9th Circuit: mRNA covid shots are not a vaccine by definition

13,897 Views | 72 Replies | Last: 6 mo ago by jt2hunt
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:25a, 6/8/24
AG
Quote:
The court's opinion, penned by Circuit Judge R. Nelson and supported by Judge Collins, asserts that the mRNA shots, marketed as vaccines, do not effectively prevent the transmission of COVID-19 but merely reduce symptoms in those who contract the virus. This crucial distinction undermines the foundational premise of the vaccine mandates enforced by various governmental and educational institutions.
Quote:
Judge Nelson pointed out that the mandate was inconsistent with the Supreme Court's century-old ruling in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, a case that upheld the state's right to enforce smallpox vaccinations due to their proven effectiveness in preventing disease spread. In contrast, the mRNA COVID-19 shots do not offer such public health benefits, thus failing the criteria established by Jacobson.

The ruling points out that traditional vaccines are designed to provide immunity and prevent transmission, which is not conclusively proven in the case of mRNA COVID-19 shots.
Quote:
So, look at what the CDC did. Here's the definition the CDC used on 26 August 2021:
  • Vaccine "a product that stimulates a person's immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease."
  • Vaccination "the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease."
Rather than admit the COVID-19 vaccine is not working as advertised, the CDC took a page out of Orwell's 1984 and opted for new spin language.
Quote:
Here is the new definition:
  • Vaccine "a preparation that is used to stimulate the body's immune response against diseases."
Quote:
Judge Collins, in a concurring opinion, highlighted that compulsory medical treatments for individual health benefits infringe upon the fundamental right to refuse such treatments. This perspective aligns with the constitutional principles protecting personal liberty against unwarranted governmental intrusions.
LINK

The opinion is in the link. Four years for such a common sense decision. And coming from the 9th Circuit, no less.
Reply Quote
62
BigRobSA
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:27a, 6/8/24
Yet ANOTHER thing your favorite Giant MexiHonky was right about. It's **literally** an injected pre-therapeutic.


You're welcome.
Reply Quote
45
rocky the dog
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:29a, 6/8/24
AG
Elections are when people find out what politicians stand for, and politicians find out what people will fall for.
Reply Quote
63
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BigRobSA • 10:30a, 6/8/24
AG
BigRobSA said:
Yet ANOTHER thing your favorite Giant MexiHonky was right about. It's **literally** an injected pre-therapeutic.


You're welcome.
Don't remember if I drew a ban or not but when I questioned the change in definition on the covid thread, it was...uhm...not received well.
Reply Quote
51
BigRobSA
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 10:35a, 6/8/24
aggiehawg said:
BigRobSA said:
Yet ANOTHER thing your favorite Giant MexiHonky was right about. It's **literally** an injected pre-therapeutic.


You're welcome.
Don't remember if I drew a ban or not but when I questioned the change in definition on the covid thread, it was...uhm...not received well.


Yeah, "the man" could have taught Goebbels a thing, or two, about gaslighting and lying, during COVID.
Reply Quote
14
No Spin Ag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to rocky the dog • 10:40a, 6/8/24
rocky the dog said:
Needs another star.
There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the later ignorance. Hippocrates
Reply Quote
18
Ag In Ok
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:43a, 6/8/24
AG
I salute the transient therapy!
Reply Quote
7
Burnsey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:52a, 6/8/24
AG
I called it 'the shot'. It was obviously not a vaccine to anyone who cared but it's tough being a stone in a river of morons.
Reply Quote
25
Logos Stick
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 11:01a, 6/8/24
aggiehawg said:
BigRobSA said:
Yet ANOTHER thing your favorite Giant MexiHonky was right about. It's **literally** an injected pre-therapeutic.


You're welcome.
Don't remember if I drew a ban or not but when I questioned the change in definition on the covid thread, it was...uhm...not received well.


Dermdoc was one of the few doctors challenging all the nonsense, including the redefinition, and he was shouted down by his fellow docs.

