Mandatory Vaccines, Public Debate, and Informed Consent

Valuetainment’s

“Heated Vaccine Debate: Kennedy Jr. vs. Dershowitz”

Overview: Independently-owned by Patrick Bet-David, a Valuetainment is a syndicated new media channel on the social media platform YouTube. It features interviews, debates, and discussions covers a variety of subjects from perspectives routinely ignored in the major, mainstream, corporate-owned, for-profit news media (CNN, CBS News, NBC News, PBS News, CNBC, FOX, MSNBC, ABC News, FOX News Channel, Los Angeles Daily News, Newsday, Time, The New York Times, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, The Boston Globe, Forbes, Los Angeles Times, U.S. News and World Report, Newsweek, HuffPost, NPR, The Associated Press, The Guardian, Reuters, The Boston Globe, Bloomberg, Vice News). This debate between attorney Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Harvard law professor Alan M. Dershowitz argues whether a vaccine created for Covid-19 should be mandatory or compulsory.

Debate Participants:

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. serves as president of Waterkeeper Alliance, chief legal counsel for the Children’s Health Defense, and is counsel to Morgan & Morgan, a nationwide personal injury practice. Kennedy’s published books include the New York Times’ bestseller, Crimes Against Nature. Kennedy has received recognition for his role in the landmark victory against Monsanto in 2019, as well as in the DuPont Case that inspired the movie “Dark Waters” (2019). Kennedy is opposed to compulsory or mandatory vaccination and advocates individual choice and decision-making when it comes to vaccinations and immunizations and cites studies and court cases in which vaccines and immunizations have caused serious physical harm.

Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. Dershowitz, a graduate of Brooklyn College and Yale Law School, joined the Harvard Law School faculty at 15, after clerking for Judge David Bazelon and Justice Arthur Goldberg. Dershowitz advocates state mandates and compulsory vaccinations and immunizations in the name of the public good and public health and cites legal precedents to support the historical constitutionality of forced vaccination and other coercive government actions.

Paper Formatting Instructions: When you type your response in a Word document, please make sure that your document has one-inch (1″) margins on the top, bottom, and sides. Be sure that you type your first and last name in the upper left-hand corner. Under your name, place the due date (November 22, 2020). Under the due date, type the course number (HUM 312-71). Under the course number, type Professor Stephenson. Underneath my name, include the title of the paper (i.e. the question you’re answering). Each of these lines should be single-spaced. However, be sure that you double-space your (2) two-page response to one of the following three questions: (If your response is longer than one page, be sure that each page is numbered. Clearly indicate to which question/statement from below you are responding) :

1) Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is often described in and out of the major, mainstream media as an “anti-vaxxer” by those who have heard him speak on vaccines. However, Kennedy rejects this label and makes it clear that he is not against vaccines, vaccinations or immunizations. What, precisely, is Kennedy’s contention or issue with vaccines that motivates him to speak about them in ways that many people come to believe make him an opponent of vaccinations and immunizations? Be detailed and specific.

2) Describe three (3) of Dershowitz’s arguments in favor of compulsory or mandatory vaccines and three of Kennedy’s against compulsory and mandatory vaccines. Explain the logic of each argument and why they are logical. Be detailed and specific.

3) Why do you think that Kennedy and Dershowitz have not been invited to debate on major, mainstream, commercial media channels on traditional network, cable, and satellite media channels and social media channels that have broad, mass audiences of millions of people? Be detailed and specific.

4) If Kennedy’s arguments are accurate that clinical trials are routinely too short and do not record all the important data, should a vaccine be mandatory and should those who refuse to take it be barred from social life, as Dershowitz advocates based on legal precedents on this and other issues of state compulsion? Why or why not. Be detailed and specific.

5) When polled, according to Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a significant number of people in the United States have stated that they will not take the coronavirus vaccine when it is developed and distributed. The real issue, according to Kennedy, is not how to persuade or compel the American population to take a coronavirus vaccine, but, rather, to ask, “Why do so many Americans no longer trust regulatory officials and no longer trust this process?” What arguments does Kennedy put forward to support his claims that vaccines cause more harm than is reported in the mainstream news media and that people who are skeptical about vaccines have a right to be skeptical? Why might Kennedy’s arguments be persuasive? Be detailed and specific.