“HUGE Legal Victory – HFDF Wins Appeal in Ninth Circuit” – Barbara Ann

Note: I am not a lawyer and the following is not intended as a legal treatment of the issues presented. I welcome expert opinions from any lawyers among the Committee.

“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 [sic] 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.”

This is the statement issued by the Health Freedom Defense Fund (HFDF) on a recent ruling by the Ninth Circuit appeal court against a Vaxx mandate imposed on all employees by the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). The LAUSD Vaxx mandate is currently suspended and was originally implemented with the sanction of the loss of employment. The ruling covered at least three important points:-

The court recognized that the COVID-19 Vaxx is not a “traditional vaccine” as it does not prevent infection and transmission

The court recognized that the original ruling (in LAUSD’s favor) did not extend to “forced medical treatment” for the recipient’s benefit (the LAUSD had cited the precedent set by a 1905 decision on mandated smallpox inoculations)

Although the mandate is not currently in force, the court dismissed a mootness argument given that the LAUSD “expressly reserved the option to again consider imposing a vaccine mandate” (quote from the opinion summary)

Here is a paragraph from the HFDF’s statement:

The court declined to give any deference to pronouncements by the CDC that the “COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective.” As the court asked rhetorically, “safe and effective” for what? The majority pointed to HFDF’s allegation that CDC had changed the definition of “vaccine” in September 2021, striking the word “immunity” from that definition. The court also noted HFDF’s citations to CDC statements that the vaccines do not prevent transmission, and that natural immunity is superior to the vaccines.

HFDF is a non-profit fighting Vaxx mandates. Their full statement on the result of the appeal is here:

https://healthfreedomdefense.org/huge-legal-victory-hfdf-wins-appeal-in-ninth-circuit

Here is the summary of the court’s opinion:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/06/07/22-55908.pdf

Comment: Our Barbara Ann found this decision by the 9th Circuit Court to be important enough to suggest it as a post. It is a legal decision that a California school district could not mandate Covid vaccinations as a condition of employment although the district already did away with the mandate. I would have glossed over the decision without another thought, but maybe I’m missing something.

It looks like the 9th Circuit decided the Covid vaccine is just not that good a vaccine. Would they have made this decision if it was wildly effective? If they were faced with the decision back in 1905, would they have struck down the mandated smallpox vaccination? Back then, teams of NYC police and doctors roamed the streets forcibly vaccinating recalcitrant New Yorkers. We didn’t go that far during the Covid pandemic.

I also wonder how the 9th Circuit would decide if a challenge is made to our military’s mandate on vaccines such as the annual flu vaccine. The efficacy of that vaccine is perennially in doubt, but it is still mandated in our military. This is from the USMC implementation message:

3.a.  Per refs (a), (b), and (c), all Marine Corps active and reserve component personnel shall receive the 2023-2024 seasonal Influenza vaccine(s) unless medically or administratively exempt.  The Marine Corps active component shall ensure 100 percent of personnel are compliant with DoD policy (vaccinated or approved medical or administrative exemption) no later than 15 Dec 23.  The Marine Corps reserve component shall vaccinate at least 90 percent of required personnel no later than the DoD goal of 15 Jan 24.

TTG

This entry was posted in Health Care, Justice. Bookmark the permalink.

50 Responses to “HUGE Legal Victory – HFDF Wins Appeal in Ninth Circuit” – Barbara Ann

  1. Barbara Ann says:

    Thanks for posting this TTG.

    It looks like the 9th Circuit decided the Covid vaccine is just not that good a vaccine

    No, this ruling is about the meaning of words. The court made a distinction between “traditional vaccines” and the Covid mRNA treatments the CDC labeled as “vaccines”. Turns out changing the definition of the word “vaccine” might help with marketing, but it doesn’t fool the courts.

    I don’t see how this ruling would affect mandates for vaccines like influenza shots or the ones for smallpox. It would seem to be significant for existing and any future attempts to introduce mandated shots with mRNA medical treatments which do not prevent infection or transmission of a disease.

    • Eric Newhill says:

      BA,
      Agree. It’s about the meaning of words (well put). The Covid “vaccine” is not a vaccine (as I said even when it was being rolled out). It prevents neither contracting the disease nor transmission of it to others. At best – and the science behind the idea is looking weaker all the time – it provides a temporary immune system boost that may result in better outcomes for some individuals. The dubious, small, short-term value of the technology is offset to some extent by the serious risks posed by the vaccines themselves; something I also said (the record here will show it) at the time the vaccines were being introduced.

