 seasons had an ‘adjusted’ effectiveness higher than 50%.

A 50/50 shot of not getting the flu!  What’s the harm?  Unless the flu vaccine itself can cause harm…

But I was talking about diseases for which there are no vaccines.  Dude.  There are a lot of them.  A 100% vaccinated population will not protect the immunosuppressed.  Your invoking such scenarios is nothing more than manipulative emotion-driven rhetoric, just the same kind of thing fueling our outrage industry.  Do you know what will protect the immunosuppressed?  The diligent and vigilant care and protection of loving parents who do what is necessary to protect themselves or their children.

It is immoral to demand that others incur a risk when even if they incurred that risk, pretending that if they did, you would not need to take precautions, and yet you would still need to take every precaution!  That’s right.  YOU think I am immoral.  NO.  YOU are the one who is immoral.  YOU appear to be perfectly happy forcing others to expose themselves to injury and death when their exposure would not even provide you the protection you have offered as your rationale for requiring people to expose themselves to risk!  Callous!  Heartless!  Cruel!

Sadly, there will be people who are so uninformed that it has never occurred to them that there are diseases for which there is no vaccine (which does not prevent them from flapping their gums), so let me just give you a couple.  God willing, curiosity will be stoked, and research will occur, and you’ll think of some others.

One that comes to mind is Streptococcus pneumoniae.  There is a vaccine that covers some strains of strep.   There isn’t one for Strep A, which happens to be pretty deadly, potentially, all on its own.  What does Dr. Offit propose to do about that?   From the CDC:

CDC estimates approximately 11,000 to 13,000 cases of invasive group A strep disease occur each year in the United States. Each year between 1,100 and 1,600 people die due to invasive group A strep disease. [Emphasis added]

Read that again.

Inhale.  Exhale.  Remember what you learned earlier (from your own research?!?!? Hint.) about the number of cases of measles and the number of deaths.  Compare and contrast with the figures for Strep A.

How about some math?  I do a lot of math on this blog, most of it addressing proportions.  Let’s do some more.

Which is bigger?  372, or 11,000?

372 is the number of measles cases in 2018.  11,000 is the low end of the estimate per year for Strep A.

Does 11,000 seem bigger than 372 to you?  Take all the time you need.

Which is bigger?  0, or 1,100?

0 is the number of people who died from the measles last year.  1,100 is the low end of the CDC estimate for how many die each year from ‘invasive group A strep.’

And we have regular national spasms about ‘outbreaks’ of the measles?   Are you joking?

That was Strep A.  Of more recent vintage is the fungal outbreak which is making the news.  Again, no vaccine.  This has a mortality rate of 20% – 50%.  Oh, and it is largely a problem of hospitals–where it is more likely that people with compromised immune systems will be around.

This article on the fungus, Candida auris, has this chilling statistic:

In the United States, 2 million people contract resistant infections annually, and 23,000 die from them, according to the official CDC estimate. That number was based on 2010 figures; more recent estimates from researchers at Washington University School of Medicine put the death toll at 162,000.

Sure!  Invest all that time and energy and shaming on THE MEASLES!  Methinks the immunosuppressed, in reality, have much bigger fish to fry than the measles.  You can spare me the whole “but the child with cancer!” argument.

Meanwhile, the compulsory vaccination wagon moves forward, trampling human rights as it goes.

After the ‘outbreak’ of measles in California, they pushed compulsory vaccination to the hilt, despite no one dying from the measles in that outbreak.  The outbreak itself consisted of only 131 cases.  On that basis, they stripped away the freedom and liberty of 40,000,000 people.  What did those people get in return?  21 cases already this year.   Even with their literally draconian measures in place, they are still on track to get almost half as many cases as they did in their ‘outbreak.’

Do you think the people that pushed this through were intelligent, rational, logical individuals?  I disagree.  I think they are tyrannical idiots who obviously cannot tell genuine threats from very minor ones.  Far from being entrusted with the care of millions of individuals (if by the decimation of the right to control what goes into your own body counts as ‘care’) they can be barely trusted to operate a lawn mower.  They pose an existential threat to the safety and welfare of millions of people, and should be removed from their positions ASAP.  Almost anyone else would be able to better evaluate real threats to public health than those people.

Even a smidgen of intellectual honesty combined with curiosity would not only completely end this nonsense about compulsory vaccination, but it would awaken us to more serious and significant threats.  As a side effect, it would alert people to the fact that there are far, far, far more serious threats to the United States than the measly measles.

If it sounds like I am passionate about this topic, you would be right.

First of all, I happen to think that freedom and liberty are extremely important things and should be transgressed only in the most gravest circumstances, and only if a robust system of due process has been honored throughout.  The removal of liberty for something as pathetically stupid as the measles is an outrage.

Second of all, since I have taken the time to inform myself about serious threats to the United States, I know very well that there are some doozies.  I mentioned Step A, but one that has just made me livid over the last couple of years is the opioid epidemic.

Contrary to the sense I may have given so far, I actually do believe that public health officials have an important role to play, and have sometimes done some very good things for us.  I think that that the linking of iodine deficiency with goiter is an excellent example of a service well-rendered; incidentally, while salt is iodized, in the US, its not compulsory.  People CAN get non-iodized salt, if they really want it.

But public health officials should know their place.  They should stay in their lane.  As people with unique access to coercive powers by virtue of their connection to the state, they must appreciate that like any one exercising power, if they are not held in check, that power can be abused.  I know a couple of public health officials.  One, I consider a friend.  I don’t think he would quibble with what I’m saying here.  But, in my other experiences, public health officials resent deeply being questioned at all.  At least with a politician, you know who he is and what he is about, and you can vote him out if you don’t like him.  A public health official will be unknown to the populace and is not elected.

Well, while they are getting their feathers all ruffled and putting all their resources towards cajoling people into getting vaccinations which don’t even live up to their claims and offer no robust recourse for any harm they might do, there is a genuine threat that has been unfolding for the better part of a decade where a sane public health official, possessing the ability to recognize real threats and distinguish them from minor threats, would be pushing hard.  Real hard.

Communities have been complaining about the opioid epidemic for almost a decade now.  The numbers of people who have died are off the charts, relative to those who have contracted the measles–let alone died from it.  I have been complaining about it on this blog for a couple of  years, drawing specific attention to how little attention the epidemic has received by the people who have the actual f-ing job of dealing with such things.

It was recently bandied about that we lost in two years more than died in the entire Vietnam War.  [One example.]

Combined, the number of opioid overdose deaths in 2016 and 2017 was 91,317 — well beyond the number of U.S. deaths in the Vietnam War [58,220].

Calling it the ‘opioid epidemic’ doesn’t really do it justice.  I have not limited my own remarks to opioids, including cocaine and other drugs.  That article says:

Ojeda’s reference to 60,000 deaths two years ago appears to involve a broader statistic — the number of overdose deaths for all drugs, not just opioids. The number of deaths in this category for 2016 and 2017 was 63,632 and 72,306, respectively.

