"The very idea of a human being some sort of natural concept is really going to change. Our bodies will be so high tech we won’t be able to really distinguish between what’s natural and what’s artificial.”
What is the Fourth Industrial Revolution?
World Economic Forum, 2016
"Now a Fourth Industrial Revolution is building on the Third, the digital revolution that has been occurring since the middle of the last century. It is characterized by a fusion of technologies that is blurring the lines between the physical, digital, and biological spheres...The Fourth Industrial Revolution, finally, will change not only what we do but also who we are."
"Covid 19 if anything has accelerated this ongoing industrial revolution..the fourth industrial revolution has become a reality."
Klaus Schwab, World Knowledge Forum 2020
"The final solution, which is a year to two years off is the vaccine."
Bill Gates Interview 4.24.20 by Stephan Colbert @ 2:20"
“You have no right not to be vaccinated, you have no right not to wear a mask, you have no right to open up your business… And if you refuse to be vaccinated, the state has the power to literally take you to a doctor's office and plunge a needle into your arm.”
Alan Dershowitz, Constitutional lawyer and Harvard Law Professor.
When we began this website mid 2020, it appeared the state was going to use Jacobson v. Massachusetts as
its justification for mandating Covid vaccination. In those days, Dershowitz was making the rounds on the
networks stating Jacobson provided the Constitutional rationale for plunging a needle into the arms
of unwilling victims. Similarly, the State Bar of NY decided Jacobson provided government a free pass to
forcibly vaccinate anyone, anytime, anywhere.
Since then, there appeared to be a change in mainstream thinking, which culminated with the Supreme
Court's decision in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo. In that case Justice Gorsuch, in a
concurring opinion, excoriated the use of Jacobson as justification for a vaccine mandate, triggering a
pivot to the "private" sector. In August of 2021 however, following the FDA's approval of the Pfizer
"vaccine," the federal government joined the private sector and embarked on a course of vaccine
mandates for federal employees.
Though Jacobson was not the justification for this pivot, this seminal case is still crucial to understanding
where we are, and how its holding applies to both public and private actors. With respect to private
actors, the question becomes entwinement with the state or their performance of a state function.
Additionally, are private mandates subject to constitutional review, given government's funding,
development and administration of every aspect of the Covid vaccine?
Whether a mandate by the federal government presents a constitutional question is more clear cut,
despite Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor's perfunctory denial of an emergency request by four New
York City teachers to block the city's vaccine mandate. This denial was enigmatic, given the plain
language of Jacobson, which requires a nuanced analysis of multiple factors; and even if a mandate were
allowed, Jacobson does not permit a substantive penalty, such as employment termination, for vaccine
It is within the context of both Jacobson and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR) that this site will explore the syndrome of "vaccine lawfare," and how this pathosis, (seemingly in remission after Nuremberg) has metastasized over the last 18 months.
*See Warning & Disclaimers below: Information on this website is strictly the opinion
of presenter(s). This information is general in nature and should not be relied upon
as legal advice, because legal advice cannot be given without full consideration of
all relevant information relating to the reader’s individual situation.
This site will also focus on info-lawfare, which will discuss the targeting of those who advocate that
non- consensual medical experiments violate human rights. This assault on speech has a chilling effect
on the ability to communicate valid and potentially lifesaving information regarding global "vaccine"
trials. This suppression of protected content is being facilitated by the legal artifice that de facto social
media monopolies and internet common carriers, which received their initial funding from the public
purse, are not subject to state action and the 1st Amendment.
Jacobson v Massachusetts- a short history of its re-emergence in the age of Covid
Is a Covid 19 "vaccine" mandate coming? That was the question mid- 2020; and according to Professor
Kaminer at Buruch College, Department of Law, "States and the federal government have the law on their
side if they needed to enact mandates." The New York Bar is on record in favor of mandates and State of
Virginia Health Commissioner proclaimed he intends to use his authority to mandate a coronavirus
On 9.10.20, WUSA published the article, "States can Legally Mandate a Vaccine" (wusa9.com). WUSA cited
its source as WHO Director Professor Lawrence Gostin, Georgetown University. As case law authority,
WUSA cited Jacobson v Massachusetts, 1905.
