.
Posted on 06/08/2024 8:05:13 AM PDT by cuz1961
Court: mRNA COVID Vaccines Not Vaccines
The 9th Circuit Court has ruled that mRNA Covid vaccines, developed by Pfizer and Moderna, are not vaccines, which removes their legal liability protection. This decision has sparked discussions about potential legal actions against these pharmaceutical companies, with some users expressing skepticism about the vaccines' effectiveness and safety. The ruling also raises questions about the classification of these shots and their implications for future litigation and public health strategies.
.
The court did not “rule” that they are not vaccines. They stipulated the plaintiffs excellent arguments for the purpose of showing what the plaintiffs “might” show at trial.
*********
Correct — this post is a nothingburger. Anyway, it can be called a vaccine if it produces antibodies, which is what vaccines are supposed to do. The real issue is whether it also has harmful side effects.
Perhaps the pharma industry should be non-profit only.
“it is a little bit of positive news.”
definitely a bit of positive news!
There was no informed consent. The government used the full force of their power to coerce people into taking the “vaccine” against their will. No one involved should have immunity.
A government agency help create the virus and then used the media to lie about the “pandemic” which allowed them to manipulate an election (talk about election interference).
The government lied and people died.
Still stuck on stupid. Sorry, but someone has to say it.
The Covid injections, Moderna specifically, for instance, has no antigen, stimulates no actual antibody response, and confers no immunity. It does not prevent transmission of disease, BUT iT DOES create a gene therapy response with the spike protein interfering with replication .
But you wear your mask, or several, because stupidity and ignorance are contagious; you seem to be infected.
The court's ruling is available as a downloadable PDF at the link:https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/06/07/22-55908.pdf
Starting to get interesting. Discovery should be fun to watch.
(From the News Source : “X” ) - Court: mRNA COVID Vaccines Not Vaccines
“The 9th Circuit Court has ruled that mRNA Covid vaccines, developed by Pfizer and Moderna, are not vaccines, which removes their legal liability protection.
This decision has sparked discussions about potential legal actions against these pharmaceutical companies,
with some users expressing skepticism about the vaccines' effectiveness and safety.
The ruling also raises questions about the classification of these shots and their implications for future litigation and public health strategies.”
edwinland :” The court did not “rule” that they are not vaccines.
They stipulated the plaintiffs excellent arguments for the purpose of showing what the plaintiffs “might” show at trial. “
Please note that the source for this article is posted on “X”, formerly known as a social media account on “Twitter”
Please see the posted comments for additional commentary since there is no further corroboration at this time
In the General/Chat forum, on a thread titled Court: mRNA COVID Vaccines Not Vaccines, exDemMom wrote: ransomnote excerpted: If this is even a real ruling, I have to wonder if any of the judges even talked to vaccine experts to find out what a vaccine is?
A vaccine contains an antigen, which is something that causes the adaptive immune system to produce specific T-cells, B-cells, and antibodies that recognize that antigen. Since the Covid vaccines have this function, they are vaccines by any scientific definition.
That's absurd reasoning. You know that, right? Pathogens and allergens contain antigens:
"A pathogen is not an antigen, but pathogens contain antigens. A pathogen is an organism that causes disease. An antigen is part of a pathogen that activates the immune system and causes an immune response."
Hint: by any antivaxxer "definition" of vaccines, there is no "real" vaccine, since no vaccine ever is capable of completely preventing disease in every person who receives it. A vaccine is only as good as the immune system of the person receiving it.
That's not a hint, that's a distortion of the truth. It's not that people who know the Covid-19 'vaccine' isn't a vaccine ever stated that there has to be 100% effectiveness. Exceptions to vaccines are known. But the Covid19 'vaccines' as a rule do not prevent infection, according to the CDC. You keep blaming the patient's immune system for the failure of the Covid19 'vaccine'. Apparently you're unaware that the CDC claims that the 'vaccine' was not intended to prevent disease. I guess by your reasoning there are no medically trained people at the CDC.
Hint #2: most vaccines are not developed for the purpose of protection against disease. Most of the tens of thousands of vaccines in existence were created to cause animals to produce antibodies for research. A handful have been created to cause the production of antibodies for medical use. Vaccines created for medical use to teach people's immune systems how to fight disease are just a small subset of all the vaccines ever designed.
