Time To Decentralize The BigPharma-Government Medical Complex

With liberal and far-Left media outlets either downplaying or not covering the event, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling on a seemingly defunct lawsuit regarding the COVID-19 vaccination mandates that puts the validity of Congress’s BigPharma immunity legislation back in play.

The groundbreaking decision could significantly impact public health policy nationwide.

The Case

In a case involving the Health Freedom Defense Fund and other plaintiffs against the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), the court has determined that mRNA COVID-19 injections do not qualify as vaccines under traditional medical definitions.

The case centered around the LAUSD's COVID-19 vaccination policy, which required all employees to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 by a specified deadline. The LAUSD had rescinded the mandate prior to this ruling but without the case being dismissed.

The plaintiffs argued that the district's vaccine mandate infringed upon their fundamental right to refuse medical treatment, as the mRNA injections do not prevent the transmission of COVID-19 but merely mitigate symptoms for the recipient.

The Opinion

The court's opinion validated the plaintiff’s claims. Penned by Circuit Judge Ryan D. Nelson and supported by Judge Daniel P. Collins, the ruling asserts that the mRNA shots, marketed as vaccines, do not effectively prevent the transmission of COVID-19 but merely reduce symptoms in those who contract the virus.

This crucial distinction undermines the foundational premise of the vaccine mandates enforced by various governmental and educational institutions.

Judge Nelson pointed out that the mandate was inconsistent with the Supreme Court's century-old ruling in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, a case that upheld the state's right to enforce smallpox vaccinations due to their proven effectiveness in preventing disease spread. In contrast, the mRNA COVID-19 shots do not offer such public health benefits, thus failing the criteria established by Jacobson.

The ruling points out that traditional vaccines are designed to provide immunity and prevent transmission, which is not conclusively proven in the case of mRNA COVID-19 shots.

The Deceptive CDC

It was previously reported that the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) had modified the definition of "vaccine" to include the mRNA shots.

The CDC's previous definition, used on August 26, 2021, stated:

“...[a vaccine is] a product that stimulates a person's immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease,"

Further, the CDC definition of vaccination remains:

"...the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease."

However, the CDC later changed the definition of vaccine to:

"...a preparation that is used to stimulate the body's immune response against diseases".

The change was made in an attempt to include the mRNA shots without admitting that they do not work as advertised.

Pfizer's President of International Developed Markets, Janine Small, admitted in an EU hearing that the vaccine had never been tested for its ability to prevent transmission, contrary to what was previously advertised.

The Fundamental Right To Refuse: Our Right To Reform

In a concurring opinion, Judge Collins highlighted that compulsory medical treatments for individual health benefits infringe upon the fundamental right to refuse such treatments. This perspective aligns with the constitutional principles protecting personal liberty against unwarranted governmental intrusions.

The Ninth Circuit's ruling has far-reaching implications for public health policy. It challenges the widespread acceptance of mRNA COVID-19 shots as vaccines. 

This decision mandates re-evaluating vaccine mandates and related policies across various institutions and jurisdictions in the United States. Furthermore, it raises questions about the role of governmental bodies and regulatory agencies in shaping public health policies and safeguarding individual liberties. Additionally, it calls into question the legitimacy and legality of the unholy relationships between government, government agencies, and Big Pharma.

Fauci The Fraud

In a recent transcribed interview before the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, Dr. Anthony Fauci, former Director of the National Institute of Allergy & Infectious Diseases, shockingly admitted that there was no evidence supporting mask mandates for children or the six-feet social distancing rules that were implemented in schools and public places prior to the development of the vaccine.

Despite this revelation, Fauci displayed a complete lack of accountability during the June 3, 2024, hearing before the committee. He tried to distance himself from the responsibility for these misguided measures by claiming that six-feet social distancing rules "just sort of appeared" and that the NIH was not responsible for the guidance on distancing or masks.

In a feeble attempt to deflect blame, Fauci stated:

"It was [the CDC's] decision to make, and they made it. It is not appropriate to be publicly challenging a sister organization."

This statement demonstrates his unwillingness to accept responsibility for his role in perpetuating misinformation and fear during the pandemic. Further, Fauci's stubborn refusal to show any sign of remorse for deceiving the American people and the federal government during the pandemic is both disheartening and alarming and raises serious concerns about the integrity of Deep State, bureaucratic, unelected public health officials and the consequences of their misguided decisions.

Our Right To Restitution

As the debate continues regarding the efficacy and classification of mRNA COVID-19 shots, it is essential to consider the broader implications of the Ninth Circuit's ruling.

This decision serves as a reminder that public health policies must be grounded in sound, fact-based scientific evidence and with those policies being crafted to respect – absolutely – individual rights and liberties. It is crucial to strike a balance between protecting public health and preserving personal autonomy in the face of evolving medical technologies and ongoing public health challenges.

The Ninth Circuit's landmark decision highlights the need to thoroughly examine the classification and efficacy of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines by non-BigPharma-related, independent entities.

This ruling should serve as a catalyst for action to reshape public health policy and prompt a reevaluation of vaccine mandates across various institutions and jurisdictions. Further, it should serve as a clarion call for revisiting the immunity from prosecution that Congress legislated for BigPharma companies for malfeasance.

Tens of thousands – if not millions – of people were either forced to vaccinate or lost their jobs – including first responders, healthcare professionals, and men and women in our military. Now that BigPharma and government delinquency and malfeasance have been proven, those adversely affected by this deception – including Anthony Fauci – should be held to account and properly tried and punished.

Underground USA is a reader-supported publication. Please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.