If you send a hint about your email address-- first three letters, for example-- I can likely find it among my subscriber list.
first 3 letters: "ter"
PS: I wish you'd contact me directly - You seem to enjoy the dialogue, but I'm increasingly uncomfortable broadcasting this conversation to the world
The noose has been tightening on school vaccine mandates: many states have wiped out philosophical and religious exemptions.
Agree. It's really astounding, given the growing evidence that these don't work, and cause harm.
So for a poorer family objecting to vaccine mandates for their school children, the options are daunting and for them these mandates become oppressive.
Yes.
This flies in the face of the Jacobson decision (mandates should not be oppressive.)
Not exactly sure of your point here.
For wealthy families there's no real problem if they object to the mandates.
Not sure of your thinking here - If a school or employer
My opinion about the government's compelling interest in getting people vaccinated is that it should have no such interest, as this is/should be beyond the scope of the government. If we're to be vaccinated that we must be monitored for compliance, and the government has no business monitoring us for compliance.
Your idea of what the government "should" do differs from the fact that the government asserts such an interest.
Our government has opted to make a religion of vaccination, hasn't it?
More or less.
It's not really science. It's a belief system backed up by bits and pieces of science and history cobbled together to give the appearance of legitimacy.
Yes.
So the government really wants to have a compelling interest in supporting the religion of vaccination, and many people object to this religion and don't want it imposed on them.
It's not that the government "wants" to have a compelling interest - it asserts it does.
"... I'm increasingly uncomfortable broadcasting this conversation to the world." Why? It's harmless mostly legal debate.
We obviously disagree that the government should not have a compelling interest in mandating medical treatment, as you seem to assert that "it does." Yet Roe v Wade was overturned, and so can the Buck v Bell decision and the entire core idea that individual medical treatment can be mandated by the state and justified by clearly unjustifiable and arbitrary science that's been cherry-picked, or worse, to support the ideology that says that vaccination, etc., is the only way to public health with regards to infectious diseases.
It's August 2023 and folks still can't accept the fact that Robert Malone is a Progressive Marxist who uses fear, threats and intimidation to shut down anyone who dares to question his record of performance or his "mistruths". Who made this bully the leader of a mostly Conservative MFM and what gives him the right to be hostile and scream at Mathew Crawford when Mathew refused to expose the name of his contact, the individual who gave Mathew information that was incriminating? Exposing the person's name would've been a definitive early demise for that individual, Mathew has made it very clear - no one seems to care while they continue to give Malone a pass. A Progressive who has made millions of dollars creating bioweapons that hurts humanity has fooled Conservatives into believing he's against the bioweapons he's helped create - he's masterfully employed 5GW while becoming a "leader" of 5GW.
What's it going to take for folks to wake up and accept that the tiny man with a humongous ego is everything that he criticizes others to be? He's always self projecting and yet highly educated folks pretend that he's a soft spoken man who is suddenly changing his demeanor because Peter Navarro might persuade him to support Trump🤦♀️he's bullied his way to a leadership position in the MFM with money from Steve Kirsch/The Unity Project while manipulating the real doctors who saved lives in 2020 & 2021 - Dr. Paul Alexander & others have mentioned it. Dr. Kory deserves to be a leader, he's earned his stripes - he was saving lives while sharing the protocols that he used. In 2020 he & Peter McCullough were at the US Congress fighting for us while Malone was at the DOD playing with DOMANE, the tech that brought us run death is near (Remdesivir).
It's OK to say what is obvious about Robert Malone, his junk yard dogs will continue to attack anyone who dares to criticize him - that's part of the psyop - but no one should bend the knee to these monsters. Silence is violence.
Yes, it baffles me that he has such a following. For everything he says and all his information, the hard cold fact of the lawsuit says who he really is and who's side he's on.
Not to mention my pet peeve of Desmet's pseudoscience and Malone's support of it.
