{"id":9693,"date":"2024-07-17T06:00:12","date_gmt":"2024-07-17T11:00:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cov19longhaulfoundation.org\/?p=9693"},"modified":"2024-07-17T06:00:12","modified_gmt":"2024-07-17T11:00:12","slug":"breaking-9th-circuit-court-of-appeals-rules-mrna-covid-19-jab-is-not-a-vaccine-under-traditional-medical-definitions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cov19longhaulfoundation.org\/?p=9693","title":{"rendered":"BREAKING: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Rules mRNA COVID-19 Jab is NOT a Vaccine Under Traditional Medical Definitions"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

By\u00a0Jim H\u1d0fft<\/a>\u00a0Jun. 8, 2024 Gateway Pundit<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has delivered a seismic decision that could reshape public health policy across the nation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The case revolved around the LAUSD\u2019s COVID-19 vaccination policy, which required all employees to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 by a specified deadline.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The plaintiffs argued that the district\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The court\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

MyPillow\u2019s \u201c$25 Extravaganza\u201d on Blankets, Towels, Dog Beds and More \u2013 Plus Free Shipping on Orders Over $75<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Judge Nelson pointed out that the mandate was inconsistent with the Supreme Court\u2019s century-old ruling in Jacobson v. Massachusetts,<\/em> a case that upheld the state\u2019s 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<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Gateway Pundit<\/a> previously reported that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had modified the definition of \u201cvaccine\u201d to include the mRNA shots.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, look at what the CDC did. Here\u2019s the definition the CDC used on 26 August 2021:<\/p>\n\n\n\n