Dershowitz and other legal experts contended Jacobson v Massachusetts gave government the police
power to forcibly mandate a Covid 19 "vaccine." Did these experts have a constitutional basis for their
position or did they know (ab initio) their argument was legally unsound?
The decision in Jacobson allowed the State of Massachusetts to fine a defendant, who refused a smallpox vaccine**, five dollars. The Supreme Court's decision relied heavily on the common belief that smallpox vaccination, based on one hundred years of use, was safe and effective. Is the Court's holding in Jacobson,
with respect to a smallpox vaccine, applicable to Covid 19 "vaccines" under and an Emergency Use
Authorization (EUA) and/or a BLA, issued before the completion of the vaccine's primary trial in 2023?
Vaccines are a unique class of pharmaceutical products that meet the statutory definition of both a drug
and a biologic product (Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, 21 USC Sec. 321). Vaccines (such as smallpox, polio,
MMR, measles) are regulated as Biologics by the FDA (CBER) under the sub-category Vaccine. Other FDA
sub-categories under Biologics, are Gene Therapies, Cellular Products, Human Cells and Tissues.
The FDA defines a Biologic as a Vaccine regardless of its composition or method of manufacture, so long
as its claimed intention is to induce or enhance a specific immune response to prevent or treat a disease
or condition, or to enhance the activity of other therapeutic interventions. Therefore, even if a Biologic is
a Genetic Therapy, if a manufacturer claims its end point satisfies the definition, is it lawful for the FDA to
regulate it as a "vaccine"?
The FDA in its publications does distinguish between traditional and novel "vaccines":
"Advances in biotechnology have resulted in novel vaccines that are presently developed against global disease
(e.g., nucleic-acid based (DNA) vaccines, viral-vectored vaccines, recombinant fusion protein vaccines and genetically
altered attenuated live vaccines). These vaccines are frequently combined with novel adjuvants and administered
using new delivery systems" (Guidance for Industry, Dec. 2011, fda.gov.).
All EUA and Phase III Covid 19 Investigational Drugs "vaccines" are novel, next generation platforms and not traditional vaccines.
J&J's Ad26.COV2.S and AstraZeneca's AZD1222 are DNA viral vectors. Moderna's 1273 and
Pfizer/Biontech are mRNA viral vectors.
Therefore, is it reasonable to claim Jacobson (which addressed a traditional smallpox vaccine) gives
government the power to mandate a novel "vaccine," when that question was not before the Court in
1905, nor any Court since? In fact, the Jacobson Court's holding was explicitly based on the smallpox
vaccine's 100 year safety record, which was common knowledge at the time. Additionally, why do the
legal experts who cite Jacobson as authority for mandating a novel "vaccine", sidestep that Court's
reasoning which upheld a $5 fine, as opposed to forced or coerced vaccination? Is it possible those who
cite Jacobson as authority for mandates are engaged in vaccine lawfare?
This question was addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo on November 25, 2020. In his conconcurrence, Judge Gorsuch explicitly demarcates the limits of Jacobson by
stating that Jacobson provides no authority for forced vaccination. Gorsuch's concurrence and its impact
on Jacobson is discussed in this site's section on the Limits of Jacobson.
Given the Court's injunction in Roman Catholic Diocese, it appeared more likely Covid vaccine mandates
would be by the "private sector." (See this site's section on Employer Mandates, where 21 U.S. Code's
"Option to Refuse" is discussed in detail). These mandates (if determined to be de facto state action) raise
the issue of the constitutionality of a "private sector" warp speed end around of the 1st, 4th and 14th Amendments. While Jacobson is certainly germane to federal mandates, it also has applicability to private mandates subsequent to Roman Catholic Diocese.
