(LifeSiteNews) — Virologist and Nobel Prize winner Luc Montagnier and former Yale law professor Jed Rubenfeld argue that the inability of COVID shots to prevent transmission of the now dominant omicron variant renders the Biden administration’s “vaccine” mandate useless.
“It would be irrational, legally indefensible and contrary to the public interest for government to mandate vaccines absent any evidence that the vaccines are effective in stopping the spread of the pathogen they target. Yet that’s exactly what’s happening here,” wrote Montagnier and Rubenfeld in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece on Sunday.
The Health and Human Services Department (HHS) and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) jab mandates were issued Nov. 5, during which time the Delta variant “represented almost all U.S. Covid-19 cases.” It was this Delta strain that the vaccine mandate was designed to combat, the authors pointed out, because both agencies concluded that “the vaccines remained effective against” the Delta variant.
However, “as of Jan. 1, Omicron represented more than 95% of U.S. Covid cases, according to estimates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,” wrote the authors. They said there are multiple sources of evidence that the jab is ineffective at protecting against Omicron, causing scientists to be “highly uncertain the existing vaccines can stop it from spreading.”
According to the authors, this evidence includes the fact that “some of Omicron’s 50 mutations are known to evade antibody protection,” that “more than 30 of those mutations are to the spike protein used as an immunogen by the existing vaccines,” and that “there have been mass Omicron outbreaks in heavily vaccinated populations.”
Yet, they noted, “mandating a vaccine to stop the spread of a disease requires evidence that the vaccines will prevent infection or transmission (rather than efficacy against severe outcomes like hospitalization or death).”
They say that not only is there a lack of evidence that these “vaccines” prevent transmission, but that “the little data we have suggest the opposite.” They pointed to a preprint study that “found that after 30 days the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines no longer had any statistically significant positive effect against Omicron infection, and after 90 days, their effect went negative — i.e., vaccinated people were more susceptible to Omicron infection.”
The authors pointed out that even when Delta was the predominant variant last summer, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky admitted that the viral load in “vaccinated” people infected with Delta is “indistinguishable” from that of unvaccinated people, and “what [the vaccines] can’t do anymore is prevent transmission.”
They also question whether a strategy such as repeated boosters would be an “effective response” to Omicron, since “according to the CDC, the overwhelming majority of symptomatic U.S. Omicron cases have been mild.”
As we have always done with mild viruses, they suggest that “the best policy might be to let Omicron run its course while protecting the most vulnerable, naturally immunizing the vast majority against Covid through infection by a relatively benign strain.”
The authors conclude that “there is no scientific basis for believing these mandates will curb the spread of the disease.”
While such facts should prompt the Supreme Court to strike down the Biden administration’s jab mandates, suggested the authors, the justices on Friday “appeared to labor under drastically false assumptions.”
Montagnier and Rubenfeld cite the “wildly false” claims of Justice Stephen Breyer that mandatory jabs would “prevent all new Covid infections — 750,000 new cases every day;” and of Justice Sonia Sotomayor that we have over 100,000 children … in serious condition, many on ventilators.”
On the contrary, they point out, “According to Health and Human Services Department data, there are currently fewer than 3,500 confirmed pediatric Covid hospitalizations, and that includes patients who tested positive and were hospitalized for other reasons.”
“It is axiomatic in U.S. law that courts don’t uphold agency directives when the agency has entirely failed to consider facts crucial to the problem,” wrote the authors.
“Neither HHS nor OSHA ever considered Omicron or said a word about vaccine efficacy against it, for the simple reason that it hadn’t yet been discovered. In these circumstances, longstanding legal principles require the justices to stay the mandates and send them back to the agencies for a fresh look.”