Court rules that mRNA COVID-19 Jab is NOT a vaccine under traditional medical definitions

In a contentious case involving the Health Freedom Defense Fund and other plaintiffs versus the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), the court recognized the plaintiffs’ claim that the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines do not meet the traditional definition of a vaccine because they do not prevent the spread of the virus but only mitigate symptoms.

The case involved LAUSD’s COVID-19 vaccination policy, which required all employees to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 by a specified deadline.

The lawsuit, filed by the Health Freedom Defense Fund and several individuals, alleges that LAUSD’s vaccination mandate infringes on their fundamental right to refuse medical treatment. The plaintiffs argue that the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines merely mitigate symptoms rather than prevent infection or transmission, which they argue does not meet the traditional definition of a vaccine.

In its ruling, the 9th Circuit held that the district court had abused the precedent of Jacobson v. Massachusetts , which upheld mandatory smallpox vaccinations because of their effectiveness in preventing the spread of the disease. The court noted that the plaintiffs’ claims, taken as true at this stage, suggest that the COVID-19 vaccines do not effectively “prevent the spread” of COVID-19, thereby warranting further consideration of their claims.

Gateway Pundit previously reported that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had changed its definition of “vaccine” to include mRNA shots.

How to Get the Prescription McCullough Protocol Before the Government Bans It

So look at what the CDC did. Here’s the definition the CDC used on August 26, 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 that the COVID-19 vaccine does not work as advertised, the CDC took a page out of Orwell’s 1984 and opted for new spin language.

Here’s the new definition:

Vaccine – “a preparation used to stimulate the body’s immune response to disease.”

It will be recalled that Pfizer’s president of international developed markets, Janine Small, admitted in an EU hearing that the vaccine had never been tested for its ability to prevent transmission, contrary to what was previously advertised.

Judge R. Nelson, writing for the court, pointed out that the Jacobson ruling was based on the public health rationale of preventing the spread of disease, a criterion that the plaintiffs claim the COVID-19 vaccines do not meet.

Judge Collins emphasized in a joint opinion that mandatory medical treatments for individual health benefits violate the fundamental right to refuse such treatments, which is consistent with constitutional principles protecting personal liberty.

The appeals court’s decision sends the case back to the district court, requiring additional procedures that comply with the higher scrutiny applicable to the plaintiffs’ claims.

More from Tracy Beanz :

Plaintiffs argue that the COVID-19 shot is not a vaccine, but a therapeutic. The court MUST accept this statement as TRUE at this stage of the case. Because they must accept it as TRUE (they are not deciding FACTS) – they remanded the case back to the trial court. This thread is really good, but I can already see people running wild with this.

There are several things here, one of which is very old and concerns smallpox. SCOTUS had ruled that a mandatory smallpox vaccine mandate was constitutional because the risk to public safety OVERRIDED individual liberty. That is the ruling that the defendants in this case used to justify their motion to dismiss.

But because the plaintiffs here are arguing the therapeutic route (with CDC evidence to support their claims), the SCOTUS decision does not apply. The 9th wrote that the district court was wrong in their interpretation.

Not so fast on this either, because if the case holds to this precedent, all that will happen is that the government will say that EVERY vaccine is effective at preventing spread to get around this, and NEVER say that they are not effective at preventing spread and are *only* effective at preventing serious illness.

In short, while this 9th decision is very encouraging, it does NOT rule that COVID shots cannot be mandated because they do not prevent COVID. It simply says "the plaintiffs say this is a therapeutic, and at this stage we must accept that that is true, so this case should proceed and has merit. Try that again, Your Honor."