Lawyers are preparing to defend natural immunity as potential exemption to COVID-19 vaccine mandates

Legal experts are preparing to defend natural immunity from Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) infection as a sufficient alternative to getting vaccinated.

More people are being coerced by their employers or by their local and state governments to get vaccinated against COVID-19 under the threat of unemployment. The federal government has also decided to step in with new regulations that mandate vaccination for everyone in businesses with over 100 employees. Such a move would force over 100 million Americans to get vaccinated, if they aren’t already.

Fortunately, this rule has received a lot of pushback. Many lawyers are working to get the courts to recognize natural immunity to COVID-19 from a prior coronavirus infection as a credible legal exemption against mandatory vaccinations.

“I think that a judge might reject a rule that’s been issued by a body, like the U.S. Department of Labor or by a state, that has not been sufficiently thought through as it relates to the science,” said Erik Eisenmann, an attorney specializing in labor and employment law.

“Right now, I think it’s been easy for employers and the medical community to say the vaccine is always better,” added Eisenmann. “But the science evolves and there are new strains.”

For Eisenmann and many other lawyers preparing to defend natural immunity in the courts, they are turning to one report out of Israel that strongly suggests that natural immunity provides significantly better protection against COVID-19 than getting fully vaccinated by the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.

Todd Zywicki, a law professor for George Mason University and a senior fellow for the libertarian think tank the Cato Institute, argued that government and private entities alike have a right to take reasonable precautions against the spread of disease. But their power to do so has limits.

Zywicki explained that these limits are grounded in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, a Supreme Court decision from 1905 that upheld a state vaccine mandate for smallpox. He believes this precedent may be challenged if a case is brought before the Supreme Court that has enough legal and scientific backing.

“That was a different medical era,” said Zywicki. “There was no way to confirm whether you had a prior infection and recovery, which is obviously the case now.”

Zywicki believes a modern legal analysis of vaccine mandates should consider a later Supreme Court ruling – Buck v. Bell from 1927 – which solidified the right of individuals to make decisions concerning their bodies. The ruling argued that even prisoners cannot be subjected against their will to state-mandated medication.

“Understandably, we are repulsed by that sort of attitude: that the government can do anything to you just because they think it’s a convenient way of dealing with some social problem,” said Zywicki.

Lawmakers fighting for recognition of natural immunity in legislatures

As Zywicki, Eisenmann and many other lawyers fight for the recognition of natural immunity in the courts, Republicans in Congress are attempting to pressure the CDC to do the same.

In the Senate, Republican Sen. Roger Marshall of Kansas recently sent a letter to CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky calling on her agency to recognize natural immunity against COVID-19. (Related: Sen. Rand Paul does not plan to get COVID-19 vaccine, explains he has natural immunity which is vastly superior compared to artificial vaccine “immunity.”)

Marshall, a licensed physician, led the 13 other senators and representatives that make up the GOP Doctors Caucus in a letter to Walensky, warning her that not recognizing natural immunity to COVID-19 could have wide-ranging implications.

“The U.S. Department of Defense vaccine mandate has the potential to lead a national security crisis by separating up to 20 percent of our military personnel, many of whom likely have natural immunity,” read Marshall’s letter.

“Published and submitted journal articles verify immunity from natural infection and innate immunity in measuring an individual’s level of protection to COVID-19,” continued the letter. “One study examining this found that patients who recovered from COVID-19 could produce long-term immune response.”

The group is demanding the CDC to look at all available data and to use the technology available to it to establish “better patient-centered solutions” that prove a person’s natural immunity to COVID-19 produced “a sufficient level of protection.”

“We urge the CDC to acknowledge natural immunity and work with other federal agencies to ensure all future guidance, policies and federally-funded  research take this evidence into account and build off it.”

Learn more about the sidelining of powerful natural immunity to COVID-19 by reading the latest articles at Vaccines.news.

Sources include:

WakingTimes.com

TheCut.com

MSN.com

FoxNews.com