Federal Appeals Court Confirms COVID Shots...

crossbody

Diamond Member
Jan 30, 2024
1,844
1,693
1,893

Federal appeals court confirms COVID jabs donā€™t ā€œprevent the spreadā€ of diseaseā€¦ which means they arenā€™t vaccines at all​

06/18/2024

The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California had previously defended LAUSDā€™s jab mandate based on the 1905 Supreme Court decision in Jacobson v. Massachusetts to allow states to mandate smallpox vaccinations. The problem, according to Ninth Circuit Judge R. Nelson, is that smallpox injections, in that case, were deemed to help stop the spread of smallpox, which is not the case for COVID jabs.

In this case, plaintiffs ā€œhave plausibly alleged that the COVID-19 vaccine does not effectively ā€˜prevent the spreadā€™ of COVID-19,ā€ Judge Nelson wrote. ā€œAt this stage, we must accept Plaintiffā€™s allegations that the vaccine does not prevent the spread of COVID-19 as true. And, because of this, Jacobson does not apply.ā€

In other words, since there is zero compelling evidence to show that mRNA (modRNA) COVID shots prevent the spread of a virus called COVID, there is no legal basis by which to mandate them on anyone.
 

mRNA injections arenā€™t ā€œtraditionalā€ vaccines ā€“ theyā€™re a medical experiment

Another argument successfully argued by plaintiffs is that mRNA injections do not even qualify as ā€œvaccinesā€ in the first place because they are a new technology.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) actually had to redefine what a ā€œvaccineā€ is back in September 2021 from a product that... ā€œproduce immunityā€ to a ā€œpreparationā€ that supposedly ā€œstimulate the bodyā€™s immune response.ā€
 
Last edited:
ā€œTheir complaintā€™s crux is that the COVID-19 ā€˜vaccineā€™ is not a vaccine,ā€ Nelson said. ā€œā€˜Traditionalā€™ vaccines, Plaintiffs claim, should prevent transmission or provide immunity to those who get them. But the COVID-19 vaccine does neither.ā€

That's like wow! At least now people and especially he legal system are waking up... and "Roaring Loudly"

European Parliament:
Member of European Parliament Rob Roos commented on all these contradictory statements that it was ā€œshockingā€ and ā€œeven criminalā€ for governments to play along with allowing vaccine mandates and ā€œpassportsā€ when Pfizer itself had never even bothered to test the shots for efficacy.
 
I've been trying to get the vaccinated people to understand... you are not vaccinated either - experimented with, but not vaccinated with anything that produces immunity.

Neither unvaccinated nor the vaccinated have anything in their bodies that prevent them from getting COVID. God is just watching us as the jabbed group always thinks they are better than the un-vaxxed. He is waiting for us to "THINK"
 
I've been trying to get the vaccinated people to understand... you are not vaccinated either - experimented with, but not vaccinated with anything that produces immunity.

Neither unvaccinated nor the vaccinated have anything in their bodies that prevent them from getting COVID. God is just watching us as the jabbed group always thinks they are better than the un-vaxxed. He is waiting for us to "THINK"
Corona viruses are also cold viruses. Which are Endemic same as Covid 19.

SARS version was deadly and short lived. Most deadly viruses dont last. As they kill the host quick.
 
1719144589326.png
 
I think the Bottom Line on the various Covid "vaccines" was that they made DYING of Covid much less likely than for an unvaccinated person. You could still catch it, but your case would be much milder than it would have been if you had not been vaccinated.

The Civil Rights aspect of it remains, how did major American institutions get away with PENALIZING those who refused the vaccine, when there remained real questions about its efficacy or even harmfulness? People lost their jobs. Police lost their jobs. Soldiers and sailors were formally punished for refusing the "jab." That weren't right.
 
I think the Bottom Line on the various Covid "vaccines" was that they made DYING of Covid much less likely than for an unvaccinated person. You could still catch it, but your case would be much milder than it would have been if you had not been vaccinated.

The Civil Rights aspect of it remains, how did major American institutions get away with PENALIZING those who refused the vaccine, when there remained real questions about its efficacy or even harmfulness? People lost their jobs. Police lost their jobs. Soldiers and sailors were formally punished for refusing the "jab." That weren't right.
Which they had to change the definition of vaccine too.

Cheap drugs used all over the world would have KILLED EMERGENCY USE AUTHORIZATION.

But hey. Pharma raped the tax payers again.
 
Well I guess I'll be left out because I did enjoy the social distancing part. ;)
.

I really appreciated the good reason to stay at least six feet away from the smelly leftists in the food co-op, what with their laxity about bathing and their love for that disgusting patchouli oil. I have long had quite a bit of sensitivity to most fragrances, so yeah, I'll stay away from most people.

.
 
I think the Bottom Line on the various Covid "vaccines" was that they made DYING of Covid much less likely than for an unvaccinated person. You could still catch it, but your case would be much milder than it would have been if you had not been vaccinated.

The Civil Rights aspect of it remains, how did major American institutions get away with PENALIZING those who refused the vaccine, when there remained real questions about its efficacy or even harmfulness? People lost their jobs. Police lost their jobs. Soldiers and sailors were formally punished for refusing the "jab." That weren't right.
They weaponized the media and social media against all opposing views. That's how they got away with penalizing those who refused the vaccines while real questions remained.
 

Forum List

Back
Top