Until COVID, natural immunity was a scientific fact. That was also tossed out the window.

You can be a dummy and get through med school these days with DEI. That was not the case pre COVID. Yet 90% of the doctors lost their brains during that time.
Reply Quote
30
richardag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:02a, 6/8/24
Finally some sanity. Kudos to the judge.
Among the latter, under pretence of governing they have divided their nations into two classes, wolves and sheep.”
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Edward Carrington, January 16, 1787
Reply Quote
9
Smittyfubar
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 11:03a, 6/8/24
AG
aggiehawg said:
Quote:
The court's opinion, penned by Circuit Judge R. Nelson and supported by Judge Collins, asserts that the mRNA shots, marketed as vaccines, do not effectively prevent the transmission of COVID-19 but merely reduce symptoms in those who contract the virus. This crucial distinction undermines the foundational premise of the vaccine mandates enforced by various governmental and educational institutions.
Quote:
Judge Nelson pointed out that the mandate was inconsistent with the Supreme Court's century-old ruling in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, a case that upheld the state's right to enforce smallpox vaccinations due to their proven effectiveness in preventing disease spread. In contrast, the mRNA COVID-19 shots do not offer such public health benefits, thus failing the criteria established by Jacobson.

The ruling points out that traditional vaccines are designed to provide immunity and prevent transmission, which is not conclusively proven in the case of mRNA COVID-19 shots.
Quote:
So, look at what the CDC did. Here's the definition the CDC used on 26 August 2021:
  • Vaccine "a product that stimulates a person's immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease."
  • Vaccination "the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease."
Rather than admit the COVID-19 vaccine is not working as advertised, the CDC took a page out of Orwell's 1984 and opted for new spin language.
Quote:
Here is the new definition:
  • Vaccine "a preparation that is used to stimulate the body's immune response against diseases."
Quote:
Judge Collins, in a concurring opinion, highlighted that compulsory medical treatments for individual health benefits infringe upon the fundamental right to refuse such treatments. This perspective aligns with the constitutional principles protecting personal liberty against unwarranted governmental intrusions.
LINK

The opinion is in the link. Four years for such a common sense decision. And coming from the 9th Circuit, no less.

Just another thing people with common sense already figured out.
Reply Quote
15
Logos Stick
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:04a, 6/8/24
Also, remember Rochelle Walinsky? How in the world did that lady even graduate high school?

Worst CDC director in history. She was in charge when they changed the definition.
Reply Quote
9
1 edit
Ag87H2O
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:15a, 6/8/24
AG
Just about everything the medical establishment told the public about Covid and their resulting reponse has been proven wrong.

Covid was the perfect storm that the opportunistic left politicized to the hilt during an election in order to beat Trump and then to see how far they could push the public into submission with government fear mongering and outright threats to individual freedoms. Control was always the goal, not public health.

This is what you get when you allow the left to run amok and have full sway with their real agenda.
Reply Quote
23
AgLaw07
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:58a, 6/8/24
AG
Biggest news here isn't what has been plain to everyone since they started rolling out "boosters"…it's that this ruling came from the 9th Circuit. That's the circuit liberals aim for to get favorable rulings…the fact that this came from that group of justices is amazing
Reply Quote
20
Jason C.
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:58a, 6/8/24
AG
Just one procedural note on this case - the plaintiff's factual allegations (it's a therapeutic/not vax) were accepted as true because this came up on a motion to dismiss / judgment on the pleadings. No court in this case has yet ruled on that factual issue.

Would love for that evidentiary hearing to happen!! Like the Hunter laptop, having a court say "yep you're right" would go a long way to help us get at the truth of this issue. Might even open up lawsuits against governments and vax manufacturers since the waivers we all had to sign / statutory immunity manufacturers were granted could go away if what was being mandated wasn't actually what we were getting injected into our veins.

