A reader makes a terrific point about the context of the 1905 Jacobson Supreme Court decision (which upheld Massachusetts's right to force smallpox vaccinations)...
I am an attorney and I have been struggling to come up with a legally feasible way to fight these mandates. When the 7th Circuit denied injunctive relief recently they stated in essence that there is no legally recognizable right not to take a vaccine. The best strategy that I have been able to come up with so far would hinge on recharacterizing these shots as therapies rather than vaccines which is a more scientifically accurate characterization any way. There is a much stronger legal argument to be made for a right to refuse a medical therapy because a therapy only benefits the recipient rather than the community. Since these shots do little (if anything) to prevent contracting or transmitting the virus, they do not function as vaccines. The best analogy I've heard is to using sunscreen to prevent sunburn. Whether I get a sunburn or not has zero correlation to whether somebody else is wearing sunscreen.
Yep. Just had an argument (wish it could have been a discussion) about this very topic yesterday. With a true believer. I try to avoid these conflicts but he would not leave me alone re the vaccine. I HAD COVID. I HAVE ANTIBODIES. He accused me of killing him. In fact, he accused me of killing millions of people every day! I yelled, "Are you dead? I've been hiking with you for weeks now! Are you dead???" He then referenced the small pox decision. One cannot have a reasonable discussion with a true believer.
It’s important to remember Jacobsen was protesting the $5 fine he had to pay for non compliance, but today people think Jacobsen justifies ANY penalty for the not vaccinated
LOL at any crayon eater who tries to compare Smallpox to COVID. The infection fatality rate of Smallpox was 30%+. It's even worse than comparing COVID to the Spanish Flu.
Did you know that the Spanish Flu killed 45,000 members of the US military, mostly when they were in camps on US soil (so not horrific battle conditions).
Guess how many members of the US Active /reserve military Covid has killed in 20 months.
34. That's right, 34 total active/reserve military deaths (none under the age of 27) vs 45,000.
The smooth brains will go "but, but, but...we were at war - the military was bigger back then!!! REEEEEEEEE"
Actually it was a bit bigger back then. 2.9 million in 1918 vs 2.1 million in 2020. So let's bump the 34 number up to 45 (which would pretty closely standardize based on a 2.9 million denominator and also keep the math simple).
So 45,000 military deaths from the Spanish flu vs. 45 military deaths (adjusted to 1918 military size) for COVID.
which means the Spanish Flu was 1,000X more deadly than COVID for young and healthy people.
Point is that COVID is dangerous for a specific subset of the population and for other subsets, the risk of serious illness is extremely low.
Let's put it this way. If someone walked up to you right now and said "You have your choice between contracting HIV or COVID (unvaccinated), but you have to choose one." Would you honestly consider taking the HIV option even for a second if you were young and healthy? Of course not. Even the thought is absurd.
Point is that COVID vaccines should be mandated for no one, and should be purely optional.
I just saw a horrifying video of a newborn baby who had clear systemic neurological damage and was experiencing ongoing tremors from head to toe. The mother was forced to take a covid vaccination a month from delivery because she needed a C-section and they wouldn't let her in the hospital without the shot. Now that child is going to suffer for life from that vaccine.
This is why vaccine mandates are evil. Never mind the idiocy of giving a new vaccine to a pregnant woman right before delivery. Never mind the videos of teenagers in the hospital with myocarditis. I'm writing up an article on this but I feel like we need to do more than write articles about it. Organize, somehow.
The VAERS website just released the weekly numbers indicating that there are now 14,701 confirmed deaths from the COVID vaccine in the US. Back on July 24th, the relevant figure was 11,405 and at the beginning of July, 9,125 deaths had been reported from the vaccinations. What all this means is that the number of deaths linked to the CDC promoted vaccines this year are skyrocketing and this is based on their own data. Now why is that and why would we ever consider giving this stuff to children? The number of adverse reactions reported this year is also huge. I guess this is what 'follow the science' is all about.
Question: is requiring a series of as yet untested vaccinations without determined end the same as requiring a single fully tested vaccine that is only administered once in a lifetime?
Margaret Sanger, Woodrow Wilson and Bull Conner were huge fans of Jacobson. The Virginia law scotus upheld in the Buck v Bell case (forced sterilization), relying on Jacobson, became part of the Third Reich model law.
Here are the four standards that the 1905 case cited as justification for the ruling. The vaccine had to meet these standards. Do these standards cited in Jacobson v Massachusetts meet the justification for a Covid vaccine?
My arguments follow the standards.
