More people are being encouraged and coerced into getting the Covid-19 injection by governments around the world, especially in the United States where mandates have been enforced for federal workers and health care staff. Businesses with over 100 employees are now required to ensure all staff are fully vaccinated. This move would force over 100 million Americans to get the jab, if they aren’t already.
However, this requirement has received a great deal of criticism and pushback. Many lawyers are working to get the US courts to recognise natural immunity to Covid-19 from a prior coronavirus infection as a credible legal exemption against mandatory vaccinations.
Erik Eisenmann, an attorney specialising in labour and employment law, said: “I think that a judge might reject a rule that’s been issued by a body, like the U.S. Department of Labour or by a state, that has not been sufficiently thought through as it relates to the science.”
“Right now, I think it’s been easy for employers and the medical community to say the vaccine is always better,” added Eisenmann. “But the science evolves and there are new strains.”
Eisenmann and many other lawyers are turning to one report out of Israel that strongly suggests that natural immunity provides significantly better protection against Covid-19 than getting fully vaccinated by the Pfizer vaccine.
Todd Zywicki, a law professor at George Mason University and a senior fellow for the libertarian think tank the Cato Institute, argued that government and private entities alike have a right to take reasonable precautions against the spread of disease. But their power to do so has limits.
Zywicki explained that these limits are grounded in Jacobson vs Massachusetts, a Supreme Court decision from 1905 that upheld a state vaccine mandate for smallpox. He thinks this precedent may be challenged if a case is brought before the Supreme Court that has enough legal and scientific backing.
“That was a different medical era,” Zywicki said. “There was no way to confirm whether you had a prior infection and recovery, which is obviously the case now.”
The law professor believes a modern legal analysis of vaccine mandates should consider a later Supreme Court ruling – Buck vs Bell from 1927 – which solidified the right of individuals to make decisions concerning their bodies. The ruling argued that even prisoners cannot be subjected against their will to state-mandated medication.
Zywicki said: “Understandably, we are repulsed by that sort of attitude: that the government can do anything to you just because they think it’s a convenient way of dealing with some social problem.”
Whilst lawyers are coming together to fight for the recognition of natural immunity in the courts, Republicans in Congress are attempting to pressure the CDC to do the same.
In the Senate, Republican Sen. Roger Marshall of Kansas recently sent a letter to CDC Director Dr Rochelle Walensky calling on the CDC to recognise natural immunity against Covid-19.
Marshall, who is a licensed physician, led 13 other senators and representatives that make up the GOP Doctors Caucus in a letter to Walensky, warning her that not recognising natural immunity to Covid-19 could have a wide range of implications.
Marshall’s letter read: “The U.S. Department of Defence vaccine mandate has the potential to lead a national security crisis by separating up to 20 percent of our military personnel, many of whom likely have natural immunity.
“Published and submitted journal articles verify immunity from natural infection and innate immunity in measuring an individual’s level of protection to COVID-19. One study examining this found that patients who recovered from COVID-19 could produce a long-term immune response.”
The group is demanding the CDC to examine all of the data available and to use the technology it has access to establish “better patient-centred solutions” that prove a person’s natural immunity to Covid-19 produced a “sufficient level of protection.”
“We urge the CDC to acknowledge natural immunity and work with other federal agencies to ensure all future guidance, policies and federally-funded research take this evidence into account and build off it.”
We’re not funded by the Government
to publish lies and propaganda on their
behalf like the mainstream media.
Instead we rely solely on your support, so
please support us in our efforts to bring you
honest, reliable, investigative journalism.
It’s quick and easy…
Please choose your preferred
method to show your support