The Most Important Case No MSM Reports On
The Market Ticker - Cancelled - What 'They' Don't Want Published
Login or register to improve your experience
Main Navigation
Sarah's Resources You Should See
Sarah's Blog
Full-Text Search & Archives
Leverage, the book
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions. For investment, legal or other professional advice specific to your situation contact a licensed professional in your jurisdiction.


Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility; author(s) may have positions in any firm or security discussed here, and have no duty to disclose same.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must be complete (NOT a "pitch"), include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. Pitch emails missing the above will be silently deleted. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2024-06-11 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Health Reform , 3140 references Ignore this thread
The Most Important Case No MSM Reports On
[Comments enabled]
Category thumbnail

Perhaps the seminal case of this decade.

Many court cases resonate far beyond the particular litigants.  Roe .v. Wade certainly did, as did it being overturned.  Brown .v. Board of Education of course.  Kelo infamously gave us confiscation of private property solely because the municipality said they could increase property tax revenue by doing so, a wild-eyed violation of the Constitution itself that turned out to be an entirely-fraudulent pretext in that the alleged "development" the land was seized for never took place and thus neither did the increased revenue.

But this case, while allegedly only about covid vaccine mandates is anything but due to the outrageous perversion of what vaccines actually are and are not, the intentional fraud upon the public put forward by the FDA, CDC and others that go well beyond covid but also reach behind it by decades and the implications for same.

Let's start with the holding:

On the merits, the district court misapplied the Supreme Court’s decision in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), stretching it beyond its public health rationale. We vacate the district court’s order dismissing this claim and remand for further proceedings under the correct legal standard.

Jacobson was a case about smallpox vaccine mandates.  Specifically, the case turned on the fact that the smallpox vaccine in question was sterilizing; that is, it prevented spread of the disease because once inoculated you could neither acquire or transmit the infection.  On this basis the Supreme Court held that despite a person's objections and potential harms from taking it they could be fined if they refused.

Note the limitation on penalty: Jacobson did not permit imprisonment, either literal or effective (e.g. "stay home unless" or "you can't shop, go to a concert or travel unless") nor did it permit forced inoculation at all.  It only permitted the assessment of a fine and while said fine was material in the earnings power of the day it was not confiscatory nor was it continuing (e.g. a "health care surcharge" every month) -- it was a one time event for refusal.

But at the root of the issue in this case is the fraud inherent in how the covid shots were portrayed.  The manufacturers themselves fell all over themselves claiming near and in some cases actual 100% efficiency against contracting and spreading the disease, as did myriad public officials including our President Biden who infamously stated on national television that "if you take these shots you will not get Covid."

These statements were lies.

They were not errors or "wishful thinking", they were lies as the manufacturers cooked their testing and thus participated knowingly in the false claims.  People within the government's regulatory apparatus, including Dr. Birx, later admitted they knew these statements were false and did not, intentionally, correct the record in public.

Indeed the CDC as the court record shows here deliberately acted to conceal these facts by fraudulently changing the definition of the word "vaccine" in their own published statements:

Plaintiffs’ complaint supports these assertions with data and statements from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). For example, Plaintiffs claim that the CDC changed the definition of “vaccine” in September 2021, striking the word “immunity.” Thus, they argue, the CDC conceded that the COVID-19 vaccine is not a “traditional vaccine.” They also cite CDC statements that say the vaccine does not prevent transmission....

This is all true.

Jacobson held that mandatory vaccinations were rationally related to “preventing the spread” of smallpox. 197 U.S. at 30; see also Roman Cath. Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 592 U.S. 14, 23 (2020) (Gorsuch, J., concurring)

THAT, and only that, is the basis of the holding in Jacobson.  Yet none of the Covid shots do this, as is now known and admitted by everyone involved.  Therefore Jacobson does not and cannot apply because the shots are only specific to treatment or prophylaxis of the person injected and thus have no greater societal benefit beyond the potential diffuse benefit of reducing public health expenditure.

