Posted on 10/10/2021 9:14:16 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
A federal judge has denied that natural immunity from prior Covid-19 infection is a legally justifiable reason to be exempted from vaccine mandates. The judge’s ruling on a plaintiff’s case against Michigan State University comes as even mainstream media outlets admit that natural immunity is not only at least equivalent, but is actually superior to vaccinated immunity.
The court’s ruling was reported by the Epoch Times on Sunday:
An employee at the school, Jeanna Norris, filed a lawsuit against the mandate and asked a judge to intervene on the basis that she had already contracted COVID-19 and recovered. She presented two antibody tests showing her previous infection, and her doctors told her that she didn’t need to get the vaccine at this time.
Despite her natural immunity, Norris faces termination from the university for not complying with the school’s mandate that all students and staff get the shot unless they have a medical or religious exemption.
U.S. District Judge Paul Maloney, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, declined her lawsuit. The mandate, Maloney said, didn’t violate her fundamental rights and pointed to a 1905 Supreme Court ruling.
“This Court must apply the law from the Supreme Court: Jacobson essentially applied rational basis review and found that the vaccine mandate was rational in ‘protect[ing] the public health and public safety,’” Judge Maloney said in his order. “The Court cannot ignore this binding precedent.”
The Boston Globe, however, recently reported on the “weakness” in the argument for vaccine mandates.
“In 1905, the Supreme Court ruled that Massachusetts could fine people who would not take a smallpox vaccine,” the Boston Globe recently reported. “That case established a precedent for a 1922 case, Zucht v. King, that allowed San Antonio to mandate vaccines for all public and private school students. More recently, the Supreme Court cited the Jacobson case in its decisions about whether to permit governors in California and New York to place occupancy limits on religious services during a pandemic.”
“The Jacobson ruling gives the state nearly unchecked power to decide how to handle a public health emergency,” the report continued. “But that decision, old enough to have been written by a Civil War veteran, is jarring today because of the rights revolution in 20th-century American law. In cases decided after Jacobson, the Supreme Court has maintained that the Constitution — particularly the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment — limits the power of the state to touch the body. These Supreme Court cases concerning bodily integrity apply to every level of government, and they have also shaped public norms about individuals’ right to make crucial decisions about their own bodies.”
On Sunday, Reuters reported studies that further corroborate that natural immunity is superior protection against Covid-19 than vaccinated immunity. It reported bluntly “secondary immune response stronger after infection than vaccination.”
In COVID-19 survivors, important components of the body’s immune response called memory B cells continue to evolve and get stronger for at least several months, producing highly potent antibodies that can neutralize new variants of the virus, a new study has found.
By comparison, vaccine-induced memory B cells are less robust, evolving for only a few weeks and never ‘learning’ to protect against variants, researchers reported in a paper published on Thursday in Nature.
COVID-19 vaccines do induce more antibodies than the immune system does after a coronavirus infection. But the immune system response to infection appears to outshine its response to vaccines when it comes to memory B cells. Regardless of whether antibodies are induced by infection or vaccine, their levels drop within six months in many people. But memory B cells stand ready to produce new antibodies if the body encounters the virus.
Prior to this study, there had been little data on how vaccine-induced B cells compare to infection-induced B cells.
Earlier, an Israeli study came to similar conclusions.
“This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity,” an Israeli study said.
The CDC’s figures estimated that at least 120 million Americans had been infected with Covid-19 by the end of May, thus possessing superior natural immunity. That figure can be projected to be at least 150 million currently, due to the Delta variant wave and the CDC’s estimate there are at least four Covid infections for every case reported.
The Covid-19 vaccines do not ‘stop the spread,’ according to the CDC’s admission, thus calling into question whether a mandate is justifiable on public health grounds. The judge’s ruling thus ignores the science on natural immunity and Americans’ fundamental human right to control what goes into their own bodies.
Horrible judges can rule any way they want and they suffer no penalty for those rulings. Not even if they get slapped down. This needs to change.
Note that Maloney rhymes with Baloney.
Obviously a Science Denier.
Where did this judge get his medical degree at?
Maybe the judge doesn’t understand that the Covid “vaccines” are not actually vaccines, and that legal precedent pertaining to vaccines is not entirely on point.
exactly- he’s no scientist- nor biologist- he is a partisan hack
He should be disbarred for stepping outside his area of expertise in order to make a biased unscientific ruling
Total misapplication of the law. This is a Judge more worried about his PR with the Lying Media then the rule of law.
Jacobson vrs Mass specifically refers to the state legislature having this power. It has no bearing on a case of arbitrary executive action.
This judge is not only ignoring the science, he is ignoring the facts. From several articles I read, people who had survived small pox, were not required to take a vaccine. Hence natural immunity has been recognized.
Additionally, the jurisdiction for such matters lies with the States/reserved for the people-it is NOT the province of Unconstitutional Executive edicts.
Where is the State law that says natural immunity is irrelevant?
I wonder who owns this Judge, or is he just sloppy in his rulings?
yes because this judge knows science, and these vax have been around so long and show they are safe right?
A federal judge has denied that natural immunity from prior Covid-19 infection is a legally justifiable reason
/\
\/
Bassakwards.
It’s medically justifiable ,
so it IS legally justifiable
What a weasel “ judge”.
The rape of justice
by a weasel in a black robe.
Spit.
The lawsuits will keep coming.
The judge denying natural immunity and is promoting quack science.
Even the CDC admit it’s a 99% survival. How did all these people survive if they do not have natural immunity?
[I tried to resist, but my FRPost trigger finger just spasmodically twitched - I'm a Victim...]
While this judge is at it, lets address Pi. He should decree it to be 3.15 to simplify math for the world.
LOL! Definitely a *SPIT*-worthy ruling by this judge. :(
But Epoch Times reports that in the same state of Michigan a federal court judge ruled in favor of 16 unvaccinated Michigan student athletes on the basis of freedom of religion.
It’s a mess:
Religion trumps science.
Rights trump science.
Government trumps science.
Supreme Court trumps science.
Science trumps science
somebody once did define Pi, not that I remember the details
Living here I am ashamed to say it was the Indiana legislature. 3.15
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.