Fed Court of Appeals Rules mRNA are NOT Vaccines Under Traditional Definitions \ stacker news ~science

pull down to refresh

Fed Court of Appeals Rules mRNA are NOT Vaccines Under Traditional Definitions www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/06/breaking-9th-circuit-court-appeals-rules-mrna-covid/

667 sats \ 26 comments \ @freetx 8 Jun science

Seems like this could have far reaching consequences. If this stands, would seem to open up massive class-action lawsuits against the US Gov.

view all related items

166 sats \ 1 reply \ @petertodd 8 Jun

Unfortunately this isn't quite what the Court of Appeals did.

Rather, they ruled that it was plausible that mRNA didn't fit the definition of a vaccine for the purpose of vaccine mandates. Thus the issue can be further argued in court.

24 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 8 Jun

Thanks for the clarification.

72 sats \ 15 replies \ @Undisciplined 8 Jun

Would it also open Pfizer and Moderna to new lawsuits?

Vaccine manufacturers may have liabilty immunity, but now those products are legally distinct from vaccines.

83 sats \ 12 replies \ @chaoticalHeavy 8 Jun

Looks like Pfizer is open to a lawsuit. From the article:

Pfizer’s President of International Developed Markets, Janine Small, admitted in an EU hearing that the vaccine had never been tested on its ability to prevent transmission, contrary to what was previously advertised.

114 sats \ 9 replies \ @petertodd 8 Jun

admitted in an EU hearing

Thing is, this was public knowledge from day zero. Any competent medical professional who administered the vaccines would have known this, as the clinical trials clearly didn't even try to determine if they stopped transmission.

We should not let Pfizer solely take the blame on this. The entire medical profession is to blame.

54 sats \ 7 replies \ @Undisciplined 8 Jun

That's one of the problems. Complicity is so widespread that it's just not plausible to hold all parties accountable.

75 sats \ 6 replies \ @petertodd 8 Jun

Nah, it's totally possible. There aren't that many doctors and nurses out there on total, let alone when you restrict it to ones involved in vaccination programs.

You just need the political willpower to mass arrest them. El Salvador did that for ~1% of their entire population, a much bigger problem given they had many more people to arrest, and they were violent gang members.

31 sats \ 2 replies \ @Bell_curve 8 Jun

The doctor and nurse are not the main culprit.

Pfizer and Moderna are the main culprits. Plus Fauci and his cronies and crone

45 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined 8 Jun

I agree, but doctors especially participated in a massive dereliction of their professional responsibilities. I would be fine with seeing action taken against the AMA for instance, if they issued irresponsible guidance.

Ultimately, doctors are the service provider and the ones expected to use their expertise to evaluate what treatments make sense. Many of them were pushing mRNA injections despite knowing that it didn't really make sense.

41 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 8 Jun

Good point

We should definitely sue the AMA for many reasons including a dereliction of their duty to do no harm

reply on another page

23 sats \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined 8 Jun

I'm all for it, but I stand by my claim that it isn't plausible. I hope I'm wrong about that.

92 sats \ 1 reply \ @freetx OP 8 Jun

Ultimately it would be political. It would wind up being a big voting block that no politician would want to confront.

Suing every Dr also affects all nurses and healthcare workers and hospitals in general. All those entities ultimately work under the umbrella of a "doctors orders", I don't mean that from a liability standpoint....but rather they would "support" the Doctors they work under and wouldn't permit them to be thrown under the bus as it would affect their career/profits.

23 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 8 Jun

Yep. Great point.

reply on another page

41 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 8 Jun

Moderna is a shady company always has been since inception.

They never received FDA approval for anything until COVID. Remember the initial rollout was not FDA approved. It was emergency use authorization or EUA

The mRNA shots were not tested adequately for safety

123 sats \ 1 reply \ @freetx OP 8 Jun

This is the approach Texas is taking. They are not trying to circumvent vaccine immunity protection, they are simply going after consumer protection (ie. false advertising). In Texas this is $10,000 fine per incident. So each time vaccine shot administered....

Having said that, I do not think "vaccine immunity protection" would work in a case where there was criminal negligence. That is to say, immunity protection is not a license to intentionally kill.

54 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 8 Jun

I think the immunity is also vulnerable because of how the trial data was manipulated and withheld.

Ultimately, all that will matter is if there’s a judge willing to take this on.

55 sats \ 1 reply \ @freetx OP 8 Jun

Very true. Going forward that is....they will need to reclassify as "gene therapy" and thus existing rules and regs would not cover.

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 8 Jun

Spike protein and mRNA is gene therapy, period full stop, mic 🎤 drop

39 sats \ 0 replies \ @Satosora 8 Jun

Will be interesting to see what will happen. If they have to release their data, we could see what the real percentages were for the drug and its side effects.

46 sats \ 0 replies \ @SatsMate 8 Jun

I would love to see this! Even someone like myself who didn't get the shot, went through psychological hell and almost lost my job turning a period of time where I couldn't.

I love how the pendulum always swings the other way :)

142 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 8 Jun freebie

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that mRNA COVID-19 injections do not qualify as vaccines under traditional medical definitions. The court's opinion, penned by Circuit Judge R. Nelson, asserts that the mRNA shots do not effectively prevent the transmission of COVID-19 but merely reduce symptoms in those who contract the virus.[1][2][3] This distinction undermines the foundational premise of vaccine mandates enforced by various institutions, as the court pointed out that traditional vaccines are designed to provide immunity and prevent transmission, which is not conclusively proven for mRNA COVID-19 shots.[1]

The ruling stems from a case involving the Health Freedom Defense Fund and other plaintiffs versus the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), where the plaintiffs argued that the district's vaccine mandate infringed upon their fundamental right to refuse medical treatment.[1][2] The court's decision could reshape public health policy across the nation, as it contradicts the Supreme Court's ruling in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, which upheld vaccine mandates due to their proven effectiveness in preventing disease spread.[1][3]

Sources [1] BREAKING: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Rules mRNA COVID-19 Jab is NOT a Vaccine Under Traditional Medical Definitions | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hᴏft https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/06/breaking-9th-circuit-court-appeals-rules-mrna-covid/ [2] 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Rules mRNA COVID-19 Jab is NOT a ... https://www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/politics/breaking-9th-circuit-court-of-appeals-rules-mrna-covid-19-jab-is-not-a-vaccine/113688569/ [3] [PDF] for publication - Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/06/07/22-55908.pdf [4] California Covid Vaccine Mandate Suit Revived by Ninth Circuit https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/california-covid-vaccine-mandate-suit-revived-by-ninth-circuit [5] Senator Ron Johnson on X: "Wow! A ruling by the 9th Circuit that ... https://twitter.com/SenRonJohnson/status/1799481812567335036

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @0xIlmari 8 Jun

Lies, lies all the way down.

34 sats \ 0 replies \ @JesseJames 9 Jun

I would like to see the truth to come out and make them (Pfizer and others) pay all damages, but I have very little trust in this. One would have to "buy" at least few lawyers to see this trough.. slim chance though

23 sats \ 0 replies \ @cristaiji 8 Jun

💯. That’s good news and what happens across the pond so to speak tends to filter down to the UK and Europe.

121 sats \ 1 reply \ @beorange 8 Jun

The article makes it seems that the opinion of a "small town" judge is worth more or is more relevant than the classification of the international community (the actual experts in the matter).

Complete nonsense, typical of the USA. Completely irrelevant for the rest of the world.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 10 Jun

Beware of treating experts like philosopher kings