Good.gif
Reply Quote
4
Irish 2.0
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AgLaw07 • 12:00p, 6/8/24
Didn't some of Trump's appointments level the playing field with that circuit?
Reply Quote
4
Irish 2.0
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AgLaw07 • 12:02p, 6/8/24
D/p
Reply Quote
1 edit
Im Gipper
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Irish 2.0 • 12:06p, 6/8/24
Irish 2.0 said:
Didn't some of Trump's appointments level the playing field with that circuit?


These are both Trump judges that ruled on this.


GREAT ruling.

I'm Gipper
Reply Quote
8
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Logos Stick • 12:08p, 6/8/24
Logos Stick said:
Also, remember Rochelle Walinsky? How in the world did that lady even graduate high school?

Worst CDC director in history. She was in charge when they changed the definition.
Hussein and Biden only care about politics, power, and subjugating Americans.

Facts and science are completely irrelevant to them and to leftists in general. Anyone voting democrat for any office needs to understand they're voting against freedom and America.
Reply Quote
9
Aggie Jurist
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ellis Wyatt • 12:13p, 6/8/24
AG
I could see that 9th reverse en banc- they are that crazy.
LGB
Reply Quote
3
Buck Turgidson
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:26p, 6/8/24
When is the giant class action lawsuit for fraudulent marketing of the shot as a vaccine coming?
Reply Quote
14
AggieDub14
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 12:38p, 6/8/24
AG
Who tried to make the covid vaccine compulsory at the government level?

Private businesses can do what they want. But I don't recall ever seeing this required for school attendance or entry into public buildings. Please let me know if this was ever a thing, as I could just be ignorant on the topic.
Reply Quote
3
Irish 2.0
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AggieDub14 • 12:51p, 6/8/24
The Fed did using OSHA as their proxy.

Fauci is also on record saying it should have been compulsory.
Reply Quote
17
Jason C.
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggie Jurist • 12:53p, 6/8/24
AG
Aggie Jurist said:
I could see that 9th reverse en banc- they are that crazy.


The key legal ruling here was on mootness. Ie could the school district keep strategically withdrawing the mandate to moot litigation on the issue. The panel said no.

I should also clarify my caveat above about the scope of the ruling: the court did say , essentially, if we take plaintiffs' factual allegations as true (as the court has to in this type of dismissal - - > appeal) THEN the "vax" isn't a vax pursuant to, and therefore doesn't satisfy, the only SCOTUS precedent on being able to mandate medical treatment in public health crises (a case from 1905). Interesting commentary in the decision about the distinction in case law about public v individual health decisions too. In the latter context there is a fundamental right to refuse medical care; in the former, states may have an interest in mandating medical treatment that overrides individuals' rights. That's this case.
Reply Quote
3
Aggrad08
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:03p, 6/8/24
AG
That's not a good article, the actual statement is much more reserved:

"We note the preliminary nature of our holding. We do not prejudge whether, on a more developed factual record, Plaintiffs' allegations willprove true. But "[w]hether an action 'can be dismissed on the pleadings depends on what the pleadings say.'" Marshall Naify RevocableTr. 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 allegedthat the COVID-19 vaccine does noteffectively"prevent the spread" of COVID-19. Thus, Jacobsondoes not apply, and so we vacate the district court's order of dismissal and remand."

The court ruled that if the plaintiff's allegations are true, they are able to move forward with their case in court. No determination as to the status of the mRNA vaccines was made.

As it stands now it could go either way.
Reply Quote
3
AggieDub14
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Irish 2.0 • 1:18p, 6/8/24
AG
Irish 2.0 said:
The Fed did using OSHA as their proxy.

Fauci is also on record saying it should have been compulsory.


It was never actually implemented though. My place of business (aviation sector, high visibility from OSHA, some government contracts) never had a covid shot requirement.
Reply Quote
2 edits
DannyDuberstein
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AggieDub14 • 1:22p, 6/8/24
AG
AggieDub14 said:
Irish 2.0 said:
The Fed did using OSHA as their proxy.

