Kennedy Dershowitz Debate: Pro Vaccine vs. Anti-vaccine Views on Mandates
Dr. Leonard G. Horowitz
A huge public service was provided by attorneys Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Alan Dershowitz by consenting to the ” Kennedy Dershowitz Debate ” issues raised by “mandatory vaccinations.” The hour and fifteen-minute interchange was professionally produced and edited by Vault Conference entrepreneur, Patrick Bet-David. Having viewed this outstanding discussion in which the celebrated attorneys substantially agreed, I object to the proceedings for the following reasons:
The “anti-vaccination” position was damagingly missing. I raise this foundational ‘objection’ to the limited information provided and provide this supplemental article and commentary for correction. I take the ‘third position’ not represented because it is more valuable and worthy of public debate than the lawyers’.
I object to the “pro-vaccine” bias of both counsel. As detailed below I note that their knowledge and logic is influenced by substantial bias. This short-coming is apparent from the ‘cognitive-behavioral dissonance’ expressed. Hypocrisy is evident under this influence. Both parties’ arguments are tainted by it.
“[T]he Kennedy/Dershowitz Constitutional ‘debate,’ weighing upon the legality of forcing vaccinations into people, was fundamentally and contextually defective; arguably lame, reckless, negligent, ignorant, arbitrary and capricious. It frames the entire debate like a corral concentrates a herd moving to slaughter.”
Despite solidly evidencing and articulating the most egregious assault committed against humanity by the vaccine industry, Mr. Kennedy defended, “No. I’m not anti-vaccine. People have called me ‘anti-vaccine’ as a way of marginalizing me, and silencing me.”
It has been said that ‘when the going gets tough, the tough get going.’ They don’t simply abandon the ‘truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth’ for personal protection, societal acceptance, and political expediency.
From my view, Mr. Kennedy submits to the so-called ‘general agreement’ of society that vaccines are fundamentally ‘good.’ This false presumption and ‘herd mentality’ undermines the lawyers’ independent, scholarly, albeit defective, positions.
I, alternatively, take and defend a purest third position for which there is just cause. The “anti-vaccination” position is infinitely more rational, reasonable, and responsible, thus must be part of this same public discussion.
In fact, it was largely both lawyers’ appeals for open discussions that caused me to write this opinion. They issued a vicarious invitation to participate in free speech. Robert Kennedy’s passionate pleading against the prejudice he has suffered in bringing vaccination risks to light invited my voice to be heard likewise through this supplemental contribution.
Mr. Kennedy expertly vilified what is commonplace within the political, medical-legal, and scientific communities. The corporate-controlled media aids-and-abets what amounts to mass murder by censoring and depriving alternative views challenging vaccines and medical doctrines that damage society irreparably.
At one point in their ‘debate,’ Dershowitz asked Kennedy to concede that the smallpox vaccine fabled to have eradicated that plague exemplified the success of this industry. Kennedy disagreed on solid grounds citing improved hygiene and other public health measures.
I extend this most reasonable and responsible objection to professor Dershowitz’s legal theories by this intervention. The commercial and ideological deprivation of First Amendment rights to free speech on the social media, for instance, is alarming. This censorship surrounds and corrupts the imposition of ‘mandatory vaccination.’ Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and securing equality of citizens and especially religious persons, cannot be justified nor defended by censorship. All sides must be permitted and invited to debate, confront each other’s illusions head on.
I contest what I witness as overtly and covertly genocidal. Herein I provide my reasonable, responsible, and more ‘holistic’ view of the Constitutional controversy.
Mr. Kennedy neglected my purview, for fear of being smeared “radical.” Mr. Dershowitz, who would never admit the same but for personal, psychosocial, and professional conflicting interests, I address below.
Pro-vaccination vs. Anti-vaccination biases
My opening objection is the failure of the lawyers to disclose their personal biases, or psychosocial motives for taking the positions they argue.
Both sides, Kennedy and Dershowitz, openly admitted their pro-vaccine bias. Yes, even the more passionate “libertarian,” Mr. Kennedy, emphatically defended that he was not opposed to all vaccines.
Mr. Kennedy holds that some vaccines may be ‘good’ for some people at some time or another.
But this position is dangerous, damaging, and “radical” according to Mr. Dershowitz’s contemporaries.
In my view Kennedy’s position is dangerous, damaging, and ‘anti-radical.’ I hold that poisoning people en-masse to commit genocide under the guise of ‘public health’ is radical and criminal.
