The Adaptive Immunity Issue

The Body is on tenterhooks as it awaits the SCOTIS decision on the controversial issue of adaptive immunity. Adaptive Immunity, originally developed to combat specific pathogens, has been around since the invention of the jaw, but a growing body of opinion views it as out-dated and discriminatory. But now Chief Justice Ebola is about to reveal the decision, as the news media swarm ...

"The Supreme Court of the Immune System finds, by a vote of 5 to 4, that Adaptive Immunity is against the Constitution," says the Chief Justice with his trademark avuncular smile.

"Chief Justice Ebola! What was the voting breakdown, please!"

"Justices Avian-Flu, H1N1, Smallpox, Poliomyelitis, and I voted to strike. The, uh, four white corpuscles voted to maintain."

"What was your reasoning, Chief Justice? Adaptive Immunity is a traditional bodily defense, is it not?"

"Adaptive Immunity is discriminatory in its application," smiles Chief Justice Ebola. "Would you maintain that the targeted viruses are any more virulent than any of hundreds of others that may enter the bloodstream? And how do we know that those targeted viruses are, in fact, still pathogenic? We don't. In fact, we just aren't seeing the kind of disease that Adaptive Immunity was supposed to prevent, and until we can reliably identify the true pathogens from among all the viruses in the bloodstream, and target those alone, Adaptive Immunity cannot be justified."

"What about dissenting opinions? Is there a dissenting opinion?"

Justice Whitecell, one of the corpuscles, clears her throat. "Adaptive Immunity has been an effective bodily defense for thousands upon thousands of years. It works! That's why a lot of those diseases have died down. Throwing out Adaptive Immunity is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you're not getting wet!"

"Which is only bad if you're against pneumonia," says Chief Justice Ebola.

The "umbrella in a rainstorm" analogy is, of course, a direct quote from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's dissent to the savaging of the Voting Rights Act by the Evil Five. It is important to understand that this was not just some scholarly legal disagreement. Getting rid of the umbrella was the whole point of the ruling.