But nothing permits that as a rationale for mandates in the general sense and those who claim it can and does should be the first in line to police the amount of sugared sodas and Doritos one purchases in the grocery store, as that very same argument of diffuse and non-specific benefit to public expenditures not only applies there but is much larger in size than anything caused by Covid, never mind applying civil and financial sanction to anyone claiming "healthy at any size" or other forms of alleged "body positivity."  I have heard none of the crazy screaming leftists making that argument, perhaps because so many of them are in fact the ones stuffing their faces!

Further as Collins pointed out these mandates implicate and violate a much more recent and yet arguably stronger authority than Jacobson, which came at a much earlier point in medical knowledge than we have today:

In Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997), the Court explained that Cruzan’s posited “‘right of a competent individual to refuse medical treatment’” was “entirely consistent with this Nation’s history and constitutional traditions,” in light of “the common-law rule that forced medication was a battery, and the long legal tradition protecting the decision to refuse unwanted medical treatment.” 

Battery is a criminal act and implicates far more than civil redress as it is a criminal act upon a person that is subject to penalties including imprisonment, not mere monetary compensation.

So why is this decision much larger than just Covid?

Because since the DTP vaccine fiasco that led to the NCVIA multiple (and indeed nearly all) alleged "vaccines", along with the original injected polio formulation still used (IPV) are in fact personal prophylaxis and do not prevent either contracting or transmitting the disease in question.  Specifically all of the following fall into this category and thus all of them, per this decision, cannot be mandated by any government-connected agency including a school or a medical system citing government contracts (e.g. Medicare):

  • IPV - injected polio.  Of note OPV, the oral version, colonizes the gut and is sterilizing.  We used to give IPV first to prevent the rare reversion that can occur with OPV and cause polio but since polio has disappeared from the United States we no longer do.

  • The aP portion of DTaP, the reformulated DTP shot that led to the injuries in the 1970s, and since it is not separable from the other two none of the three can be mandated so long as they are combined.  Further Tetanus, which might well be a very good idea to take anyway for what should be obvious reasons, can't be mandated at all because it is not transmissible at all between persons.  Therefore it is entirely legitimate to legally force the separation of all three shots.

  • Flu shots -- they do not sterilize.  Period.

  • Hep-B -- Commonly given to infants this is a non-sterilizing shot and is utterly worthless in infants generally since Hep-B is passed only through blood and serum exchange, meaning injected drugs and (especially anal) sex.  Obviously an infant subjected to either of those is being wildly abused but this also means no mandate can be enforced in this regard when it comes to adults even in health care as there is no sterilization effect and thus it cannot protect potential patients from exposure.

  • Vit-K -- Commonly given to infants at birth this has no immunization effect at all and thus is mere personal prophylaxis which the parents, as agents for the child, have an unquestioned right to direct in the acceptance or refusal without interference.

  • RSV - A new one the CDC is now pushing but it is non-sterilizing.  The safety profile over long periods of time is unknown as the shot is too new but it uses mRNA technology which makes it instantly suspect as the dose of the actual antigen producing thing cannot be controlled.

  • Rotavirus - Again, non-sterilizing.

  • Varicella (chicken pox) - Again, non-sterilizing however, since Chicken Pox is wildly more-dangerous in adults than children if you haven't gotten it the old-fashioned way by the time you go into school you probably want to consider it for that reason.

  • Meningococcal - That too is non-sterilizing and yet colleges, in particular, try to mandate it.  Under this decision that is also illegal as the benefit is entirely personal.

And so on.

Yeah, this one is a big deal folks -- which of course is why the mainstream media won't touch it.

But if you're facing this sort of mandate and personally object irrespective of why you now have the legal ammunition to shove up the mandating party's ass and break it off.

Go to responses (registration required to post)

No Comments Yet.....
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ
Page 1 of 64  First123456789Last
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ
Page 1 of 64  First123456789Last