Kennedy expertly argues this too, but dangerously, damaging, and diplomatically says he still thinks vaccines may be good for some people, if we could only trust their manufacturers.
I believe this notion of trusting the manufacturers is delusional, given the facts in evidence.
Vaccines might be chosen wisely following the consumer’s due diligence, Kennedy proposes. Every person is responsible for doing an ‘inquiry reasonable’ into the science and politics of numerous new vaccines. Kennedy argued this position passionately.
Kennedy’s recommendations included a competent scientific review and analysis for each vaccine. For starters, Kennedy encouraged everyone to review vaccine package inserts. Subsequently reading scientific reports and related news articles may help.
But this task is burdensome and daunting; especially overwhelming for the lay ‘herd.’ This recommendation cuts against practicality and ‘public health policy.’ That is, people can’t be trusted or expected to do their due diligence reading scientific papers with an average third grade level of reading skills, public health officials insist. Consequently, officials argue vaccines fill this void, much like adding toxic fluoride to drinking water because people can’t be trusted to brush and floss their teeth effectively and avoid ‘cariogenic sweets’.
On the other side, Mr. Dershowitz defended the likelihood that the U.S. Supreme Court would make the decision for us in the battle against COVID-19. He predicted injections would be imposed in most instances, with one caveat that Mr. Kennedy leveraged. The vaccines would need to be scientifically-evidenced as safe, not simply effective.
People with no medical or religious exemptions would then be compelled to be vaccinated against their will “for the public good.”
Again, it is important to point out that these predictions and positions arise under the influence of the presenters’ personal and professional biases and pressures.
“Shall we restrict discussing First Amendment mandatory vaccination questions because the principle parties, lawyers, know little to nothing about how fundamental laws operate?”
The Parties’ Psychosocial Biases and Their Impacts
Mr. Kennedy’s personal bias was vicariously acknowledged by Mr. Dershowitz. The most honorable contributions and sacrifices the Kennedy family made to America’s political landscape, especially favoring the civil rights movement, was applauded by Dershowitz most kindly.
In this context, however, Mr. Kennedy must be recognized as operating under the influence of his family’s legacy—a daunting weight to bear for the widely-defamed maliciously-smeared “radical activist.”
In defending against defamation, Mr. Kennedy’s bias best accounts for what I call “controlled opposition” that contributes to “vaccination genocide” or “vaccinecide.” Thus far, this dynamic has escaped Robert’s radar and compelling presentations. His service to humanity is otherwise scholarly and persuasive.
Mr. Dershowitz’s bias is more evident. Considered a leading American authority in Constitutional jurisprudence, entrenched within the inner circles of ‘political life’ on Capital Hill, privy to Jeffrey Epstein’s darkest secrets while denying any wrongdoing on the ‘Lolita Express,’ the Harvard law professor, up to his eyeballs in suspicion and controversy, must favor the Deep State’s status quo. This is partially-evidenced by his reliance on Jacobsen vs. Massachusetts as justification for state power to dictate citizens’ submission to vaccinations “for the greater good.” I return to this subject in my closing argument.
In all fairness and candor, I now disclose my personal bias and conflicting interests as the ‘intervenor’ in this debate:
My views largely stem from my guilt and remorse having lost my mother to a flu vaccine recommended by her doctor. I neglected to oppose this deadly prescription.
At that time, as a Harvard-trained expert in behavioral science, health education and public health promotion, training thousands of health professionals to combat HIV/AIDS, I became ashamed by what I neglected about vaccines.
My ‘cognitive behavioral dissonance’ mounted as I served as the chief professional educator for Henry Schein Co., a major generic vaccine distributor. My guilt and hypocrisy haunted me as I lectured to help health professionals overcome irrational fears through proper infection control methods for the company’s paycheck. While combating the spread of HIV/AIDS in hospitals and clinics across America, I erroneously presumed the ‘safety’ of vaccinations at that time. I regularly encouraged my audience to take the hepatitis B vaccine, with no knowledge of the scientific censorship ongoing in this field undermining my integrity. My guilt and cognitive behavioral dissonance mounted to the point at which I gave up the fiction. Vaccines were not really “safe,” and they were questionably effective. But they were clearly deadly, profitable, and actually genocidal.
