Category Archives: Vaccine

New Federal Pandemic Policy Could Be Based on Personalized Medicine

The Epoch Times,  11/23/2021  by  Joel S. Hirschhorn

Sometimes there’s a simple, commonsense way to refine public policy. Surely there’s need for a better public health policy to address the COVID-19 pandemic. It’s time to let medical evidence overcome stubbornness by public health agencies and disagreements among physicians. It’s time to give Americans medical choice without sacrificing public health.

Here I use long-used personalized medicine principles to define a two-part pandemic policy that most Americans can understand and support, and that could bring together parts of society in conflict with each other over COVID-19 vaccine mandates.

Part One: Individuals decide either on their own or with the advice of their personal physician to be vaccinated for COVID-19. And to accept what government officials have decided are the best COVID-19 medical solutions.

Part Two: Individuals choose a preferred medical professional who, on the basis of their education, training, experience, and successful clinical results, offers alternatives to vaccination and government promoted medical solutions for outpatients and inpatients. The medical professional uses the patient’s medical history, biologic and genetic conditions, and unique personal circumstances to reach the best personalized medical solution.

This flexible policy has the potential to bridge the ugly gap between pro-vaccine and anti-mandate camps.

In terms of medical science, this two-part policy recognizes that there’s a huge array of reactions to both SARS-CoV-2 infections and vaccines based on diverse biology, genetics, and medical conditions of individuals. Missing from current government policy is recognition of fundamental differences among people.

Medical history tells us the wisdom of making the medicine fit the person. This is the cornerstone of personalized or individualized medicine. Good physicians also find the combination of drugs to best address an illness or disease that’s best for the individual patient.

These medical truths contrast with mass use of off-the-shelf, one-size-fits all drugs and vaccines.

The medical literature and government databases tell us that there are myriad different responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection and to COVID-19 vaccines. The differences are indisputable and extreme. Most people who get infected either have no symptoms or only minor ones. Others get terribly ill, require hospitalization, and sometimes die.

Many who get vaccine shots feel a slight discomfort for a few hours or days; others are falling ill with a broad range of blood and neurological problems and sometimes die despite having been very healthy.

When people are profoundly different in their biological makeup, when reactions to SARS-CoV-2 infection are remarkably different, and when a broad range of adverse vaccine impacts are acknowledged, then one thing is crystal clear.

There can’t be one pandemic “solution” pushed by the government that makes common sense. By not respecting all the differences, the inevitable result is what we’re seeing in our society: division, conflicts, and anger among millions of people who want more choice, more medical freedom.

The two-part policy recommended here would not deny use of COVID-19 vaccines for those who want the shot. But it would see the truth that vaccine mandates for the entire population are not consistent with medical science and the diversity among people. Mandates rub so many people the wrong way because they eliminate sensible choice. They replace medical freedom with medical tyranny.

Interestingly, in the first months of the pandemic there was considerable thinking in the medical and public health community that personalized medicine should be pursued. That soon gave way to vaccine fixation, not just for a small, high-risk part of the population but for everyone.

Here are examples of some early interest in personalized medicine for addressing the pandemic:

The Mayo Center for Individualized Medicine said there was an opportunity for the COVID-19 response.  Their document detailed a number of initiatives Mayo was pursuing to address the pandemic by obtaining medical data that could lead to personalized pandemic solutions. This is what Mayo wanted to do:

“When COVID-19 spread across the U.S. in March 2020, the Mayo Clinic Center for Individualized Medicine urgently responded to accelerate research, development, translation and implementation of novel tests, lifesaving treatments and diagnostics. Now, collaborative teams of scientists are continuing to unravel the mysteries of the novel virus, including using advanced genetic sequencing technologies to investigate how the virus can infiltrate a person’s immune system and wreak havoc on organs, tissue and blood vessels, leaving some patients with long-term effects.”

A September 2020 article had the intriguing title “How to use precision medicine to personalize COVID-19 treatment according to the patient’s genes.”  Here are excerpts:

“In recent years, a gene-centric approach to precision medicine has been promoted as the future of medicine. … But the imagined future did not include COVID-19. In the rush to find a COVID-19 vaccine and effective therapies, precision medicine has been insignificant. Why is this? … If precision medicine is the future of medicine, then its application to pandemics generally, and COVID-19 in particular, may yet prove to be highly significant. But its role so far has been limited.”

The specialty germane to a personalized pandemic strategy is called pharmacogenomics. It’s the study of the role of the genome in drug response. It combines pharmacology and genomics to discover how the genetic makeup of an individual affects their response to drugs, including vaccines. The central goal is to develop rational means to optimize drug therapy, including vaccination, with respect to the patients’ genotype, to ensure maximum efficiency with minimal adverse effects.