Using this broader statistic, Ojeda would still be correct: The number of overdoses from all drugs totaled 135,938 over those two years, far higher than the number of service member deaths in Vietnam.

That’s just over 2 years, Jim.

Ok, lets go back to our math problem.

0 vs 135,938.

Which is bigger? 0?  Or 135,938?

0 is the number of death due to the measles in that time period.  135,938 are all drug overdose deaths.

And our public health community thinks its the MEASLES that is the problem?

Here you have something where our public health officials could be providing a real service connected to a genuine threat.  Instead, they fly into a tizzy at the tiniest ‘outbreak’ of a disease which pales in comparison to the drug problem in America.

The utter failure of the public health community and our government, both of which have perfectly appropriate roles to play on this–if not central roles–pisses me off beyond words.  I have no words to express how angry I am about this.

All of this begs a very important question:  the size and the scope of threats actually killing Americans by the hundreds every year is so dramatically obvious, why is it that they focus on the measly measles?

I alluded to some likely possibilities above; for example, they don’t like their judgement questioned.  They are the experts, you know.  It would be hard to get one answer to explain it all, and it might vary by person.  There is a rank paternalism that is out there.  There might be some ego involved; they’ve put a lot of their credibility on the line with this issue and they want to save face.  Or, there might be political components: any honest assessment makes it clear that most of the drugs causing the most harm is coming from overseas, nay, right from across the southern border.   They’d rather get more money for their treatment programs (which relies on THEM to administer) than see the money go somewhere it would prevent the need for treatment altogether (and be administered by someone else).

I have encountered many different possibilities in my readings on these issues.  It is an important topic in its own right, because the arguments for compulsory vaccination are so bad it is hard to believe that they mask their real rationales, which they are reluctant to share with us.  For my purposes, here, though, it is enough to demonstrate that the existential threats the US faces are so obvious and so much larger than the measles that to hyperventilate about the measles only serves to highlight the existence of massive cognitive dissonance  that is reckless to the extreme, if not criminal, in its stripping away of human rights.

Compelling people, at the point of a gun (which is ultimately what state-based coercion reduces to) is a bad habit to get into.  Sad to say, our public health community is addicted.  Maybe that’s why they make the measles into a big deal: they need their annual ‘fix’ and power-tripping.

Well, we need to get our heads out of our collective asses, because while people are running around making stupid arguments for compulsory vaccination, we are literally dying from genuine threats:  Strep A, drug overdose, suicide; heck, you could even say gun violence and while I would quibble with you I’d still find it a far more respectable thing to get worked up over than the MEASLES.

Unless we put a stop to this, decisively, the logic of compulsory vaccination will follow its course.  And then we may very well have problems even worse than 140,000 drug deaths in the span of just two years.

“The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in the 1927 decision, Buck vs. Bell

Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.

John Holdren, science ‘czar’ to Barack Obama.

If you are going to respond to this post, actually read it first.  People replying to this post without exhibiting awareness of the actual content of this post will be flamed mercilessly.

Share

66 comments

Skip to comment form

    • Timaahy on April 15, 2019 at 6:11 pm

    Over 6,000 words… Jaysus. This will take a while.

    • Timaahy on April 15, 2019 at 6:16 pm

    Well, dumb ass, the measles hasn’t killed anyone for years, and very few have died in the US even going back 20 years, and taking the vaccine does not actually mean you won’t “catch and transmit a potentially fatal infection.”

    – Tony

    Meanwhile, since 1988, according to VAERS, it was believed by adverse reaction reporters that at least 86 people have died from measles related vaccines.

    – Tony

    Before the introduction of measles vaccine in 1963 and widespread vaccination, major epidemics occurred approximately every 2–3 years and measles caused an estimated 2.6 million deaths each year.

    – World Health Organisation

    (no, I haven’t read the whole thing yet. It’s 6,170 words mate!)

    • Anthony on April 15, 2019 at 6:26 pm
      Author

    “and very few have died in the US even going back 20 years”

    Read that again, very slowly.

    • Anthony on April 15, 2019 at 6:27 pm
      Author

    I know it was long. It is my anti-twit filter in action.

    • Timaahy on April 15, 2019 at 6:37 pm

    and very few have died in the US even going back 20 years

    Was something supposed to happen?

    • Anthony on April 15, 2019 at 7:08 pm
      Author

    My comment is explicitly pegged to the United States for the last 20 years. Your quote was for global deaths, prior to 1963.

    It is apples and oranges. The time frame is different. The scale is different. It is important context, and you’re just skipping right over it in your haste to make a point.

    I have my fingers crossed that you will in fact actually read my post in its entirety. If so, you will find that I offer a rival hypothesis accounting for the large drop off. Remember, correlation does not equal causation. While this will be news to a lot of people, a LOT of things that killed people in large numbers prior to 1963 radically dropped. If not in instances, in deaths and other serious consequences.

    And there were no vaccines for THEM.

    Perhaps there was something else going on in the 1960s that can also account for it?

    This is not a point that I’m interesting in discussing with this post. If I had wanted to discuss it, I certainly could have. I would have added another 2,000 words to the post or penned another. It isn’t like I haven’t researched it. But for the purposes of this post, it is a red herring. IN the United States, for the last 20 years or so, there have been very few cases of the measles and very few associated deaths.

    This post is about the putative risks and benefits of vaccines as it relates to compulsory vaccination, as told through the prism of the measles (thanks to De Blasio). Risks should not be dismissed and benefits should not be overstated, and people ought to be able to decide for themselves and for their families.

    And if the vaccines are so effective, then the fact that someone else does not get one should not harm you, since you are protected. And if you do get the disease… see above again about the benefits being overstated.

    I don’t care if you do overstate the benefits, personally. Hey, you can even lie about the risks, too. Whatever. Just as long as you don’t also make it compulsory.

    THAT is what this post is about.

    Administrative note: Tim meant to spell out the words slowly, but the software removed the spaces, ruining his joke.

    • Timaahy on April 15, 2019 at 7:30 pm

    “Administrative note: Tim meant to spell out the words slowly, but the software removed the spaces, ruining his joke.”

    Hahahaaaaaaaaaa… thanks for noticing! 🙂

    I had seen your comment about other factors reducing measles, but didn’t comment on it as I haven’t read the whole thing yet, and was worried I may miss some acknowledgement of the positive effects of vaccines. Based on your comment above, though… maybe not. 🙂

    In other news…
    https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/the-world-health-organisation-says-global-measles-cases-up-300-per-cent/news-story/9b12f5a74d2f75a1a2ccdb3c33014e36

    P.S. Hoping to head out for lunch in 90 mins or so, so I can read the whole thing properly.

    • Anthony on April 15, 2019 at 7:58 pm
      Author

    Alternate theory: significant advances in nutrition and medicine since the 1960s have radically mitigated the negative outcomes observed prior to, say, 1935. That this has roughly coincided with the introduction of the measles vaccine (1963) has confused our brightest minds, who fell for the ol’ correlation does not equal causation fallacy. The improved nutrition and advances in medicine are the actual reasons why the incidents of measles and measles mortality fell, with the vaccine providing a relatively modest contribution. Since medicine has advanced even beyond what we had in the 1960s, and nutrition in America is still quite good, there is little chance that measles could pose a threat even to a largely unvaccinated population, who, by virtue of their healthy immune systems, not only wouldn’t get the measles if exposed in the first place, but would brush it off. Numerous charts show just such trends.