Fauci is also on record saying it should have been compulsory.


It never actually happened though. My place of business (aviation sector, high visibility from OSHA, some government contracts) never had a covid shot requirement.


Fortune 50 here and they used the mandate to require it. North of 100k employees. Ultimately had to back off but the damage was already done

Saying it never happened is extremely disingenuous. It did happen. Then it got challenged and ultimately flipped, but that played out over months while businesses were working to get compliant. dishonest arguments seem to be the norm from one side when it comes to covid
Reply Quote
19
3 edits
BigRobSA
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AggieDub14 • 1:23p, 6/8/24
AggieDub14 said:
Irish 2.0 said:
The Fed did using OSHA as their proxy.

Fauci is also on record saying it should have been compulsory.


It never actually happened though. My place of business (aviation sector, high visibility from OSHA, some government contracts) never had a covid shot requirement.


I declined a job offer due to the requirement to get the pre-therapeutic by the govt for the company to do business with the FedGov. The recruiter told me that after my interview and I immediately declined. He even told me he was having trouble hiring because of that idiocy.

Liberalism, as always, failed again.
Reply Quote
12
Irish 2.0
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AggieDub14 • 1:24p, 6/8/24
You said "tried" and I answered. They tried, but couldn't get it done.

Unless you'd like to rewrite the definition of "try" like the government did with "vaccine," you can go away now.
Reply Quote
13
1 edit
Texas Tea
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AggieDub14 • 1:29p, 6/8/24
AG
AggieDub14 said:
Who tried to make the covid vaccine compulsory at the government level?

Private businesses can do what they want. But I don't recall ever seeing this required for school attendance or entry into public buildings. Please let me know if this was ever a thing, as I could just be ignorant on the topic.
Reply Quote
9
rocky the dog
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AggieDub14 • 1:31p, 6/8/24
AG
Quote:
Who tried to make the covid vaccine compulsory at the government level?

Private businesses can do what they want. But I don't recall ever seeing this required for school attendance or entry into public buildings. Please let me know if this was ever a thing, as I could just be ignorant on the topic.

Elections are when people find out what politicians stand for, and politicians find out what people will fall for.
Reply Quote
16
techno-ag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:32p, 6/8/24
AG
Yet another example of shouting the lie and whispering the retraction.
Trump will fix it.
Reply Quote
9
Im Gipper
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to techno-ag • 1:33p, 6/8/24
techno-ag said:
Yet another example of shouting the lie and whispering the retraction.


WRONG!!

These lunatics haven't "retracted" anything! This will only embolden them!!

I'm Gipper
Reply Quote
7
AggieDub14
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to DannyDuberstein • 1:38p, 6/8/24
AG
DannyDuberstein said:
AggieDub14 said:
Irish 2.0 said:
The Fed did using OSHA as their proxy.

Fauci is also on record saying it should have been compulsory.


It never actually happened though. My place of business (aviation sector, high visibility from OSHA, some government contracts) never had a covid shot requirement.


Fortune 50 here and they used the mandate to require it. North of 100k employees. Ultimately had to back off but the damage was already done

Saying it never happened is extremely disingenuous. It did happen. Then it got challenged and ultimately flipped, but that played out over months while businesses were working to get compliant. dishonest arguments seem to be the norm from one side when it comes to covid


Ah so it only applied if over 100k employees then? That's a pretty important detail to leave out.
Reply Quote
DannyDuberstein
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AggieDub14 • 1:41p, 6/8/24
AG
No, i'm saying our company is that size the US. Maybe you should educate yourself before saying "didn't happen" since you don't seem to know what you are talking about.

The ETS was if you had > 100 employees. They issued it Nov 5 2021. Companies went into compliance mode. It was reversed end of January 2022. Millions got the vax to keep their job in that 3 months
Reply Quote
23
3 edits
Last Page
Page 1 of 3 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.