DR. WILLIAM MAKIS MD
In a contentious case involving the Health Freedom Defense Fund and other plaintiffs versus the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), the court acknowledged the plaintiffs’ claim that the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines do not meet the traditional definition of vaccines because they do not prevent the spread of the virus but only mitigate symptoms.
The case revolved around the LAUSD’s COVID-19 vaccination policy, which required all employees to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 by a specified deadline.
The case, brought by the Health Freedom Defense Fund and several individuals, argues that the LAUSD’s vaccination mandate interferes with their fundamental right to refuse medical treatment. The plaintiffs assert that the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines merely mitigate symptoms rather than prevent infection or transmission, which they claim does not align with the traditional definition of a vaccine.
In its decision, the 9th Circuit highlighted that the district court had misapplied the precedent set by Jacobson v. Massachusetts, which upheld mandatory smallpox vaccinations due to their effectiveness in preventing disease spread. The court noted that the plaintiffs’ claims, taken as true at this stage, suggest that the COVID-19 vaccines do not effectively “prevent the spread” of COVID-19, thereby warranting further consideration of their allegations.
The Gateway Pundit previously reported that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had modified the definition of “vaccine” to include the mRNA shots.
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.”
Vaccination– “the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.”
Rather than admit the COVID-19 vaccine is not working as advertised, the CDC took a page out of Orwell’s 1984 and opted for new spin language.
Here is the new definition:
Vaccine– “a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.”
It can be recalled that 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.
Judge R. Nelson, writing for the court, pointed out that the Jacobson ruling was based on the public health rationale of preventing disease spread, a criterion the plaintiffs allege the COVID-19 vaccines do not meet.
Judge Collins, in a concurring opinion, emphasized that compulsory medical treatments for individual health benefits infringe upon the fundamental right to refuse such treatments, aligning with constitutional principles protecting personal liberty.
The Appeals Court’s decision sends the case back to the district court, requiring further proceedings that adhere to the higher scrutiny applicable to the plaintiffs’ claims.