    “… some acknowledgement of the positive effects of vaccines” emphasized.

    The context of this remark, like the rest of the post, is the United States, not the globe. I bolded that as well, lest you try to skip over that again.

    • Timaahy on April 15, 2019 at 8:00 pm

    I already told you I read that bit 🙂

    • Anthony on April 15, 2019 at 8:06 pm
      Author

    I apologize. I misunderstood you.

    • Timaahy on April 15, 2019 at 10:22 pm

    So, I’ve just spent an hour reading this carefully. I present below a summary of your post, so (a) you can see that I have read it, and (b) you can confirm that I have understood you correctly.

    1
    You are against compulsory vaccination.

    2
    The NVICP is a bit crap.

    3
    People don’t have enough awareness of the possibility of the side-effects of vaccinations, which may include death.

    4
    It’s immoral to make vaccination mandatory, given those side-effects.

    5
    The positive effects of vaccines aren’t as amazing as everyone makes out. Sometimes people still get the disease, and some reduction in disease incidence can be attributed to general health and medical advances.

    6
    Some diseases don’t have vaccines (not sure why this is a relevant point, but including it for completeness).

    7
    People are so focused on measles they don’t seem to be doing anything about other diseases (like Strep A) or the opioid epidemic.

    8
    People are calling for compulsory vaccination.

    9
    Compulsory vaccination will inevitably lead to population control measures.

    Is that about right?

    • Timaahy on April 15, 2019 at 10:23 pm

    Also… I know you like maths mate, but I just responded to “5 x four” with “20” three times and was told I was incorrect each time.

    Figures.

    🙂

    • Timaahy on April 15, 2019 at 10:31 pm

    Just a heads up, too… there is so much wrong with your post that this is going to turn into a very, very long comment thread.

    A lower word count would have allowed for fewer distortions, exaggerations and flat-out untruths. But we’ll get to that.

    • End Bringer on April 15, 2019 at 10:47 pm

    “6 Some diseases don’t have vaccines (not sure why this is a relevant point, but including it for completeness).”

    It goes to the issue of the general effectiveness of vaccination – as the drop in people infected for diseases that DON’T have vaccines obviously can’t point to it as a cause – as well as puts into perspective that the recent hysteria is akin to people panicking over paper cuts when there is massive gang wars on the street.

    “7 People are so focused on measles they don’t seem to be doing anything about other diseases (like Strep A) or the opioid epidemic.”

    I don’t believe SJ accused of ‘nothing being done,’ so much as not giving the real serious problems as much attention over something that is relatively trivial by comparison in order to push an agenda.

    “9 Compulsory vaccination will inevitably lead to population control measures.”

    The exact words were actually “may very well” because while population control may not ‘necessarily’ follow from the policy by itself, the underlining belief that the government has carte blanche over all citizen’s personal health doesn’t give any reason to prevent such measures either, and we already have officials arguing to go that route, as SJ quoted.

    • Timaahy on April 15, 2019 at 10:49 pm

    OMG… EB actually made a helpful contribution!

    I accept all your clarifications, with thanks.

    • Timaahy on April 15, 2019 at 10:58 pm

    Amended following EB’s comments…

    1
    You are against compulsory vaccination.

    2
    The NVICP is a bit crap.

    3
    People don’t have enough awareness of the possibility of the side-effects of vaccinations, which may include death.

    4
    It’s immoral to make vaccination mandatory, given those side-effects.

    5
    The positive effects of vaccines aren’t as amazing as everyone makes out. Sometimes people still get the disease, and some reduction in disease incidence can be attributed to general health and medical advances.

    6
    Some diseases don’t have vaccines, and their prevalence has declined via other methods.

    7
    People are so focused on measles they are neglecting more pressing concerns, such as Strep A or the opioid epidemic.

    8
    People are calling for compulsory vaccination.

    9
    Compulsory vaccination may lead to population control measures.

    • Anthony on April 15, 2019 at 11:34 pm
      Author

    “fewer distortions, exaggerations and flat-out untruths.”

    Distortions and exaggerations are often in the eye of the beholder. But if you’re going to say there is a ‘flat-out untruth,’ you better pony up your evidence. Note: just because you disagree with something, doesn’t necessarily make it a lie.

    • Timaahy on April 15, 2019 at 11:52 pm

    OK, but how about my summary of your arguments?

    • Anthony on April 15, 2019 at 11:57 pm
      Author

    Your summary list isn’t the worst I’ve ever seen but the only ones I can unequivocally affirm are #1, #2, #3, and maybe #9. #7 was close but no cigar. More in the next paragraph.

    I don’t think you are grasping the point behind #6 or even #7. And it may be one of the very few times where EB didn’t quite catch me, either.

    The point about the opioid epidemic very much is about the flawed priorities. That is correct. But the fact that some diseases don’t have vaccines–like Strep A–was made because one of the arguments made for (compulsory) vaccination is that people with compromised immune systems will be vulnerable if people don’t get their measles shot.

    This is stupid, because:

    1. People who are fully vaccinated against the measles CAN give people the measles. People who are fully vaccinated CAN get the measles. I provide at least three separate sources to corroborate this, two of which are CDC, and one was this: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/04/measles-outbreak-traced-fully-vaccinated-patient-first-time

    Hence, if someone is counting on their immune compromised child not getting the measles just because the population is 100% vaccinated, their ignorance is going to get their kid killed.

    2. In the same vein, if someone is counting on their immune compromised child not being harmed by diseases because the population is 100% up to date on all vaccines, their ignorance is going to get their child killed. There are many other diseases, which have no vaccines at all, that the parent is still going to have to be worried about. Any sane, educated, reasonable parent of a child with a compromised immune system is going to have to engage in every precaution REGARDLESS of the vaccination status of the populace.

    Even if the population is 100% up to date on all their vaccines, the educated parent knows that Strep A is quite common–and has no vaccine. And is perfectly deadly.

    I do think that public health officials would spend their time better combating Strep A, rather than the measles, but that was not my point in bringing up Strep A. My point in bringing up Strep A was that it is a common disease known to be lethal that kills many, many, many more in American than measles does. A parent of a child with an immune disorder would know this, and know very well that there are many other dangers lurking out there as well. Even in the hospitals they frequent: the ‘super bugs.’

    So no matter how you slice it, trying to salvage the argument for the merits of compulsory vaccination by saying it will help those who do not have an immunity just doesn’t hold up. In fact, you might even say that this argument is dangerous in its own right, potentially creating a false sense of security, if anyone was silly enough to think that the thousands of diseases out there for which there are no vaccinations vanish just because we have vaccines for about 15 of them.

