ALEXA’S DAILY RECOMMENDATIONHealthLife StylePOLITICSUS

A Federal Judge Denied the Existence of “Natural Immunity”?!

Okay, now, I’d just like to add that judges should make decisions based on a variety of different materials, using the laws available at the moment. However, to make such claims, a judge should mostly base his decision on the scientific proof presented by experts in the field. Like, for COVId, the field would be medicine, virology, epidemiology, etc…

Join The True Defender Telegram Chanel Here: https://t.me/TheTrueDefender

“A federal judge has denied that natural immunity from prior Covid-19 infection is a legally justifiable reason to be exempted from vaccine mandates. The judge’s ruling on a plaintiff’s case against Michigan State University comes as even mainstream media outlets admit that natural immunity is not only at least equivalent- but is actually superior to vaccinated immunity.”

Here’s the original story reported by The Epoch Times.

“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 ‘protecting the public health and public safety,’” Judge Maloney said in his order. “The Court cannot ignore this binding precedent.”

This is not a match with recent scientific conclusions on the very same matter.

“By comparison, vaccine-induced memory B cells are less robust, evolving for only a few weeks and never ‘learning’ to protect against variants, researchers reported in a paper published on Thursday in Nature.

COVID-19 vaccines do induce more antibodies than the immune system does after a coronavirus infection. But the immune system response to infection appears to outshine its response to vaccines when it comes to memory B cells. Regardless of whether antibodies are induced by infection or vaccine, their levels drop within six months in many people. But memory B cells stand ready to produce new antibodies if the body encounters the virus.

Prior to this study, there had been little data on how vaccine-induced B cells compare to infection-induced B cells.”

Earlier, an Israeli study came to similar conclusions.

Source
trendingpolitics.comtheepochtimes.combostonglobe.com

Ava Garcia

A small town girl, dreaming big, expecting to change the world with presenting the truthful events of the world today. Law degree with a master in criminology, and a devoted journalist for over 7 years, and counting. "The pen is mightier than the sword."

Related Articles

Back to top button

Adblock Detected

For continue reading on the site please disable the Ad-block