In a contentious lawsuit filed by the Health Freedom Defense Fund and other plaintiffs against the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), the court acknowledged the plaintiffs’ argument that the COVID-19 mRNA shots do not fit the traditional definition of vaccines because they do not prevent virus transmission but only mitigate symptoms.
The case centered around LAUSD’s COVID-19 vaccination policy, which mandated that all employees be fully vaccinated by a specified deadline.
The Health Freedom Defense Fund and several individuals argued that the LAUSD’s vaccination mandate infringes on their fundamental right to refuse medical treatment. They claimed that the mRNA COVID-19 shots only mitigate symptoms rather than prevent infection or transmission, which 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 shots do not effectively “prevent the spread” of COVID-19, warranting further consideration of their allegations.
The 9th Circuit Just Stripped mRNA Shots of Legal Liability Protection
— DiedSuddenly (@DiedSuddenly_) June 8, 2024
The 9th Circuit said it's not a vaccine if the claim isn't to PREVENT THE SPREAD.
COVID shots were claimed to "reduce symptoms" and prevent hospitalization… Those claims make it a TREATMENT.
SOURCE: Dr.… pic.twitter.com/vemzFIEivs
The Gateway Pundit reported:
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has delivered a seismic decision that could reshape public health policy across the nation.
In a contentious case involving the Health Freedom Defense Fund and other plaintiffs versus the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), the court has declared that mRNA COVID-19 injections do not qualify as vaccines under traditional medical definitions.
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 plaintiffs argued that the district’s vaccine mandate infringed upon their fundamental right to refuse medical treatment, as the mRNA injections do not prevent the transmission of COVID-19 but merely mitigate symptoms for the recipient.
The court’s opinion, penned by Circuit Judge R. Nelson and supported by Judge Collins, asserts that the mRNA shots, marketed as vaccines, do not effectively prevent the transmission of COVID-19 but merely reduce symptoms in those who contract the virus. This crucial distinction undermines the foundational premise of the vaccine mandates enforced by various governmental and educational institutions.
Judge Nelson pointed out that the mandate was inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s century-old ruling in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, a case that upheld the state’s right to enforce smallpox vaccinations due to their proven effectiveness in preventing disease spread. In contrast, the mRNA COVID-19 shots do not offer such public health benefits, thus failing the criteria established by Jacobson.
The ruling points out that traditional vaccines are designed to provide immunity and prevent transmission, which is not conclusively proven in the case of mRNA COVID-19 shots.
The Gateway Pundit previously reported that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had modified the definition of “vaccine” to include the mRNA shots.
So, look at what the CDC did. Here’s the definition the CDC used on 26 August 2021:
– Vaccine– “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease.”
– Vaccination– “the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.”
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.”
As Breaking Digest previously reported, Janine Small, Pfizer’s President of International Developed Markets, admitted in an EU hearing that the shot had never been tested for its ability to prevent transmission, contrary to previous advertisements.
Judge R. Nelson, writing for the court, noted 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.
In a concurring opinion, Judge Collins 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 for further proceedings, requiring a higher level of scrutiny for the plaintiffs’ claims.
The 9th Circuit’s ruling effectively strips the shots of their legal liability protection, giving stronger legal standing to those plaintiffs who have been harmed by the shots.
♦️The 9th Circuit Court has ruled that mRNA shots developed by Pfizer and Moderna are not considered vaccines‼️
— Culture War (@CultureWar2020) June 8, 2024
♦️This ruling strips these shots of legal liability protection
♦️Plaintiffs now have a stronger legal standing to seek compensation for any harm caused by these… pic.twitter.com/q6e6VtYjfu