Steve Bannon became Malone's useful idiot. I got tired of Bannon forcing the Vaccine Frankenstein down our throats & stopped watching Bannon's War Room. I'm not the brightest bulb, but I immediately sensed that Malone was disingenuous as he pretended to have Conservative values but spoke with disgust when he said his parents were hardcore Conservatives. I don't understand why his Conservative followers haven't called him out on his many hypocrisies,
Meryl Nass wrote a hit piece on me because I discovered that in 2011 Malone wanted to test Anthrax vaccines on other people's kids. She made it clear that I'm a nobody that can be easily destroyed. I survived Communism, Malone's junk yard dogs can't scare me😂
Please keep questioning the status quo and standing up for their victims, not too many folks are brave enough to do it publicly. We appreciate you. TY.
I see I neglected to put quotes around your original thoughts (interspersed with my comments below). That's just one more reason I don't like this mode of communication - I have limited control over the format.
I'm not sure you really understand that a "mandate" is *not* a forcible injection. It is *always" accompanied by an option (of working or going to school elsewhere, etc.). That's why the government can get away with "mandates" in most cases.
It helps if you get familiar with the essence of "strict scrutiny." Then you'll see that the courts *always" balance individual rights with government interests.
If you send a hint about your email address-- first three letters, for example-- I can likely find it among my subscriber list.
The noose has been tightening on school vaccine mandates: many states have wiped out philosophical and religious exemptions. So for a poorer family objecting to vaccine mandates for their school children, the options are daunting and for them these mandates become oppressive. This flies in the face of the Jacobson decision (mandates should not be oppressive.) For wealthy families there's no real problem if they object to the mandates.
My opinion about the government's compelling interest in getting people vaccinated is that it should have no such interest, as this is/should be beyond the scope of the government. If we're to be vaccinated that we must be monitored for compliance, and the government has no business monitoring us for compliance.
Our government has opted to make a religion of vaccination, hasn't it? It's not really science. It's a belief system backed up by bits and pieces of science and history cobbled together to give the appearance of legitimacy. So the government really wants to have a compelling interest in supporting the religion of vaccination, and many people object to this religion and don't want it imposed on them.
Jim - regarding your comment on Meryl Nass's blog post. You mentioned the need to overturn "the 1905 Jacobson decision that asserted that the state could mandate medical measures" That's a common misunderstanding. All Mass did was require EITHER a vaxx or pay a small fine. Very different.
Terry, the core principle expressed in Jacobson was that the state can dictate medical measures that must be followed, or else suffer punishment. So the $5 fine Jacobson had to pay was trivial but that principle was the basis for the 1927 Buck v Bell decision in which the court ruled that Jacobson's reasoning was "broad enough" to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes: the state can dictate medical measures for the good of the state.
Of course eugenics was fading at the time of the 1927 decision but Buck v Bell gave it new life, especially with regard to Germany which looked at us and said, "now there's a ruling that gives real power to the state to purify the race!" So once the state decides it can rule over bodies it's a slippery slope to horrific crimes. We've seen that unfold based on the basic sentiment contained in Jacobson.
Today, the police power of the state is expanding to include control over what goes into our bodies and all this is based on the fundamental principle in Jacobson. That's why Jacobson must be overturned so that no medical measures can ever be imposed on anyone against their will, except perhaps in the most narrow and exceptional cases.
Jacobson also contains a fundamental idea of individual transparency and government opacity: you don't necessarily have to know why the health authorities need you to do something, you just need to do it. On the other hand, the authorities are justified in monitoring you to make sure that you, for example, took your smallpox vaccine. We should be moving toward government transparency and individual opacity: the government has no business knowing what medications we take.
Jim, I've interposed my comments in your comment below. Terry
PS: If you would like to continue this (important) discussion, please provide your email (so we won't superimpose it on another - "mass formation" - discussion)
So, here we go:
"Terry, the core principle expressed in Jacobson was that the state can dictate medical measures that must be followed, or else suffer punishment."
The idea that the government can impose restrictions on citizens isn't onerous, per se.
"So the $5 fine Jacobson had to pay was trivial but that principle was the basis for the 1927 Buck v Bell decision in which the court ruled that Jacobson's reasoning was "broad enough" to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes: the state can dictate medical measures for the good of the state."
Most people (including yours truly) seem to believe that the Buck v. Bell decision was based on a serious misreading of Jacobson (that it in no way authorized the government to violate a citizen's physical autonomy.