    Since such individuals would be intensely vulnerable whether the population was fully vaccinated or not, requiring every precaution, whether the population was fully vaccinated or not, it follows that it does NOT follow that what they really need to be protected is a fully vaccinated population. What they need are parents who are not tools. Thankfully, I think that is usually the case. While others are posturing and using their kids as propaganda, they are actually doing what is necessary to protect their children… and they know very well that dangers lurk in every corner, and would still, in a fully vaccinated population.

    The opioid epidemic is a case apart, and definitely has been neglected, and definitely warrants attention by our government (since most of the drugs are coming from foreign countries) and our public health officials (who ostensibly are concerned about the actual health of the public).

    Move Strep A to #6 and leave the opioid thing in #7 and don’t forget why Strep A was mentioned in the first place, and then I could possibly affirm those, too.

    • Anthony on April 16, 2019 at 12:05 am
      Author

    All that said, I should cut you off at the pass.

    We can argue back and forth about the safety and efficacy of various vaccinations. The bottom line is whether or not compulsory vaccination is justifiable. You should cut to the chase and tell me if you support compulsory vaccination or not.

    If you do not, then the rest is academic.

    • End Bringer on April 16, 2019 at 1:53 am

    “And it may be one of the very few times where EB didn’t quite catch me, either.”

    Oh, I got it. That was just adjusting Timmy’s points by themselves.

    Taking a vaccine is demonstrably no guarantee, to anyone who has actually bothered to look for the demonstration instead of blindly putting their faith in High Priest Dr. McM.D. the Fifth. It isn’t even a guarantee against the disease specifically targeted and changes nothing about the plethora of diseases not targeted. And as such, the entire argument for compulsory vaccination falls apart based solely on the fact that it won’t achieve any major result generally different from the populace NOT having a vaccination (to say nothing of every other issue against such policies).

    Getting vaccinated or not getting vaccinated in reality are little more than a dice roll either way (or more accurately up to God as the ultimate Arbiter of Life and Death, and which should be a lesson in humility in how for all the scientific progress made, we puny humans are no more in control of life than we were when iron was the latest technological discovery), and thus should be up to each individual to cast that die for themselves since they are the ones to reap the consequences.

    Though reading Timmy’s assessment one can say 5, 6, and 7 rather blend together in your post. Though it could be said ‘The positive effects aren’t as amazing as advertised, proven to be completely useless in documented cases, and there is evidence of negative effects of vaccination in itself’ to be more accurate of your post.

    • Timaahy on April 16, 2019 at 6:13 am

    It may surprise you to learn that I am also against compulsory vaccination. Yes, you read that correctly.

    It is informative, however, that nowhere in your 6,170 words do you give any examples of where compulsory vaccination is either being proposed or already in place. You mention California, where vaccination is necessary for attendance at state schools, but not compulsory. Indeed, it’s not compulsory in any of the 50 US states, just as (it may surprise you to learn) it is not compulsory in Australia. It seems to me that an article with the prevention of compulsory vaccination as its main overriding purpose should at least be able to justify its own need for publication. Otherwise you’re just campaigning against something which hasn’t happened and doesn’t look like happening any time soon. You may as well start a campaign against the banning of baseball.

    I am also a little amused by the statement that California “stripped away the freedom and liberty of 40,000,000 people”. Not only is vaccination not even compulsory, but the measles vaccination rate in California is around 97%. That means there are 1.2m people who are not vaccinated. So even if you were talking about the forced vaccination of everyone left, you’re out by a factor of nearly 40. What’s bigger, Tony? 40 million or 1.2 million?

    But, in actual fact, vaccination is only required for children entering the public school system. So, again, even if we exaggerate and assume that they are literally forcing people to vaccinate their children, it would only impact the around 200,000 children that enter school each year. Of those, let’s be generous and say that 20% don’t actually want their child vaccinated. That would mean that, at most, 40,000 children have had their “freedom and liberty” stripped away.

    Tell me, Tony… what’s bigger? 40 million or 40 thousand?

    In any event, the whole point is moot, since parents are free to either home-school (which I thought you’d be a fan of anyway), or move to a different state, which, following your other recent blog, I know you’re all for (states rights!).

    Either way, saying that every single citizen in California has had their freedom and liberty stripped away is just silly, and doesn’t help your case.

    And I say all this as someone who is against compulsory vaccination.

    • Timaahy on April 16, 2019 at 6:14 am

    Although… maybe numbers aren’t this blog’s strong point. My comment was initially rejected because apparently “2 x two” is not 4. 🙂

    • Timaahy on April 16, 2019 at 6:20 am

    BendRinger:

    Getting vaccinated or not getting vaccinated in reality are little more than a dice roll either way…, and thus should be up to each individual to cast that die for themselves since they are the ones to reap the consequences.

    Thanks for raising this, as I was going to mention it next, in light of Tony’s “10 BILLION PEOPLE HAVE LOST THEIR FREEDOM” silliness.

    Read your statement above again, and see if you can’t spot the problem.

    • Anthony on April 16, 2019 at 7:29 am
      Author

    EB: “Oh, I got it. That was just adjusting Timmy’s points by themselves.”

    Ah. Gotcha. Thanks.

    Tim (Peace be upon THim): you’ll get yours next.

    • Anthony on April 16, 2019 at 8:24 am
      Author

    Tim (peace be upon THim), I’ll give you a pass since my post was long, and I think you did make a good faith effort to digest it. I wish you would do that for everything I write that you see fit to comment on. Still, you’ve managed to make some massive blunders, some of which trace back to a failure to process the post.

    You say:

    “[A] It is informative, however, that nowhere in your 6,170 words do you give any examples of where compulsory vaccination is either being proposed or already in place. [B] You mention California, [C] where vaccination is necessary for attendance at state schools, but not compulsory.”

    I have annotated with some letters. Strange that you do not realize that A flatly contradicts B. That’s funny! It can be somewhat forgiven because according to the Word of Tim, making something ‘necessary for attendance’ is not the same as ‘compulsory.’

    I will grant that I did not define ‘compulsory vaccination’ so there could theoretically be some ambiguity, here. There are degrees of compulsion, certainly. But to say that it is not ‘compulsory’ in California is a ‘distortion, exaggeration and flat-out untruth.’

    To say that someone is mandated (the actual word used in the legislative text) to get vaccinated (or the child vaccinated) before attending a public facility which they themselves are required to fund (via their tax dollars) is OBVIOUSLY compulsion. The whole purpose of the bill was to eliminate ways to avoid it. (I will return to the homeschool or exiting California as avoidance possibilities example later).

    Somehow, you don’t think this counts as ‘compulsory.’ Well, I’m not going to quibble over that with you. Instead, I’ll just give you the California court decision which upheld this legislation. The California court had no compunction whatsoever with consider what was being required as ‘compulsory vaccination’ and upheld the legislation precisely because they had previously upheld ‘compulsory vaccination.’

