NYC mandates MMR jab. Dr. Paul Offit explains difference between ‘mandatory’ and ‘compulsory’

Mandatory vaccination: coercion or public health? NYC's de Blasio pushed fines for unvaccinated families, citing "societal price." But is forcing vaccines—backed by Big Pharma like Merck—really the answer? Let’s unpack this.

In 2019, de Blasio targeted Brooklyn communities, demanding MMR shots or face penalties. Sounds like protecting kids, right? But it’s a slippery slope. Compulsory vaccination, like in Philly’s 1991 measles outbreak (1,400 cases, 9 deaths), saw courts force parents to comply. Is this about safety or control?

Dr. Paul Offit, a vocal vaccine advocate, claims parents refusing MMR are “misinformed” about autism risks (debunked) or other diseases. But here’s the kicker: Offit’s ties to Merck, a top MMR vaccine maker, raise red flags. He’s made millions from vaccine patents. Can we trust his “safe and effective” mantra?

Forcing medical choices ignores personal freedom. If vaccines are so safe, why the need for mandates? De Blasio’s fines and court-ordered shots risk pushing skeptics “underground,” as Offit admits. And Philly’s 1991 tragedy? Slow response, not just vaccine refusal, fueled the crisis.

Parents aren’t always wrong. Some distrust Big Pharma’s grip—Merck’s Vioxx scandal killed thousands before its recall. When Offit, Merck’s ally, pushes mandates, it smells like profit over people. Shouldn’t we question a system that fines families for saying no?

The alternative? Education, not coercion. Measles is serious, but so is bodily autonomy. De Blasio and Offit’s heavy-handed approach risks backlash, not solutions. Let parents decide, armed with facts—not Merck’s paycheck.

SOURCE: https://x.com/newstart_2024/status/1918351023015641107