Challenging the Constitutionality of Mandatory Vaccines: Where There’s A Risk There Must Be A Choice!

Dr. John L. Reizer

Regardless of the constitutionality of specific regulations and laws that have made it into existence, members of society must occasionally reexamine, and when necessary, retest those actions in a legal theatre. This is especially true when the morality and ethicality of such actions come into question and threaten the citizens the laws have allegedly been designed to protect.

Whether something being handed down by a governing body in America is constitutionally sound or not is decided by a group of justices (human beings) who don’t always agree with one another.

Regarding the question of whether or not mandatory vaccination laws are constitutionally protected (Jacobson v. Massachusetts), it’s important to remember the legal decision that answered this question was based in part on information that was available about vaccine products 115 years ago. The ruling justices had zero scientific information to examine that spoke of the public dangers vaccine products posed to society. If such information was available at the time, there undoubtedly would have been a different decision handed down.

Whenever there is a risk of harm to the public stemming from a medical procedure or product, patients must be offered the option of refusing the service. Patients must sign a form that serves as evidence they have consented to the medical products or services. This practice in medical care is referred to as informed consent and is the law.

Informed Consent Defined

Although the specific definition of informed consent may vary from state to state, it basically means that a physician (or other medical provider) must tell a patient all of the potential benefits, risks, and alternatives involved in any surgical procedure, medical procedure, or other course of treatment, and must obtain the patient’s written consent to proceed.

The concept is based on the principle that a physician has a duty to disclose information to the patient so they can make a reasonable decision regarding treatment.

The problem with mandatory vaccination laws is that they violate the basic laws of informed consent. When there is a health risk posed to the public from a medical product, the people must be offered a choice about whether or not they want to receive the product. This law is reasonable, ethical, and morally sound. Any rational-thinking person would agree with the legal process of informed consent.

It does not matter if you are a pro-vaxxer, anti-vaxxer, or something in between; common sense would dictate that where there’s a medical risk, there must be a choice and an option to refuse the medicinal product or service.

There is no doubt whatsoever, according to modern science, that a level of risk is associated with all vaccine products. This is undeniable because every vaccine product in existence is accompanied by a product insert that clearly informs doctors and patients of the risks associated with said products. I challenge anyone to find a medical vaccine that is currently in the marketplace that has zero risks associated with that product.

Because all vaccines come with some level of risk, patients must be given the right to refuse them. Anything less than a person being given the choice to refuse a dangerous medical product is unreasonable, unethical, and beneath the law, otherwise known as informed consent.

The question of whether or not mandatory vaccinations are constitutionally protected must be reexamined again by the SCOTUS. This time the justices must take into consideration the inherent public health risks associated with vaccine science.

Any doctor, healthcare professional, or agent of the government who administers a medical product or service to another human being without first gaining the patient’s written informed consent would be guilty of committing medical rape, which is a crime against humanity.

4 thoughts on “Challenging the Constitutionality of Mandatory Vaccines: Where There’s A Risk There Must Be A Choice!

  1. tim June 7, 2020 / 12:40 pm

    Wow, what an amazing article Doctor Reizer. Well said indeed.

    It is so simple. Without informed consent, it is against the law, all laws, PERIOD !!!

    Using the excuse that, for the “safety” of the public, we are going to force vaccines on everyone. This in fact, puts all human beings on this earth, in danger and no one will be safe.

    “Their” thinking is so moronic. But like you said Doctor, knowledge is power and freedom.

    • NoFakeNews June 7, 2020 / 8:49 pm

      Exactly, Tim. I believe that we need to have someone retest the strength of this 115-year-old decision based on the new scientific information concerning the adverse effects associated with all vaccines. I don’t believe the ruling would hold up in a fresh legal examination like the experts claim.

      Also, informed consent law is another thing that needs reexamining. For mandatory vaccinations to be considered constitutional, based on Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905), the laws of informed consent must be broken. How is it possible, legally speaking, to have to violate one fundamental law designed to protect people, to apply another more draconian piece of legislation that will undoubtedly place hundreds of millions of people in harm’s way?

  2. tim June 9, 2020 / 1:51 pm

    Exactly Doctor. And I bet when the elite came up with this plan, they said, “there’s no way they are gona fall for this. It doesn’t make sense. ” And another said,” no, they are stupid creatures, and won’t have a clue. We threw those frogs in the water a long time ago. And they are still right there in the big pot, waiting for the water to boil, and kill them. Such stupid little creatures. ” But the good news is, 95 % of them will be dead, and the rest will be our slaves. Can’t wait.

    • NoFakeNews June 9, 2020 / 1:53 pm

      That’s pretty much the way I would imagine the conversation went.

      Dr. Reizer

Comments are closed.