      Flue shots are also largely worthless, btw. They always address last year’s flue as opposed to this year’s variant; and aren’t even very effective at that. At any rate, IMO, this ruling should have no impact on the mandatory administration of vaccines that actually do prevent contraction, transmission and symptoms of serious illnesses, like Small Pox with near zero risk from properly manufactured vaccines.

      Covid was a social hysteria that didn’t cause mortality at anything near the rate that was being splashed all over the media for a couple of years. Even the CDC has been quietly revising mortality figures downward. It is finally being admitted that covid acted like any other bad flue season; culling those already in bad health and nearing the end of their life expectancy. It is now clear that there is simply no reason to inject potentially dangerous mRNA drugs into healthy people.

      Covid is a thing of the past. If the damn Chinese, in collusion, with the damn lying criminals in con artist Fauci’s orbit would stop gain of function research on corona viruses, we will never hear of it again as an active infectious agent in the wild. As predicted by those not caught up in the madness, it has burned itself out.

      Returning to the meaning of words, what was sickening to me, was watching Fauci testify in congress that he did perform gain of function research because he had recently created a new definition for gain of function. ………and Trump is a felon for how he categorized a payment in his books.

    • Eric Newhill says:

      whoops – “….Fauci testify in congress that he did NOT perform gain of function research because he had recently created a new definition for gain of function.”

    • TTG says:

      Barbara Ann

      The use of mRNA technology is only going to increase. Clinical trials are underway using an mRNA introduced vaccine to reduce cancer tumors. It’s a form of immunotherapy, but it’s still a vaccine… a “preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.” Vaccines were always delivered by injections. Now they can be delivered orally or nasally, but they’re still vaccines.

      • Eric Newhill says:

        TTG,
        Words and definitions are fun to play with. It is easy to make things the same when you tweak definitions for that purpose; even easier when you only look at the areas of overlap between two things you are redefining when they are actually quite divergent in other important ways.

        Traditional vaccines, like Small Pox, prevent you from contracting the disease. mRNA covid garbage does not prevent you from contracting the disease. Nor spreading it to others. That is not an inconsequential difference.

        But yeah, putting an infant if a weighted bag and throwing the bundle into the lake is just a late term abortion, right. Unwanted infant disposed of, who cares how? Same same.

        A castrated man in a dress really is a woman because of the dress, make up and lack of balls.

      • Fred says:

        TTG,

        The Biden administration had the CDC change the definition of “vaccine” in 2021. This multimillion dollar profit making cocktail of drugs does not and never did prevent infection. Unlike actual vaccines.

      • Barbara Ann says:

        TTG

        I hope the use of mRNA technology does increase, it clearly has great potential. The court’s judgment is simply that using this technology should be a personal choice. You & I (& Eric) will have to agree to disagree over what a vaccine is. FWIW here is the definition of “vaccine” Merriam-Webster used right up to January 18, 2021 (my emphasis):

        “a preparation of killed microorganisms, living attenuated organisms, or living fully virulent organisms that is administered to produce or artificially increase immunity to a particular disease

        https://web.archive.org/web/20210118194713/https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vaccine

        • James says:

          Barbara Ann,

          Or as Bret Weinstein phrases it “the mRNA covid vaccines are not vaccines they are experimental gene therapy”.

          I am all for experimental gene therapy but the Covid vaccines that I got were all of the “killed microorganisms” kind and not of the mRNA kind. I’m just as happy to let other people test out the new technology for now.

    • LeaNder says:

      Ditto (TTG’s response), mrNA treatments are here to stay.

      The court made a distinction between “traditional vaccines” and the Covid mRNA treatments the CDC labeled as “vaccines”. Turns out changing the definition of the word “vaccine” might help with marketing, but it doesn’t fool the courts.

      Barbara, would you mind giving me your sources? I am a bit puzzled about the rumor mills around the mRNA, admittedly. …

      Is your argument that the messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines are no real vaccines? They only used the label as a marketing tool? And all health institutions allowed them to do so?

