Wednesday, November 20
    CLICK HERE for all posts on this page

    Ninth Circuit Court Rules mRNA COVID-19 Shots Do Not Qualify as Traditional Vaccines in LAUSD Mandate Case

    Top News 4 Mins Read

    Now that it is not a vaccine, the lawsuits can start up for the over 1 million dead form the vaccine, and the multitudes of cancer and even turbo cancers that are hitting the population. There is no way they can censor this info any longer. It will all get out one way or another, as trust in the establishment has been destroyed.  They put profits and votes over health. This will not be forgiven by many millions of Americans.

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has issued a pivotal decision that could significantly influence public health policies across the country. The court ruled in a lawsuit involving the Health Freedom Defense Fund and other plaintiffs against the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), stating that mRNA COVID-19 injections do not meet the traditional definitions of vaccines used in medicine.

    The lawsuit centered on LAUSD’s policy requiring all its employees to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 by a certain deadline. The plaintiffs contended that this mandate violated their basic right to refuse medical treatment. They argued that the mRNA injections, unlike traditional vaccines, do not prevent the transmission of COVID-19 and only lessen the severity of symptoms for the recipient.

    The court’s decision, authored by Circuit Judge R. Nelson with support from Judge Collins, highlighted that mRNA shots, which are marketed as vaccines, do not prevent the spread of COVID-19 but only reduce the severity of the symptoms in those infected. This distinction is critical and challenges the foundation of vaccine mandates imposed by various government and educational entities.

    Judge Nelson noted that this mandate contradicts a century-old Supreme Court decision in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, which supported the state’s authority to enforce smallpixture vaccinations due to their proven effectiveness in stopping the spread of the disease. In contrast, mRNA COVID-19 injections do not provide similar public health benefits, thus failing to meet the criteria set by the Jacobson case.

    The ruling further noted that traditional vaccines are intended to confer immunity and prevent transmission, which has not been conclusively demonstrated with mRNA COVID-19 injections. This point was emphasized by revelations that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had altered the definition of “vaccine” to accommodate mRNA injections. Previously, a vaccine was defined by the CDC as a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease. However, this definition was changed to a preparation that stimulates the body’s immune response against diseases.

    Additionally, it was revealed that during an EU hearing, Janine Small, President of International Developed Markets at Pfizer, admitted that the vaccine had never been tested for its ability to prevent the transmission of the virus, contrary to prior claims.

    In a concurring opinion, Judge Collins underlined that mandatory medical treatments for personal health benefits violate the fundamental right to refuse such treatments. This view is consistent with constitutional principles that protect individual liberty against unwarranted governmental interference.

    The decision from the Ninth Circuit thus challenges existing assumptions about the nature and enforcement of vaccine mandates, setting a precedent that may affect future public health initiatives and policies.

    Major Points

    • The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that mRNA COVID-19 injections do not meet traditional definitions of vaccines in a case against the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD).
    • LAUSD’s vaccine mandate required employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19, which plaintiffs argued infringed on their right to refuse medical treatment.
    • The court noted that mRNA injections do not prevent COVID-19 transmission but only mitigate symptoms, challenging the basis of vaccine mandates.
    • The decision referenced a century-old Supreme Court case, highlighting that unlike smallpox vaccines, mRNA shots don’t provide similar public health benefits.
    • The ruling raises questions about the constitutionality of compulsory health treatments and the redefinition of “vaccine” by health authorities.

    James Kravitz – Reprinted with permission of Whatfinger News

    Keep Reading

    Add A Comment

    Leave A Reply