Nobel Prize winning virologist Luc Montagnier and law professor Jed Rubenfeld explain in the Wall Street Journal why vaccine mandates make no sense. Will the Supreme Court figure this out?
“It would be irrational, legally indefensible and contrary to the public interest for government to mandate vaccines absent any evidence that the vaccines are effective in stopping the spread of the pathogen they target. Yet that’s exactly what’s happening here.”
Very true. Montagnier and Rubenfeld point out that there’s no evidence that vaccines do anything to stop the spread of the virus. This is a fact acknowledged by the CDC itself:
“As CDC Director Rochelle Walensky put it last summer, the viral load in the noses and throats of vaccinated people infected with Delta is ‘indistinguishable’ from that of unvaccinated people, and ‘what [the vaccines] can’t do anymore is prevent transmission.’”
The legal basis for the mandates rests on the Court’s 1905 ruling in Jacobsen v. Massachusetts. That case asked whether mandatory vaccinations against smallpox were unconstitutional. Jacobsen turned on whether the vaccine would stop the spread of the disease. The Court wrote:
“The possibility that the belief may be wrong, and that science may yet show it to be wrong, is not conclusive; for the legislature has the right to pass laws which, according to the common belief of the people, are adapted to prevent the spread of contagious diseases. In a free country, where the government is by the people, through their chosen representatives, practical legislation admits of no other standard of action, for what the people believe is for the common welfare must be accepted as tending to promote the common welfare, whether it does in fact or not.”
By the CDC’s own admission, vaccines do nothing to prevent the spread of COVID. Indeed, Montagnier and Rubenfeld write that there is evidence that vaccines make people more likely to contract the Omicron variant of the virus.
“One preprint study found that after 30 days the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines no longer had any statistically significant positive effect against Omicron infection, and after 90 days, their effect went negative—i.e., vaccinated people were more susceptible to Omicron infection. Confirming this negative efficacy finding, data from Denmark and the Canadian province of Ontario indicate that vaccinated people have higher rates of Omicron infection than unvaccinated people.“
So rather than stopping the spread as required by the reasoning of the Jacobsen court, vaccines may hasten the spread of the virus.
There are two upsides to the Supreme Court case on vaccine mandates.
One is that the justices may rule against the mandates. That’s a possibility.
The other is that the case exposed the extent to which the media and government have exaggerated the risks from COVID. That’s a certainty.
For instance, Justice Sotomayor famously stated that there were 100,000 children hospitalized for COVID. The real number is about 3,000 and that includes kids hospitalized for other reasons that happened to have COVID.
Even the left-wing Washington Post gave the “wise Latina” four Pinocchios on that one.
The ignorance of the liberal justices has made for excellent and well-deserved mocking material.