      • Barbara Ann says:

        LeaNder

        My source is the HFDF’s release:

        The majority [of the court], however, noted that HFDF had alleged in the lawsuit that the COVID jabs [which are mRNA-based] are not “traditional” vaccines because they do not prevent the spread of COVID-19 but only purport to mitigate COVID symptoms in the recipient. This, HFDF had alleged in its complaint, makes the COVID jab a medical treatment, not a vaccine.

        The court essentially agreed with this argument. Vaccines prevent the spread of disease. Smallpox was a terrible disease and the worldwide vaccination program slowed the spread and eventually eradicated it altogether (the court upheld the constitutionality of Jacobson – the 1905 case concerning the smallpox vaccine mandate in the US). Conversely, we can use the Covid Vaxx mRNA technology until doomsday and whatever medical benefits it may bring to recipients, it won’t affect the spread of Covid one bit. This is why the LAUSD’s mandate was overturned:

        The court held that “[t]his misapplies Jacobson,” which “did not involve a claim in which the compelled vaccine was ‘designed to reduce symptoms in the infected vaccine recipient rather than to prevent transmission and infection.”’ Jacobson does not, the majority concluded, extend to “forced medical treatment” for the benefit of the recipient [my emphasis]

        The only additional point I would make is that it is very likely a bad idea to give government agencies the power to change the meaning of words as fundamental as “vaccine”, no matter how expedient it may seem.

        I don’t consider myself an ‘anti-Vaxxer’ and support people’s choice to choose whatever medical treatments they wish – and the right of health insurers to adjust their premiums accordingly. I’ve no view on the efficacy of the Vaxx in preventing the symptoms of Covid. My interest is the civil liberties angle and I’d hoped the Committee would share my view that this court decision is an important bulwark against the creep towards a future where medical treatments of other kinds may be mandated on the citizenry – for our supposed benefit.

        • Fred says:

          Barbara Ann,

          Smallpox killed across all age groups and killed up to a third or more of those infected. Unlike the media hype behind the get Trump out of office Covid polidemic.

        • LeaNder says:

          I don’t consider myself an ‘anti-Vaxxer’ and support people’s choice to choose whatever medical treatments they wish

          So do I, Barbara. And that was exactly the issue the court had to decide on. Wrong? Is the “Los Angeles Unified School District … entitled to sovereign immunity”? Can it thus force employees to surrender to its dictates and fire them if they don’t surrender and undergo “the treatment”?

          Not on the right to call mRNA vaccines vs “traditional vaccines” like the pox vaccine, vaccines at all.

          The opinion TTG linked to above uses the word vaccine 57 times, and “traditional” vaccines 3 times in the context of the plaintiffs allegations.

          But the plaintiffs seem to make no distinction between the Covid vaccines. They don’t care whether mRNA or “traditional”, in fact none of the offered Covid treatment for them seem “traditional vaccines” as the pox vaccines where. Besides they only mention the pox vaccine since the district court’s judgement supported the LAUSD’s mandate via a 1905 pox vaccine case: Supreme Court’s decision in Jacobsonv. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)

          I agree with Circuit Judge, HAWKINS (p. 26), that the case as of 2024 is in fact moot. The policy that was fought has been gone for quite a while and is not coming back soon. So, yes there may in fact be a little marketing involved. What about good news helpful in fundraising?

          • Fred says:

            LeaNder,

            But does the EU or German government mandate you take those or any other vaxes?

          • Barbara Ann says:

            LeaNder

            As I said above, I am not a lawyer, but I believe the reference to the possibility that LAUSD be entitled to “sovereign immunity” is a point concerning whether the court had jurisdiction to try the case (someone please correct me if I’m wrong). It involves an argument that LAUSD is an entity of the State of California. It is nothing to do with vaccines or mandates.

            As to your argument that the plaintiffs “don’t care whether [the mandated treatment was] mRNA or ‘traditional’ [vaccines]”, that is clearly the heart of the casLeaNder

            As I said above, I am not a lawyer, but I believe the reference to the possibility that LAUSD be entitled to “sovereign immunity” is a point concerning whether the court had jurisdiction to try the case (someone please correct me if I’m wrong). It involves an argument that LAUSD is an entity of the State of California. It is nothing to do with vaccines or mandates.