I was driven to further study vaccinology, virology, emerging diseases, genetics, biochemistry, pharmaceutics, biophysics and the global politics and economics of HIV/AIDS. This research resulted in my publication of the bestselling book in this field (according to Amazon and Wikipedia)—Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola—Nature, Accident or Intentional? (Tetrahedron Press, 1996)
My critics say my financial benefits from book sales undermines my reputability. This and other ad hominem attacks were used to discredit me and my contributions to vaccinology, public health, and civilization’s safety. I accurately predicted the COVID-19 pandemic a quarter century ago, and few listened.
Attorney Kennedy powerfully exposed a similar conspiracy to discredit him and hide the damaging impacts of this industry-wide corruption.
My Basis for Anti-vaccination Activism
I concluded that all vaccines are harmful, can never be made safe, and should be outlawed much like Thalidomide once was.
Having made this decision by 1998, having been fired from Schein and blacklisted by organized dentistry and medicine due to my conclusions and forewarning about emerging diseases such as COVID-19 outbreaking from labs, I published Horowitz ‘On Vaccines’ wherein I asserted many of the same key points made by Mr. Kennedy.
I later contributed gratis the entire section on vaccinations published in the monumental encyclopedia of Alternative Medicine: The Definitive Guide (Second Edition) by invitation of Burton Goldberg, et. al.
I was a leading activist decades ago when I witnessed ‘holistic medicine’ being substantially discredited by Big Pharma’s mercenaries–“skeptics” and “quack busters.” They discredited “holistic healthcare” much like they later demonized “conspiracy theories” and “neutralized” anti-vaxxers.
Despite these obstructive forces, over the past decades, ‘natural medicines’ and ‘alternative therapies’ have advanced in reputability to the chagrin of the pharmaceutical cartel and its political lobby.
This virtual monopoly over healthcare has been increasingly coming under intense scrutiny. At the time of this writing, President Trump authorized deep cuts against the high cost of drugs to remedy ‘price-gouging.’ And protests against corruption at the highest levels of government surrounding COVID-19 impositions and civil rights deprivations are dominating the news.
The Neglected ‘Holistic Paradigm’
The cost-saving competitive concept of “holism” must be made part of this dialogue. Holism opposes “reductionism” embraced by biased, politically-influenced, unscrupulous ‘pseudoscience.’ Holism, and its respect for the “body electric,” shatters the medical paradigm. This explains why holism advocates have been so rabidly persecuted.
The competing view in ‘holism’ is that the “whole is greater than the sum of the parts.” This ideology frustrates ‘reductionists’ who seek to patent drugs and vaccines every way possible.
Holism doesn’t subscribe to costly chemical ‘cures’ dominating the field of (allopathic) medicine.
Reductionists in science and politics control healthcare financing and “academic tracking.” They seek ‘magic bullets,’ quick fixes, band-aids over hemorrhages, pills or vaccines to cure or prevent every ill fundamentally because it makes money. If it helps people, that is a secondary concern in the corporate mindset. Reductionism opens up, monopolizes, creates, and controls, huge markets for drugs and vaccines as Mr. Kennedy eloquently elaborated.
My anti-vaccination preference avoids the pitfalls of reductionist thinking. I view what the media calls ‘healthcare’ today as an evil medical ‘CULT.’ It is much like the view of sorcery taken by a ‘silent majority’ of Bible students.
Should these associations and influences be censored, and subscribers shunned, to further violate First Amendment rights in favor of ‘murder by injection’–vaccinations producing ‘acceptable’ collateral damage?
Alternatively, I argue in favor of the inherent endowment of genes that resonate naturally in harmony with the universe. This natural dynamic system is mathematically/energetically administered and scientifically proven. Math doesn’t lie, cheat or steal. It reflects the language and intelligence of God. It lawfully administers reality perfectly, in harmony, broadcasting certain frequencies of sound and light infusing electrons with creative or destructive power depending on the program written in the DNA. Immunity fundamentally activates as a function of this energetic administration.
Immunity responds to dissonant assaults against holistic balance.
This entire operation functions in accordance with the laws of physics. Just like sustaining relationships, harmonic frequencies of sound and light administer and sustain life. Disharmonious energies are abrasive, damaging, and deadly. They terminate life. This is the universal law that supersedes man’s laws.
Shall we restrict discussing First Amendment mandatory vaccination questions because the principle parties, lawyers, know little to nothing about how fundamental laws operate?