By using pharmacogenomics, the goal is that pharmaceutical drug treatments, including vaccination, can replace or at least complement what is dubbed as the “one-drug-fits-all” approach.

An August 2020 journal article was titled “Pharmacogenomics of COVID-19 therapies.” Here are its optimistic views and findings:

“Pharmacogenomics may allow individualization of these drugs thereby improving efficacy and safety. … Pharmacogenomics may help clinicians to choose proper first-line agents and initial dosing that would be most likely [to] achieve adequate drug exposure among critically ill patients; those who cannot afford a failure of ineffective therapy. It is also important to minimize the risks of toxicity because COVID-19 particularly affects those with comorbidities on other drug therapies.”

A July 2020 NPR show was titled “Research On Personalized Medicine May Help COVID-19 Treatments.” This was deemed newsworthy:

“The nationwide All of Us Research Program aims to tailor medical treatments of all kinds, including treatments that may be developed for the new coronavirus. So far, more than 271,000 people nationwide have signed up to share data with the initiative. …

Said Dr. Elizabeth Burnside, co-principal investigator of All of Us at UW-Madison, and a UW Health physician, ‘This focused initiative could be especially important for members of communities that are often underrepresented in health research and who may question the overall and personal benefit of research participation.’”

In sum, there was legitimate medical interest early in the pandemic to use personalized medicine. It accepts the reality that many people want to use alternatives to vaccines, such as generic medicines widely used in other countries to treat and prevent COVID-19 disease. Many oppose vaccine mandates, not necessarily COVID-19 vaccines. Now is the time for the two-part strategy given here to be the basis for legislation by Congress.

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

Dr. Joel S. Hirschhorn, author of “Pandemic Blunder” and many articles and podcasts on the pandemic, worked on health issues for decades. As a full professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, he directed a medical research program between the colleges of engineering and medicine. As a senior official at the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and the National Governors Association, he directed major studies on health-related subjects; he testified at over 50 U.S. Senate and House hearings and authored hundreds of articles and op-ed articles in major newspapers. He has served as an executive volunteer at a major hospital for more than 10 years. He is a member of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, and America’s Frontline Doctors.

 https://www.theepochtimes.com/new-federal-pandemic-policy-could-be-based-on-personalized-medicine_4111753.html?utm_source=ai_recommender&utm_medium=a_bottom_above_etv

Share

Understanding Jacobson v. Massachusetts – Health Freedom Defense Fund

Understanding Jacobson v. Massachusetts

Extremely well written and well documented with references. Thank you!! HFDF. mrossol

November 14, 2021 / Freedom, Legal Interpretation

By HFDF General Counsel George Wentz, Davillier Law Group and Leslie Manookian, President of HFDF

The seminal case on mandatory vaccinations is Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905). In Jacobson, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Reverend Jacobson of Cambridge under a Massachusetts statute requiring “inhabitants of a city or town to be vaccinated only when, in the opinion of the Board of Health, that was necessary for the public health or the public safety”. 197 U.S. at 27.[i] The Court stated that:

According to settled principles, the police power of a State must be held to embrace, at least, such reasonable regulations established directly by legislative enactment as will protect the public health and the public safety. It is equally true that the State may invest local bodies called into existence for purposes of local administration with authority in some appropriate way to safeguard the public health and the public safety. The mode or manner in which those results are to be accomplished is within the discretion of the State, subject, of course, so far as Federal power is concerned, only to the condition that no rule prescribed by a State, nor any regulation adopted by a local governmental agency acting under the sanction of state legislation, shall contravene the Constitution of the United States or infringe any right granted or secured by that instrument. A local enactment or regulation, even if based on the acknowledged police powers of a State, must always yield in case of conflict with the exercise by the General Government of any power it possesses under the Constitution, or with any right which that instrument gives or secures. 197 U.S. at 25 (citations omitted).

Reverend Jacobson argued that “his liberty is invaded when the State subjects him to fine or imprisonment for neglecting or refusing to submit to vaccination; that a compulsory vaccination law is unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive, and, therefore, hostile to the inherent right of every freeman to care for his own body and health in such way as to him seems best, and that the execution of such a law against one who objects to vaccination, no matter for what reason, is nothing short of an assault upon his person.” The Court rejected this argument based upon inherent individual liberty, stating that:

[T]he liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States to every person within its jurisdiction does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint. There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good. On any other basis, organized society could not exist with safety to its members. Society based on the rule that each one is a law unto himself would soon be confronted with disorder and anarchy. Real 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.