1. Necessity. Vaccines need to be given with purpose, not arbitrarily. What could be more arbitrary than giving a vaccine to a person who has already recovered from the virus? What could be more arbitrary than giving a vaccine to a majority of people who have well over a 99 percent survival rate? What could be more arbitrary than forcing people to take a vaccine when there are inexpensive and effective treatments readily available with medications that have been around for decades?
2. Reasonable Means. It must prevent or get rid of an actual threat to public health. The so-called vaccines do not prevent or get rid of an actual threat to public health according to the CDC, and according to the god and co-originator of Covid.
3. Proportionality. If a vaccine proportionally harms rather than helps an individual, it is unconstitutional. Since the government and the media are colluding to silence people and to prevent people, including medical doctors, from reporting detrimental effects - including deaths - to the public, it’s more difficult to show “proportionality.” The government is not tracking vaxed people who are catching the virus again and spreading it again, because they don’t want people to know the magnitude of the failure of the vax. More importantly, they are not tracking or reporting the data of hundreds of thousands of detrimental effects - including deaths - to the public. There are reasons that half the country opposes this vax. One - It doesn’t work. Two- The government wants to vax people who are already immune due to exposure and recovery. Three - They keep pushing people to take the vax over and over. How many months until “booster” #4, is “recommended.” Four - They have no idea of the long-term effects of this vax. Five - It has harmed or killed many thousands. Six – It isn’t a vaccine. A vaccine prevents a disease. A vaccine works long-term… not a few months. This doesn’t work at all. Seven – After being jerked around for 18 months, no one in their right mind would trust anything that the government or associated public “health” officials say.
4. Harm avoidance. The vaccine should not pose a health risk to those who take it. There are reported and verified cases of people who have been harmed by this vax and the fact that it doesn’t work and it also transmissible after getting the vax, also falls into the category of harm. And the fact that the government is not allowing those cases to be counted, heard and studied is further proof of harm.
You seem to imply that the supremes are somehow more even keel in temperament and decision making now. Can you provide charts and pie graphs for such evidence?
Also, are we to believe they can’t be bought just like any other crooked politician?
They weren’t saviors then, they aren’t saviors now. Don’t hold your breath on them overturning mandates despite it being in more modern and “woke” times.
I am an attorney and I have been struggling to come up with a legally feasible way to fight these mandates. When the 7th Circuit denied injunctive relief recently they stated in essence that there is no legally recognizable right not to take a vaccine. The best strategy that I have been able to come up with so far would hinge on recharacterizing these shots as therapies rather than vaccines which is a more scientifically accurate characterization any way. There is a much stronger legal argument to be made for a right to refuse a medical therapy because a therapy only benefits the recipient rather than the community. Since these shots do little (if anything) to prevent contracting or transmitting the virus, they do not function as vaccines. The best analogy I've heard is to using sunscreen to prevent sunburn. Whether I get a sunburn or not has zero correlation to whether somebody else is wearing sunscreen.
Yep. Just had an argument (wish it could have been a discussion) about this very topic yesterday. With a true believer. I try to avoid these conflicts but he would not leave me alone re the vaccine. I HAD COVID. I HAVE ANTIBODIES. He accused me of killing him. In fact, he accused me of killing millions of people every day! I yelled, "Are you dead? I've been hiking with you for weeks now! Are you dead???" He then referenced the small pox decision. One cannot have a reasonable discussion with a true believer.
Alex. I can’t thank you enough for what you do. Wonderful work.
People: we must financially and otherwise support the Alex Berenson’s of this world.
Please do not give money to the organizations and institutions that will crush you. Give instead to those that support liberty and honest inquiry.
It’s important to remember Jacobsen was protesting the $5 fine he had to pay for non compliance, but today people think Jacobsen justifies ANY penalty for the not vaccinated
LOL at any crayon eater who tries to compare Smallpox to COVID. The infection fatality rate of Smallpox was 30%+. It's even worse than comparing COVID to the Spanish Flu.
Did you know that the Spanish Flu killed 45,000 members of the US military, mostly when they were in camps on US soil (so not horrific battle conditions).
Guess how many members of the US Active /reserve military Covid has killed in 20 months.
34. That's right, 34 total active/reserve military deaths (none under the age of 27) vs 45,000.
The smooth brains will go "but, but, but...we were at war - the military was bigger back then!!! REEEEEEEEE"
Actually it was a bit bigger back then. 2.9 million in 1918 vs 2.1 million in 2020. So let's bump the 34 number up to 45 (which would pretty closely standardize based on a 2.9 million denominator and also keep the math simple).
So 45,000 military deaths from the Spanish flu vs. 45 military deaths (adjusted to 1918 military size) for COVID.
which means the Spanish Flu was 1,000X more deadly than COVID for young and healthy people.
