Beating ‘Mandates’ in Court

Beating the Mandates in Court

By: Ted Noel

Thousands of people are challenging the vaccine mandates. For them the “get shot or get fired” ultimatum is a bridge too far. Southwest Airlines recently discovered that such pressure isn’t working when they had to cancel a lot of flights because they didn’t have staff. Locations with Lockdown Lefty Lunatics in charge are losing people. Over a thousand people a day are moving to the Free State of Florida where mandates are strongly discouraged. But federal courts are ruling in favor of mandates right and left. Why?

Welcome to the Supreme Court. In 1905 (Jacobsen v. Massachusetts, 197 US 11) the Court ruled that the state could require citizens to get a smallpox vaccination. This case is being used as a blanket authority for every vaccine mandate to be approved. And as the Bard said, “Aye, there’s the rub.” If the term “vaccine” is all that’s considered, no one has a prayer in court. But if we can pry a few layers off that onion, there is a clear way to show that Jacobsen is not a precedent that any lower court should consider.

Smallpox is a very contagious disease with up to 20% mortality. It’s spread by contact, so an infected person can easily give someone else a deadly disease. This was a clear public health issue in 1904. At that time vaccination involved administering an orthopox virus that created powerful smallpox immunity without making the individual sick. Thus, the mandate was in fact a de minimus burden on the recipient’s freedom with a significant probability of preventing the illness of another person. This tells us where we must look.

COVID-19 is spread by aerosols, not contact. It is therefore not comparable to smallpox unless COVID-19 vaccinations in fact prevent the spread of COVID-19 from a vaccinated person to an unvaccinated person. But they do not and cannot. We now know that fully vaccinated and immune persons can be infected and exhale just as much active virus as persons ill with the disease. This sounds like nonsense, but has a very solid medical basis.

Because COVID-19 is spread by aerosol, infected aerosols are breathed in by nearby people, regardless of their immune status. Those aerosols come in contact with pneumocytes, the structural cells of the alveoli (air sacs). The virus attaches to the ACE2 receptor and enters the cell where it multiplies. It is then released by the cell, mostly into the alveolus, where it is exhaled as a water vapor aerosol. The individual’s immunity is not involved, since antibodies and killer T-cells live in the bloodstream on the other side of the alveolar basement membrane. Those antibodies and T-cells mop up viruses that the pneumocytes release across the basement membrane, preventing illness.

Let’s make this so simple even a federal judge can understand it. Smallpox spreads by contact. Immunity to smallpox prevents illness, curtailing transmission. COVID-19 spreads by aerosols. Immunity to COVID-19 prevents illness, but does not reduce the probability of an immunized person transmitting the disease. In short, the fundamental rationale for Jacobsen does not apply to COVID-19.

The Left will cry that masks will stop the spread. But that’s not about vaccination! And they will bring out data showing that, in the lab, various masks reduce the spread of aerosols by 30%. Unfortunately for them, when we look at population data, lab results simply do not translate to the real world. Mask mandates have been proven to have zero effect on population-level transmission of COVID-19. They may actually make the situation worse. And we cannot let a prosecutor bring forward data that N95s eliminate infection in health-care workers. This is “exposure control,” where the individual protects himself. Jacobsen is about “source control,” where my immunity might protect you.

At this point one might suggest that the case has been won, but we can’t stop by proving that COVID-19 vaccination doesn’t work for the purpose in Jacobsen. We must now proceed to the affirmative case that vaccination is bad. Vaccination is a medical procedure that involves more risk than simply taking your temperature.

All three of the vaccines expose a person to the spike protein. Pfizer and Moderna use mRNA to get the body to make it, while Johnson & Johnson attaches it to a crippled adenovirus. This turns out to be a horrible mistake. The spike protein is the key viral part that causes the disease. Spontaneous abortions, myocarditis, and sudden death are just part of its effects. With thousands of reported deaths following the vaccine in a system that the CDC states only captures 1% of the data, a huge number of people have had incredibly bad effects from the shots.

