In a recent decision that has stirred up discussions across the nation, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the COVID-19 mRNA injections do not qualify as vaccines under traditional medical definitions. This decision was made in a lawsuit brought by the Health Freedom Defense Fund and other plaintiffs against the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). The court’s decision could potentially expose pharmaceutical companies to future liability lawsuits, as it challenges the legal protections typically afforded to vaccine manufacturers.

The lawsuit against LAUSD was based on the claim that the district’s vaccine mandate infringed upon the plaintiffs’ fundamental right to refuse medical treatment. The court, in a majority opinion authored by Circuit Judge R. Nelson and supported by Judge Collins, asserted 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 distinction, the court argued, means that the injections should not be considered vaccines under traditional medical definitions.

The implications of this ruling are significant. If mRNA injections are not considered vaccines, then they may not be subject to the same legal protections as traditional vaccines. This could potentially open the door to liability lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies that have produced and distributed the injections.

The court’s decision has sparked a range of reactions on social media. Some users have expressed relief and support for the ruling, viewing it as a step towards greater transparency and accountability in the handling of the pandemic. Others have criticized the decision, arguing that it undermines public health efforts and could discourage the use of potentially life-saving treatments.

The ruling has also reignited debates about the handling of the pandemic and the promotion of alternative treatments. Some have questioned the effectiveness of the mRNA injections, while others have pointed to the rapid development and deployment of these treatments as a remarkable achievement in the face of a global crisis.

As the legal implications of this ruling continue to unfold, it is likely that the debate surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic and the role of vaccines in public health will continue to evolve. The Ninth Circuit’s decision serves as a reminder of the complex legal and ethical issues at the heart of public health policy.

Less than a year ago the vaunted “free” British government National Health Care Service (NHS) that is so admired by liberals here, killed 11 month old Charlie Gard when it refused to continue treating Charlie’s serious and likely terminal illness but worse, refused to allow his parents to take him to the United States at their expense where a couple of doctors believed they could give him a fighting chance. Charlie’s parent lost in their appeals to the British courts and even the UE Court of Human Rights and little Charlie lost his life.

This sad tale was recently repeated when 23 month old Alfie Evans who suffered from a neurodegenerative disorder and required assistance with ventilation and hydration died late last month after the NHS stopped treating him. The NHS determined that further treatment for the boy was “futile” which may be another way to say that they do not see a future return on their investment. The Pope had intervened and an Italian hospital offered to continue the boy’s treatment and the Italian government even offered him citizenship – all gallant efforts to give this young child a chance at life. Unfortunately none of these offers for help were ever utilized because once again the NHS refused to
release the boy to his parents and the British court system and the EU Court of Human Rights once again ruled in favor of government bureaucracy instead of in favor of life.

This episode is another warning for Republicans to repeal the smoldering remains of Obamacare and its internal potential death panel, the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). If you think my “death panel language is a bit over the top, let me remind you that it nearly happened here in 2013 when then Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius denied a much needed lung transplant for 10 year old Sarah Murnagham, because she was too young for the 12 year age limit the government had established. Fortunately, the public firestorm ultimately forced Sebelius to allow the surgery, but she did it because of the optics, not because it was right.

While it is true the Republicans dealt Obamacare a death blow with the elimination of the individual mandate they have not taken all of the possible actions to enable the private insurance market fill the varying needs of Americans which would make it easier for the federal government to largely get out of health care where it never belonged in the first place. The president remains ready to sign any reasonable repeal bill the Republican controlled congress will bring him, but after 16 months he is still waiting.

-Larry Wiwi for the Franklin County Tea Party

Zerohedge Reports: Sexually transmitted disease (STD) cases have reached record-high numbers in California, the Los Angeles Times reports, as the ‘sharing’ economy goes viral.

In 2017, the number of California residents diagnosed with gonorrhea (over 13,000 cases), chlamydia (over 75,000 cases) or syphilis (over 218,000 cases) hit a consecutive three-year record, according to the California Department of Public Health.

The 300,000+ people diagnosed last year represents a 45-percent increase in STD cases since 2013.

Those most commonly affected by chlamydia and gonorrhea are under 30 years old. As The Sacramento Bee reports, “Rates of chlamydia are highest among young women, while men account for the majority of syphilis and gonorrhea cases.”

“While there are advocates and champions for cancer, nobody is out there saying, ‘I have gonorrhea and these are the best ways to treat it.’ There’s no one out there being a champion for these conditions,” said Klausner.

Full Article