Court determines that COVID vaccines are not in fact vaccines
But then some guy lost his emotional support alligator, so you may not have heard about it.
Imagine you’re a surveyor hired by a real estate investor—we’ll call her Jane—to inspect a building she’s considering buying. Your job is to document the property’s condition, objectively and factually. There’s no financial incentive to find cracks in the foundation or conversely to deem the property pristine; you’re being paid for your unbiased, neutral professional analysis. If you discover deficiencies, Jane is likely to be granted a credit or price reduction; if your investigation turns up nothing but sound construction and immaculate structural integrity, Jane can proceed with the sale with confidence. Regardless of your findings, Jane wins.
Suppose you find the property is infested with termites, there’s extensive hidden water damage to the subfloors, and the walls were built with solid sheets of asbestos… and then you decide to say nothing. Are you acting in Jane’s best interest—even remotely? What could impel you to withhold such information? Did the seller (or the seller’s agent) pay you off? (Related: COVID “fact-checkers” funded by vaccine companies.) Is your boss rewarding you for a certain number of “positive” inspections? There are only so many possible explanations for such a decision, after all.
Once upon a time, the media was the surveyor in this scenario: hired for their unbiased, neutral, professional analyses of national or global events as they happened. The “5 Ws and an H” of journalism—who, what, when, where, why, and how—left little room for exposition or speculation. [For example: “President Biden (who) fell off his bike (what) Saturday morning (when) because he was unable to release his bike shoes from the toe cages on the pedals *supposedly* (why) wearing a grey T-shirt, navy shorts, and a white helmet (how).”] A reporter’s job was a simple recap of events. It wasn’t emotional or even political; it was intended to be detailed, dispassionate, and nonpartisan. To that point, not even a single conservative news outlet ran the headline, “Ancient, Infirm, Possibly-Cloned Kid-Sniffer-in-Chief Is Officially Less Coordinated than Average Five-Year-Old.” Because that would have been both subjective and sensational (if accurate).
All of which brings us to the sweeping global media silence on the biggest legal news to (not) break since a jury determined that $3 million was a fair amount for McDonalds to pay for serving hot coffee to its customers *the nerve*. (In contrast, finding a dead rat baked into your Chick-fil-a sandwich bun is apparently only worth about $50k. Where’s the justice? I mean, if I’m given the choice, I’ll take scalding thigh burns over biting into a rodent burger all day every day, thankyouvermuch.) The insignificant, uninteresting story they didn’t bother covering: Just this week, the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals determined that mandating COVID-19 “vaccines” violated the rights of Los Angeles Unified School District teachers and staff.
Let. That. Sink. In.
One of the highest courts in the federal judiciary: “You know how people were forced to take poison shots? Yeah, whoops, that was actually unconstitutional.”
Journalists around the globe: “Australian police arrest man accused of running naked through airplane!”
The LAUSD had originally used Jacobson v. Massachusetts as a precedent for forcing the experimental injections. In the notorious and oft-cited turn-of-the-century case, the Supreme Court determined that states had the authority to mandate vaccination during a “public health crisis”—*DO YOU SEE WHY THE WHO IS SO DESPERATE FOR THE POWER TO DECLARE SUCH?*—in the interest of preventing the spread of contagious diseases. (Cue the chorus of “screw your freedom” and “go home and die.”) It’s what good people who care about other people do, don’t you know. THE POPE says so.
It’s interesting to note that in the Jacobson case, although the ruling “upheld the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination laws,” it did not grant anyone the power to vaccinate people against their will. In this instance, the plaintiff was made to pay a $5 fine for his refusal (which he challenged and lost), the equivalent of about $160 today. Seems a small, reasonable price to pay to not be subjected to needle rape or to #DieSuddenly.
In the LAUSD case brought by the Health Freedom Defense Fund, a brilliant legal team argued—accurately and successfully—that COVID jabs in fact do nothing to prevent the spread of disease. “[COVID] vaccines only purport to mitigate COVID symptoms in the recipient,” the HFDF reasoned (and do note the use of the word purport, which implies a false or deceptive claim). “This makes the COVID jab a medical treatment, not a vaccine.”
In other words, if the not-safe-and-utterly-ineffective jabs had shown any measure of reduced transmissibility, the court could and likely would have upheld the mandate. Alas, because the whole granny-killer argument has already been exposed as another of the pandemic’s many big, fat, egregious lies, the court basically admitted that you can’t mandate a medical treatment whose supposed benefits don’t extend beyond the person taking it.
Far too busy covering the debut of an electric spoon that makes food taste saltier and some guy’s missing emotional support alligator I swear I am not making either of those things up, mainstream media “reporters” didn’t touch the story. In fact, a Google news search for it turned up only a single page of results—zero of them hailing from conventional or “legacy” media.
#TellMeYou’reInBedWithPharmaWithoutTellingMeYou’reInBedWithPharma
In a press release issued by HFDF, the group’s president Leslie Manookian stated, “The Ninth Circuit ruling today demonstrates that the court saw through LAUSD’s monkey business, and in so doing, it made clear that American’s cherished rights to self determination, including the sacred right of bodily autonomy in matters of health, are not negotiable. This is a great triumph for the truth, decency, and what is right.”
Sadly, unless you’re following folks like Dr. David Martin on X or you subscribe to Substacks like this one or The Kingston Report or Coffee & Covid, you’d know roughly nothing about this development. And if you knew nothing about this development, it may not occur to you to file a suit against your employer for forcing a medical procedure on you, or to encourage your friends and family members to do the same. See how handy media silence is for the perps? It’s almost as if it’s intentional or something.
You don’t win a war in a day or with a single bomb. You win a war by repeatedly emerging victorious from a series of battles—and this one was both profound and pivotal. I’m going to celebrate by continuing to not inject any poison into my body and sharing this great news far and wide. How about you?
Pssssssssssssssssssssssssssssst. It’s here! Did you order your copy yet?
This ruling is likely the break in the veil of immunity for big pharma. Being ruled a treatment and not a vaccine preventative, eliminates the immunity veil by this redefinition to what it was rather than what it was promoted. Now, discovery is available and all information the pharmas tried to hide must be put on the table. The beginning of the end.
Does this ruling open the floodgates for mandated employees to sue their employers?