            As to your argument that the plaintiffs “don’t care whether [the mandated treatment was] mRNA or ‘traditional’ [vaccines]”, that is clearly the heart of the case. Judge Nelson’s opinion includes the following (page 8): “Plaintiffs claim that the Policy interferes with their fundamental right to refuse medical treatment. Their complaint’s crux is that the COVID-19 “vaccine” is not a vaccine” (my emphasis again). The whole case turned on the fact that the mandated treatment (mRNA-based Covid Vaxx) was not a “traditional vaccine” because it does nothing to prevent the spread of disease. Judge Nelson’s opinion on the merits of the plaintiffs’ arguments was “On the merits, the district court misapplied the Supreme Court’s decision in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), stretching it beyond its public health rationale”. In other words medical treatments which do not carry the public health rationale of stopping the spread of disease – i.e. are not “traditional vaccines” – cannot rely on the precedent set by the 1905 smallpox decision.

            You are welcome to side with the sole dissenting opinion re the mootness issue, of course.e. Judge Nelson’s opinion includes the following (page 8): “Plaintiffs claim that the Policy interferes with their fundamental right to refuse medical treatment. Their complaint’s crux is that the COVID-19 “vaccine” is not a vaccine” (my emphasis again). The whole case turned on the fact that the mandated treatment (mRNA-based Covid Vaxx) was not a “traditional vaccine” because it did nothing to prevent the spread of disease. Judge Nelson’s opinion on the merits of the plaintiffs’ arguments was “On the merits, the district court misapplied the Supreme Court’s decision in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), stretching it beyond its public health rationale”. In other words medical treatments which do not carry the public health rationale of stopping the spread of disease – i.e. are not “traditional vaccines” – cannot rely on the precedent set by the 1905 smallpox decision.

            You are welcome to side with the sole dissenting opinion re the mootness issue, of course.

          • TTG says:

            Barbara Ann,

            Three versions of Covid vaccines are authorized in the US. Two are mRNA-based. The third, Novavax Adjuvanated, is not. It is a monovalent vaccine updated to include the spike protein from the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant… a traditional vaccine. The court seemed to say the Covid vaccines should not be mandated because they are not effective enough. Perhaps it was just not within the court’s perview, but they had no problem with flu shots, which are less effective than the Covid vaccines. They specifically said they had no problem with other vaccine mandates.

          • Barbara Ann says:

            Oops cut and paste fail there – apologies for the text duplication.

          • Barbara Ann says:

            TTG

            “The court seemed to say the Covid vaccines should not be mandated because they are not effective enough”

            I have to confess I can’t see that no matter how hard I try! Can you point me at the part(s) of the opinion summary which lead to an interpretation that the court’s decision to strike down the mandate rests on the effectiveness of a vaccine/treatment?

            There seems to be no reference to Novavax Adjuvanted in the appeal summary. I would have expected this if the LAUSD’s lawyers had used your argument to defend their mandate. If Novavax Adjuvanted does stop the spread of Covid I’d assume this ruling would not prevent it being mandated, so that is a good question. Perhaps someone here can confirm that that one does prevent the spread of Covid.

            The case is certainly not specifically about mRNA technology, it is about the criteria for something to be considered a vaccine that can justify the exceptional measure of a mandate. I accept the fact that matters are very different in the military.

            Flu vaccines stop the spread of the flu. This ruling concerned the mandating of treatments which do not stop the spread of a disease. Again, I don’t see anywhere where the issue of the efficacy of a vaccine/treatment is the issue.

          • TTG says:

            Barbara Ann,

            That statement from your article was “the court recognized that the COVID-19 Vaxx is not a “traditional vaccine” as it does not prevent infection and transmission.” The quote you took from the argument asked “safe and effective for what?” I take this as the decision rests on the efficacy of the vaccination rather than the type of vaccine. On the other hand, maybe it was meant to strike down any mandated vaccine as a condition of employment. Would the court decide the same way if the LAUSD mandated the flu vaccine?

            The flu vaccine does not stop the spread or transmission of the flu. It often lessens the chance of catching the flu and lessens the symptoms, but its effectiveness is limited. Some years it misses totally. Does that mean it is not a “traditional vaccine” since it does not prevent infection and transmission? Flu shots are not usually mandated except for the military.

          • Barbara Ann says:

            TTG

            Ah, OK I think I see the confusion. In judge Nelson’s opinion (page 19) he asks the rhetorical question “safe and effective for what”. This is immediately followed by this:

            LAUSD implies that it is for preventing transmission of COVID-19 but does not adduce judicially noticeable facts that prove this

            That paragraph starts with “At this stage, we must accept Plaintiffs’ allegations that the vaccine does not prevent the spread of COVID-19 as true. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556. And, because of this,
            Jacobson [the 1905 smallpox jab mandate precedent] does not apply”.

