STATEMENT OF CONCERN

                                                                         

                                                                                                                                                     

 

 “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, Harvard law professor citing, Jacobson v Massachusetts.

Are legal experts who state precedent gives government the police power to mandate a novel "vaccine"* engaging in lawfare?

Do police powers, give the state the right to forcibly and without your consent, plunge a novel "vaccine" into your arm?

Outbreaks and national emergencies often create pressure to suspend rights, standards and/or normal rules of ethical conduct. Often our decision to do so seems unwise in retrospect.” 

Jonathan Kimmelman, director of McGill University’s Biomedical Ethics Unit.

 

Per U.S. regulatory law, all Covid 19 "vaccines" currently in Phase III are novel Biologics and not traditional vaccines.

Key legal issue:

Are novel "vaccines" similar to traditional vaccines which are commonly believed to be safe and effective; or do novel "vaccines" based on Next Generation Platforms constitute legally distinguishable, processes, delivery systems and materials?

 

 

In Jacobson v Massachusetts, the Court stated mandatory vaccination was permissible if the safety and efficacy of a vaccine was based on a reasonable widespread common belief and knowledge. The Jacobson Court citing Commonwealth v Anthes, 5 Gray 185, stated, courts are obligated to consider the evidence [of vaccine safety] in connection with facts recognized as common knowledge and belief, which the court will always regard in passing on the constitutionality of a statute. The issue in Jacobson was whether the smallpox vaccine could be mandated given it had been in use for nearly a century, and according to both common and expert medical knowledge was considered safe and effective. 

 

If novel "vaccines" are medically distinguishable from traditional vaccines, would a law mandating them be consistent with the test of reasonableness set forth in Jacobson

"The question is complicated by the newness of the science at play. The technology that has allowed Moderna to craft an experimental vaccine so fast has not yielded a single immunization that’s made it to market so far. It's a trendy idea. Instead of injecting people with a weakened pathogen or proteins from the surface of a pathogen, so that our bodies will learn to fight off such infections in the future, scientists are betting on a kind of genetic hack, a lab-made concoction that gets the body to produce its own virus-like bits which it will then train itself to combat."

https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/11/researchers-rush-to-start-moderna-coronavirus-vaccine-trial-without-usual-animal-testing/

 

Tools such as CRISPR have revolutionized genetic engineering and are allowing "vaccine" manufacturers to experiment with entirely new categories of drugs for the putative purpose of immunization against disease. These drugs are so novel some regulatory bodies have yet to determined if they are "vaccines" or whether they should be regulated under a new category of Biologics.

The question as to whether novel Biologics, widely referred to as unprecedented, can be mandated under the state's police powers, has never been the subject of any constitutional review. Given this, it is difficult to imagine how Jacobson's holding could be seen to encompass a novel "vaccine" mandate. 

Undeterred, The State Bar of New York and other legal scholars such as Dershowitz, cite Jacobson, a 115 year old case, as legal precedent for mandating a novel "vaccine," despite the Court's admonition that, "We now decide only that the statute covers the present case..." (Jacobson v Mass. Pg. 197).

 

Jacobson v Massachusetts involved a smallpox vaccine only, which the Court held could be reasonably mandated, based on its safe, effective use for nearly 100 years. 

 

In fact, by 1905 the smallpox vaccine had been in use for 131 years. 

The use of smallpox and cowpox was widely known among the country physicians in the dairy counties of 18th-century England (Riedel, Stefan. Edward Jenner and the History of Smallpox Vaccination, 2005). The transition from smallpox inoculate to cowpox vaccination began in 1774, with the work of Benjamin Jesty in Dorset England (Oxford Dictionary of National Biography).

Given Jacobson is being cited as precedent for forcibly injecting 328 million Americans with a novel "vaccine", as distinguished from a smallpox vaccine, Jacobson should be reviewed for legal relevance.

* Novel "vaccines" in Phase III investigational trials are not traditional vaccines. Nevertheless, novel "vaccines" are referred to as "vaccines". Therefore, in order to introduce clarity to the discussion, novel "vaccines" based on next generation platforms ​shall be distinguished from traditional vaccines by the use of quotation marks around "vaccine", when "vaccine" refers to a novel "vaccine."  When not in quotes, vaccine refers to traditional vaccines.

Editor's Note: The reader's indulgence is requested. Confounding the terms novel "vaccine" based on next generation platforms and traditional vaccine is at the heart of vaccine lawfare and it is important the reader unpack this conceptual confusion.

  

  • Grey Facebook Icon
  • Grey Twitter Icon
  • Grey LinkedIn Icon