Massachusetts was one of only 11 states that had compulsory vaccination laws. Massachusetts law empowered the board of health of individual cities and towns to enforce mandatory, free vaccinations for adults over the age of 21 if the municipality determined it was necessary for the public health or safety of the community. Adults who refused were subject to a $5 monetary fine. In 1902, faced with an outbreak of smallpox, the Board of Health of the city of Cambridge, Massachusetts adopted a regulation ordering the vaccination or revaccination of all its inhabitants.
Cambridge Pastor Henning Jacobson had lived through an era of mandatory vaccinations back in his original home of Sweden. Jacobson’s childhood vaccination had gone badly, leaving him with a “lifelong horror of the practice”. Jacobson refused vaccination saying that “he and his son had had bad reactions to earlier vaccinations” as children and that Jacobson himself “had been caused great and extreme suffering for a long period by a disease produced by vaccination”. Jacobson believed that his family may have some sort of hereditary condition that made the smallpox vaccine particularly dangerous. Because of his refusal to get vaccinated, Jacobson was prosecuted and fined $5 (about $148 in 2019 dollars). Over the next three years until his case reached the Supreme Court of the United States, Jacobson argued that subjecting him to a fine or imprisonment for neglecting or refusing vaccination was an invasion of his liberty, the law was “unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive”, and that one should not be subjected to the law if he or she objects to vaccination, no matter the reason.
Decision
Justice John Marshall Harlan delivered the decision for a 7–2 majority that the Massachusetts law did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court held that “in every well ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand” and that “[r]eal liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others.”
Furthermore, the Court held that mandatory vaccinations are not arbitrary or oppressive so long as they do not “go so far beyond what was reasonably required for the safety of the public”. In Massachusetts, with smallpox being “prevalent and increasing in Cambridge”, the regulation in question was “necessary in order to protect the public health and secure the public safety”. The Court noted that Jacobson had offered proof that there were many in the medical community who believed the smallpox vaccine would not stop spread the disease and, in fact, cause other diseases of the body. However, the opinions offered by Jacobson were “more formidable by their number than by their inherent value” and “[w]hat everybody knows, … [the] opposite theory accords with the common belief and is maintained by high medical authority.” Therefore, it was left to the legislature, not the courts, to determine which of the “two modes was likely to be the most effective for the protection of the public against disease”. No one could “confidently assert that the means prescribed by the State to that end has no real or substantial relation to the protection of the public health and the public safety”.
Finally, the Court acknowledged that, in “extreme cases”, for certain individuals “in a particular condition of … health”, the requirement of vaccination would be “cruel and inhuman[e]”, in which case, courts would be empowered to interfere in order to “prevent wrong and oppression”. However, the statute in question was not “intended to be applied to such a case” and Jacobson “did not offer to prove that, by reason of his then condition, he was, in fact, not a fit subject of vaccination”.
Precedent
Harlan’s decision supported both police power and limits on the power, and his decision would be invoked to support both in later cases. He stated his nuanced opinion on the limits of government power by saying that “general terms should be so limited in their application as not to lead to injustice, oppression or absurd consequence”.
Subsequent developments
The anti-vaccine movement mobilized following the decision and the Anti-Vaccination League of America was founded three years later in Philadelphia to promote the principle that “health is nature’s greatest safeguard against disease and that therefore no State has the right to demand of anyone the impairment of his or her health”. The League warned about what it believed to be the dangers of vaccination and the dangers of allowing the intrusion of government and science into private life, part of the broader process identified with the Progressive Movement. The League asked, “We have repudiated religious tyranny; we have rejected political tyranny; shall we now submit to medical tyranny?”
The Supreme Court reaffirmed its decision in Jacobson in Zucht v. King (1922), which held that a school system could refuse admission to a student who failed to receive a required vaccination. Jacobson has been invoked in numerous other Supreme Court cases as an example of a baseline exercise of the police power, with cases relying on it including Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927) (sterilization of the mentally retarded), Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944) (limitations on parents having children distribute pamphlets in the street), and Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 (1995) (allowing random drug testing of students).
