patrick.net

(It is clearly not a vaccine, but a transfection reagent.)

In a contentious case involving the Health Freedom Defense Fund and other plaintiffs versus the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), the court acknowledged the plaintiffs’ claim that the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines do not meet the traditional definition of vaccines because they do not prevent the spread of the virus but only mitigate symptoms.

The case revolved around the LAUSD’s COVID-19 vaccination policy, which required all employees to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 by a specified deadline.

The case, brought by the Health Freedom Defense Fund and several individuals, argues that the LAUSD’s vaccination mandate interferes with their fundamental right to refuse medical treatment. The plaintiffs assert that the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines merely mitigate symptoms rather than prevent infection or transmission, which they claim does not align with the traditional definition of a vaccine.

In its decision, the 9th Circuit highlighted that the district court had misapplied the precedent set by Jacobson v. Massachusetts, which upheld mandatory smallpox vaccinations due to their effectiveness in preventing disease spread. The court noted that the plaintiffs’ claims, taken as true at this stage, suggest that the COVID-19 vaccines do not effectively “prevent the spread” of COVID-19, thereby warranting further consideration of their allegations.

Rather than admit the COVID-19 vaccine is not working as advertised, the CDC took a page out of Orwell’s 1984 and opted for new spin language.

Here is the new definition:

Vaccine– “a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.”

It can be recalled that Pfizer’s President of International Developed Markets, Janine Small, admitted in an EU hearing that the vaccine had never been tested on its ability to prevent transmission, contrary to what was previously advertised.

Judge R. Nelson, writing for the court, pointed out that the Jacobson ruling was based on the public health rationale of preventing disease spread, a criterion the plaintiffs allege the COVID-19 vaccines do not meet.

Judge Collins, in a concurring opinion, emphasized that compulsory medical treatments for individual health benefits infringe upon the fundamental right to refuse such treatments, aligning with constitutional principles protecting personal liberty.

The Appeals Court’s decision sends the case back to the district court, requiring further proceedings that adhere to the higher scrutiny applicable to the plaintiffs’ claims.

More from Tracy Beanz:

Plaintiffs allege that the COVID-19 shot isn’t a vaccine, but a therapeutic. The court MUST accept that statement as TRUE at this stage of the suit. Because they must accept it as TRUE (they aren’t DECIDING FACTS) – they remanded the case back down to the district court. This thread is really good, but I already see people running wild with this.

There are several concerning things here, one of which is very old and relates to smallpox. The SCOTUS had ruled that a compulsory mandate for the smallpox vaccine was constitutional because the public safety risk SUPERSEDED individual liberty. That’s the ruling that the defendants in this case used to justify their motion to dismiss.

But because the Plaintiffs here argue the therapeutic route (with CDC proof of their claims) the SCOTUS decision doesn’t apply. The 9th wrote that the district court erred in their interpretation.

Also, not so fast on this, because if the case holds on this precedent, all that will happen is that the government will say that EVERY vaccine is effective at preventing spread to get around this, and NEVER say they aren’t effective at preventing spread and are *just* effective at preventing severe disease.

In short, while this decision from the 9th is very encouraging, it DOES NOT determine that the COVID shots can’t be mandated because they don’t prevent COVID. It merely says “the plaintiffs say that this is a therapeutic, and at this stage we have to accept that as true, so this case must continue and has merits. Have at it again, lower court)

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/06/breaking-9th-circuit-court-appeals-rules-mrna-covid/