"Of course eugenics was fading at the time of the 1927 decision but Buck v Bell gave it new life, especially with regard to Germany which looked at us and said, "now there's a ruling that gives real power to the state to purify the race!""
Yes, that's true.
"So once the state decides it can rule over bodies it's a slippery slope to horrific crimes."
Yes - which is why that "rule" doesn't really exist.
"We've seen that unfold based on the basic sentiment contained in Jacobson. Today, the police power of the state is expanding to include control over what goes into our bodies and all this is based on the fundamental principle in Jacobson."
I think the issue of state police power is much more broad than Jacobson.
"That's why Jacobson must be overturned so that no medical measures can ever be imposed on anyone against their will, except perhaps in the most narrow and exceptional cases."
I attempt to kill two birds with one stone by focusing on overturning Buck v. Bell and it's misinterpretation of Jacobson.
"Jacobson also contains a fundamental idea of individual transparency and government opacity: you don't necessarily have to know why the health authorities need you to do something, you just need to do it."
At the root of the idea of a "strict scrutiny review," is an invitation for the government (defendant) to provide proof that the policy in question serves a "compelling government Interest" and that it represents the most narrow means to satisfy that interest. Many people do not realize it, but the courts have done away with the idea of absolute individual rights. Instead, whenever a plaintiff argues that a policy violates his/her constitutional rights, the first step is to demonstrate the truth of that. But then next step is a balancing process, in which, to prevail, the plaintiff must overcome the government's "compelling interest" argument.
"On the other hand, the authorities are justified in monitoring you to make sure that you, for example, took your smallpox vaccine."
Or more directly, in ensuring that you are quarantined should you be contagious.
"We should be moving toward government transparency and individual opacity: the government has no business knowing what medications we take."
You sound like a lawyer-- not a criticism, just sayin'.
The idea that the state can impose conditions on citizens isn't onerous, but medical mandates are unique in that they require citizens to take the risk of vaccine harm for the greater good, and I can think of no other law in normal civil society that requires that citizens subject themselves to potential harms. The court has already ruled that vaccines are unavoidably unsafe. So these mandates, such as the one Jacobson fought when both he and his son had harms from prior smallpox vaccines, require a sort of Russian roulette on the part of citizens.
The problem with the Jacobson decision is that it forbids measures that are oppressive or arbitrary but who gets to decide that? Justice Holmes decided that forced sterilization wasn't oppressive. The Jacobson decision is in fact a slippery slope.
I would say that it is indeed a "rule" that the state can have control over bodies, and this rule is expressed in vaccine mandates in many states. This rule is implicit in Jacobson and falls under police powers, which as you state are much broader than the medical mandate question but include it.
In essence we attempt to balance out a concern for welfare (expressed in the police power) with a concern for individual self-determination, but I think this is a futile attempt with regard to forced medication or onerous medical mandates, which are really one and the same for those who can't afford whatever penalties accrue.
The state should never ask citizens to potentially sacrifice their health for the sake of the greater good. The state should never issue medical mandates and in fact should forbid them.
Part of my reasoning is that medical mandates are unnecessary: the vast majority of people want to live and be healthy, and if they see recommended measures from trusted sources, they'll take those measures voluntarily. If they do not, then obviously they don't trust the sources or are unwilling for whatever reason to chance it. But in essence this "evil" of people refusing medical mandates is far outweighed by the evil of mandates cloaking political agendas, as happened with the eugenics movement, or of deliberately or accidentally faulty science being pushed on citizens or of the profit motive overshadowing any real necessity for any particular medical mandate.
Science can be and has been corrupted, and the corruption of medical science has been well-documented. But medical science is exactly what mandates are based on. It makes no sense for mandates to be based on what has been demonstrably shown to be easily-corruptible medical evidence.
Jim - I do not write "Terry's Substack' I'd be happy to hear from you, but I can't take a chance of posting my email here. I'll check later to see if you'd like to chat.