During the 2020 coronavirus pandemic, the federal United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit relied on Jacobson when upholding a Texas regulation halting abortions by including it in its ban on non-essential medical services and surgeries, consistent with Justice Blackmun’s citing of the case in Roe v. Wade.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts
Dr. Leonard G. Horowitz, one of the world’s most prolific, best credentialed, and most controversial drug industry critics. makes the strong case that Jacobsen should be overturned:
But a careful read of the court’s decision in Jacobsen neglects consideration of the benefits to drug industry special interests. Jacobson v. Massachusetts established the legal precedent in our “Christian Nation,” giving States power over matters of public health for supposedly the good of the community (i.e., the “herd’). The “separation of church and state” was seriously diffused in Jacobsen’s case, in deference to religious objectors, damaging the defendant’s ministry and invoking a $5 fine.
Jacobson can and must now be reconsidered, arguably overturned, primarily due to “regulatory capture” of consumer protection agencies, such as the FDA and CDC by Big Pharma and Big Biotech, especially since these matters have been raised by presidential candidates and members of congress. Regulatory capture, and “legislative capture,” by special interests and corrupt lobbyists has made the “medical model” untrustworthy. The social meme, unlike in Jacobsen’s time, holds serious reservations about the obviously outrageous number of vaccinations being increasingly forced upon children, compounding concerns of corruption and scientific evidence suppression at the CDC
Furthermore, during the past several decades, increasingly concerned citizens have demanded alternatives to “modern medicine,” petrochemical intoxication and environmental pollution, along with organic foods. A significant percentage of this “green technology market” has embraced “energy medicine,” and the concept of human spirituality reflecting energy that either heals or damages people by way of “electrogenetics,” and biophysics. Such revolutionary thinking, medical reasoning, in clinical practices exploding worldwide, are shattering the “one shot suits all” vaccination paradigm.
Couple these revelations with social obligations and defects in the Jacobsen decision with evidence of how vaccine industry advertising, including what propagandists publish and fraudulently conceal, including their conflicting interests, thus betraying the public’s trust in order to produce false, dangerous, and destructive memes, and Jacobsen can and must now be revisited, and arguably overturned.
The scholarly review of Jacobson by Lawrence O. Gostin, JD, is essential reading in this regard. “Jacobson v Massachusetts at 100 Years: Police Power and Civil Liberties in Tension” (Am J Public Health. 2005 April; 95(4): 576–581) raised this same question, “Would Jacobson be decided the same way today?”
Gostin answered diplomatically, but unfavorably for the State. He concluded the “importance and the enduring meaning of the most famous decision in the realm of public health law,” was likely to be overturned by new and emerging revelations about risks.
The “reasonable person” standard would no doubt affect Courts and juries’ indictments of vaccines and drug companies that have been legislatively indemnified against lawsuits. Emerging intelligence, including how and why top CDC officials fraudulently concealed scientific data proving beyond any reasonable doubt the MMR vaccine’s link to autism, especially in African-American boys, compels pause and vaccination reconsideration. The fact that the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC)–the main grassroots intelligence resource–was hijacked by lobbyists for the pharmaceutical industry from its inception is equally susceptible to reconsideration. Despite even the NVIC’s level of whistleblowing, the organization still “believes in vaccines” according to its officials. The elephant under the carpet that effectively manufactured this “astroturf” organization for “controlled opposition” is largely accountable for the outrageously unjust National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. (See: NVIC_BarbaraLoeFisher.) This is a primary reason why the vast majority of families victimized by vaccine injuries have received nothing but heartaches.
Reasonable people are horrified by such compounding injustice, industry cover-ups, and skyrocketing morbidity and mortality data ascribable only to official malfeasance and genocidal intent. Given the history of 21st Century genocides reviewed by Kunitz, the dramatic rise in vaccine injuries, and the social media heralding damage that the corporate-controlled mainstream media neglects due to their drug industry co-dependence, people are increasingly awakening to the harsh “immunization” reality. Fraudulent concealments and mass media propaganda are largely responsible for the skyrocketing rates of vaccine-related illnesses, including autistic spectrum disorders and many types of cancers.