Wow! That's pathetic! I guess the CDC should have worded their endless Covid 'vaccine' promotions by starting with, "Listen you filthy animals....."The public was not willingly participating in any research efforts. The public is QUITE OBVIOUSLY expecting a medical use vaccine which they've known and had for decades. The problem is, the medical community and research community betrayed them, like you're trying to do.
Did you not realize that the definition of 'vaccine', before the medical regime tried to rewrite it, referred to the 'prevention' aspects suitable for humans? Dictionaries and medical professionals always referred to prevention until they needed CYA for their toxic, useless, unnecessary 'shots'.
You people are desperate now. "HAR HAR HAR! Most vaccines are not for public use!"
Shove it up your ass, sideways.
It was the CDC that changed the official definition, not some dictionary.
They knew from the beginning that the vax conferred no protection against the spread of the virus. So, they changed the defn. Put out a public notice and everything. This happened back in 2020 or 2021.
Can’t see why a 9th circuit ruling would remove the vax emergency approval status. To my reading the only thing that can do that is a ruling that there is either wide spread access to a real vaccine or an effective treatment — like ivermectin — which is precisely why the MSM fought its use so stridently.
Point's 1-5 of this article expose Fauci et. al. for lying about the 'vaccine'. Here are a few excerpts:
Fauci Confesses that Covid Vaccines Could Never Have Worked as Claimed
Facts previously dismissed as misinformation now admitted.
By HART Group, published on 15 February 2023
On 11 January 2023 a paper was published in Cell Host & Microbe titled “Rethinking next-generation vaccines for coronaviruses, influenza viruses, and other respiratory viruses”.
There are just 3 authors, one of whom is Anthony Fauci, who served as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) from 1984 to 2022, and the chief medical advisor to the President from 2021 to 2022.
SNIP
Fauci made some bold claims about the Covid vaccines in order to justify such coercive policies, including that they would prevent infections and limit transmission of the virus to others. These claims were then picked up by political leaders worldwide and used to justify their own policies, even when – from early data – it became obvious that the vaccines did not prevent infections or reduce the viral load of those infected.
SNIP
In summary, this article reads like an admission of failure – of the vaccines to prevent infection and transmission at least. But the most notable point is that the reasons given are based on immunological theory and knowledge which was commonly known before 2020, meaning that the assertions made about them preventing infection and transmission must have been known – or at least strongly suspected – to be untrue. Is this lying? We leave it to the reader to judge.
Even after data emerged which confirmed the inability to block infection and transmission, the voices raising this were suppressed and censored by forces seemingly under the control of US Federal agencies, as we have seen from the “Twitter files” releases.
I recall articles about its redefinition of racism
It’s well past time this got litigated.
Better late than never, especially before Plandemic 2.0.
...she's a 'doctor'.
Here’s the ruling:
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/22-55908/22-55908-2024-06-07.html
HEALTH FREEDOM DEFENSE FUND, INC. V. ALBERTO CARVALHO, No. 22-55908 (9th Cir. 2024)
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/06/07/22-55908.pdf
Addressing the merits, the panel held that the district court misapplied the Supreme Court’s decision in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), in concluding that the Policy survived rational basis review. Jacobson held that mandatory vaccinations were rationally related to preventing the spread of smallpox. Here, however, plaintiffs allege that the vaccine does not effectively prevent spread but only mitigates symptoms for the recipient and therefore is akin to a medical treatment, not a “traditional” vaccine. Taking plaintiffs’ allegations as true at this stage of litigation, plaintiffs plausibly alleged that the COVID-19 vaccine does not effectively “prevent the spread” of COVID-19. Thus, Jacobson does not apply.
I could quibble with the definition of vaccine, since it once meant a dead version of the disease that was intended to cause antibodies and was modified (including on the CDC website) to anything that produces antibodies, but I agree — it’s really unlikely that a court would uphold this distinction, and I would be shocked if they ruled that the pharma companies don’t get immunity on the basis of such an argument. Hence yes, the post is nothingburger clickbait.
Stop embarrassing yourself.
Do a bing/googly search on the matter.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