Jacobson thus framed the question on the basis of two fundamental and thorny issues in U.S. Constitutional law: Federalism (where do we draw the line between the power of a state and the power of the federal government) and the Social Compact (where do we draw the line between the rights of the individual and the rights of the community). The Court ruled that the Massachusetts statute was not contrary to any federal authority, and that Jacobson’s rights had to yield to the rights of the community. But it did so on the facts of the case before it.

  • The Court noted that the legislature had allowed local boards of health to determine whether a vaccine was required. The edict was not state-wide, but was instituted at the local level based on facts as determined by members of the board of health living in the local community.
  • The case involved the extremely deadly disease of smallpox, a disease with a fatality rate of 30-40%. The Court reasoned 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.” 197 U.S. at 30 (emphasis added).
  • Despite the acknowledged threat of smallpox, however, the Court specifically reserved the right to intervene on the side of individual rights in a future case if the facts warranted it.   

Smallpox being prevalent and increasing at Cambridge, the court would usurp the functions of another branch of government if it adjudged, as a matter of law, that the mode adopted under the sanction of the State, to protect the people at large was arbitrary and not justified by the necessities of the case. We say necessities of the case because it might be that an acknowledged power of a local community to protect itself against an epidemic threatening the safety of all, might be exercised in particular circumstances and in reference to particular persons in such an arbitrary, unreasonable manner, or might go so far beyond what was reasonably required for the safety of the public, as to authorize or compel the courts to interfere for the protection of such persons. 197 U.S. at 28 (emphasis added).

  • The Court went on to acknowledge that “[t]here is, of course, a sphere within which the individual may assert the supremacy of his own will and rightfully dispute the authority of any human government, especially of any free government existing under a written constitution, to interfere with the exercise of that will.” 197 U.S. at 29.

The Court was careful in its language. Therefore, it is important to understand what Jacobson does not stand for.

First, contrary to recent public statements by Professor Alan Dershowitz, the case does not stand for the proposition that “the state has the power to literally take you to a doctor’s office and plunge a needle into your arm.” To the contrary, what the case demonstrates is that a person refusing to accept a vaccine may be convicted and pay a penalty. Jacobson was never vaccinated, which was why he was convicted.

Second, the case does not stand for the proposition that any statewide edict mandating vaccinations is valid. It instead stands for the proposition that a conviction for violating a locally promulgated ordinance mandating vaccinations under “pressure of great dangers” and under “reasonable regulations” may be upheld. Absent the pressure of great dangers or where regulations may be unreasonable, the Court specifically reserved the right to step in and strike down the law. Thus, the Court balanced the interests of the state in reasonably protecting its citizens from great danger against the individual liberty interest asserted by Jacobson, and under the circumstances presented, sided with the perceived interests of the common good against the liberty interest of the individual.

Third, Jacobson has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the federal government has the power to mandate a national forced vaccination program. Indeed, the case upheld an ordinance issued on the most local of levels, that of a local Board of Health. The validity of a national forced vaccination program is another question altogether, and would be a case of first impression by the Court.

What Jacobson said,[ii] based on the scientific, moral, and ethical understanding of vaccinations and forced medicine extant in 1905, is that the police powers of state governments include the power to delegate to municipal governments the right to mandate vaccinations where, under a balancing test, the pressure of great dangers overrides individual liberty interests, and the regulation is reasonable.

Jacobson preceded the Court’s adoption of a substantive due process analysis under the 14th Amendment. Those cases have added judicial gloss to the Jacobson opinion that is relevant to challenging a mandatory vaccination for COVID-19 but which we will not address herein.

It goes without saying that much has changed since Jacobson in 1905. There was poor, if any, understanding of the harm caused by vaccinations as this decades before the National Childhood Injury Act of 1986[iii] was signed into law by President Ronald Reagan, recognizing that vaccines injure and kill some recipients and thereby adding much needed color to any discussion of mandated vaccinations.

Jacobson also predated the horrors of medical experimentation conducted under the Nazis of which the world only became aware after WWII during the Nuremberg Trials which led to the adoption of the Nuremberg Code. Among other requirements, the Nuremberg Code[iv] demands,

“The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision.”

International Treaties agreed since Nuremberg have only reinforced the ethical principle which underlies the practice of ethical medicine, namely voluntary informed consent. The Declaration of Helsinki by the World Medical Association in 1964 provides that human subjects “must be volunteers and informed participants in the research project.” In 2005, the General Conference of UNESCO adopted the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights[v] further raising the bar for the practice of ethical medicine by stating that, “Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information.”

