![\"\"](\"http:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/10\/deep-state-judge-678x381.jpg.webp\")
<\/a>U.S. District Judge Paul Maloney<\/p><\/div>\n
A corrupt Deep State judge has ruled that natural immunity from prior Covid-19 infection is NOT a valid reason to be exempted from vaccine mandates.<\/strong><\/p>\n The judge\u2019s ruling on a plaintiff\u2019s case against Michigan State University comes amid widespread reports that natural immunity is actually superior to vaccinated immunity.<\/p>\n The ridiculous ruling was first\u00a0reported<\/a>\u00a0on by the Epoch Times on Sunday:<\/p>\n 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\u2019t need to get the vaccine at this time.<\/p>\n Despite her natural immunity, Norris faces termination from the university for not complying with the school\u2019s mandate\u00a0that all students and staff get the shot unless they have a medical or religious exemption.<\/p>\n U.S. District Judge Paul Maloney, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, declined her lawsuit. The mandate, Maloney said, didn\u2019t violate her fundamental rights and pointed to a\u00a01905 Supreme Court ruling.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Beckernews.com<\/a>\u00a0reports: \u201cThis Court must apply the law from the Supreme Court: Jacobson essentially applied rational basis review and found that the vaccine mandate was rational in \u2018protect[ing] the public health and public safety,\u2019\u201d Judge Maloney\u00a0said<\/a>\u00a0in his order. \u201cThe Court cannot ignore this binding precedent.\u201d<\/p>\n The Boston Globe, however, recently reported on the \u201cweakness\u201d in the argument for vaccine mandates.<\/p>\n \u201cIn 1905, the Supreme Court ruled that Massachusetts could fine people who would not take a smallpox vaccine,\u201d the Boston Globe recently\u00a0reported<\/a>. \u201cThat case established a precedent for a 1922 case, Zucht v. King, that allowed San Antonio to mandate vaccines for all public and private school students. More recently, the Supreme Court cited the Jacobson case in its decisions about whether to permit governors in California and New York to place occupancy limits on religious services during a pandemic.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThe Jacobson ruling gives the state nearly unchecked power to decide how to handle a public health emergency,\u201d the report continued. \u201cBut that decision, old enough to have been written by a Civil War veteran, is jarring today because of the rights revolution in 20th-century American law. In cases decided after Jacobson, the Supreme Court has maintained that the Constitution \u2014 particularly the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment \u2014 limits the power of the state to touch the body. These Supreme Court cases concerning bodily integrity apply to every level of government, and they have also shaped public norms about individuals\u2019 right to make crucial decisions about their own bodies.\u201d<\/p>\n On Sunday, Reuters\u00a0reported studies<\/a>\u00a0that further corroborate that natural immunity is superior protection against Covid-19 than vaccinated immunity. It reported bluntly\u00a0\u201csecondary immune response stronger after infection than vaccination.\u201d<\/p>\n In COVID-19 survivors, important components of the body\u2019s immune response called memory B cells continue to evolve and get stronger for at least several months, producing highly potent antibodies that can neutralize new variants of the virus, a new study has found.<\/p>\n By comparison, vaccine-induced memory B cells are less robust, evolving for only a few weeks and never \u2018learning\u2019 to protect against variants, researchers reported in a paper\u00a0published on Thursday in Nature<\/a>.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Prior to this study, there had been little data on how vaccine-induced B cells compare to infection-induced B cells.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Earlier, an Israeli study came to similar conclusions.<\/p>\n \u201cThis study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity,\u201d an Israeli\u00a0study<\/a>\u00a0said.<\/p>\n