In a surprising twist that has left Big Pharma quaking in their boots, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has declared that COVID-19 mRNA jabs do not legally qualify as vaccines. This landmark decision is poised to open the floodgates for a tsunami of liability lawsuits against pharmaceutical giants.
The Case That Sparked the Ruling
The ruling is the result of a lawsuit filed by the Health Freedom Defense Fund (HFDF) and other plaintiffs against the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). The plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of LAUSD’s mandate requiring all employees to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19.
A Blow to Censorship and Corporate Immunity
Circuit Judge R. Nelson’s opinion, reported by Infowars.com, emphasizes that mRNA shots, while marketed as vaccines, merely reduce symptoms in those who contract the virus. This distinction, Nelson argues, disqualifies them from being considered traditional vaccines as defined by the 1905 Jacobson v. Massachusetts case, which upheld mandatory vaccinations due to their effectiveness in preventing disease spread.
The Jacobson v. Massachusetts Misinterpretation
The panel criticized the lower court’s misapplication of Jacobson v. Massachusetts. In the original case, the Supreme Court upheld the state’s authority to enforce smallpox vaccinations because they effectively prevented disease transmission. However, the plaintiffs argued that COVID-19 vaccines only mitigate symptoms rather than prevent spread, likening them to medical treatments rather than vaccines. Taking these allegations as true, the panel concluded that Jacobson’s precedent does not apply to COVID-19 vaccines.
Reversal of the Lower Court’s Decision
The 9th Circuit reversed the Central District of California’s dismissal of the case against LAUSD’s vaccine mandate. The majority opinion accused LAUSD of trying to dodge an unfavorable ruling by rescinding the mandate post-oral arguments, a tactic they called “bald-faced gamesmanship.”
Celebrating a Victory for Bodily Autonomy
Leslie Manookian, HFDF president, hailed the ruling as a significant win for personal freedoms. “The Ninth Circuit ruling today demonstrates that the court saw through LAUSD’s monkey business. This is a great triumph for truth, decency, and what is right,” she proclaimed.
The CDC’s Convenient Definition Change
In a plot twist worthy of a Hollywood thriller, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) modified the definition of “vaccine” in 2021. The previous definition—“a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease”—was altered to “a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.” This sleight of hand conveniently accommodated the mRNA injections, which do not stimulate immunity to COVID-19, thereby fitting the CDC’s new, broader definition.
Potential Legal Fallout for Big Pharma
The court’s decision not only redefines the COVID-19 jabs but also raises questions about the legal protections previously afforded to their manufacturers. Dr. Jane Ruby highlighted the potential for a tidal wave of litigation, noting, “The 9th Circuit Just Stripped mRNA Shots of Legal Liability Protection. It’s not a vaccine if the claim isn’t PREVENT THE SPREAD. COVID shots were claimed to ‘reduce symptoms’ and prevent hospitalization…Those claims make it a TREATMENT.”
Conclusion: The Future of COVID-19 Jabs
This ruling could have profound implications for public health policy, pharmaceutical regulations, and legal accountability. As we watch the fallout unfold, one thing is clear: the court’s decision has redefined the landscape of what we consider a vaccine. For now, the debate rages on, and the world waits to see how this ruling will reshape the narrative surrounding COVID-19 mRNA jabs.
Free Speech and Alternative Media are under attack by the Deep State. Chris Wick News needs your support to survive.
[…] Vaccine […]
[…] RELATED: COVID Jabs Deemed Non-Vaccines by Legal Definition, Court Decides […]