In a contentious case involving the Health Freedom Defense Fund and other plaintiffs versus the Los Angeles Unified School District, 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 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.
The Gateway Pundit previously reported that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had modified the definition of "Vaccine" to include the mRNA shots.
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.
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.
More from Tracy Beanz: Plaintiffs allege that the COVID-19 shot isn't a vaccine, but a therapeutic.
The SCOTUS had ruled that a compulsory mandate for the smallpox vaccine was constitutional because the public safety risk SUPERSEDED individual liberty.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/06/breaking-9th-circuit-court-appeals-rules-mrna-covid/
No comments:
Post a Comment