There is growing excitement about a recent 9th Circuit Court ruling in which the case was remanded to the lower court. The Court cited the plaintiff’s claims that the COVID-19 vaccine is a therapeutic (not a vaccine that prevents spread), and as such, the infamous Smallpox decision in Jacobson v. Massachusetts cannot apply.
“[T]he district court misapplied the Supreme Court’s decision 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.
Evidence demonstrates The Jabs’ inability to prevent infection or spread (and I’m not convinced it prevents severe COVID disease). The pandemic of the unvaccinated narrative is more proof. The Jabbed continued to get COVID, some multiple times, spreading it to other Jabbed in their cultish little passport-wielding cabals. But if the Jab prevented either infection or spread, they would be immune to the unvaccinated, especially if it were anything at all like the 96% effective vaccine they claimed. It was not and as we’ve reported previously, it appears to have increased the likelihood of reinfection.
The cure was (in reality) a highly effective magnet for the disease, which affirms the idea that if a vaccine, by definition, can effectively prevent the spread, this was not that.
The court isn’t saying it isn’t a vaccine; it is merely saying that in the context of the case before them, the plaintiff’s presumption invalidates the lower court’s use of Jacobson in its decision (at least that’s how I read it). The problem then becomes whether the CDC’s reimaging of the definition of a vaccine can overcome its own historical interpretation. From “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease” to “a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.” The former assumes the potential for infection prevention (like the smallpox inoculation). The latter expects infection but presumes to mitigate the severity.
The old definition is a fully operational border wall with guarded checkpoints and enforced restrictions—the new one claims some ability to mitigate problems after they are already in the country.
Small Details Matter
This may have no bearing on the case, but the COVID-19 “vaccine” was never tested to determine if it could prevent infection or spread. Another in a long list of lies pried out into the open to prove that advocates had no intention of honest or full disclosure pre-jab.
The evidence suggests neither it nor its booster offspring are capable of preventing infection or spread. A growing body of research tells us that in all but a few demographics, the health risks likely exceed any potential benefits. We know that natural immunity is superior, and the jab interferes with the acquisition of natural immunity. The long-term consequences of the Jabbed are a subject of ongoing research and debate. We know a lot of bad things but we won’t know all of them for perhaps decades.
What we do know is that while COVID treatments do not meet the traditional definition of a vaccine (and that the court is acknowledging plaintiffs claims in context), the Public Health Industrial Complex will, moving forward, insist that in the name of science (to protect the power to mandate pharmaceuticals), vaccines don’t necessarily prevent infection or spread. This would give them an end around to any claims that to be a vaccine, they must.
So, the band plays on.
And not unrelated: A trailer about a whistleblower story with context.
