There’s another thread acive right now about a court ruling that says the mrna gene jab is not a vaccine. Vaccine and mrna jab are two different things. As a matter of fact I have an appointment this Monday at my friendly neighborhood CVS to get a DPT booster, something I belive that I need because I frequently get my hands scraped, and dirty.
If you haven’t figured out by now what an evil thing the mrna jabs are, and the evil intent behind them, (Fauci, Bill Gates are prominent players in the population reduction program) then that is your misfortune.
People have got the jabs figured out. It’s right there next to remdesivir.
Are you referring to the thread based on a tweet on the platform formerly known as Twitter?
I saw that and have done a bit more research into what the court really ruled. I cannot find any corroboration of the claim that judges and lawyers now feel that they can define a scientific concept better than scientists who are trained in the subject.
One of the arguments brought up in that court case was that "The plaintiffs alleged that the vaccines do not prevent someone from becoming infected with COVID-19 and characterized it as a treatment rather than a 'traditional vaccine.'" The problem with that unscientific argument is that, by that definition, there is no such thing as vaccines. Getting vaccinated does prevent most people from getting the illness, and it decreases severity of illness in those who do get sick. The effects of vaccination are caused by the immune system; the level of protection one develops after immunization is only as good as the recipient's immune system. There does not exist any vaccine that can prevent 100% of infections in 100% of recipients.
The purpose of a vaccine is to present an antigen to the immune system in order to train the immune system to respond to that antigen in the form of specialized T-cells, B-cells, and antibodies. And, in reality, the vast majority of vaccines are not developed to prevent infectious disease at all. The majority of the tens of thousands of existing vaccines are used to immunize animals for the production of antibodies for research. A small subset of those vaccines are approved in humans for the purpose of protecting against infectious disease (NOT preventing 100% of infectious disease). An even smaller subset are used to create antibodies for medical purposes.
That plaintiff's claim also falls flat in another area. A drug that must be used prior to the disease occurring is not a treatment. It is a prophylaxis, which is a fancy word for something that protects. All vaccines (Covid vaccine included) are prophylactics.
The fact that the Covid mRNA based vaccines cause the production of an antigen against which the immune system mounts a response makes it a vaccine by any scientific definition. What stupid lawyers, judges, and ignorant plaintiffs call it is irrelevant and does not change what it physically is.
Finally, are you aware of the fact that every cell in your body is chock-full of mRNA (along with several other types of RNA)? And that when you get a virus infection, that virus turns parts of your body into virus factories that make virus mRNA? You get a far higher dose of spike mRNA from catching Covid than you would ever get from the vaccine.