Why I Believe SCOTUS Should Adjudicate Zywicki vs. George Mason University: It’s Not About Individual Autonomy, It’s About Baseless Discrimination And Executive Overreach!

Zywicki is NOT so much about autonomy of consent to vaccination, as it is about baseless DISCRIMINATION against already immune but unvaccinated persons being treated as inferior to the “fully vaccinated”.

Professor Zywicki is now representing millions of COVID-recovered and already immune Americans, whose rights are being impinged upon by dangerous executive over-reach based on an incorrect assumption. His case against George Mason University must be heard and adjudicated by the SCOTUS as a demonstration that American government can still balance the greater good with individual and minority rights.

American government is an experiment in balancing the rights of individuals with the greater good in a materially and ethnically pluralistic democracy.

In America, we do not discriminate against any specific subset of citizens to achieve the greater good — at least so we claim. Especially when the basis for the discriminatory behavior is an unscientific and incorrect assumption about the inferiority of one group over another, or it’s potential to harm another.

In this pandemic, one thing is clear: It’s critical to our nation’s health for all Americans to become immune to SARS-CoV-2, as soon as possible.

Certainly, the COVID-19 vaccine, when it works to induce immunity, is likely to be the most effective vaccine ever made. As a pathway to immunizing the un-immune, it is certainly far lower risk than natural infection. But really, vaccination and natural infection are both equally effective pathways to robust immunity against COVID-19 and its variants.

Again, I want to emphatically state that on a per-person-basis the risk cost of natural infection is far higher than the risk of complications from COVID-19 vaccination.

But neither the vaccines’s efficacy, nor the public health goal of securing the greater good using the vaccine, mean that we ought to use the vaccine in an indiscriminate, cavalier, unnecessary or potentially harmful fashion. Because like any other medicine, “one-size-fits-all” application of the COVID-19 vaccine is a recipe for disaster for some.

In my opinion the largest group of American in whom indiscriminate COVID-19 vaccination is unreasonable and potentially dangerous are those millions of Americans who are COVID-recovered and already immune?

The recently filed lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Zywicki v. George Mason University, is literally representing the voices of millions of COVID-recovered and already immune Americans.

In my opinion, professor Zywicki and the millions of Americans he now represents are being discriminated against, or exposed to potential harm by an executive action, unprecedented in recent American memory: mandated unnecessary and potentially harmful vaccination of the already immune!

Almost every American has an opinion about the COVID-19 vaccine. Our government and a large majority of the population are prejudiced in favor of an indiscriminate vaccine policy, devoid of the nuance and personalization that is a characteristic feature of American medicine and safe practice.

Because the prejudice in favor of indiscriminate vaccination seems to run so deep in American government and institutions, it is highly unlikely that any court other than the Supreme Court of the United States has sufficient prudence and balance in adjudicating Zywicki vs. George Mason University.

Zywicki is, in fact an instance of executive over-reach causing discriminatory action against not just one man, professor Todd Zywicki, but against millions of Americans like him.

The irony ought not be lost on anyone, that the very liberal/progressive forces in American politics that routinely beat their chests and fight to root out any remotely discriminatory practice/policy, have created and are promulgating a massive and unprecedented, irrational and unsafe discriminatory practice in America — against the naturally COVID-19 immune.

As professor Zywicki’s physician-immunologist, having evaluated his serological data I’ve attested to my professional opinion that mandated vaccination of Professor Zywicki by George Mason is unnecessary and potentially harmful.

The incorrect assumption being made by the Biden CDC and the vast majority American institutions who sheepishly follow our executive branch for fear of liability, is that the subset of American whom Zywicki represents are inferior to persons “fully vaccinated” — in their immunity against SARS-CoV-2. Or that such persons pose a risk of harm to others.

This assumption is incorrect as study after study from the US and across the world are repeatedly demonstrating. The assumption that “fully vaccinated” Americans have superior immunity to the COVID-recovered and naturally immune is, frankly, anti-science.

Still, based on this incorrect foundational assumption, the Biden administration has begun imposing draconian mandates on Zywicki’s subset of already immune Americans across the nation. Private and public institutions are substituting the label of “full vaccination” for reason, sanity, ethics and a proper science-based adjudication of immunity!

Biden’s COVID-19 vaccine mandates are being imposed on millions of Americans at risk of loss of employment, educational opportunities, as well as, the personal and professional liberties every individual American is fundamentally entitled to based on the merit of their position and dispositions.

It’s a fact that professor Zywicki stands to gain little to no immunity benefit from an added vaccination, when compared to his “fully vaccinated” peers — and in such a setting mandating him to undergo an unnecessary medical treatment at risk of losing his rights to bodily control and unconstrained discharge of his professional duties is a draconian imposition. One that is being enforced by the executive branch of the United States federal government.

Zywicki vs George Mason University is THE case to be adjudicated by The Supreme Court of the United States, because while it respects the need for strong public policy to ensure population level immunity, it directly challenges a baseless and unsophisticated executive action that is forcing millions of Americans, who are already immune, to undergo an unnecessary medical treatment. Zywicki is all about balancing the public good with a respect for individual Americans’ circumstances, medical history and safety. If the executive branch is getting it wrong, and it is — then the judiciary must rise up to correct the severe error being committed by Biden’s executive branch.

Hooman Noorchashm MD, PhD is a physician-scientist. He is an advocate for ethics, patient safety and women’s health. He and his 6 children live in Pennsylvania.