The Legal Basis of the Constitution and Biology
Accordingly, this greater context of law, jurisprudence by mathematical/musical harmonics, and expanded view of reality, went missing during the Kennedy/Dershowitz dialogue.
This is a fatal flaw, quite literally. It is most disconcerting and damaging to neglect these facts well-established in science, especially in the fields of physics, biophysics, and electro-genetics, intertwined with natural immunity, when considering forced vaccinations.
Did Jacobson raise this objection? Not at all. The scientific foundation of religious opposition was unknown and unproven at that time. Not so today. The ‘debaters’ missed these material matters of fact.
This more holistic view is especially urgent pursuant to COVID-19–the subject of the debate. Professor Dershowitz repeatedly sought to justify imposed mask-wearing and vaccinations without regarding the spiritual basis of the Constitution that intertwines with holistic thinking.
The Constitution begins by stating its purpose. The mission of the Founding Fathers was to establish, by all means legally, ethically, and morally possible, “Order to form a more perfect Union.” The two capitalized words are most important.
Order reflects homeostasis, balance, harmony, and above all regularity and integrity of the system. The laws of physics in science best reflect this natural overriding regimentation.
Biology is similarly Ordered by the laws of bio-physics that, in essence, reflect the administration of molecular biology (i.e., physical reality manifesting in the body including organic chemistry) by musical mathematics, frequency resonance and electro-genetics.
This foundational objective, to “form a more perfect Union” of states, is much like cells, tissues, and organs comprising perfect human bodies. All reflect Divine unification or communion between humans and God. ‘Constitutional’ provisions, both in law and medicine subsequently followed. The ‘law of the land’ sprang from this Unification mission. The “constitution” of physical bodies is referenced in medicine.
The objective was to form a more perfect Union in Order to secure, as much as possible, the administration of man’s laws in harmony with God’s laws. The same is true throughout the healing arts and sciences.
The Creator’s laws are best known and expressed in science in the field called “PHYSICS.” That word, was made famous by Aristotle–the father of modern science. It derives from ‘philos,’ the root word meaning “LOVE.”
LOVE, “the ‘Universal Healer'”, determined to be the frequency of 528Hz/nm, reflects and sustains this entire administration much like the heart pumps oxygenated blood to sustain life.
This is what Alan Dershowitz fails to understand and apply in his craft. This is what Kennedy neglected too. The basis of Constitution law is rooted in LOVE and Divine-human communion. That Union, perceived by the Founding Fathers, directs and dictates Order (written with a capital “O”).
Consequently, the Kennedy/Dershowitz Constitutional “debate,” weighing upon the legality of forcing vaccinations into people, was fundamentally and contextually defective; arguably lame, reckless, negligent, ignorant, arbitrary and capricious. It frames the entire debate like a corral concentrates a herd moving to slaughter.
Should these associations and influences be censored, and subscribers shunned, to further violate First Amendment rights in favor of ‘murder by injection’–vaccinations producing ‘acceptable’ collateral damage?
Holistic Correction and Intervention in this Conversation
The body, mind, emotions, and spirit, reflecting that “Order” and “perfect Union,” operate under the jurisdiction of the Creator’s Court and no other.
Shall the wise Supreme Court justices neglect this while deliberating on Dershowitz’s forced vaccination considerations?
This human-health holistic system-dynamics model extends beyond the ignorance Dershowitz exhibits. Reality extends beyond the limited worlds of science and technology. The truth that shall set people free extends beyond the world of organized religion, and far beyond the world of public health policy administration.
Mr. Kennedy forcefully made this latter point clear while discrediting the “regulatory capture” of corporate-controlled agencies such as the CDC, FDA, WHO and Public Health Service.
Without incorporating this broader holistic dialogue, the “debate” was vicariously ‘rigged’ and impotent, albeit interesting and entertaining.
Contrary to “vaccine” advocates Bill Gates and Anthony Fauci, I argue in favor of treating COVID-19 ‘holistically, ’ not exclusively medically. I shun prescribing drugs that do more harm than good in defiance of the Hippocratic Oath. The matters of mask-wearing and social-distancing are similarly flawed.
My ‘third view’ is not really ‘radical.’ It is most reasonable and responsible. It is only made to appear radical under the influence of medical media ‘mind-control’ and mob rule.
This deadly socio-economic and political dynamic, the ‘Medical Mafia’ or ‘Big Pharma,’ was transparently angered when President Trump questioned the heavy vaccination schedule during his 2016 televised debate. Mr. Kennedy raises this same issue. Both Trump and Kennedy, who were expected to oversee a task force investigating vaccine safety, were subsequently severely chastised by the ‘fake news’ media.