In essence, We The People have been hoodwinked into accepting our position as docile cattle, to be injected, infected, intoxicated, and depopulated, most profitably slaughtered, by a drug-industry-captured society acting under the influence of drugs, media propaganda, regulatory capture, legislative capture, and arguably judicial capture as well, so that we are immunized against reason.
When Jacobson is revisited, and courts became aware of the material evidence proving the aforementioned outrageous reality, including vaccinations’ use for global depopulation, juries will be outraged. Knowledge of this “slow kill” highly profitable method of “pharmaceutical warfare” is revolting.
Thus, the Jacobson decision must and shall be overturned, some day.
Revisiting Jacobson v. Massachusetts
Contrary to the Jacobson decision, courts today would be confronted by vaccination industry-wide fraud, evidenced by a pattern of “false flag outbreaks” and bioterrorism committed by the mainstream media. A classic example is the 2009 H1N1 “swine flu emergency.” This commercial crime benefited exclusively the pharmaceutical industry, and placed humanity at great risk.
“The [1901] outbreak reignited the smallpox immunization debate, and there was plenty of hyperbole on both sides,” Gostin chronicled.
“Antivaccinationists launched a ‘scathing attack:’ compulsory vaccination is “‘the greatest crime of the age,’ it ‘slaughter[s] tens of thousands of innocent children,’ and it ‘is more important than the slavery question, because it is debilitating the whole human race.’
“The anti-vaccinationists gave notice that compulsory powers ‘will cause a riot.’ Their influence was noticeable and resulted in a ‘conscience clause’ from the British Parliament that exempted any parent who can ‘satisfy Justices in petty sessions that he conscientiously believes that vaccination would be prejudicial to the health of the child.’
“The response of the mainstream media was equally shrill. The media characterized the debate as ‘a conflict between intelligence and ignorance, civilization and barbarism.’ The New York Times (that most recently showed its conflicting interest by grossly and purposely misrepresenting the Zika virus “mystery” days before this writing), stated, ‘No enemy of vaccination could ask better than to have England’s compulsory vaccination law nullified by that [conscience] clause’; the paper referred to antivaccinationists as a ‘familiar species of crank,’ whose arguments are ‘absurdly fallacious.’”
Gostin neglected to report that, during Jacobson’s day, the New York Times was published by Arthur Hays Sulzberger, on the Board of Trustees of the Rockefeller Foundation, aiding-and-abetting whatever cause the Rockefeller and Carnegie families advanced commercially and politically. Today, the NYTimes is owned by Carlos Slim, who is heavily invested in the BlackRock Group, that is administered by ISIS innovations’ and Evercore officials, including Evercore’s Senior Managing Director and Chairman of Europe Investment Banking, Bernard Taylor, co-Vice Chair for the Rockefeller JPMorgan Chase bank.
In Jacobsen’s day, the media, political climate, and public health policies and perceptions were biased, and socially-influenced, by the Carnegie and Rockefeller enterprises especially. Their special (drug industry) interests and influence, impacting the “pop-culture” and “memes” at that time, and the court’s decision in Jacobson, cannot be over-stated. The special interests behind the media in granting public health officials’ authority over citizens’ bodies, and civilization’s destiny, cannot be underestimated. This is especially true in light of the influence of industrial eugenicists funding institutions and foundations indoctrinating society by engineering memes, mentality, beliefs, and attitudes favoring vaccinations, and the “miracles of modern medicine,” beginning in the early part of the twentieth century.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court in Jacobson wrote, “[I[f we are to attach any value whatever to the knowledge which, it is safe to affirm, is common to all civilized peoples touching smallpox and the methods most usually employed to eradicate that disease, it cannot be adjudged that the present regulation of the Board of Health was not necessary in order to protect the public health and secure the public safety.”
Today, however, as the intelligence evidenced in this article and related articles prove, the “knowledge . . . common to all civilized peoples touching on” vaccines is steeped in fraud, scientific evidence tampering, and commercial bias.
“[I]t [i]s the duty of the constituted authorities primarily to keep in view the welfare, comfort and safety of the many, and not permit the interests of the many to be subordinated to the wishes or convenience of the few,” the Supreme Court continued with wisdom applicable to the regulatory capture by the pharmaceutical industry of the FDA and CDC.
