All Posts by Date or last 15, 30, 90 or 180 days.
also by Lloyd: MacPerformanceGuide.com and WindInMyFace.com

Links on this site earn me fees or commissions.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases @AMAZON

Designed for the most demanding needs of photographers and videographers.
The fastest, toughest, and most compatible portable SSD ever with speeds up to 2800MB/s.

Federal Judge Rules Against Natural Immunity Claim Challenging COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate

re: ethics in medicine

Real science is never settled, and anyone who has certainty on such things is not qualified to discuss it.

Human rights and science have no standing.

The Epoch Times: Federal Judge Rules Against Natural Immunity Claim Challenging COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate

by Jack Philips, 2021-10-09

A federal judge on Oct. 8 denied a request to block Michigan State University’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate on the basis of natural immunity.

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,’” Maloney said in his order. “The Court cannot ignore this binding precedent.”

...It comes just days after a federal judge in California ruled against a professor who argued that his previous infection should make him exempt from the University of California’s vaccine requirement.

WIND: baloney from Maloney.

Ignoring science and modern technology is “rational”? Science has no standing in this federal judge’s empty skull.

A “binding precedent” from 116 years ago* is more important than human rights? Cases decided before any person now living when everything was different in every aspect of life? The judgment of the entire judiciary should be called into question if this stands, because timeless dogma decided by nine long-since-dead privileged white men has no place in any legal institution. Apparently this cause does not rise to the level of numerous other invented “rights”.

What are “fundamental rights” these days? None, presumably. BTW, why should something based on irrationality (belief in a deity for which no evidence exists and disagreed upon) be granted an exemption, whereas a proven scientific finding counts for nothing?

Judges can capriciously doom you to any whim of the government, offering “legal reasoning” for ideological viewpoints or simply callous indifference or ignorance. I once had respect for the judiciary, but these days it has little to do with the justice, let alone rationality.

* A case decided when medical science was little more than a wood-saw for gangrene and there was no way of knowing any of the facts presented to the court today! The context-dropping in ignoring what little was known 116 yeara ago vs today shows this judge to be either stupid beyond belief or politically motivated.

View all handpicked deals...

Nikon Z8 Mirrorless Camera
$3997 $3797
SAVE $200

diglloyd.com | Terms of Use | PRIVACY POLICY
Contact | About Lloyd Chambers | Consulting | Photo Tours
Mailing Lists | RSS Feeds | X.com/diglloyd
Copyright © 2020 diglloyd Inc, all rights reserved.
Display info: __RETINA_INFO_STATUS__