    Here is the text of that decision:

    https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2018/b279936.html

    Here is one example, specifically in the context of the elimination of exemptions:

    compulsory immunization has long been recognized as the gold standard for preventing the spread of contagious diseases. As is noted in the legislative history, studies have found that “when belief exemptions to vaccination guidelines are permitted, vaccination rates decrease,” and community immunity wanes if large numbers of children do not receive required vaccinations.”

    Emphasis added.

    Now, you would like us to believe that there are important differences between the words ‘required,’ ‘mandated’, and ‘compulsory,’ and that at any rate, since people can flee the public schools or the state itself, its not REALLY compulsory.

    Well, the California court which rejected the challenge to the law harbors no such illusions. It clearly believes that what is in view is ‘compulsory vaccination,’ as evidenced by the fact that it justifies the act based on reference to a 1905 decision, with them quoting, “it is within the police power of a State to provide for compulsory vaccination.”

    Of further interest in the context of my post, on page 11 the decision argues that both religion AND parenthood are subject to limitations by the state, again specifically using the word ‘compulsory’: “Thus, he cannot claim freedom from compulsory vaccination for the child more than for himself on religious grounds.”

    Clearly, the justices believe that what is in view is very much ‘compulsory vaccination.’

    Which leaves us with your curious proclamation that, despite the fact that everyone else recognizes this as compulsory vaccination, and the California courts themselves do, explicitly using that phrase, it isn’t actually compulsory vaccination.

    LOL

    My sense is that you should have dug deeper with your Google search, Tim. 😉

    It turns out that, in point of fact, the entire state of California did find that that their liberties had been strictly curtailed by this law, and that this was aptly and appropriately described as ‘compulsory vaccination.’

    This part of your argument then is an equivocation. Since we had not expressly defined ‘compulsory vaccination’ you attempted to unilaterally define it in such a way as to mean only a more extreme application, wherein you thought that since “1.2m” people remain unvaccinated that must mean its not compulsory.

    So, perhaps you did not know all this before. And you have given us a good faith attempt to wrestle with this post. But if you STILL say that California does not have compulsory vaccination, it WILL be a deliberate untruth.

    • Anthony on April 16, 2019 at 8:39 am
      Author

    You contradicted yourself, saying that I don’t mention any place where there is or is proposed compulsory vaccination except I do mention California (which as I have just demonstrated conclusively DOES have compulsory vaccination), but you seemed to miss the other example:

    “And that brings us to the inspiration for this post: the measles outbreak in New York, where the mayor is now requiring vaccination, on penalty of a $1,000 fine.”

    It is funny, since this was actually bolded, too. But ok, it was a long post, and you are in Australia and not America, so you might not be aware of what is ACTUALLY happening here (hence your funny but fallacious comment, ” You may as well start a campaign against the banning of baseball.”).

    Again, in New York, the mayor is REQUIRING vaccination, on penalty of a $1,000 fine. The link to this was embedded. Here it is by itself: https://nypost.com/2019/04/10/opponents-of-citys-mandatory-vaccination-order-plan-to-sue-city/

    De Blasio on Tuesday declared a public health emergency over a measles outbreak of measles in the area — and ordered everyone who lives, works or attends school in four Williamsburg zip codes to get immunized against the disease within 48 hours or face a $1,000 fine.

    Emphasis added. “Lives, works or attends school” seems to cover everybody.

    This is following another order which strikes me as even more draconian and tyrannical than that, wherein people (under the age of 18) without vaccination were actually prevented from being in public:

    https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/26/health/rockland-new-york-measles-unvaccinated-ban-bn/index.html

    If this was 1776, revolutionaries would have razed New York to the ground for such an order. They didn’t include ‘free assembly’ to the Constitution on a whim.

    So, not only did I mention California, where, yes, Virginia, there is compulsory vaccination, but I also mentioned and linked to the situation in New York where De Blasio is now several stages deeper with compulsion than even that. And yet, you say, “It seems to me that an article with the prevention of compulsory vaccination as its main overriding purpose should at least be able to justify its own need for publication. ”

    Indeed, it should be able to justify its own need, and indeed, I did.

    • Anthony on April 16, 2019 at 8:45 am
      Author

    Quick note:

    You, being the predictable you, will try to salvage your argument by suggesting these are outliers. As if enacting compulsory vaccination in the country’s most populace state and its most populace city are outliers! lol But, just because YOU are not aware of attempts across the country to enact compulsory vaccination, even the more extreme version you invoked via equivocation, it doesn’t follow that there are NOT attempts.

    It would be reasonable to suppose that someone who gets pretty pissed off when governments curtail liberties, compulsory vaccination being one example, will have a much better grasp of the actual state of things then the resident of a country thousands of miles away.

    You should tread lightly when making such arguments.

    • Anthony on April 16, 2019 at 8:46 am
      Author

    I will discuss the options of homeschooling or leaving the state altogether after you’ve responded to my latest.

    • Timaahy on April 16, 2019 at 8:56 am

    Firstly, it is a massive oversight for you to not define “compulsory” in a post about “compulsory vaccination”. Especially since the very first line of your post says you are not against vaccination, but only against compulsory vaccination. It’s literally the word that is key to the entire post.

    Yet in 6,170 words, you don’t even come close to defining it.

    Weird.

    Secondly, if words are to mean anything, we gotta be consistent. Compulsory means compulsory. You made a valiant attempt, but there is no way to argue around the fact that, despite what you or the courts have said, parents are perfectly free to home school, or move to another state. Perhaps even the free market could jump to the rescue, and start schools for unvaccinated kids. All three of those options should be music to your constitutionally libertarian ears.

    Say it with me now. No. One. Is. Being. Forced. To. Vaccinate. Their. Kids.

    Case closed.

    But perhaps another example will be illuminating.

    Did you know that voting is compulsory in Australia? Of course you did. And it is.

    OR IS IT?

    No, not really. I mean, we all say it is, and sometimes it feels like it is, but the plain truth is that it just isn’t. You are perfectly free to not turn up to vote. No one forces you to. A couple of years ago, for the first time ever, I completely forgot to vote in my local council elections. For that I was issued with a fine for $50. Now, it would have been perfectly easy for me to say that I was sick on the day, or out of town, or was stuck at work, and I could have easily avoided the fine. No mess, no fuss. I chose to be honest, however, and wrote a letter saying I just forgot to vote. The fine stood, I paid it, and really didn’t mind. But the point is that it would have been trivially easy to avoid the fine.

    If I had happened to remember to vote, however, is there someone in the booth with making you vote, and ensuring you do it correctly? No. There isn’t. I can go to the voting centre, get my name marked off, grab my ballot paper and drop it, unfilled, right in the ballot box.

    Voting in Australia is compulsory, we say. Except that it isn’t.

    Not even slightly.

    • Timaahy on April 16, 2019 at 9:02 am

    You, being the predictable you, will try to salvage your argument by suggesting these are outliers.

    Nope. That argument doesn’t interest me at all.

    But, just because YOU are not aware of attempts across the country to enact compulsory vaccination, even the more extreme version you invoked via equivocation, it doesn’t follow that there are NOT attempts.