Independent of Jacobson, 21 U.S. Code raises an additional barrier to both private and public forced
vaccination per an EUA, which provides the option to refuse an unapproved investigational drug.
According to the FDA, the investigational novel "vaccines" for Covid are at the forefront of biomedical experimentation.
"DNA vaccines represent a new frontier for molecular-based recombinant vaccines." fda.gov/media/81708
The mRNA "vaccines" are so novel, regulators in some countries (e.g. Japan) are unsure if mRNA vectors
should be sub-categorized as a "vaccine" or under a completely new sub-category of biologic. Fueling this uncertainty, Moderna in its 8K SEC filing stated, mRNA vectors (in contrast to DNA vectors) should be
regulated under a completely new sub-category of Novel Biologics.
Regardless of the sub-category under which these Next Generation Platforms are regulated, or what they
end up being called due to political expediency, it is axiomatic that Emergency Use Authorization or the
issuance of a BLA at this point in time, is predicated on the collection and analysis of short term data
only. The regulatory question then becomes, how does the FDA construct its required Probability-Impact
Matrix, in order to determine if an investigational novel "vaccine" is unquestionably safe enough to issue
a full approval?
A Probability-Impact Matrix requires the FDA to assign a probability to the likelihood of harm occurring
and then multiplying that probability, by the severity of harm should it occur.
Given only short term data is available (approx. 1 year), it is tautological that calculating the probability of
long term harm from an investigational novel "vaccine" is unknown. Setting aside Pfizer's BLA, Moderna, AstraZeneca & JJ may market their "vaccine" as proven, but credible sources would disagree.
"It is not proven until it is licensed...to say it is proven without peer- reviewed efficacy data is a stretch."
Professor Hildegund C.J. Ertl, M.D., Vaccine & Immunotherapy Center.
What is foreseeable however, is that if long term harm does occur, such as mass mutagenesis and/or
any of the myriad vaccine enhanced diseases ( see Pfizer's known risk of myocarditis in the first 7 days),
the severity of harm to billions of people and future generations could be catastrophic and potentially
the worst medical (iatrogenic) disaster in human history.
Given a truncated investigation measured in months and the absence of any long term in vivo data
(previous world record was mumps at 4 years):
1) Can the FDA construct a Probability-Impact Matrix, reasonably sufficient to perform the requisite
risk-benefit analysis that addresses important identified risks, important potential risks and important
2) Given a formula which requires the FDA to determine the product of an unknown multiplier
(likelihood of harm) and a potentially infinite multiplicand (severity of harm), can the FDA legally justify
private or public mandates under an EUA or premature BLA?
Do FDA authorized or approved "vaccines" preempt individual states from asserting their police powers
to mandate injections? If so, would an approved 'vaccine prior to the completion of its clinical trial,
be subject to the Right of Refusal set forth in Sec. 564 of the Federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act?
The circumvention of Jacobson to support public and/or private mandates
Jacobson represents a Constitutional argument against forced vaccination. Under Jacobson a state mandate requires a common belief in vaccine safety and efficacy; and even if this pre-condition is satisfied,
Jacobson does not support forced vaccination only fines. Thus, since a state cannot subject its citizens to
forced medical experiments, state actors are now positioning the private sector to do what they cannot.
By initially arguing Jacobson permitted forced vaccination, the state took a page from Sun Tzu's
Art of War - appearing strong when they were weak. The argument that Jacobson permitted forced
vaccination is legally weak, but it has now paved the way for proposed private mandates insulated from a Jacobson analysis. In other words, if the state can constitutionally mandate vaccination, then the private
sector, which is free from constitutional restraint, could do so as well. This constitutes lawfare and is an
end around the Constitution.
In the end, Jacobson becomes relevant not as an argument for forced vaccination, but as a Constitutional
bulwark against it. But for this to take effect, Jacobson's reasoning must be imposed upon state actors as
well as those who operate under the artifice of private industry, in concert with or directed by state actors.