Trump was rabidly condemned for even considering alternative medicines, ultraviolet light frequencies, or chlorine dioxide therapy, available to fight the COVID-19 pandemic.
Replacing Dangerous Drugs and Risky Vaccines: Natural Remedies for COVID-19
The President’s advisors considered the clear-and-convincing science favoring ultraviolet light irradiation of the blood to cure COVID-19. In addition, antioxidants were disparaged such as chlorine dioxide smeared as ‘bleach’ by Trump’s enemies. Other natural anti-oxidants including vitamin C, vitamin D, Zinc, and OxySilverTM were neglected.
I now disclose my financial and ethical incentives to have you consider OxySilverTM and how it works to cure microbial infections. OxySilverTM was originally developed by NASA science to keep astronauts healthy during space missions. This product joins the aforementioned reliable group of anti-oxidants that can be used as ‘natural remedies’ available to fight COVID-19.
I directed laboratory personnel in the manufacture of OxySilverTM. I branded this broad spectrum natural antibiotic and vaccine substitute, and successfully brought it to market to compete directly against risky vaccinations and deadly antibiotics.
Curiously, hydroxychloroquine is a drug that works as an anti-oxidant too, much like OxySilverTM does. But unlike OxySilverTM that is completely safe, hydroxychloroquine may cause toxic side effects.
I would be ethically remiss if I were to withhold OxySilverTM as a possible cure for COVID-19 to appease my critics. My silence would violate “public duty doctrine” during the COVID-19 emergency. It is my duty and honor as a public health professional and consumer advocate to inform people about the availability, reliability, and benefits of OxySilverTM .
All of the viable, albeit neglected, anti-oxidants, including UV and green light, add negatively-charged electrons to alkalize the blood and ‘electrocute’ viruses. The anti-oxidants effectively raise the pH of the ‘terrain,’ and boost natural immunity against infections.
In our war against COVID-19, all anti-oxidants deliver electrons that neutralize the virus’s ‘spike protein’ attachment mechanism. This addresses the main problem and solution to COVID-19. The AIDS virus components were spliced into the virus’s spike protein mechanism. Neutralizing this bioelectric mechanism cures the disease.
This is how all anti-oxidants work to block the coronavirus/SARS/HIV-1/malaria recombinant from infecting human cells (e.g., T4 lymphocytes). This knowledge in the healing arts and sciences, and practical applications of natural remedies, can block the transmission of the COVID-19 disease far more reliably than wearing masks as encouraged by Professor Dershowitz. Thus, these matters too must be considered important in this debate.
Each of the aforementioned “alternative remedies” work well bio-electrically. That is because they accord with the patients natural ‘constitution.’ They follow the aforementioned natural laws of physics, musical mathematics, and ‘electro-genetics’–the electromagnetic and bioacoustic dynamics administered by and through DNA and immune cell membranes. These are the most important targets for medical scientific interventions such as drugs and vaccines to defeat COVID-19.
These natural remedies are far less risky than vaccines and drugs. Yet, the aforementioned anti-oxidants are absent in this important public service discussion. They are censored and concealed as much as ‘radical’ anti-vaccinationists; as much as Robert Kennedy has been likewise unconscionably deprived.
Hypocrisy Reflects Poorly on Compromised Lawyers
Mr. Kennedy makes very persuasive arguments opposing vaccinations and the “fast-tracked” COVID-19 vaccines. He makes known especially troubling conflicting interests. He slams the financing provided by Bill Gates and Anthony Fauci in their concealed partnership in the Moderna mRNA vaccine company. He stops short, however, of identifying himself as “anti-vaccine.”
I argue Mr. Kennedy’s denial is ‘strategic,’ politically inspired, and hypocritical. This compromises his integrity, position in the debate, and appears confusing or nonsensical.
This is especially so because all vaccinations are made from genetically-modified-organisms (GMOs); and all, therefore, alter human DNA. Injections effectively make people GMOs.
Does Kennedy favor turning humans into GMOs? Unlikely.
Consequently, his diplomatic assertion that he is “pro vaccine” and “pro choice” is nonsensical and hypocritical. His argument that he seeks ‘safer vaccines’ is similarly flawed.