If you send a hint about your email address-- first three letters, for example-- I can likely find it among my subscriber list.
first 3 letters: "ter"
PS: I wish you'd contact me directly - You seem to enjoy the dialogue, but I'm increasingly uncomfortable broadcasting this conversation to the world
The noose has been tightening on school vaccine mandates: many states have wiped out philosophical and religious exemptions.
Agree. It's really astounding, given the growing evidence that these don't work, and cause harm.
So for a poorer family objecting to vaccine mandates for their school children, the options are daunting and for them these mandates become oppressive.
Yes.
This flies in the face of the Jacobson decision (mandates should not be oppressive.)
Not exactly sure of your point here.
For wealthy families there's no real problem if they object to the mandates.
Not sure of your thinking here - If a school or employer
My opinion about the government's compelling interest in getting people vaccinated is that it should have no such interest, as this is/should be beyond the scope of the government. If we're to be vaccinated that we must be monitored for compliance, and the government has no business monitoring us for compliance.
Your idea of what the government "should" do differs from the fact that the government asserts such an interest.
Our government has opted to make a religion of vaccination, hasn't it?
More or less.
It's not really science. It's a belief system backed up by bits and pieces of science and history cobbled together to give the appearance of legitimacy.
Yes.
So the government really wants to have a compelling interest in supporting the religion of vaccination, and many people object to this religion and don't want it imposed on them.
It's not that the government "wants" to have a compelling interest - it asserts it does.
"... I'm increasingly uncomfortable broadcasting this conversation to the world." Why? It's harmless mostly legal debate.
We obviously disagree that the government should not have a compelling interest in mandating medical treatment, as you seem to assert that "it does." Yet Roe v Wade was overturned, and so can the Buck v Bell decision and the entire core idea that individual medical treatment can be mandated by the state and justified by clearly unjustifiable and arbitrary science that's been cherry-picked, or worse, to support the ideology that says that vaccination, etc., is the only way to public health with regards to infectious diseases.
It's August 2023 and folks still can't accept the fact that Robert Malone is a Progressive Marxist who uses fear, threats and intimidation to shut down anyone who dares to question his record of performance or his "mistruths". Who made this bully the leader of a mostly Conservative MFM and what gives him the right to be hostile and scream at Mathew Crawford when Mathew refused to expose the name of his contact, the individual who gave Mathew information that was incriminating? Exposing the person's name would've been a definitive early demise for that individual, Mathew has made it very clear - no one seems to care while they continue to give Malone a pass. A Progressive who has made millions of dollars creating bioweapons that hurts humanity has fooled Conservatives into believing he's against the bioweapons he's helped create - he's masterfully employed 5GW while becoming a "leader" of 5GW.
What's it going to take for folks to wake up and accept that the tiny man with a humongous ego is everything that he criticizes others to be? He's always self projecting and yet highly educated folks pretend that he's a soft spoken man who is suddenly changing his demeanor because Peter Navarro might persuade him to support Trump🤦♀️he's bullied his way to a leadership position in the MFM with money from Steve Kirsch/The Unity Project while manipulating the real doctors who saved lives in 2020 & 2021 - Dr. Paul Alexander & others have mentioned it. Dr. Kory deserves to be a leader, he's earned his stripes - he was saving lives while sharing the protocols that he used. In 2020 he & Peter McCullough were at the US Congress fighting for us while Malone was at the DOD playing with DOMANE, the tech that brought us run death is near (Remdesivir).
It's OK to say what is obvious about Robert Malone, his junk yard dogs will continue to attack anyone who dares to criticize him - that's part of the psyop - but no one should bend the knee to these monsters. Silence is violence.
Yes, it baffles me that he has such a following. For everything he says and all his information, the hard cold fact of the lawsuit says who he really is and who's side he's on.
Not to mention my pet peeve of Desmet's pseudoscience and Malone's support of it.
Yes, yes, yes.