Point is that COVID is dangerous for a specific subset of the population and for other subsets, the risk of serious illness is extremely low.
Let's put it this way. If someone walked up to you right now and said "You have your choice between contracting HIV or COVID (unvaccinated), but you have to choose one." Would you honestly consider taking the HIV option even for a second if you were young and healthy? Of course not. Even the thought is absurd.
Point is that COVID vaccines should be mandated for no one, and should be purely optional.
I just saw a horrifying video of a newborn baby who had clear systemic neurological damage and was experiencing ongoing tremors from head to toe. The mother was forced to take a covid vaccination a month from delivery because she needed a C-section and they wouldn't let her in the hospital without the shot. Now that child is going to suffer for life from that vaccine.
This is why vaccine mandates are evil. Never mind the idiocy of giving a new vaccine to a pregnant woman right before delivery. Never mind the videos of teenagers in the hospital with myocarditis. I'm writing up an article on this but I feel like we need to do more than write articles about it. Organize, somehow.
The VAERS website just released the weekly numbers indicating that there are now 14,701 confirmed deaths from the COVID vaccine in the US. Back on July 24th, the relevant figure was 11,405 and at the beginning of July, 9,125 deaths had been reported from the vaccinations. What all this means is that the number of deaths linked to the CDC promoted vaccines this year are skyrocketing and this is based on their own data. Now why is that and why would we ever consider giving this stuff to children? The number of adverse reactions reported this year is also huge. I guess this is what 'follow the science' is all about.
I’ll pay the $5
Most of what the govt does is unconstitutional. Yet the Supreme Court let’s it happen. A bunch of unelected bureaucrats. It should be abolished.
Question: is requiring a series of as yet untested vaccinations without determined end the same as requiring a single fully tested vaccine that is only administered once in a lifetime?
Margaret Sanger, Woodrow Wilson and Bull Conner were huge fans of Jacobson. The Virginia law scotus upheld in the Buck v Bell case (forced sterilization), relying on Jacobson, became part of the Third Reich model law.
The Covid injections are the only product in the world whose failures are blamed on those who haven't taken the product.
Here are the four standards that the 1905 case cited as justification for the ruling. The vaccine had to meet these standards. Do these standards cited in Jacobson v Massachusetts meet the justification for a Covid vaccine?
My arguments follow the standards.
1. Necessity. Vaccines need to be given with purpose, not arbitrarily. What could be more arbitrary than giving a vaccine to a person who has already recovered from the virus? What could be more arbitrary than giving a vaccine to a majority of people who have well over a 99 percent survival rate? What could be more arbitrary than forcing people to take a vaccine when there are inexpensive and effective treatments readily available with medications that have been around for decades?
2. Reasonable Means. It must prevent or get rid of an actual threat to public health. The so-called vaccines do not prevent or get rid of an actual threat to public health according to the CDC, and according to the god and co-originator of Covid.
3. Proportionality. If a vaccine proportionally harms rather than helps an individual, it is unconstitutional. Since the government and the media are colluding to silence people and to prevent people, including medical doctors, from reporting detrimental effects - including deaths - to the public, it’s more difficult to show “proportionality.” The government is not tracking vaxed people who are catching the virus again and spreading it again, because they don’t want people to know the magnitude of the failure of the vax. More importantly, they are not tracking or reporting the data of hundreds of thousands of detrimental effects - including deaths - to the public. There are reasons that half the country opposes this vax. One - It doesn’t work. Two- The government wants to vax people who are already immune due to exposure and recovery. Three - They keep pushing people to take the vax over and over. How many months until “booster” #4, is “recommended.” Four - They have no idea of the long-term effects of this vax. Five - It has harmed or killed many thousands. Six – It isn’t a vaccine. A vaccine prevents a disease. A vaccine works long-term… not a few months. This doesn’t work at all. Seven – After being jerked around for 18 months, no one in their right mind would trust anything that the government or associated public “health” officials say.
4. Harm avoidance. The vaccine should not pose a health risk to those who take it. There are reported and verified cases of people who have been harmed by this vax and the fact that it doesn’t work and it also transmissible after getting the vax, also falls into the category of harm. And the fact that the government is not allowing those cases to be counted, heard and studied is further proof of harm.
You seem to imply that the supremes are somehow more even keel in temperament and decision making now. Can you provide charts and pie graphs for such evidence?
Also, are we to believe they can’t be bought just like any other crooked politician?
They weren’t saviors then, they aren’t saviors now. Don’t hold your breath on them overturning mandates despite it being in more modern and “woke” times.
Somehow when it comes to "Stare Decisis" some of those Decisies are more Stare'd than others.
Best . Post. Of . Late.
‘Nuff said.