            What he is saying is that the justification for the extreme measure taken to mandate the smallpox vaccinations was that it was effective in preventing the spread of smallpox. As the Covid shots do not prevent the spread of Covid, the 1905 precedent therefore does not justify mandating them. It may be safe and effective in all kinds of other ways – e.g. effective in mitigating the potentially life threatening symptoms of Covid. BUT, that leaves it in the realm of medical treatments which should remain on a voluntary basis. Presumably, as with any other drug, those most as risk will choose to take it. Forcing those at absolute minimal risk (the young & healthy) and those with natural immunity to take an experimental gene therapy from which they gain no health benefit* is a tremendously draconian measure. Thankfully, at least in the LAUSD, it is now also illegal.

            *Especially bearing in mind the well documented and sometimes lethal side effects of the Vaxx

            If flu shots don’t stop the spread of flu I’d assume this ruling would apply if anyone tried to mandate them in the civilian sphere.

            Before 2020 none of this would have been remotely controversial. What many skeptics saw with the Vaxx mandates was an attempt to set a precedent for mandating medical treatments on a wider basis. You can surely understand legitimate concerns re regulator capture, as such a scenario would be the Holy Grail for Big Pharma.

            The right to refuse medical treatment, even if it designed for our supposed benefit, remains a fundamental one. The court recognized this. I’ll finish with an apt aphorism from Ronald Reagan:

            “Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves”

          • TTG says:

            I agree the right to refuse medical treatment is the key to the argument.

          • TonyL says:

            “Medical treatment” that has great potentials to prevent death and adverse effects caused by the virus, also slow the spread, but does not stop transmission.

            Sounds exactly like flu vaccine to me. Are we going to stop flu vaccine mandate too?

          • Eric Newhill says:

            TTG,
            The other half of the argument is the societal value of forced vaccinations. If the value isn’t there – and the court determined it isn’t – then the individual right to refuse treatment cannot be denied.

            If the vaccines were proven to prevent negative externalities to the rest of society, then the individual right would be mitigated.

          • Barbara Jo ;) says:

            I was semi-wrong. The 1905 case matters concerning the case as such and the right of the LAUSD to certain policies. But LAUSD’s lawyers may have argued that the institution as such is above the law:
            Legal Definition, I should have checked immediatey: Souvereign Immunity:

            https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/sovereign_immunity#:~:text=Definition,be%20sued%20without%20its%20consent.

        • LeaNder says:

          Fred, I took the vaccine as early as possible since both my parents were old (mother died Oct 2022, with 94) my father had his 97 birthday this year. And I not young anymore either. I could choose among a multitude of vaccines, both “traditional” and mRNA. I voluntarily choose the mRNA variant. Furthermore, I had three shots. Yes, I am familiar with the anti-mRNA arguments. Some relatives and close friends are among the endangered groups, some among the anti-vaxxers. The discussion about mRNA reminds me of an exchange I had with our then still present pilgrim Babak Makkedinejad. Fact is, I find it a fascinating new approach, to the extent I understand it.

          Barbara,
          my reference to Judge Hawkings was provokingly ironic, admittedly. Please forgive. I don’t really have any intention to study the whole series of cases against LAUSD vs cases elsewhere, and there seem to have been a multitude. Ours here specifically challenged mRNA vaccines? Or the mandate as such?

          As I said above, I am not a lawyer, but I believe the reference to the possibility that LAUSD be entitled to “sovereign immunity” is a point concerning whether the court had jurisdiction to try the case (someone please correct me if I’m wrong).

          I understand that “entitled to sovereign immunity” refers to the right of LAUSD to dictate to its employees to get vaccinate. Thus, to keep the space it controls to the extent it is possible, Covid free. It seems to be related to the historical 1905 pox case, where the coinage may originate. The right of the individual vs the “sovereign” right of whatever state institution.

          • jld says:

            @Leander

            So you enjoyed the vax?

            It did not appear “effective”
            https://x.com/corona_realism/status/1415989536933490688

            You’ve just been lucky not to stumble on some of the most deadly batches…
            https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13998

          • Barbara Ann says:

            LeaNder

            The second occurrence of “sovereign immunity” is on p20. It is from there that I surmised the meaning I described above. Suggest you speak to a friendly lawyer if you want to confirm which of us is correct. I wish you well with your choice.

