(Credit: U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Megan Estrada)
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.”
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 Collins, in a concurring opinion, highlighted that compulsory medical treatments for individual health benefits infringe upon the fundamental right to refuse such treatments. This perspective aligns with the constitutional principles protecting personal liberty against unwarranted governmental intrusions.
You can read the full ruling below:
The post BREAKING: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Rules mRNA COVID-19 Jab is NOT a Vaccine Under Traditional Medical Definitions appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
