Quantcast
Wednesday, June 12, 2024

Federal Court Rules that mRNA COVID Shot Isn’t a Vaccine

'Litigants who have already demonstrated their willingness to tactically manipulate the federal courts in this way should not be given any benefit of the doubt...'

(Jacob Bruns, Headline USA) It would have been called a wild conspiracy theory as recently as two years ago.

On Friday, a federal court that the mRNA COVID jab is not a vaccine, but rather a “therapy” because it does not prevent the transmission of COVID, and therefore that it cannot be mandated by law, Red State reported.

Responding to the Los Angeles Unified School District’s vaccine mandates, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a prior dismissal of a ruling that upheld the mandate over and against the pleas of school district employees in the case Health Freedom Defense Fund v. Carvalho.

A District Court had initially ruled that the United States government can in fact mandate vaccines, citing Jacobson v. Massachusetts, a 1905 case that permitted the mandating of the smallpox vaccine.

However, the Ninth Circuit, hearing the appeal, determined that Jacobson has no bearing on the experimental COVID jabs, which are not preventative vaccines, but treatments.

Judge Ryan D. Nelson, who wrote the opinion, arguing that the misapplication nullifies both the school district’s argument and the district court’s ruling.

The district court thus erred in holding that Jacobson extends beyond its public health rationale—government’s power to mandate prophylactic measures aimed at preventing the recipient from spreading disease to others—to also govern ‘forced medical treatment’ for the recipient’s benefit,” he wrote.

Nelson further excoriated the school district for it’s shameful attempts to manipulate the legal system in order to escape penalties for its forced healthcare mandates.

“Litigants who have already demonstrated their willingness to tactically manipulate the federal courts in this way should not be given any benefit of the doubt,” he added.

Nelson’s opinion is backed by none less that COVID Czar Anthony Fauci, who, in court last week said that the protection offered by the jabs is “limited.”

The suit was ultimately remanded back to the District Court, where it will be decided in light of the new ruling precedent established by the Ninth Circuit.

Copyright 2024. No part of this site may be reproduced in whole or in part in any manner other than RSS without the permission of the copyright owner. Distribution via RSS is subject to our RSS Terms of Service and is strictly enforced. To inquire about licensing our content, use the contact form at https://headlineusa.com/advertising.
- Advertisement -

TRENDING NOW

TRENDING NOW