“The state legislature proceeded upon the theory which recognized vaccination as at least an effective if not the best known way in which to meet and suppress the evils of a smallpox epidemic that imperilled an entire population.”
Today, however, many of the vaccines coming under legislative mandate, such as the HPV vaccine administered as a purportedly safe preventative against cervical cancer, much like the MMR vaccine safety data concealed by the CDC, place what is “known” about vaccines, into disrepute. (See: WHO, CDC, GACVS Mislead Public On HPV Vaccine Safety; and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s article HERE.) There is more than an “impression of impropriety” visible here.
In addition, all viable alternatives to vaccinations in preventive medicine are suppressed by regulatory capture at the FDA, and CDC, and industry wide acts of unfair and deceptive trade, depriving the public of a wide array of natural nutritional remedies, such as the NASA science developed silver hydrosols. [Note: Dr. Horowitz honorably discloses his conflicting interest in OxySilver, one such NASA science evolved broad spectrum anti-microbial.]
Where the “rubber meets the road” in this discussion, pursuant to widespread public acceptance of vaccinations as “safe and effective” for “immunizations,” the Supreme Court in Jacobson held:
“A common belief, like common knowledge, does not require evidence to establish its existence, but may be acted upon without proof by the legislature and the courts. . . .
“The fact that the belief is not universal is not controlling, for there is scarcely any belief that is accepted by everyone. 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 of not. Any other basis would conflict with the spirit of the Constitution, and would sanction measures opposed to a republican form of government. While we do not decide and cannot decide that vaccination is a preventive of smallpox, we take judicial notice of the fact that this is the common belief of the people of the State, and with this fact as a foundation we hold that the statute in question is a health law, enacted in a reasonable and proper exercise of the police power.” 72 N.E. Rep. 97.
In other words, even if Rep. Bill Posey et. al., were to prove to Congressional investigators that vaccine industrialists have caused CDC officials to cover-up the genocidal impact of MMR vaccinations damaging and depopulating African-Americans in the “land of the free,” the “home of the brave” has so few people aware of and opposing this mass murder, that the justice department is compelled by precedent to remain willfully blind and silent
Globalization Pains: Symptoms of Hypocrisy
Today, the Rockefeller family’s influence remains largely concealed and unprecedented. For instance, the New York Times‘s coverage of Zika’s sudden deadly emergence omits the fact that the Rockefeller Foundation licensed this virus for world distribution! Their profit motive has extended during the past century over the energy industry, OPEC, the U.N., World Bank, World Health Organization, the petrochemical-pharmaceutical cartel, the national security state in America, the CIA, and the “pop-CULTure” engineered by the “PharmaMedia” abusing the “Entertainment Industry” to facilitate globalization along with mental retardation and gross reductions in populations.
These results of corporate-controlled “globalization” effecting increasing aggression, division between various religions and ethnic groups, fear, and dependence on drugs and vaccines, is relevant to, even fundamental to, the acts of murderous aggression attributed to the Taliban in the Pakistani Vaccination Massacre reported on previously by this author.
In essence, the actions of the international banking cartel threatens humanity’s extinction understanding the risk of lab-virus mutations central to vaccinations. Set aside for the moment the petrochemical-pharmaceutical pollution damaging the environment and risking many other species, cultures, and even religions in lesser developed nation as documented by Kunitz (Ibid.) The Rothschild League of banks, and the Rockefeller-controlled World Bank finances the U.N and WHO that promotes the genocidal impositions and depopulation by vaccination the world is watching. The WASP-envisioned transition for “globalization”) heralds vaccinations for “biopreparedness” and pharmaceutical response for each new seasonal “outbreak,” including dengue, Zika, and more. These matters must be revisited along with Jacobson, to restore integrity during legislative hearings on mandatory vaccinations. We must revisit Jacobson with new question about religious convictions and Bible law that contraindicate GMO blood intoxications for so called “immunization.” (See: Leviticus 19:19)
Can you imagine religious practices featuring designer drugs? You can if you are a shaman in Amazonia. During the past half century drug-based religions have prospered, according to Dr. Stanley Krippner who, in fact, predicts the “Future of Religions” will feature hallucinogenic drug trips with psychoactive substances such as dimethyltryptamine (“DMT”), marijuana, and/or LSD. Considering Eli Lily’s and Sandoz pharmaceutical company’s manufacture, distribution, and experimentation with LSD by the CIA, this history raises the high probability that drug companies will succeed in overtaking the religious world in more ways than vaccination exemption. Such taxpayer funded “social experiments” have gaven rise to the recent increase in “ayahuasca churches” that practice “community medicine” employing marijuana and the controlled DMT narcotic to gain “spiritual content” and commune with God.