Informed consent requires that a patient be informed of the risks, benefits, and alternatives of a medical treatment. Since the Despots of Disease claim that vaccines are “safe,” we can confidently say that they are lying. Informed consent is meaningless when we’re falsely informed. And in the same vein, the benefits are overstated. As we’ve seen, the idea that the Fauci shot stops disease transmission is blatantly false. It doesn’t even protect me that well. The push for rapid and perpetual “boosters” are a tacit admission that it doesn’t work very well at all.

Finally, the question of alternatives must be presented to the court. The Despots of Disease have firmly stated that the vaccines are the only way we can ever have a safe society. They have actively suppressed, by threats to medical licenses and hospital privileges, any suggestion that Hydroxychloroquine or Ivermectin might be of benefit in stamping out the illness. Public pronouncements about “horse dewormer” have been used to demean people who actually study the data. Fortunately for the 241 million people of Uttar Pradesh, India, they didn’t have to fight the U.S. government, and an $8 course of treatment eliminated the Delta variant with zero side effects.

Overcoming the Jacobsen precedent should be an exercise in simplicity. Jacobsen was forced to accept a vaccine that had proven ability to stop the transmission of a deadly disease in exchange for a de minimus medical therapy. The COVID vaccines do not and cannot prevent transmission of this airborne disease which has a mortality rate no worse than seasonal flu. And they are by no means de minimus. “…more people, according to VAERS, have died after getting the shot in four months during a single vaccination campaign than from all other vaccines combined over more than a decade and a half.” To conclude, we have excellent, inexpensive, non-toxic, and highly effective therapies that the Despots of Disease are suppressing.

In short, COVID-19 vaccines are in no way comparable to smallpox vaccines. Jacobsen should not be considered a legal precedent for COVID-19 vaccine mandates.


Read more articles about COVID Vaccine Mandates


This article (Beating the Mandates in Court) is republished here under “Fair Use” (see the TLB disclaimer below article) with attribution to the articles author Ted Noel, MD and the website

TLB recommends that you visit the American Thinker website for more great articles and information.

About the Author: Ted Noel, M.D. is a retired Anesthesiologist/Intensivist who posts on social media as DoctorTed and @vidzette.

Read more great articles by Ted Noel, MD

Image Credit: Graphic in Featured Image (top) – by mohamed Hassan from Pixabay


Click on image below to visit site:



Stay tuned to …


The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)


Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.


Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.


Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

1 Comment on Beating ‘Mandates’ in Court

  1. Excellent article, but I point out some inaccuracies in the following sentences: “COVID-19 spreads by aerosols. Immunity to COVID-19 prevents illness, but does not reduce the probability of an immunized person transmitting the disease.”

    The only thing tested in the clinical trials was the reduction in severity of mild symptoms to Covid, NOT to “immunity” from it, and NOT with regard to transmitting the disease. Well, lots of other things can reduce the severity of symptoms of Covid including good nutrition, Ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine with zinc, etc. But the “vaccunes” do not even prevent illness! And in truth, since MOST people would only have mild symptoms from Covid ANYWAY, how much value does this study have? Furthermore, they reported relative risk reduction (some 95%) when the only number that matters for the public is absolute risk reduction which was only about 1%! So I would correct your sentences as follows: COVID-19 spreads by aerosols. The vaccines for COVID do not confer immunity, do not prevent contracting or transmitting the disease, but MAY reduce mild symptoms of the disease should one contract it.

    Ultimately the comparison of the COVID-19 “vaccines” with those for smallpox is laughable. Sadly, a significant portion of the American public has been duped.

    Note that during the summer months (which is a time of very low virus transmission due to warmer temperatures and high humidity, plus a time of higher protective vitamin D levels in the population due to exposure from the sun), we still found reported in the news, MANY “breakthrough” cases of Covid in the “fully vaccinated”, some of which required hospitalization and some of which resulted in death. Again, it must be emphasized that the clinical trials did NOT study the efficacy of these “vaccines” in reducing severity of symptoms in people who SEVERLY got sick with Covid. They studied only those with MILD symptoms… like the ones who would have probably gotten better anyway. The “science” used in these clinical trials is embarrassingly shoddy and misleading.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.