Not a vaccine

This comes from the 9th district court of all places. Something to use when the company you work for demands you get the jab.
.

The headline appears to be intentionally misleading. From a less biased article I found the Judges (2 of 3 ironically having been appointed by Trump who was instrumental in subjecting us to these experimental vaccines) ruled that the efficacy of the vaccines was questionable and would have to be argued in a lower court.

Nowhere near the same as declaring the experimental MRNA vaccines to not be vaccines.

Though I do hope this decision stands when it is appealed so that all the people who were harmed by this risky experiment can seek compensation for being involuntarily coerced by their employers and the government into having to participate as lab rats.

Vaccines are not bad. But forcing hundreds of millions of people to undertake experimental medical treatments that have not been adequately safety tested is criminal. If people want to experiment on themselves because they are in a high risk group (or after informed conscent believe the risk is worth the reward) I can totally understand that. Unfortunately with these vaccines the risks were hidden by the government and pharmaceutical companies. So those taking the vaccines were not properly informed and in many cases were only given the choice of either consenting to the experiment or being fired and placed under house arrest.

2 Likes

Thanks for checking and sharing. I know certain outlets like to mislead people but this one is pretty bad

2 Likes

Can you please share?

2 Likes

From the article- “The plaintiffs argued that the district’s vaccine mandate infringed upon their fundamental right to refuse medical treatment, as the mRNA injections do not prevent the transmission of COVID-19 but merely mitigate symptoms for the recipient.”

The judges sided with the plaintiffs.

Which part is misleading?

From Calmatters.org: 9th Circuit: L.A. school employees can sue over COVID vaccine mandate - CalMatters

At this stage, we must accept Plaintiffs’ allegations that the vaccine does not prevent the spread of COVID-19 as true,” Judge Ryan Nelson wrote. The opinion characterizes that aspect of the ruling as preliminary, and something that would be argued at a lower court.

In a concurring opinion, Judge Daniel Collins invoked Supreme Court precedent that “compulsory treatment for the health benefit of the person treated — as opposed to compulsory treatment for the health benefit of others — implicates the fundamental right to refuse medical treatment.”

2 Likes

No one here is likely to accept any media source I provide that doesn’t fulfill their need for unwavering confirmation bias. So here is the link to the actual ruling:

I can’t find anywhere that actually says they ruled the vaccines are not vaccines. But feel free to apply your own biases while interpreting the legalese. There is plenty of language in there that can be easily twisted to fit into the agendas of either side.

2 Likes

“COVID-19 Jab is NOT a…”

Not a what?

BTW anyone that calls it “jab” gives their bias away immediately

is NOT a Vaccine Under Traditional Medical Definitions

And you have never taken a shot and called it a jab? Some people do, I don’t see that as bias.

The title of the article that says they declared MENA vaccines to not be vaccines is what is misleading. They merely said they appear to be ineffective. Though that can still be further argued when the cases are brought to court.

Anytime someone manipulates a title with false or misleading information it should call everything else in the article into question. In this case the facts in the article appear to line up closely with reality. But the title clearly overstates what the ruling actually encompasses.

2 Likes

The plaintiffs argued that the district’s vaccine mandate infringed upon their fundamental right to refuse medical treatment, as the mRNA injections do not prevent the transmission of COVID-19 but merely mitigate symptoms for the recipient.

The judges sided with the plaintiffs.

From the article- "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.”

Here is the new definition used after August 2021

Vaccine– “a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.”

Subtle change, but the TRADITIONAL definition changed.

Title of article is- BREAKING: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Rules mRNA COVID-19 Jab is NOT a Vaccine Under Traditional Medical Definitions.

Which part is misleading? The court agreed with the plaintiffs, who said they should be allowed to fight in court because the “shot” did not fit the traditional definition of a vaccine, it WAS TRUE that the traditional definition HAD BEEN CHANGED, and the judges ruled.

3 Likes

All you need to know is that 2 of 3 judges were appointed by Prez Trump so the whole article is suspect. :roll_eyes:

1 Like

There it is

Yeah, I’m not seeing your argument at all.

The only thing I saw glaringly suspect in the article was the title.

I just found it ironic that it was Trump appointed judges arguing that Trump’s pride and joy is likely too ineffective to meet the legal standard necessary for forcing people to take medications.

1 Like

That explains the freeze in hell and why there were pigs flying around California.

3 Likes

So, flying pigs you say?

Would a shotgun with an open choke and buckshot be the best way to get bacon out of that?

3 Likes

Unfortunately, just like with all the pro 2A rulings coming out of the lower courts against CA over the past couple of years, it will likely be a long time before CA residents actually benefit from this ruling. If ever:(

Okay, we’ll use YOUR source. From your PDF of the ruling:
Page 3. “plaintiffs allege that the vaccine does not effectively prevent spread but only mitigates symptoms for the recipient and therefore is akin to a medical treatment, not a “traditional” vaccine.”

Pages 8-9. “Plaintiffs claim that the Policy interferes with their fundamental right to refuse medical treatment. Their complaint’s crux is that the COVID-19 “vaccine” is not a vaccine. “Traditional” vaccines, Plaintiffs claim, should prevent transmission or provide immunity to those who get them. But the COVID-19 vaccine does neither. At best, Plaintiffs suggest, it mitigates symptoms for someone who
has gotten it and then gets COVID-19. But this makes it a medical treatment, not a vaccine.
“Plaintiffs’ complaint supports these assertions with data and statements from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). For example, Plaintiffs claim that the CDC changed the definition of “vaccine” in September 2021, striking the word “immunity.” Thus, they argue, the
CDC conceded that the COVID-19 vaccine is not a “traditional vaccine.” They also cite CDC statements that
say the vaccine does not prevent transmission, and that natural immunity is superior to the vaccine.”

Page 19- “At this stage, we must accept Plaintiffs’ allegations that the vaccine does not prevent the spread of COVID-19 as true.

“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”

Thus, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Rules mRNA COVID-19 Jab is NOT a Vaccine Under Traditional Medical Definitions. :point_left: :point_left: :point_left: THIS is EXACTLY WHAT THE HEADLINE said.

Also, it is irrelevant to the title of the article that is being debated, the person who appointed these judges.

2 Likes

This sure brought out the never Trumpers here. You did an excellent job of using his own document against him. Comprehension can be hard for some with this syndrome.

4 Likes

It’s not a competition.
They know more about guns than I do.