    Again, if this is true, it is illuminating that you haven’t mentioned any examples. Besides California, where it is not compulsory, and NY (thanks for pointing out that I missed it), where it is also not compulsory.

    • Timaahy on April 16, 2019 at 9:09 am

    It would be reasonable to suppose that someone who gets pretty pissed off when governments curtail liberties, compulsory vaccination being one example, will have a much better grasp of the actual state of things then the resident of a country thousands of miles away.

    You should tread lightly when making such arguments

    Bollocks.

    You don’t get to be more right, just because you get more upset. You have to stand on the foundations of your arguments. And me being in Australia has absolutely nothing to do with whether I can argue against compulsory vaccination. What a ridiculous thing to say.

    Australia has a long and distinguished history of telling the government to go fck itself. We just don’t do it with guns.

    I will accept your apology, any time you’re ready.

    • Anthony on April 16, 2019 at 9:25 am
      Author

    Sorry, Tim. You are completely wrong.

    If the California appeals court considers it compulsory, its compulsory. You’re wrong. This is a “Does Tim wish to live in the REAL world or not?” decision point for you.

    It is absolutely the case that it is in the ‘spectrum’ of what is considered, by everyone except Lord Tim, ‘compulsory.’ You are trying to play a trick. You are trying to say that because the California law could have been EVEN MORE COMPULSORY it wasn’t COMPULSORY at all.

    Total nonsense.

    You’re right that I didn’t define it. But I can see how if I did, you would have whined “7,000 words!” and you would have argued with me anyway, as you are now making plain. Maybe I should have defined it. But maybe I also didn’t think anyone would be so asinine as to believe that these measures aren’t compulsory.

    I consider you absolutely refuted, and will speak no more about it.

    I notice too that you tried to save face with your Divine Declarations about what is ‘compulsory’ re: California, despite being contradicted flatly by the California court that upheld the law, and said nothing about the current NYC situation, which likewise refutes you contention that compulsory vaccination isn’t even a ‘thing.’

    • Timaahy on April 16, 2019 at 9:33 am

    I consider you absolutely refuted, and will speak no more about it.

    Haha, of course you won’t.

    King Tony, first of his name, Lord of the Dictionary, and Sole Arbiter of the Meaning of Words, has decided that “compulsory” means whatever he wants it to mean.

    It’s embarrassing,

    For you.

    Say whatever you like. You made “compulsory” the defining feature of your post. You failed to define it. And now you’re furiously back-pedalling and trying to save face.

    It. Is. Not. Compulsory.

    • Anthony on April 16, 2019 at 9:35 am
      Author

    “You don’t get to be more right, just because you get more upset. You have to stand on the foundations of your arguments. And me being in Australia has absolutely nothing to do with whether I can argue against compulsory vaccination. What a ridiculous thing to say.”

    Now you’re speaking gibberish.

    The only thing I can think of is that you did not understand what I was saying. YOU said:

    It is informative, however, that nowhere in your 6,170 words do you give any examples of where compulsory vaccination is either being proposed or already in place. […] It seems to me that an article with the prevention of compulsory vaccination as its main overriding purpose should at least be able to justify its own need for publication. Otherwise you’re just campaigning against something which hasn’t happened and doesn’t look like happening any time soon.

    Emphasis added.

    I have refuted conclusively the idea that it hasn’t happened. As for whether it is happening, etc, or being proposed, one would have to be aware of what is… wait for it…actually happening or being proposed. In point of fact, throughout the United States there are repeated efforts to enact compulsory vaccination, varying in degrees and scope, with varying degrees of success. Since you live in Australia, I don’t necessarily expect you to be aware of that fact. And since you know that you live in Australia and do not follow such things as close as you would if you lived in the United States, and I do live in the United States, and make an effort to stay informed about such things, you should indeed “tread lightly” before making statements like, “something which hasn’t happened and doesn’t look like happening any time soon.

    As is so often the case with you, you don’t know what you don’t know.

    I can tell you for a fact that here in Wisconsin, there are frequent conversations about making vaccines compulsory, such that I have even gone to my state representatives to denounce those conversations. As, incidentally, I will be doing again this very week, as it so happens.

    I did not say anything that meant:
    “me being in Australia has absolutely nothing to do with whether I can argue against compulsory vaccination” and don’t really understood how you got that. Maybe you should read my comments with the same intensity you tried to read my post (although you are two strikes as far as the NYC thing goes). 😉

    Hopefully, my elaboration in this comment helps. I am saying that you insist that things are not being proposed, are not happening, and are not likely to happen. That is the part I am disputing. Not whether or not you can argue for or against compulsory vaccination.

    I will accept your apology, any time you’re ready.

    • Timaahy on April 16, 2019 at 9:36 am

    You are trying to say that because the California law could have been EVEN MORE COMPULSORY it wasn’t COMPULSORY at all.

    This is the problem. Right here.

    There is no such thing as “more compulsory”. Something is either compulsory, or it isn’t.

    Can something be “more black”?

    • Timaahy on April 16, 2019 at 9:42 am

    I can tell you for a fact that here in Wisconsin, there are frequent conversations about making vaccines compulsory

    You are right. I have no idea what is happening in Wisconsin. But I know what the word “compulsory” means. Why don’t you do us all a favour and define it for us, it being the operative word in your entire post.

    You need to admit that it was a huge oversight, in a post denouncing compulsory vaccination you failed to define compulaory. And you also failed to provide any meaningful examples of where it is happening.

    Just admit it. Fix it. And we can move on.

    • Anthony on April 16, 2019 at 9:43 am
      Author

    You’re just embarrassing yourself, Tim. I can’t bear to watch.

    https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2018/b279936.html

    I’ve seen splitting hairs before, but this is even beyond that. Normally, when someone splits a hair, they still recognize that the results are still ‘hair.’ You are trying to say that one part of the split hair is the only thing that warrants being called a hair at all, whereas the other is… well, anything that will help Yahweh-Tim redeem his completely destroyed argument. lol.

    It is like arguing about whether or not we’re eating apple pie, and after cutting it into pieces, you look at your piece and declare it is not pie, because its not the whole pie. lol

    Ok, that’s it. This comment was for the lurker.

    I’m not going to get caught up in an argument about gradations of ‘compulsory’ (pie) where a person carves out a gradation of compulsory (pie) and magically makes one gradation (a slice of pie) NOT PIE.

    lol man you are a hoot.

    • Timaahy on April 16, 2019 at 9:47 am

    You’re just embarrassing yourself, Tim. I can’t bear to watch.

    Wait till you see me naked.

    But seriously, I already said you were embarrassing yourself.

    It is LUDICROUS you can italicise a word in the first sentence of your post, and refuse to define it. Just amazing.

    • Anthony on April 16, 2019 at 9:50 am
      Author

    *whistles indifferently*

    • Timaahy on April 16, 2019 at 9:55 am

    Look mate, I can accept that there is potentially not a lot of difference between:

    (a)
    Tying someone down and forcibly vaccinating them

    and

    (b)
    Making the consequences of not vaccinating so onerous as to make it compulsory in all but name

    But you haven’t shown that. You haven’t even attempted to. And you’re a long, long way from proving it’s the case in California and NY.

