June 11, 2024: Health Freedom Defense Fund (HFDF) issued a press release regarding their recent win in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, remanding the case back to the district court. Judge R. Nelson and Judge Collins concurred that the LA County School District’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate violated individual human rights of employees because the COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ do not prevent against infection, nor transmission, and therefore, are not ‘vaccines.’
Per Judge R. Nelson’s Opinion:
“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.
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.”
As Judge Nelson points out, by striking the word ‘immunity’ from the definition of vaccine (as well as the lack of the evidence that the COVID-19 mRNA injections provide immunity – or any clinical benefit) the CDC inadvertently dissolved the legal merits of the ‘COVID-9 mRNA vaccine’ mandates.
Jacobson vs. Massachusetts is the 1905 Supreme Court case setting the precedent that vaccine mandates may be considered constitutional if they provide immunity against an infectious disease, thereby preventing transmission and protecting the public.
In a September 22, 2021, Stew Peters and I addressed the fact that the CDC removed the term ‘immunity’ from the definition of a vaccine. We also discuss the post-hoc analysis data from Pfizer’s September 17, 2021, FDA briefing doc that demonstrated that the COVID-19 mRNA injections not only do not prevent infection, but actually increase your risk for developing COVID-19 disease (not decrease).
“The CDC went behind the scenes and changed the definition of the word vaccine. I guess they didn’t expect us to notice. The key word here is ‘immunity.’ A vaccine by definition is supposed to give you immunity against the disease it’s intended for…smallpox (vaccine) gives you immunity against smallpox.” – Stew Peters, September 22, 2021
“So, in short what you are saying is…the absolute worst thing you can do is go get this shot called a ‘COVID-19 vaccine.’ You’ll be more likely to contract COVID-19 by getting this shot.” – Stew Peters, September 22, 2021
The claim that the COVID-19 mRNA injections increase the risk of COVID-19 disease was again affirmed by a study of 51,000 employees conducted by the Cleveland Clinic.
Judge Hawkins, the dissenting judge, did not dispute the facts proving that the COVID-19 injections are not vaccines. Judge Hawkins also did not contest that Jacobson vs. Massachusetts does not apply because of this irrefutable fact. This is literally irrefutable as the defendants were incapable of bringing forth any evidence to refute the fact that the COVID-19 mRNA injections are not vaccines.
Per the merits of the case (Judge Nelson):
“At this stage, we must accept Plaintiffs’ allegations that the vaccine does not prevent the spread of COVID-19 as true. And, because of this, Jacobson does not apply. LA Unified School District (LAUSD) cannot get around this standard by stating that Plaintiffs’ allegations are wrong. Nor can LAUSD do so by providing facts that do not contradict Plaintiffs’ allegations. But even if the materials offered by LAUSD are subject to judicial notice (to be determined to be factual/truthful evidence) they do not support rejecting Plaintiffs’ allegations. LAUSD only provides a CDC publication that says “COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective.” But “safe and effective” for what? LAUSD implies that it is for preventing transmission of COVID-19 but does not (cite) judicially noticeable facts that prove this.”
In simple terms, the court stated that the LA County School District can’t claim that the COVID-19 vaccines are “safe and effective” simply because “the US government said so” (in this case, the CDC). The defendants are required to submit factual evidence to substantiate their claims and not screenshots of government-approved social media ‘catch phrases.’
The court concurred that at best, the COVID-19 injection may be considered a ‘medical treatment’ and that forcing a medical treatment upon a competent person (i.e. employee) is a battery.
By May of 2021, I had completed an initial analysis of FDA submitted documents, peer-reviewed publications, patents, business contracts, investor presentations, and the VAERS database on the COVID-19 injections. These documents and data sets clearly demonstrated that the COVID-19 mRNA injections are not only unsafe, but are only effective at causing disease, disabilities, and death.
Stew and I discuss some this evidence in a July 2021 interview.
You can watch the full interview here.
In July of last year, I finalized a demand letter for Florida sheriffs to seize the COVID-19 mRNA injections across all Florida counties. The demand letter contains a Statement of Facts that can stand up in any court of law proving that the COVID-19 mRNA injections are neither vaccines, nor therapies, and in fact, meet the definition of a bioweapon under 18 USC 175 and FL 790.166.
Dr. Joe Sansone has submitted the Statement of Facts to courts in Florida who have neither refuted validity of the claims, nor the credibility of their citations.
When justice is done, it brings joy to the righteous but terror to evildoers.
Source: Changing the Definition of a Vaccine Has Legal Consequences