class action civil suit ?
count me in
fauci and accomplices made millions,, billions off their crimes
then we need a rico
then a criminal prosecution
imho
Bookmark
well the Goobermint changed the definition “Vaccine” to “any shiiite we say it is”, so there’s that.
My cuz was not in good shape. Cancer, had had blood clots, but “coincidentally” she died 2 weeks after her booster.
Now we know why Merriam Webster CHANGE THE DEFINITION of what a vaccine is. It was to help Big Pharma avoid prosecution.
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.
The 9th Circuit Court is in the western US, where some of the most stringent COVID mandate were put into place, including the requirement that in many places workers and children could not opt out. I hope this ruling sticks because I want to see the fallout.
“Abraham Lincoln once asked an audience how many legs a dog has if you count the tail as a leg. When they answered ‘five,’ Lincoln told them that the answer was four. The fact that you called the tail a leg did not make it a leg.”
Before going further, does this X posting have any validity???
I have not seen other news about this 9th circuit ruling.
the 9th?
they are usually on board
Wow!
This is going to rattle Pfizer and Moderna stock prices on Monday.
Government employees like Fauci usually have personal exemption.
However, if there has been clear negligence or deception, Fauci could be turning his royalties and $400K pension over to litigants every year.
So, based on Twitter tweets, I am to accept at face value that judges are now better experts on what a vaccine is than the scientists who actually study vaccines?
No, I don't think so.
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.
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.
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.
book marking and bumping!
When Tom Hanks offered his blood for a vaccine and was told to get stuffed we knew their vaccine was not a vaccine
For now I’m going to call “Fake News” on this one. This was posted 8 hours ago and not one other article I could find corroborates this info. When I see those, then I’ll reconsider. Right now it’s just an anonymous post on X with no links to back it up.
This is just too much wishful thinking IMHO. It would bankrupt Big Pharma. That’s not in the best interest of the American people right now. Maybe I’m wrong but I do think we need honest and well meaning pharmaceutical companies. I know Big Pharma pulled a fast and loose one with the covid jab and all other mRNA jabs but let’s see how this plays out before getting too excited.
Keeping it simple :
MRNA KILLs, many of us already knew this. It is time for Justice.
absolutely false:
the 9th appellate court ruled that, based on the limited information provided, that that the lower court incorrectly relied on a 1905 law specific to smallpox vaccination that "PREVENTS the spread of disease", and that therefore they sent the lawsuit back to the lower court to reconsider WITHOUT reference to the 1905 law, since the limited facts before the appellate court indicated that the covid vaccines did not prevent the spread of disease:
"We note the PRELIMINARY nature of our holding. We do not prejudge whether, on a more developed factual record, Plaintiffs’ allegations will prove true. But “[w]hether an action ‘can be dismissed on the pleadings depends on what the pleadings say.’” Marshall Naify Revocable Tr. v. United States, 672 F.3d 620, 625 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Weisbuch v. County of Los Angeles, 119 F.3d 778, 783 n.1 (9th Cir. 1997)). Because we thus must accept them as true, Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that the COVID-19 vaccine does not effectively “prevent the spread” of COVID-19. Thus, Jacobson does not apply, and so we vacate the district court’s order of dismissal and remand."
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/06/07/22-55908.pdf
[it's really NOT a good idea to rely on some random Grok X posting as gospel]
How long until those infected with the virus can sue government for its complicity in it’s development and release?
As stated on FR for years and denied for years by the $hot$hills
Not vaccines? Imagine that, another “lie” is ruled to be truth. I remember a lot of screechy arguments over this during the big “vaxx” push.
It now turns out NOBODY was vaccinated.