    Why are you being so difficult? It should have been the first argument in your post.

    • Anthony on April 16, 2019 at 9:56 am
      Author

    Also, that appears to be strike 3. For some reason (Tim does not want to admit defeat?) he has overlooked again where NYC has recently enacted an order where EVERYONE in that area is REQUIRED to get a vaccine. Why ignore this over and over and over again? Because whatever lame attempt you want to invoke to say that compulsory vaccination is not happening anywher is plainly and self-evidently repudiated by such an account.

    Three strikes, you’re out pal.

    Not only are you embarrassing yourself, contradicting the California court which says the opposite of what you are saying is happening in California, but you are diminishing your credibility further by ignoring the NYC example. I believe this would be the fourth time I have now brought it up.

    • Anthony on April 16, 2019 at 9:58 am
      Author

    Ah, as I was posting, you finally mentioned NY.

    Well, if you don’t think those are examples of compulsory vaccination, I can’t help you. I really can’t. I’ve totally thumped you, but you can’t see it because both your eyes are swollen from the shellacking I just gave you.

    • Anthony on April 16, 2019 at 10:01 am
      Author

    “It should have been the first argument in your post.”

    That may be the case, but also asked and answered:

    “You’re right that I didn’t define it. But I can see how if I did, you would have whined “7,000 words!” and you would have argued with me anyway, as you are now making plain. Maybe I should have defined it. But maybe I also didn’t think anyone would be so asinine as to believe that these measures aren’t compulsory.”

    • Anthony on April 16, 2019 at 10:02 am
      Author

    Ok, I’m off. You’ll be talking to yourself from here on out, unless you want to take a different tact which appears to me worthy to respond to. *whistles*

    • Timaahy on April 16, 2019 at 10:03 am

    Hahaaa… ah man… this is funny.

    In a post about compulsory vaccination, you literally cannot and will not define “compulsory”.

    Embarrassing.

    I also note that you haven’t admitted that your statement about 40 million people losing their freedom was a gross exaggeration.

    • Timaahy on April 16, 2019 at 10:08 am

    You’re right that I didn’t define it. But I can see how if I did, you would have whined “7,000 words!” and you would have argued with me anyway, as you are now making plain.

    Ah right. You didn’t define it, because you specifically had me in mind when you wrote it, and you were worried that including the most important point in your post would have added an extra 830 words.

    Makes sense.

    • Anthony on April 16, 2019 at 10:12 am
      Author

    I found actual video of Tim descending into hysterics as he madly tries to save face: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shfX0FYu8lI

    • Timaahy on April 16, 2019 at 10:15 am

    Man…. I’ve never seen you more out of your depth.

    Are you sure you’re OK?

    • Anthony on April 16, 2019 at 11:00 am
      Author

    For what its worth, I added a paragraph at the beginning which addresses it.

    In a sane world this would count as meeting your Divine Command to “Just admit it. Fix it. And we can move on.” I had already admitted it, and I did fix it–in the comment section–and I am plainly moving on, whistling as I go. But now I have updated it in the post as well. But this was never that important to you. You just got the pulp beat out of you and the only thing you had left was a plaintive, desperate whisper, “But, but, I know everyone knows what ‘compulsory’ means… but, but, you should have defined it anyway!”

    Comedy gold.

    • Timaahy on April 16, 2019 at 7:35 pm

    Hahaaa, ah man. You’re right… this is funny.

    You failed to define the actual word that supports your entire 6,170 words. You got called out on it. You protested unnecessarily for ages. And then you add a paragraph saying the courts get to define it. Classic.

    And you completely ignored this:

    Look mate, I can accept that there is potentially not a lot of difference between:

    (a)
    Tying someone down and forcibly vaccinating them

    and

    (b)
    Making the consequences of not vaccinating so onerous as to make it compulsory in all but name

    But you haven’t shown that. You haven’t even attempted to. And you’re a long, long way from proving it’s the case in California and NY.

    And this:

    Did you know that voting is compulsory in Australia? Of course you did. And it is.

    OR IS IT?

    No, not really. I mean, we all say it is, and sometimes it feels like it is, but the plain truth is that it just isn’t. You are perfectly free to not turn up to vote. No one forces you to. A couple of years ago, for the first time ever, I completely forgot to vote in my local council elections. For that I was issued with a fine for $50. Now, it would have been perfectly easy for me to say that I was sick on the day, or out of town, or was stuck at work, and I could have easily avoided the fine. No mess, no fuss. I chose to be honest, however, and wrote a letter saying I just forgot to vote. The fine stood, I paid it, and really didn’t mind. But the point is that it would have been trivially easy to avoid the fine.

    If I had happened to remember to vote, however, is there someone in the booth with making you vote, and ensuring you do it correctly? No. There isn’t. I can go to the voting centre, get my name marked off, grab my ballot paper and drop it, unfilled, right in the ballot box.

    Voting in Australia is compulsory, we say. Except that it isn’t.

    Not even slightly.

    I wonder why?

    • Anthony on April 16, 2019 at 8:02 pm
      Author

    “You protested unnecessarily for ages. ”

    I didn’t protest unnecessarily for ages. I acknowledge it right away, you dolt. I literally did that immediately in my first reply after you brought it up.

    “Maybe I should have defined it.”

    And then I proceeded immediately to show how the California court supported my position explicitly, where the California court equated what California did with compulsory vaccination! No hint whatsoever that you have revised your viewpoint to conform with actual reality. This is an integrity issue for you now. Do you have any?

    I didn’t ‘protest unnecessarily,’ you decided to belabor it, because your argument was shown to be ridiculously stupid. Only completely ignorant and uninformed people think that ‘compulsory’ means only “Tying someone down and forcibly vaccinating them.” This seems to be precisely what you believed.

    So, we need to revisit your statement that you are against compulsory vaccination. Now that you (do you?) understand that in the real world, compulsory vaccination includes things like preventing tax payers from using tax supported schools, preventing them from going to public places at risk of a significant fine, etc, what do you say about THAT?

    Do you believe it is appropriate that children MUST be vaccinated before their tax paying parents can send them to the schools their parents pay taxes to support? Do you believe it is appropriate to forbid people from public places in general, and require everyone in an area to get vaccinated, on penalty of a very large fine?

    THIS IS COMPULSORY VACCINATION and THIS IS HAPPENING.

    Are you opposed to it or NOT?

    • Timaahy on April 16, 2019 at 8:03 pm

    I’ll make it simple for you. Consider the following scale:

    If you are not vaccinated, we will:
    1 – Be mildly miffed.
    2 – Give you a dirty look.
    3 – Write you a strongly worded letter.
    4 – Fine you $50.
    5 – Withhold certain government benefits.
    6 – Prevent you from enrolling in childcare.
    7 – Prevent you from enrolling in state schools.
    8 – Fine you $10,000.
    9 – Take your child away from you.
    10 – Hold you down and vaccinate you ourselves.

