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]
Thanks for researching and posting that section of the court’s ruling.
While not a “victory” as such, it is a little bit of positive news.
Thanks.