The Supreme Court in Jacobson did not have these issues before it.
The video above features a recent vaccine debate between Robert F. Kennedy Jr., chairman of the World Mercury Project and founder/chief legal counsel for Children’s Health Defense, and Alan Dershowitz, a lawyer and legal scholar. Patrick Bet-David, founder of Valuetainment, moderated the event.
Dershowitz may seem like an odd choice for this discussion, but according to Kennedy, no health official has ever agreed to debate him on the issue of vaccine safety.
Bet-David also notes that every doctor invited to discuss the COVID-19 vaccine on his show declined the invitation. So, here, we get the perspectives of two prominent attorneys instead. The discussion initially grew out of a comment made by Dershowitz in another interview, where he said:
“You have no constitutional right to endanger the public and spread the disease. Even if you disagree, 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.”
Should You Have the Right to Decide Your Medical Treatment?
According to Dershowitz’s interpretation of Constitutional law, you only have the right to refuse to be vaccinated against a disease that would affect only you. You do not have the right to refuse a contagious disease that might spread to others.
As far as COVID-19 vaccines are concerned, he does not foresee mandatory vaccinations being an immediate concern, for the simple reason that there won’t be enough vaccines to vaccinate everyone.
Listening to the likes of Bill Gates and others, however, this probably would not be a problem for long, as vaccine manufacturers are fully prepared to go into large-scale manufacturing once a vaccine gets green-lighted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
Interpretation of 1905 Court Ruling Is Not Cut and Dry
As the basis and justification for his legal orientation on this issue, Dershowitz relies on a 1905 Supreme Court ruling in the matter of Jacobson v. Massachusetts. In “Don’t Relinquish Civil Liberties for False Sense of Security,” Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center, explained:
“Dershowitz … was quite reckless in the language he used. He basically said that the Supreme Court in 1905 (Jacobson v. Massachusetts), [gives] the right of state governments to come in and forcibly inject you with a vaccine. That’s not really what Jacobson v. Massachusetts said …
In that case, it was smallpox, because that was the only vaccine they had in 1905, but you have to read the Supreme Court decision very carefully to understand everything that the justices said.
They basically concluded — and I think wrongly so, because utilitarianism … is based on a mathematical equation that some can be inconvenienced or sacrificed for the greater good of a majority of people — that people [who] opposed smallpox vaccination could be required to be vaccinated during epidemics.
Even religious objections could be overridden. But there’s also language in that decision that says that the court is not to be interpreted as meaning that if an individual was at risk for being harmed by the vaccination, they were not meant to [have concluded] that ‘cruel and inhuman to the last degree’ would be the standard that would be used.
I think Dershowitz overstated the opinion, although it is a utilitarian opinion. It gives authority to the states to mandate vaccines because anything that is not defined in the Constitution as a federal activity is reserved for the states.
Public health laws, by and large in this country, are written by the states, and the federal authority is requiring vaccination for people crossing territorial borders of the United States [and the federal government] could mandate vaccines for interstate travel, crossing state borders.
But most public health laws that legislatures make are for the residents of the states, which is why we have a patchwork of [vaccine] laws in this country …
I’m very worried that some attorney is going to try to challenge the Jacobson [ruling] in the 21st century. I think that, probably, in any court right now, you’re going to get that ruling upheld and you’re going to get it strengthened. I would advise against [challenging] that one in the Supreme Court.”
