The mRNA COVID-19 Jab: Vaccine or Countermeasure? The Courts are Weighing In-Finally!

As a functional medicine doctor who has been advocating for a cautious approach to vaccination, the recent ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Health Freedom DEF. Fund Inc. v. Carvalho has caught my attention. The decision, which I have carefully reviewed, raises some interesting points about the nature of vaccines and the rights of individuals to refuse medical treatment.

The case, which you can read more about in the provided snippets, revolves around a COVID-19 vaccination policy implemented by the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). The plaintiffs, including the Health Freedom Defense Fund, argued that the policy infringed upon their fundamental right to refuse medical treatment. The court, in its ruling, made a significant distinction between traditional vaccines and the mRNA COVID-19 shots.

According to the court’s opinion, traditional vaccines are designed to provide immunity and prevent transmission of a disease. However, the court found that the mRNA COVID-19 shots do not conclusively prevent transmission, but rather mitigate symptoms in those who contract the virus. As Judge R. Nelson wrote in the opinion:

“The Policy, which mandates that employees be vaccinated with a product designed to reduce symptoms in the infected vaccine recipient rather than to prevent transmission and infection, implicates a distinct government interest from that at issue in Jacobson.”

This distinction is crucial because it separates the mRNA COVID-19 shots from traditional vaccines, which have been widely accepted as a public health measure to prevent the spread of infectious diseases. The court’s ruling suggests that the mRNA shots should not be considered vaccines under traditional medical definitions, a point that has been widely discussed on social media platforms like Twitter.