Vaccines Can Never Be Made Safe
I played a significant role in moving the masses and officials to accept that vaccines can never be made totally “safe.” When I began my activism the ‘general agreement’ in organized medicine falsely presumed that vaccines were “safe and effective” due to the media’s propaganda and censored science.
About a decade ago this falsehood was replaced by three other lies: (1) that some vaccine injuries were unavoidable; (2) they are rare; and (3) the benefits still outweigh the risks.
To the contrary, injuries can be avoided by abstinence. Injuries are extremely common as Kennedy irrefutably evidences. And since injury data is being substantially concealed, reliable risk/benefit analyses are precluded, as is the presumption of more good than harm.
Early on, I was among the first public health professionals to bring these disparities to light.
I held fore more than two decades that the ingredients in vaccines can never ever be made “safe” because they contain toxic chemicals, heavy metal poisons, and foreign genes and proteins from animals. Some vaccines, we more recently learned, even include human fetal cells. Consequently, a ‘witches brew’ best characterizes vaccines.
The brilliant Mr. Kennedy is no witch.
Breaking the Law, Defying ‘Public Duty Doctrine,’ 42 U.S.C. 1986, and Complicity in Genocide
Further evidencing hypocrisy, both Kennedy and Dershowitz know perfectly well about ‘public duty doctrine’ in law, as well as 42 U.S.C. 1986. Those duties require citizens to protect each other when known threats are apparent and expected to damage life, restrict liberty, and deprive people’s pursuit of happiness. It is unethical and illegal to neglect these responsibilities.
That is why I conclude Mr. Kennedy’s position is morally indefensible, hypocritical, and unethical. Although scholarly and overwhelmingly admirable, the mounting genocide supersedes Kennedy’s libertarian identification.
By not outlawing vaccines, all of them, pro-vaccine and pro-choice advocates enable citizens to be ignorantly subjected to damage, disease, and premature death as victims of murder by injection. Even worse than this, as Mr. Kennedy acknowledges, vaccines have been shown to spread diseases. So Dershowitz’s reference and analogy to mask-wearing or social-distancing to prevent others from getting sick controverts their arguments favoring people’s right to choose get vaccinated placing others at risk of death.
These lawyers’ foreknowledge of the laws requiring everyone to prevent expected harm to others violates the intention of Congress in passing 42 U.S.C. 1986.
This disparity also undermines the lawyers’ arguments for and against the forthcoming mRNA vaccinations for presumably COVID-19 (and not ‘global depopulation.’) The presumption and expectation that some persons will be harmed by these new vaccines should ethically compel Dershowitz especially to assert his political power and influence to enjoin the corrupted vaccine industrialists from threatening humanity by way of mandatory injections and Supreme Court rulings.
Mr. Dershowitz’s position ‘predictively programs’ people to accept the suggested inevitable U.S. Supreme Court’s imposition of mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations. Dershowitz’s irresponsible message recklessly disregards the safer and more effective alternatives I mentioned. Dershowitz neglects the anti-vaccination arguments advanced by Kennedy and yours truly. It disregards 42 U.S.C. 1986; is tortuous, justifiably actionable; and as a Jew opposed to the Holocaust ever happening again, inaction here, or a “neglect to prevent,” makes Dershowitz complicit in the ongoing genocide.
Mr. Kennedy diplomatically circumvents this ‘vaccinecide’ to the best of his ability. What Dr. Robert Mendelsohn coined “iatrogenocide,” in effect, Kennedy vicariously aids-and-abets by willful blindness. He stares directly into the barrel of cold-hearted genocide. He lost his father and uncle presumably killed for opposing the ‘beast.’ For the sake of diplomacy and acceptance by the status quo, pragmatically favors “safe vaccines.”
To me, that is unconscionable. That is why I hold both lawyers in contempt.
That is also why all vaccines must be outlawed (period). If not by Congressional consensus, then by Presidential decree.
This is the only reasonable, efficient, and economical remedy against the mounting genocide and expected deaths of millions if not billions more in the wake of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. An instant moratorium on all vaccinations will save the most lives.
Under the circumstances, given the facts meticulously researched, assembled, and articulated by Kennedy, a moratorium on vaccines is the most civil, reasonable, just, prudent, and lawful actions our leaders can take; albeit being a bold brave assault against the Deep State.
