Vaccine Mandates and Jacobson v Massachusetts 1905

 

Covid "vaccines" are being mandated all over America. Opponents state such mandates are unconstitutional and violate human rights. Proponents claim that the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that states can force people to be vaccinated. But is that really true?

While it is true that the court in 1905 did stand on the side of forced vaccines in that particular case - a case where smallpox was rampant, very deadly and the only known method of ending the epidemic was vaccination that prevented and/or cured the disease.

The court found that there was sufficient evidence that the smallpox vaccine not only cured the disease and prevented infection, but was relatively safe with very rare instances of harm, and deaths from the vaccine were virtually absent.

However, that is not the case today with these Covid injections. There are serious issues with trying to apply the 1905 ruling today, and expect it to have it survive current facts:

• In 1905 there was a lot that was not known about vaccines. They were unaware of other medical issues a vaccine could cause as there were no studies that linked vaccinations to other possible medical conditions. As new studies come to light, it appears vaccines can do great harm to a person's health. 
• Deaths caused by the vaccine for smallpox were very rare.That is not the case with Covid injections which, by definition, are not even vaccines. VAERS proves that serious injury and even deaths caused by the Covid injection are anything but rare.We also know they adversely affect our immune system. And in the case of an RNA/DNA vaccine (which is the one being tested), it could change the entire human genome, and maybe not for the better.
  
• A COVID-19 vaccine is untested as far as long-term side effects, because the vaccine was rushed. NO ONE knows what the ultimate effect would be, or if it is truly "safe". Furthermore, it has yet to even be approved by the FDA
  
• In 1905, "tracking chips" and nanotechnology did not exist, and tracking nanoparticles - or any other control device - can now be injected into the body. If included in a vaccine, no matter the reason, a person has every right to reject it. And since there currently is no way to tell if it is or is not included, individuals have the right to reject any and all vaccines in the future.
• The 1905 decision also stated that a vaccine could only be mandated if there were no alternative therapies. Regardless of what many with ulterior motives claim, there are alternatives that are proven to be effective therapeutics, not the least of which is Ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine with Z-pak, zinc, and vitamin C & D3. There is also monoclonal infusion of antibodies (plasma)
• Smallpox was extremely deadly, with few survivors. Covid-19 is no more deadly than any seasonal flu. Fewer than 36,000 deaths attributed to ONLY Covid-19 when there was no vaccine available, while the flu of 2018 killed between 35,000-60,000 in spite of having a vaccine available
  

The 1905 ruling stated "all persons not protected by vaccination should be vaccinated". The entire premise of the courts ruling was based on the vaccine preventing infection. In other words, there was an assumption the smallpox vaccine would prevent the disease. We know, however, that is not the case with Covid injections - even the makers state their injections will not prevent infection, nor prevent transmission. 

The court also stated that the smallpox vaccine had a "substantial relation to the protection of the public health and the public safety." Whereas the Covid injections do not substantially protect the public, as statistics indicate most of the new infection are among the vaccinated, and the vaccinated are literally spreading Covid, this injection should easily fail in the courts.

Even I, as a non-attorney, could present a case that would result in a ruling in favor of opponents to any Covid injection or medication. The simple fact that the Covid injections are not even designed to prevent infection, or prevent its transmission, coupled with the very high rate of adverse effects and deaths is, itself, enough to convince any honest, unbiased judge to rule in favor of opponents to forced vaccination. Add to that the very real possibility of "microchips" or tracking devices that are already available that could easily be included among the several toxic substances in every vaccine should seal their fate forever.

/