This US decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is an important one for the resistance movement against the Covid vaxxes, and to deal with the vaccine mandates to come, as the globalist elites such as Bill Gates and the World Economic Forum have gloated about. The Court held that the Covid mRNA vax was not a traditional vaccine and thus could not be legally mandated. Past US law was based upon the assumption that the vaccine was a "traditional" vax, and would stop transmission, which the Covid mRNA vax did not do. The Ninth Circuit Court held that, "Pursuant to more recent Supreme Court authority, 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."
America's Frontline Doctors believe that this decision has wide ramifications, undermining the standard liability protection Big pHARMa hides under: "Liability protection under U.S. law is granted only to valid vaccines. The CDC and pharmaceutical companies were fully aware of this critical distinction when they changed the definition of "vaccine" in 2021 to include mRNA shots."
Further cases will no doubt investigate this.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/07/the_ninth_circuit_shoots_down_covid_vaccine.html
"The COVID shot was put on trial in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and coming from California the result might surprise you. Three of four judges agree it was never a "traditional vaccine" and therefore could not legally be mandated.
The case was against the Los Angeles Unified School District ("LAUSD") that "required employees to get the COVID-19 vaccination or lose their jobs." While this case was making its way thru the courts, LAUSD was playing Hokey-Pokey with their policy on "vaccination" which didn't play well in their litigation strategy, as it allowed the case to be kept alive rather than becoming moot.
Plaintiffs argued that in "Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), in concluding that the Policy survived rational basis review. Jacobson held that mandatory vaccinations were rationally related to preventing the spread of smallpox. Here, however, 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. Taking plaintiffs' allegations as true at this stage of litigation, plaintiffs plausibly alleged that the COVID-19 vaccine does not effectively "prevent the spread" of COVID-19. Thus, Jacobson does not apply."
Further, the Ninth Circuit Court observed "Pursuant to more recent Supreme Court authority, 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."
LAUSD argued, basically, (my words) "we didn't know any better so" (their words) "[t]he science [on vaccines] has not changed" and they are still "safe and effective."
In its final ruling, the court decided "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. 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, 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 adduce judicially noticeable facts that prove this."
According to America's Frontline Doctors this is a bigger deal than one might think because "Liability protection under U.S. law is granted only to valid vaccines. The CDC and pharmaceutical companies were fully aware of this critical distinction when they changed the definition of "vaccine" in 2021 to include mRNA shots."
Could immunity from liability of Big Pharma be challenged on the basis of this decision by the Ninth Circuit? Personally, I hope so.