Kennedy, in turn, points out there is a “big Constitutional chasm” between this 1905 case and today’s vaccine mandates. The difference is indeed rather significant. Jacobson, who had been injured by a previous vaccine, took the case to the Supreme Court in an effort to avoid the vaccine — and the fine for refusing the vaccine, which at the time was $5.
When he lost, he paid the $5 fine, which Kennedy equates to a traffic ticket by today’s standards. There’s a big difference between paying a small fine, and being forcibly injected with a potentially hazardous vaccine, against your will. As noted by Fisher above, the judge in that 1905 case did not claim government had the right to go into someone’s home and forcibly vaccinate them, Kennedy says.
Dershowitz, in turn, agrees that the 1905 ruling “is not binding on the issue of whether or not you can compel someone to get the vaccine,” but that “the logic of the opinion … strongly suggests that the courts today would allow some form of compulsion if the conditions that we talked about were met: [the vaccines are] safe, effective, [and] exemptions [given] in appropriate cases.”
Will You Get the COVID-19 Vaccine?
Kennedy and Dershowitz were able to agree that the COVID-19 vaccine should remain voluntary, and only be mandated if the public health threat is truly extreme. One of the problems the vaccine industry has nowadays is that the trust in them has significantly eroded.
According to a recent poll1,2 cited by Kennedy, about half of Americans say they want the COVID-19 vaccine; 27% say they will “definitely” refuse and another 12% say they will “probably” refuse it.
“Why do so many Americans no longer trust our regulatory officials and [distrust] this process?” Kennedy asks. “One of the reasons is … vaccines are a very different kind of medical prerogative.
It is a medical intervention that is being given to perfectly healthy people, to prevent somebody else from getting sick. And it’s the only medicine given to healthy people.
So, you would expect that we would want that particular intervention to have particularly great guarantees that it’s safe. Because we’re saying to an individual, we are going to make you make this sacrifice for the greater good … Our side of the bargain should be, we want this to be completely safe. But, in fact, what we know about vaccines … is that they’re unavoidably unsafe.”
1 in 40 Are Injured by Vaccines
We often hear that vaccine injuries occur at a rate of 1 in 1 million. This, however, is a gross underestimation. Kennedy discusses an investigation by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Healthcare Research Quality (AHRQ).
They conducted a machine cluster analysis of health data collected from 376,452 individuals who received a total of 1.4 million doses of 45 vaccines. Of these doses, 35,570 vaccine reactions were identified, which means a more accurate estimate of vaccine damage would be 2.6% of all vaccinations.
This means 1 in 40 people — not 1 in 1 million — are injured by vaccines, and a clinician who administers vaccines will have an average of 1.3 adverse vaccine events per month. In other words, we are asking 1 in 40 people to sacrifice their health in order to protect “hypothetical people from catching that particular disease,” Kennedy says.
Importantly, “it’s not hypothetical that vaccines cause injuries,” Kennedy says. The U.S. Vaccine Court has paid out $4 billion to patients permanently damaged or killed by vaccines, and that’s just a small portion of all the cases filed. According to Kennedy, less than 1% of people who are injured ever get to court, due to the high bar set for proving causation.
Vaccine Makers Have No Liability
Vaccine makers also have no liability for injuries. This worsens risks, as they have no real incentive to make sure their products are safe, not only in the short run, but also long-term.
And, as noted by Kennedy, the reason vaccine manufacturers were given immunity in the first place was because they admitted vaccines are unavoidably unsafe and there’s no way to make them 100% safe.
They were getting sued for injuries to the point they said they could not continue to manufacture vaccines, which is why the U.S. government in 1986 agreed to indemnify them against lawsuits under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, and set up a government-run Vaccine Court instead.
So, when you sue for a vaccine injury, you’re actually suing the U.S. government, and payouts are paid for by the U.S. public via a small fee tacked on to each vaccine sold.