So I now call on Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Dershowitz to ‘repent’–turn from their errors, act to vindicate the judiciary that established the Jacobson v. Massachusetts precedent, redirect lawmakers that have imposed mandatory vaccinations threatening and damaging vulnerable citizens, and stand solidly against the Deep State’s ‘sacred cow’ of ‘public health’ dangerous and deadly vaccines.*
Revisiting Jacobsen v. Massachusetts: Where the Rubber Meets the Road in the U.S. Supreme Court
Both lawyers have identified themselves as libertarians, while life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, our First Amendment civil rights and libertarian mission is compromised by vaccination mandates.
Professor Dershowitz’s myopic analysis of Jacobsen v. Massachusetts was aptly resisted by Kennedy for good causes shown. Kennedy wisely argued that Jacobsen’s $5 fine for resisting the state imposed injection was inapplicable to today’s standards because “there is a big Constitutional chasm” between paying what amounts to a “traffic ticket” versus going into someone’s home and “plunging a needle into their arm.”
Yet both lawyers missed the ‘mark of the beast’ while revisiting this landmark (precedent-setting) Jacobsen case. Neither attorney mentioned the two grossest defects in Big Pharma’s plan to force injections into people by order of the Supreme Court as Dershowitz predicts.
I analyzed the Jacobson case previously elsewhere pursuant to “vaccine hesitancy.” I raised the issue of contesting the ‘general agreement’ or ‘general acceptance’ of vaccine safety abused to justify vaccination impositions.
In Jacobsen’s case the U.S. Supreme Court did not consider its ruling in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 US 579 (1993). Therein, the claim that “vaccines are safe and effective” means nothing more than propaganda. It is now public knowledge that expert witnesses representing the vaccine industry can no longer be trusted. (Id.) This was not public knowledge at the time Jacobson sued for his religious exemption. Consequently, the Jacobson case must be revisited for this objection alone.
But there is more grievous reason for reconsideration.
Most relevant in the instant predicament is the conflicting interests Mr. Kennedy highlighted between Anthony Fauci, Bill Gates and the Moderna Co. advancing the most likely candidate vaccine to be used to satisfy Mr. Dershowitz’s prophecy. This mRNA ‘fast-tracked’ vaccine is reportedly a “game changer” in the vaccine industry. Never before has ‘science’ subjected human immune cells to assaults by messenger RNA delivered by AIDS virus-like bioweapons.
Here’s how they are expected to work:
Presumably, laboratory engineered ‘phages’ (traditionally bacterial envelopes) act like delivery agents mailing into healthy cells new instructions that make the cells think they are under viral attack (which they virtually are). The T4 lymphocytes then sound a systemic alert that tells their army of ‘B cells’ to churn-out antibodies against the actual virus. In this process, a number of risks pose life-ending threats. Not the least among these is the complete alteration of the ‘human genome’ making people GMOs to accommodate the ‘experiment.’
Perhaps Kennedy and Dershowitz, not having scientific training, are unable to discern the risks in this scheme to ‘fool mother nature’–human molecular biology. Perhaps they suffer the same disadvantage that Jacobsen had, not having the wherewithal to raise this defense: This mRNA vaccine is unprecedented, thus ‘experimental.’ It has never been done before. The safety cannot be known. It cannot be claimed safe, nor even adequately tested—an objection that Kennedy solidly made.
Nonetheless, forced COVID-19 vaccines manufactured by untrustworthy companies given these unprecedented experimental proceedings should cause any reasonable Supreme Court justice to grant more than religious exceptions as Mr. Dershowitz agreed would be expected.
That is why I reasonably, responsibly, and righteously write here; take the least popular (third party) anti-vaccination position; and choose to make known material facts in dispute omitted and neglected in the lawyers’ otherwise outstanding educational “conversation.”
Kudos to Mr. Bet-David for his production and service to humanity.
- In my view, based on the public records and history that I have assembled, the COVID-19 pandemic was imposed by the Deep State partly in retaliation against Chinese and American presidents who acted in unison beginning in 2017 to take control over the drug and vaccine industry. China ousted Big Pharma legislatively in 2018, and took control over the drug and vaccine testing, manufacturing, and distribution syndicate three months before the lab virus ‘accidentally’ emerged in Wuhan; and Trump declared war on opium traders and price gougers a year earlier.
- “Genocide” simply defined as “the mass killing or enslaving of people for profit, politics or ideology.” This traditional definition has been substantially expanded by the United Nations Office of Genocide Prevention and Responsibility to Protect.
About the Author