Steve Bannon became Malone's useful idiot. I got tired of Bannon forcing the Vaccine Frankenstein down our throats & stopped watching Bannon's War Room. I'm not the brightest bulb, but I immediately sensed that Malone was disingenuous as he pretended to have Conservative values but spoke with disgust when he said his parents were hardcore Conservatives. I don't understand why his Conservative followers haven't called him out on his many hypocrisies,
Meryl Nass wrote a hit piece on me because I discovered that in 2011 Malone wanted to test Anthrax vaccines on other people's kids. She made it clear that I'm a nobody that can be easily destroyed. I survived Communism, Malone's junk yard dogs can't scare me😂
Please keep questioning the status quo and standing up for their victims, not too many folks are brave enough to do it publicly. We appreciate you. TY.
Good article, as always Jim.
Yes, we disagree. Contact me via email if you'd like to discuss further.
I see I neglected to put quotes around your original thoughts (interspersed with my comments below). That's just one more reason I don't like this mode of communication - I have limited control over the format.
I'm not sure you really understand that a "mandate" is *not* a forcible injection. It is *always" accompanied by an option (of working or going to school elsewhere, etc.). That's why the government can get away with "mandates" in most cases.
It helps if you get familiar with the essence of "strict scrutiny." Then you'll see that the courts *always" balance individual rights with government interests.
If you send a hint about your email address-- first three letters, for example-- I can likely find it among my subscriber list.
The noose has been tightening on school vaccine mandates: many states have wiped out philosophical and religious exemptions. So for a poorer family objecting to vaccine mandates for their school children, the options are daunting and for them these mandates become oppressive. This flies in the face of the Jacobson decision (mandates should not be oppressive.) For wealthy families there's no real problem if they object to the mandates.
My opinion about the government's compelling interest in getting people vaccinated is that it should have no such interest, as this is/should be beyond the scope of the government. If we're to be vaccinated that we must be monitored for compliance, and the government has no business monitoring us for compliance.
Our government has opted to make a religion of vaccination, hasn't it? It's not really science. It's a belief system backed up by bits and pieces of science and history cobbled together to give the appearance of legitimacy. So the government really wants to have a compelling interest in supporting the religion of vaccination, and many people object to this religion and don't want it imposed on them.
Jim - regarding your comment on Meryl Nass's blog post. You mentioned the need to overturn "the 1905 Jacobson decision that asserted that the state could mandate medical measures" That's a common misunderstanding. All Mass did was require EITHER a vaxx or pay a small fine. Very different.
Terry, the core principle expressed in Jacobson was that the state can dictate medical measures that must be followed, or else suffer punishment. So the $5 fine Jacobson had to pay was trivial but that principle was the basis for the 1927 Buck v Bell decision in which the court ruled that Jacobson's reasoning was "broad enough" to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes: the state can dictate medical measures for the good of the state.
Of course eugenics was fading at the time of the 1927 decision but Buck v Bell gave it new life, especially with regard to Germany which looked at us and said, "now there's a ruling that gives real power to the state to purify the race!" So once the state decides it can rule over bodies it's a slippery slope to horrific crimes. We've seen that unfold based on the basic sentiment contained in Jacobson.
Today, the police power of the state is expanding to include control over what goes into our bodies and all this is based on the fundamental principle in Jacobson. That's why Jacobson must be overturned so that no medical measures can ever be imposed on anyone against their will, except perhaps in the most narrow and exceptional cases.
Jacobson also contains a fundamental idea of individual transparency and government opacity: you don't necessarily have to know why the health authorities need you to do something, you just need to do it. On the other hand, the authorities are justified in monitoring you to make sure that you, for example, took your smallpox vaccine. We should be moving toward government transparency and individual opacity: the government has no business knowing what medications we take.
Jim, I've interposed my comments in your comment below. Terry
PS: If you would like to continue this (important) discussion, please provide your email (so we won't superimpose it on another - "mass formation" - discussion)
So, here we go:
"Terry, the core principle expressed in Jacobson was that the state can dictate medical measures that must be followed, or else suffer punishment."
The idea that the government can impose restrictions on citizens isn't onerous, per se.
"So the $5 fine Jacobson had to pay was trivial but that principle was the basis for the 1927 Buck v Bell decision in which the court ruled that Jacobson's reasoning was "broad enough" to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes: the state can dictate medical measures for the good of the state."
