This should be the death blow for vaccine passports - and it ought to silence the debate about whether people who have had COVID are immune, and how that immunity compares to that of the COVID shots. Could a single COVID shot actually harm a previously infected person's immunity?
Are These Findings the Death Blow for Vaccine Passports?
More than 15 studies now show the natural immunity you get after recovering from COVID-19 is far superior and more long-lasting than what you get from the COVID shot
Lawsuits challenge vaccine requirements that fail to accept natural immunity as an alternative to the COVID injection
Todd Zywicki, a law professor at George Mason University in Virginia, sued over the school’s vaccine mandate, which did not recognize natural immunity. The school settled out of court, granting Zywicki a medical exemption. They did not, however, change their general policy to recognize other staff and students who have natural immunity
Some of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed against Rutgers University in New Jersey also object to the vaccine mandate on the basis that they have natural immunity. This lawsuit is still pending
Since COVID shots do not prevent infection or spread of the virus, and COVID-jabbed individuals carry the same viral load when symptomatic as unvaccinated individuals, the argument that vaccine passports will identify and separate “public health threats” from those who are “safe” to be around simply falls apart
While governments around the world are going full steam ahead with plans for vaccine passports, two key things have occurred that blow irreparable holes in the whole argument.
First, more than 15 studies now show the natural immunity you get after recovering from COVID-19 is far superior and longer-lasting than what you get from the COVID shot, and secondly, lawsuits have challenged vaccine requirements that fail to accept natural immunity as an alternative to the COVID injection. Other lawsuits highlighting the illegalities of vaccine mandates have also been filed.
The Zywicki Case
As reported by the New York Post,1 August 4, 2021, when George Mason University in Virginia decided to implement a vaccine mandate, law professor Todd Zywicki sued.2 Mason recovered from COVID-19 in 2020 and has natural immunity, as demonstrated by several antibody tests. One of his attorneys, Harriet Hageman, stated:
"Common sense and medical science should underpin GMU's actions. Both have gone missing with this latest effort to force a distinguished professor to take a vaccine that he does not need — not for his own protection nor for anyone else's safety at Scalia Law School."
The lawsuit pointed out that people with natural immunity have an increased risk of adverse reactions to the COVID shot — according to one study3 up to 4.4 times the risk of clinically significant side effects — and that the requirement not only violates due process rights and the right to refuse unwanted medical treatment, but is not compliant with the Emergency Use Authorization.4
A Win for GMU Professor but No Legal Precedent
August 17, 2021, George Mason University caved before the case went to trial and granted Zywicki a medical exemption to the vaccine requirement.5 Unfortunately, and irrationally, the school did not revise its general policy. As reported by Citizens Journal:6
"The school's acknowledgment of natural immunity is significant given the serial case of amnesia that seems to have overtaken the world on this basic point of biology.
However, the school still maintains the vaccination requirement for all other members of the GMU community, regardless of naturally acquired immunity. At the time of this writing, the same medical exemption has not been offered on a broader scale.
Furthermore, the lawsuit would have served as an interesting test case for vaccine mandate-related litigation, which will become more prevalent as time goes on. Regardless, the victory still serves as a sliver of hope that some universities will entertain reasonable arguments and that individuals can fight back with litigation …
With the GMU case resolved without trial, many critical legal arguments went untested. For example, does the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause apply to vaccine mandates, or does the state have the ability to suspend such rights when responding to a public health emergency?
How does the reliability of natural immunity affect the constitutionality of policies that fail to recognize it? Can the government simply cherry-pick whatever science it wants to justify its policies? According to the court filing,7
'The Supreme Court has recognized that the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's right to privacy. A 'forcible injection … into a nonconsenting person's body represents a substantial interference with that person's liberty[.]' Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 229 (1990).'
Given this precedent, as well as the state's police powers to suspend individual rights under compelling circumstances, how will this apply to Covid-19 in a low-risk environment such as a college campus?
If the right still holds, how will it apply to city-wide vaccine passport programs, given that Covid-19 is a relatively mild disease? … The move is also mysterious, given the relevance of the matter. As a result, it did not create a binding legal precedent."
In a statement, lead counsel Jenin Younes with the New Civil Liberties Alliance, said:8
"NCLA is pleased that GMU granted Professor Zywicki's medical exemption, which we believe it only did because he filed this lawsuit. According to GMU, with the medical exemption, Prof. Zywicki may continue serving the GMU community, as he has for more than two decades, without receiving a medically unnecessary vaccine and without undue burden.
Nevertheless, NCLA remains dismayed by GMU's refusal — along with many other public and private universities and other employers — to recognize that the science establishes beyond any doubt that natural immunity is as robust or more so than vaccine immunity."
Other Lawsuits Challenging Schools' Vaccine Mandates
While not specifically centered around the validity of natural immunity, a lawsuit filed by more than a dozen students and Children's Health Defense against Rutgers University in New Jersey does include this aspect, as some of the plaintiffs object to the mandate on the basis that they have natural immunity. This lawsuit was filed in mid-August 20219 and is still pending.
According to the Mayo Clinic, as of July 2021, Pfizer's COVID injection was only 42% effective against infection, which doesn't even meet the Food and Drug Administration's requirement of 50% efficacy for vaccines.