    Where, on that scale, do you consider it becomes “compulsory”?

    This isn’t some petty point-scoring exercise. It is absolutely fundamental to your whole argument. The fact that you have treated it with such disdain is really quite surprising.

    So, Tony… where on the scale would you consider it compulsory?

    • Timaahy on April 16, 2019 at 8:25 pm

    Only completely ignorant and uninformed people think that ‘compulsory’ means only “Tying someone down and forcibly vaccinating them.” This seems to be precisely what you believed.

    Once again, bollocks.

    For the third time…

    Look mate, I can accept that there is potentially not a lot of difference between:

    (a)
    Tying someone down and forcibly vaccinating them

    and

    (b)
    Making the consequences of not vaccinating so onerous as to make it compulsory in all but name

    But you haven’t shown that. You haven’t even attempted to. And you’re a long, long way from proving it’s the case in California and NY.

    Thanks for calling me “completely ignorant and uninformed”, though.

    • Anthony on April 16, 2019 at 8:26 pm
      Author

    In the post:

    “(By ‘compulsory’ I mean whatever it is that US courts mean when using the word, such as when the California appeals court upheld legislation mandating vaccination, which it described–feeling no further elaboration was necessary (pg 1)–as compulsory vaccination. Quoting from Brown vs. Smith (2018): “compulsory immunization has long been recognized as the gold standard for preventing the spread of contagious diseases” and that it is within the ‘police powers’ of the state, and therefore “nothing further need be said.”)”

    I think we all know the truth, now. Thim certainly does support compulsory vaccination. He was just so ignorant he didn’t know it! LOL

    I have to say, I’m very disappointed in your conduct in this thread, Thim. For a moment, I actually thought you were going to engage me and the topic in good faith. This lasted all of a few posts, and then it was over. Very disappointing.

    Toodles, Thim.

    • Timaahy on April 16, 2019 at 8:29 pm

    Or how about this…

    Maybe instead of threatening people with $1,000 fines if they don’t get vaccinated, De Blasio should be offering to pay them $1,000 if they do get vaccinated.

    Is that a serious suggestion on your part? If so, would you still consider it compulsion? Hint: by your own standard, you should.

    • Timaahy on April 16, 2019 at 8:31 pm

    I have to say, I’m very disappointed in your conduct in this thread, Thim. For a moment, I actually thought you were going to engage me and the topic in good faith. This lasted all of a few posts, and then it was over. Very disappointing.

    Likewise, mate.

    Ridiculous.

    • Timaahy on April 16, 2019 at 9:04 pm

    I didn’t ‘protest unnecessarily,’ you decided to belabor it, because your argument was shown to be ridiculously stupid.

    Which argument was that, exactly?

    Do you believe it is appropriate that children MUST be vaccinated before their tax paying parents can send them to the schools their parents pay taxes to support?

    Actually, I’m a bit torn on this one. I can certainly see that such a measure has good intentions, but also recognise that there will inevitably be people who have genuine concerns about vaccines, but for which state schools are the only option. (I note that you said, several times, you would address the “homeschooling” and “move states” options, but are yet to do so).

    So, while I don’t think it classifies as “compulsory”, it’s certainly getting close.

    Ultimately, however, I support it. And the reason for that highlights the other glaring error in your original post (in addition to not defining “compulsory”). You have not, at any stage, weighed the pros against the cons.

    You waxed lyrical about the negative side-effects of vaccines, but there is nothing, in 6,170 words, that adequately addresses their benefits. There is some alternate, crackpot theory about diets being the real saviour, but nothing about the millions of deaths that vaccines have prevented. Milions, Tony. Even accepting that hundreds of people die from vaccines in a year, you haven’t even come close to weighing that against the millions of deaths they prevent.

    What’s bigger, Tony? Millions, or hundreds?

    The other issue is that you seem to think that the measles (or MMR) vaccine is the only one worth talking about. It’s fairly easy to see why, in that it’s the one in the western world that generates the most controversy, and people have kind of forgotten how bad measles can actually be. It’s a soft target, so I can see why you went after it. You’ve dedicated almost the entire post to discussing how bad it can be, and talking about some diseases that don’t have vaccines, but, as far as I can see, you haven’t once referenced the positive impacts of vaccines for polio, smallpox, or typhoid.

    One of those diseases, smallpox, has been completely eliminated thanks to its vaccine. Smallpox killed 500 million people in the 100 years before it was eradicated. 500 million.

    Would you, I wonder, have been railing against (actual) compulsory vaccinations for smallpox?

    I think I know the answer, given you’ve completely ignored it in your post.

    The third glaring issue with your post, is that you’ve failed to address why people are not getting their children vaccinated. You say, on the one hand, that no one knows about all these terrible side effects, but then why are those same people not getting vaccinated?

    Could it be because… oh I don’t know… some idiot named Andrew Wakefield fabricated a bogus link between the MMR vaccine and autism? Why yes, Jim, yes it is.

    This is the other reason I come down in favour of vaccines as a requirement for school. The vast, vast majority of objectors are uninformed, hippie idiots who are “immune” to rational arguments and think their ten minutes of googling trumps a hundred years of established science. That’s their choice (and pity their children for making that choice for them, but more on that later), but they are free to go do that someplace else.

    Again, it’s telling that you don’t address the actual reason that most people aren’t getting vaccinated.

    Do you believe it is appropriate to forbid people from public places in general, and require everyone in an area to get vaccinated, on penalty of a very large fine?

    No, I think that goes too far (for measles, at least). But again, it would depend on the disease.

  1. There are too many words here.

    • Timaahy on April 16, 2019 at 11:19 pm

    The fourth thing your 6,170 words failed to addressed is the rights of the actual child.

    Are your children vaccinated? Did they have a choice as to whether or not you had them vaccinated? This seems like something that should also be addressed, in a post about compulsory vaccination.

    • Timaahy on April 16, 2019 at 11:24 pm

    In conclusion, your post should have, but failed to, answer any of the following OBVIOUS questions:
    1 – What counts as compulsion?
    2 – What are the pros and cons of vaccines?
    3 – What are valid reasons for refusing vaccines?
    4 – If parents are able to compel their children to be vaccinated, why can’t the state?

    I award you zero marks. And may god have mercy on your soul.

    • Timaaahy on April 28, 2019 at 6:29 pm

    Hello? Tony? BendRinger? Got any answers?

    • Timaaahy on April 28, 2019 at 6:30 pm

    What about your promise to answer the homeschooling / move state options?

    • Timaahy on April 28, 2019 at 8:18 pm

    Thanks mate. That’s really nice of you. It’s nice to know that after all these years we’ve developed the kind of friendship that allows you to feel comfortable enough to accuse me of debating in bad faith.

    Your post has a number of glaring issues. But instead of doing some self-reflection, and taking some genuine criticisms onboard, you resort to sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending that you’re never wrong. And insulting a friend to-boot.

    Nice.

    • Timaahy on April 28, 2019 at 8:21 pm

    “It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who rejects my argument, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).”

    Which one am I, Tony?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

13 − eight =