In the United States, Jacobson vs. Massachusetts Must be Retested in the Courts!

Dr. John Reizer

The COVID-19 vaccines that have been rushed to market to create immunity against the alleged sars-cov-2 virus that has never been isolated in totality from human or animal hosts contain no viral isolates and are experimental drugs!

The COVID-19 vaccines are all untested, unproven, and unsafe medicinal concoctions that have never been approved for humans. Instead, the products have been granted Emergency Use Authorizations by the FDA. What exactly does this mean?

An Emergency Use Authorization allows for the distribution and administration of an untested, unsafe, and unapproved drug product to the clueless public.

EUA’s are temporary allowances for experimental drugs to be used during government-defined public health emergencies. Under normal circumstances, people wouldn’t be allowed to touch these medicines with a 200-feet pole.

No government under any circumstances whatsoever can order or force the public to take drug products, let alone an experimental one! The controlling powers are bluffing about vaccine mandates and vaccine passports.

The Constitutionality of Vaccine Mandates and Vaccine Passports

The entire narrative centered around vaccine mandates and vaccine passports being constitutional is based on an outdated SCOTUS decision from the early 1900s known as Jacobson vs. Massachusetts. The case would never hold up in modern times because there are known side effects to all vaccine products unknown when this case was decided.

The presiding justices who ruled on the case stated that their decision to rule against Jacobson was made because the vaccine, at that time, was determined not to be more dangerous to the public than the disease it was allegedly preventing.

If Jacobson vs. Massachusetts was ever retested in a modern legal setting, it would be overturned because of the known adverse reactions that have been scientifically proven to be associated with all current vaccines.

Having written all of that, let me further note that Jacobson vs. Massachusetts shouldn’t apply to untested, unsafe, experimental vaccines that have been rolled out and administered to people under an Emergency Use Authorization. All of the COVID-19 vaccines are classified as experimental medicines, and they cannot be forced upon any human being at any time whatsoever. Jacobson vs. Massachusetts allegedly has legal precedence or teeth concerning FDA-approved vaccines becoming mandatory during a pandemic — and that’s a legal can of worms that needs to be revisited and thoroughly retested through the courts as soon as possible.

If the controlling powers can roll out a plethora of new toxic vaccines in less than a year, a new challenge to Jacobson vs. Massachusetts through the courts can surely be expedited in record time to reverse an outdated and antiquated legal decision from over a hundred years ago.

Using Jacobson vs. Massachusetts to help Americans determine the constitutionality of mandatory vaccines and vaccine passports amid a world pandemic is tantamount to using century-old road maps to drive from New York to California. It’s a ridiculous scenario because many roads have been closed and new ones cut over the years. It’s outdated information, and the Jacobson vs. Massachusetts decision was made through the reliance of the scientific information available in the early 1900s.


We Reject the Official Narrative About the COVID-19 World Pandemic



The Target List Movie on Amazon Prime!

In association with River Rose Productions, Mad Wife Productions has announced that The Target List movie will begin filming on April 10, 2021. The movie will be released on Amazon Prime in the summer of 2021.

The Story:

After announcing a ground-breaking cancer cure, two members of a research team are shot by an assassin. The remaining two researchers barely escape the attack, only to find themselves framed for murder. Now they need to prove their innocence while running from both the police and the assassin hired to kill them by the big pharma.

Screenplay by MJ Palo and John Reizer

Based on the novel by John Reizer 

Visit The Target List IMDb Movie Page For Updates

The Target List Cast:

Help Me Expose Big Pharma!


Are Mandatory Vaccine Laws Protected by the Constitution?

By Dr. John Reizer

Many Americans have been recently asking the question: Are mandatory vaccine laws protected by the Constitution? If you type this question into a search engine on the Internet, you are going to be inundated with a plethora of legal opinions that thoroughly discuss the subject. The majority of the views will tell you that the federal government has a constitutional right to exercise mandatory vaccine laws.

The legal opinions referenced above are mostly made and influenced by a case that was decided by the SCOTUS on February 20, 1905, Jacobson v. Massachusetts. In that case, the Supreme Court decided that an individual’s liberty is not absolute and subject to police powers.

The decision handed down stated, “in every well-ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand” and that “[r]eal liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others.”

The court also ruled that mandatory vaccinations are not arbitrary or oppressive so long as they do not “go so far beyond what was reasonably required for the safety of the public.”

Now, I want to preface my remarks about this case by stating I am not a lawyer (although I do have an online Juris Doctorate that I worked really hard on many years ago), and I am not an expert on legal issues and have never pretended to be one. But strictly from a layperson’s perspective, I have to write that I agree with Robert F. Kennedy’s position that mandatory vaccine laws are unconstitutional.

Jacobson v. Massachusetts was heard and decided by the SCOTUS in 1905. That’s a long time ago, and there’s been a lot of new information uncovered about vaccines and the devastating effects they have on human physiology. A new argument could and should be laid out to retest and reverse this old and antiquated legal decision.

I believe that Jacobson v. Massachusetts could be successfully challenged and overturned in light of some of the new, damaging evidence that has been turned up about the vaccine industry. There are over 150 chronic diseases that the FDA has attributed to vaccinations, and there is a specialized National Vaccine Injury Compensation Court that was expressly set aside to hear vaccine injury cases and limit their awards to $250,000 to protect the big pharma industry. In addition to this, the soon to be released Covid-19 vaccine will have complete liability immunity from any injuries the product might potentially inflict on human lives.

In my opinion, Jacobson v. Massachusetts would yield a much different decision if heard in the year 2020. And I have spoken with a few lawyer friends who unequivocally agree with me. The minority dissenters in the case, Justices Brewer and Peckham, would likely have had more support from the majority ruling justices who heard the case if they had been made aware of the real dangers associated with the oxymoron known as vaccine science.

I think it is time to retest Jacobson v. Massachusetts in a modern-day legal setting, and one that takes into consideration the full extent of the safety issues associated with vaccines. These products have become overly oppressive in nature for all human beings because they pose serious health threats to the general public they have, in theory, been designed to protect. The current health risks stemming from vaccine products extend far beyond what the justices in 1905 considered safe for the general public.

In my opinion, the federal government will not try to mandate vaccines in the future because they would be afraid to place Jacobson v. Massachusetts in the line of fire of a real test. It has been tested in limited capacities in the past, but not with the argument that takes into consideration the case I have laid out in this post.

I think the powers that be would love to keep this precedent-setting decision right where it lies. To open it up to a brand new, real test scenario is opening a can of worms they can’t afford to open. If the decision was ever reversed, the controllers would lose their leverage and ability to populate search engines with articles that tell us that the federal government’s right to impose mandatory vaccines is protected by the US Constitution.

I, for one, would love to see this case revisited and put through a new legal test using the argument I have outlined.  Any lawyers out there that have more expertise than me concerning this subject, please feel free to weigh in on the conversation.