While Jacobson is very clear that state action in relation to medical mandates must surpass a very high bar, the intervening century plus since Jacobson has changed not only the ethical landscape pertaining to the practice of medicine but also our scientific understanding of the risk and harms posed by vaccines. It is clear that Jacobson is due for an update based on the progress made by humanity since 1905.


[i] The statute at issue read: “Boards of health, if in their opinion it is necessary for public health or safety, shall require and enforce the vaccination and revaccination of all the inhabitants of their towns, and shall provide them with the means of free vaccination. Whoever refuses or neglects to comply with such requirement shall forfeit five dollars.”

[ii] In Zucht v. King, 260 U.S. 174, 176 (1922) (holding that vaccination laws do not discriminate against schoolchildren to the exclusion of others similarly situated, i.e., children not enrolled in school) the Court stated:

Long before this suit was instituted, Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, had settled that it is within the police power of a State to provide for compulsory vaccination. That case and others had also settled that a State may, consistently with the Federal Constitution, delegate to a municipality authority to determine under what conditions health regulations shall become operative.

Zucht v. King, 260 U.S. 174, 176. See also, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944) (holding that the right to practice religion does not include the liberty to jeopardize the wellbeing of minors by violating child labor laws). Most recently, in South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 590 U.S. ___ (2020) the Court relied upon Jacobson to deny an application for injunctive relief with regard to COVID-19 restrictions on in person worship services, stating:

Our Constitution principally entrusts “[t]he safety and the health of the people” to the politically accountable officials of the States “to guard and protect.” Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11, 38 (1905). When those officials “undertake[ ] to act in areas fraught with medical and scientific uncertainties,” their latitude “must be especially broad.” Marshall v. United States, 414 U. S. 417, 427 (1974). Where those broad limits are not exceeded, they should not be subject to second-guessing by an “unelected federal judiciary,” which lacks the background, competence, and expertise to assess public health and is not accountable to the people. See Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U. S. 528, 545 (1985).  

[iii] https://www.nvic.org/Vaccine-Laws/1986-Vaccine-Injury-Law.aspx

[iv] http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/nuremberg/

[v] http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=31058&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

Share

Hundreds of Thousands to Go on Four-Day Nationwide Strike Over Vaccine Mandates

11/8/2021  The Epoch Times

November 7, 2021 Updated: November 8, 2021
biggersmaller

nationwide strike against vaccine mandates will take place from Nov. 8 to Nov. 11, according to the main organizer for the walkout, Leigh Dundas, a human rights attorney and public speaker.

The event will kick off in Los Angeles on Monday. The locations of the marches have not yet been disclosed.

The walkouts involve people from various industries such as trucking and telecom. Air and rail transport workers are not federally allowed to go on strike due to a law passed in 1926 named the Railway Labor Act, but some plan to protest anonymously.

“The Golden Gate Bridge Rally is going to be an epic and unprecedented moment in time. It will mark—on Veterans’ Day evening—a 4-day Nationwide walkout, by rank and file workers everywhere, from blue-collar to white-collar, black, white, yellow, red, every faith, every creed, who are uniquely united despite their differences on one common truth: that vaccine mandates have no place in a truly free society,” Dundas told The Epoch Times.

“Every group: anti-vaccine, BLM, gay, straight, Jewish, Muslim, Native American, Asian, Latino, Christian, atheist—all groups—are coming together for this one historic moment in time—to trumpet not just to our own government, but indeed to the watching eyes of the world, that vaccine mandates will no longer be tolerated. That in this country, WE are the government, because our founding fathers knew this truth: a truly free nation is a nation of the people, by the people, and for the people. That we are the leaders we have been waiting for. And that today marks the day that we retire vaccine mandates as a concept that cannot live in a free society, and that we are, indeed, simply that: a free society.”

Epoch Times Photo
Leigh Dundas (Photo provided by Nationwide Walkout to The Epoch Times)

The Epoch Times talked to some of these frustrated workers who will participate in the strike to see why they are doing it.

‘I Choose God’s Immunity’

Kristen Grace has been a Raytheon Systems Engineer for 18 years.

“I will lose my livelihood on December 8, because I won’t allow an experimental gene therapy to be injected into my bloodstream. I’ve recovered from COVID, and I work from home, but the government has claimed authority over my body and medical choices. I choose natural (God’s) immunity over government,” Grace said.

Brandon Childs has been serving for 7 years in the Air Force, 5 years in active duty and 2 years with the Arizona Air National Guard (ANG).

“I have stepped away from being ANG full time due to the mandate and I was promised by my civilian job that they would never require the vaccine.

