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.
Syndicated with licensed permission from Becker News. Follow Becker News on Telegram.
The post Federal Judge Denies ‘Natural Immunity’ Exists in Claim Challenging COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate appeared first on Trending Politics.
"*" indicates required fields