Furthermore, even though the Jacobson Court did not consider the constitutionality of a novel "vaccine" mandate, its holding is prescient and provides a workable framework to determine whether the Constitution would permit it. Foundational to this analysis is the common belief of the medical
profession and the public, not the science per se.
"While we do not decide, and cannot decide, that vaccination is a preventive of smallpox, we take judicial notice of
the fact that this is the common belief of the people of the state, and, with this fact as a foundation, we hold that the
statute in question is a health law, enacted in a reasonable and proper exercise of the police power" Jacobson v Mass.
While it is beyond dispute some individuals will willingly volunteer their bodies for "vaccine" research
regardless of risk, can this be said for the majority of people if informed by the facts? Without adequate knowledge to form a reasonable belief as to a novel "vaccine's" safety or efficacy, would the Court take
judicial notice (which is the requisite test) that a majority would willingly and reasonably submit to a
novel "vaccine" mandate? This issue of knowledge and the common belief must also take into
consideration the abrogation of the 1st Amendment by state proxies and the wholesale censorship of
who seek and disseminate information questioning experimental vaccines.
In conclusion, Jacobson's holding, must be reintroduced into the forced vaccine debate as written, so that
the issue of a novel "vaccine" mandate can be analyzed in the proper context of U.S Constitutional Law,
the Law of Nations and the Nuremberg Code. But the gravamen of this undertaking is unwinding the
gordian knot tying together federal, state and the so called "private" scientific technological elites, that
President Eisenhower warned us about 60 years ago. If our statesmen and women fail to understand and disassemble these integrated forces, we shall surely lose our Republic.
"Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the
technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government. Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields.
In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has
experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract
becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of
money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we
should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a
scientific technological elite.
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the
principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society." President Dwight D. Eisenhower, Farewell Address.
* None of the Investigational New Drugs under a the 2020 EUA's are traditional vaccines. Nevertheless, these next generation platforms
are being referred to as "vaccines" because of their intended end point. Therefore, in order to introduce clarity into the discussion,
when an Investigational New Drug is a Next Generation Platform (e.g., nucleic-acid based (DNA) vaccine, viral-vectored vaccine,
recombinant fusion protein vaccine and/or genetically altered attenuated live vaccine) it shall be distinguished from a traditional
platform by the use of quotation marks around "vaccine." When not in quotes, vaccine refers to a traditional vaccine (e.g. smallpox,
measles, MMR, tetanus).
Editor's Note: The reader's indulgence is requested. Confounding the terms Experimental, Investigational New Drug, Next Generation Platform, Novel
Biologic, Novel Vaccine, Genetic Therapy, Traditional Vaccine and approved Covid "vaccine," is at the heart of vaccine lawfare and it is important the reader
unpack this conceptual confusion.
**The common law of traditional vaccines is well established. Therefore, this website will not address traditional vaccines developed
and deployed consistent with longstanding regulatory process and believed by the majority of medical professionals and the public to
be safe and effective.
Information on this website is general in nature and should not be relied upon as
legal advice, because legal advice cannot be given without full consideration of all relevant information relating to the reader’s individual situation. Use of this site is expressly conditioned upon reader's agreement and consent that no attorney client relationship is created nor shall be created. Any information provided by readers in comments shall not be kept confidential or private.
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this website are the opinions of the presenter(s).
All views presented, including but not limited to statements regarding Covid 19,
Covid 19 vaccines, the interpretation of data, law or regulations, are strictly the
opinions of the presenter(s).
All claims made, “facts” and data presented, opinions proffered and/or laws/regs
cited, should be independently verified. Any republication of this material to any 3rd
party, must contain this warning and disclaimer, in its entirety. This warning and
disclaimer must be legible, prominent and in bold type.
This site and its contents are protected under 17 U.S. Code § 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair
use. Copyright Act of 1976