“However as an army contractor that changed within the last month. I’ve lost 3 family members in the last year one being my father a week ago. I’ve put in RE’s [religious exemptions] at both and was told that the chances of being accepted are extremely dismal and I will face what looks like a general or dishonorable discharge (with a clean military record) from one and termination for the other. Affecting the benefits I have worked for and bled for the country I love.”

Another systems engineer that has been working for Raytheon for 25 years told The Epoch Times: “I’ve submitted a Notification of Religious Accommodation. If it’s not approved, I’ll be fired on December 8th because I’m not going to violate my beliefs or surrender my Constitutional rights for a job. Honestly, this is the most stressful year of my professional life. I’ve lost many nights of sleep. Even if approved I’ll likely continue to look for a new job.

“I feel betrayed by a company I’ve given my best years. They could have stood up for us but they put profits and the ‘woke’ agenda first. I’m surrounded by fully vaccinated people with new and mysterious health issues, many have gotten COVID, but I’m treated like someone unclean, less than. Science, logic, and common sense have been tossed in the COVID dumpster fire. While I love my country, I’m ashamed of my company and my government. The only good news is that even the fully vaccinated now realize the promise of normality was all a lie. Now they are once again masked and being told boosters will be mandatory. And they are now rising up too,” the engineer said.

Health Information Privacy

Christopher Burns, an attorney that works in Portsmouth New Hampshire, said: “For the first time in the history of the country the president and an entire political party seem to think it’s constitutionally appropriate to dictate to a private employer how to treat its private employees by requiring the employer to demand privately protected health information from the employee.”

Jet, a Honeywell employee, feels disappointed and is depressed about his company mandating the vaccine, which he is determined not to take due to his religious beliefs.

“I have so many feelings about this situation that it has gotten me into a state of depression. Never in a million years [had] I imagined that something like this would happen in the United States. This is what tyranny looks like and it’s not going to stop here. Equally disappointing is to see that Honeywell, along with the rest of major U.S. corporations have decided to go along and enable tyranny. I’m not getting the vaccine. I have applied for a religious exemption. If not granted, so be it. Because of this mandate, we’re now going to be treated as second-class citizens. In case people have forgotten, this is the definition of tyranny: cruel and unfair treatment by people with power over others.”

A consultant for Thomson Reuters who does not even work physically at the company is bewildered at why he should take the vaccine.

“I have been working [for Reuters for] 13 years and at least 3 consultants are 100 percent remote, 2,000 miles away from the office! They say because the company has government contracts that means I have to abide by the mandate too.

“How am I endangering anybody from my home?” the consultant asked.

John Knox is part of the LA Firefighters for Freedom.

“We are fighting against these unconstitutional mandates because anything that is repugnant to the constitution is illegal. These mandates clearly step outside the constitutional parameters. As firefighters and first responders we need to take a stand and we need to let the rest of America know we will fight and they can join us,” Knox said.

‘It Is Against Our Rights as Americans’

A Maine 3rd Grade School teacher thinks the COVID vaccines should not be mandated.

“People have the right to make the choices that work best for their families and for themselves. I feel it is against our rights as Americans. Why are we dying on this sword?” the teacher asked.

Amtrak’s vaccine mandate deadline is also on Dec 8, an employee told The Epoch Times about her situation under the condition of anonymity.

“Employees with religious exemptions are either 1. Denied with no explanation, or 2. ‘Approved’ for unpaid ‘personal leave,’ and not allowed to seek other work while on involuntary ‘personal leave.’  This ‘accommodation’ is exceptionally harsh and retaliatory, considering that medical exemption employees are permitted to continue work with weekly testing, including full customer contact workers such as conductors,” she said.

“Any employee not in compliance with the vax mandate will be charged with insubordination and terminated, per Amtrak repeated internal announcements.”

Eric Mallow, a railroader, said: “The longer we comply with their tyranny, the worse this will get! We were absolutely essential last year and now we are completely expendable. Standing up for the rights of Americans far outweighs the difficulty of leaving a company that sees me as an insignificant number.”

A secretary from Arizona told The Epoch Times that the mandates are a “total violation” of her freedom.

“Where does this end?  If they can force vaccines in our bodies and violate our will that way, where is the line drawn?  We need to fight back and not allow this,” the secretary said.

The Epoch Times reached out to Amtrak and Raytheon for comment.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_breakingnews/hundreds-of-thousands-to-go-on-four-day-nationwide-strike-over-vaccine-mandates-organizer_4090848.html?utm_source=News&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2021-11-09-1&mktids=b99ab46962fbb2cd33fefe5a95f7ca93&est=AwqzX577fbmd9bz+/salhFsp/jUoEfuFA4EIp11f/7YLiiEv+DxHNxT2v3FUJg==

Share