Most people (including yours truly) seem to believe that the Buck v. Bell decision was based on a serious misreading of Jacobson (that it in no way authorized the government to violate a citizen's physical autonomy.
"Of course eugenics was fading at the time of the 1927 decision but Buck v Bell gave it new life, especially with regard to Germany which looked at us and said, "now there's a ruling that gives real power to the state to purify the race!""
Yes, that's true.
"So once the state decides it can rule over bodies it's a slippery slope to horrific crimes."
Yes - which is why that "rule" doesn't really exist.
"We've seen that unfold based on the basic sentiment contained in Jacobson. Today, the police power of the state is expanding to include control over what goes into our bodies and all this is based on the fundamental principle in Jacobson."
I think the issue of state police power is much more broad than Jacobson.
"That's why Jacobson must be overturned so that no medical measures can ever be imposed on anyone against their will, except perhaps in the most narrow and exceptional cases."
I attempt to kill two birds with one stone by focusing on overturning Buck v. Bell and it's misinterpretation of Jacobson.
"Jacobson also contains a fundamental idea of individual transparency and government opacity: you don't necessarily have to know why the health authorities need you to do something, you just need to do it."
At the root of the idea of a "strict scrutiny review," is an invitation for the government (defendant) to provide proof that the policy in question serves a "compelling government Interest" and that it represents the most narrow means to satisfy that interest. Many people do not realize it, but the courts have done away with the idea of absolute individual rights. Instead, whenever a plaintiff argues that a policy violates his/her constitutional rights, the first step is to demonstrate the truth of that. But then next step is a balancing process, in which, to prevail, the plaintiff must overcome the government's "compelling interest" argument.
"On the other hand, the authorities are justified in monitoring you to make sure that you, for example, took your smallpox vaccine."
Or more directly, in ensuring that you are quarantined should you be contagious.
"We should be moving toward government transparency and individual opacity: the government has no business knowing what medications we take."
Agreed
Terry,
I'm not handing out my email. We can talk here.
You sound like a lawyer-- not a criticism, just sayin'.
The idea that the state can impose conditions on citizens isn't onerous, but medical mandates are unique in that they require citizens to take the risk of vaccine harm for the greater good, and I can think of no other law in normal civil society that requires that citizens subject themselves to potential harms. The court has already ruled that vaccines are unavoidably unsafe. So these mandates, such as the one Jacobson fought when both he and his son had harms from prior smallpox vaccines, require a sort of Russian roulette on the part of citizens.
The problem with the Jacobson decision is that it forbids measures that are oppressive or arbitrary but who gets to decide that? Justice Holmes decided that forced sterilization wasn't oppressive. The Jacobson decision is in fact a slippery slope.
I would say that it is indeed a "rule" that the state can have control over bodies, and this rule is expressed in vaccine mandates in many states. This rule is implicit in Jacobson and falls under police powers, which as you state are much broader than the medical mandate question but include it.
In essence we attempt to balance out a concern for welfare (expressed in the police power) with a concern for individual self-determination, but I think this is a futile attempt with regard to forced medication or onerous medical mandates, which are really one and the same for those who can't afford whatever penalties accrue.
The state should never ask citizens to potentially sacrifice their health for the sake of the greater good. The state should never issue medical mandates and in fact should forbid them.
Part of my reasoning is that medical mandates are unnecessary: the vast majority of people want to live and be healthy, and if they see recommended measures from trusted sources, they'll take those measures voluntarily. If they do not, then obviously they don't trust the sources or are unwilling for whatever reason to chance it. But in essence this "evil" of people refusing medical mandates is far outweighed by the evil of mandates cloaking political agendas, as happened with the eugenics movement, or of deliberately or accidentally faulty science being pushed on citizens or of the profit motive overshadowing any real necessity for any particular medical mandate.
Science can be and has been corrupted, and the corruption of medical science has been well-documented. But medical science is exactly what mandates are based on. It makes no sense for mandates to be based on what has been demonstrably shown to be easily-corruptible medical evidence.
Jim - I do not write "Terry's Substack' I'd be happy to hear from you, but I can't take a chance of posting my email here. I'll check later to see if you'd like to chat.
I couldn't agree with you more.