100% of Moderna Vaccine Participants Suffered Side Effects
Kennedy goes on to discuss some of the disturbing preliminary results emerging from current COVID-19 trials. In the case of Moderna, its mRNA vaccine (mRNA-1273) was found to cause systemic side effects in 80% of Phase 1 participants receiving the 100 microgram (mcg) dose.3,4
Side effects ranged from fatigue (80%), chills (80%), headache (60%) and myalgia or muscle pain (53%). After the second dose, 100% of participants in the 100-mcg group experienced side effects. This is important to note as, unlike the flu vaccine, the coronavirus vaccine will be a two-dose regimen and most likely recommended to be repeated annually, just like the flu vaccine.
The 45 volunteers were divided into three dosage groups — 25 mcg, 100 mcg and 250 mcg — with 15 participants in each. Even in the low-dose group, one participant got so sick he required emergency medical care. “That’s 6%,” Kennedy says.
In the high-dose (250 mcg) group, 100% of participants suffered side effects after both the first and second doses, and three of the participants suffered “one or more severe events.”
Keep in mind, the participants in Moderna’s Phase 1 trial were healthy individuals between the ages of 18 and 55.5 Kennedy recites some of the exclusionary criteria of these trials, such as you cannot be overweight, you must be a lifelong nonsmoker, you cannot have a family history of respiratory problems or seizures, you cannot have asthma, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis or other autoimmune disease.
“These are the people they’re testing the vaccine on, but that’s not who they’re going to give the vaccine to,” Kennedy says. Indeed, over 90% of Americans are metabolically unhealthy and struggle with chronic health conditions that can make them more prone to vaccine complications, yet these, and frail elderly, are most vulnerable to COVID-19 and would theoretically stand to benefit from the vaccine most.
If the vaccine causes severe side effects in young, healthy individuals, what will the results be in those who are old, frail and/or have underlying conditions or compromised immune systems?
“You’re going to see a lot of people dropping dead,” Kennedy predicts. “The problem is, Anthony Fauci put $500 million of our [tax] dollars into that vaccine. He owns half the patents. He has five guys working for him [who are] entitled to collect royalties.
So, you have a corrupt system, and now they’ve got a vaccine that is too big to fail. They’re not saying this was a terrible, terrible mistake. They’re saying, ‘We’re going to order 2 million doses of this [vaccine]’ … And, they have no liability … No medical product in the world would be able to go forward with a [safety] profile like Moderna has.”
Trust Is Earned
Admittedly, the interview is a rather long one — an hour and 20 minutes — but if you have the time, I encourage you to listen to it in its entirety, as Kennedy and Dershowitz cover far more than some of the key highlights I’ve summarized here. You could speed it up to 1.5 to 2 times, which is my approach for most videos now as there is so much video content to consume.
I would not be surprised if Kennedy’s prediction that the COVID-19 vaccine or vaccines will cause severe harm to a great number of people. I also disagree with Dershowitz’s position that anyone involved in medical manufacturing “obviously” has a keen interest in not hurting people.
Kennedy correctly points out that’s clearly not the case, seeing how drug companies have repeatedly been found to knowingly commit fraud in the name of profit. The opioid epidemic is but one glaring example where company executives knew they were causing harm and chose to do it anyway. Trust is earned, and the drug industry has, as Kennedy points out, eroded the public’s trust by their own malfeasance.
The drug industry and government health officials expect us to simply trust that a safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine will be produced in record time. From my perspective, such trust would be misplaced. Their history simply doesn’t warrant it.
I’ve reviewed the historical failures of coronavirus vaccines in previous articles, as well as the potential hazards associated with mRNA vaccines. Importantly, we do not yet know what injecting mRNA to reprogram our DNA might actually do in the long run, since no mRNA vaccine has ever been licensed, but there’s reason to suspect it won’t be entirely beneficial.
The good news is that we probably will not even need a vaccine against COVID-19. As I have previously reviewed, there are loads of strategies to improve your immune system.
Other treatments like nebulized peroxide are really effective if you are already sick. And, as a foundational prophylactic, remember to optimize your vitamin D level, as vitamin D appears to significantly lower your risk, both of contracting the infection and developing severe symptoms, as reviewed in “Vitamin D in the Prevention of COVID-19.”
I’ve put together a comprehensive report on the topic of vitamin D for COVID-19 prevention, which you can download here.
