The legalese is always interesting to interpret, but Dr. Martin seemed to think what they decided opened up the possibility of lawsuits based on harm. I hope that, at least, is the case.
“but Dr. Martin seemed to think what they decided opened up the possibility of lawsuits based on harm. I hope that, at least, is the case.”
opens a possibility ONLY as the 9th Circuit ruling accepted the possibility of mRNA covid vax being a therapeutic solely for the purpose of sending the lawsuit back to the lower court for re-examination WITHOUT relying on the 1905 law regarding compulsory smallpox VACCINATION for the public good ...
Twotone wrote: “The legalese is always interesting to interpret, but Dr. Martin seemed to think what they decided opened up the possibility of lawsuits based on harm. I hope that, at least, is the case.”
No need for interpretation. This case was about whether the LASC case was moot. Not whether the vaccines were vaccines.
“Vaccine critics misrepresent US appeals court ruling over Covid-19 shots”
https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.34WA2BX
“Debunked: A US appeals court did not rule that mRNA shots are not really ‘vaccines’”
https://www.thejournal.ie/did-the-us-federal-court-of-appeals-say-mrna-shots-jabs-were-not-a-real-vaccine-6409669-Jun2024/
The plantiffs will lose this. Their case is based upon the allegation that the vaccines must have been 100% effective in preventing transmission which is obviously untrue.