          • LeaNder says:

            jld,

            I heard about heavy side effects to the vaccine directly from people. Someone reported to have been ill for weaks. Healthy young medical assistent working for my mother at the time.

            But considering that the number of such reports seem to have been comparatively small. Checked EU databases, 0,097 %. Based on numbers I wouldn’t call that lucky.

            **********
            Did I enjoy taking it? That’s really a silly question. Polemical? As much as I hated a lot of the restrictions and its multitude of contradiction and suffered under some personally, I did not mind to take the vaccine. I should have had a problem taking it? I surrendered my precious freedom? That I had to, was “forced”–like some argued over here–was a sign we were back in the Third Reich? The non vaccinated were actually treated like the Jews?

            https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57020697

            I curiously enough never caught it, while being very, very close to people both vaccinated and unvaccinated that caught it. And quite early a close friend, class mate, reported about an unvaccinated neighbor, age 95, who caught it early went to hospital and survived. This is just one of the many, many curious case I heard about or more importantly witnessed personally. I also heard some rather tall tales. 😉

          • jld says:

            @Leander

            Checked EU databases, 0,097 %.

            Sure, sure, gubmints and Big Pharma are entirely trustworthy. 🙂

  2. TonyL says:

    After more than a million have died in US. Covid 19 is no longer a pandemic thanks to the vaccination rate.

    https://usafacts.org/visualizations/covid-vaccine-tracker-states/

    • Fred says:

      TonyL

      3 million people die in this country every year.

      • TonyL says:

        Fred,

        Not sure what your point is. More than one million died of Covid-19 is no big deal?

        • Fred says:

          Tony,

          “Of Covid” or just with it?. More importantly, says whom? The people who revised the figures or those who have yet to do so?

          • TonyL says:

            Fred,

            “3 million people die in this country every year”

            Where was that figure came from? Let me guess… it’s from the CDC, isn’t it?

            Do you have a breakdown of the percentage of deaths by natural cause, homocide, flu, and COVID-19…. during 2020-2023?

          • TTG says:

            TonyL,

            These are CDC figures for 2022:
            Heart disease: 702,880
            Cancer: 608,371
            Accidents (unintentional injuries): 227,039
            COVID-19: 186,552
            Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 165,393
            Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 147,382
            Alzheimer’s disease: 120,122
            Diabetes: 101,209
            Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 57,937
            Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis: 54,803

            So Covid still remains a leading killer, but preliminary figures for 2023 show Covid dropping to #10 in the list below diabetes, liver and kidney diseases.

          • Eric Newhill says:

            TTG,
            No Drug ODs/Poisonings on the list? Kills more than diabetes every recent year.

          • TTG says:

            Eric Newhill,

            My guess is that Drug ODs/Poisonings are included in accidental deaths.

        • Eric Newhill says:

          TonyL,
          The point is that the overwhelming majority of deaths attributed to covid where actually due to other conditions and general bad health that was going to kill those people anyhow. Many “covid deaths” were 100% death by some other cause and the people coincidentally were covid positive or deemed to be by some form of tea leaf reading. Of those where covid really did contribute to the death, the dead people were within 6 months to a year and half from death anyhow. Covid wasn’t killing healthy people with a long expected life span.

          No, this isn’t a conspiracy theory, nor some dump crap “learned” on the internet. I work in an industry sector, in a position, with access to better data than the government has, to know. Of course you believe everything the democrat party and technocrats tell you. Enjoy.

          And no the “excess death” metrics mean nothing. IN fact, the CDC is still showing excess deaths through 2023. It’s a poorly created model based on predictions from bad data and bad assumptions. It does not parse out, nor even take into account, how many deaths were caused by new factors, like everything from fentanyl to medical care neglected or deferred during the covid years to a trend(expected in the industry) in obesity and diabetes causing fatal chronic conditions in the aging late boomer cohort. Again, you’re be impressed by the CDC! I am not impressed at all. I work for profit. They are unaccountable government lifers.

  3. VietnamVet says:

    The “Warp Speed” Vaccines are an outcome of the West reverting to 19th century liberalism. The philosophy that if it makes a profit it is good and if it requires taxing to finance it is bad. This is most obvious in the 21st century Forever Wars which are not intended to be won but to fund money to military contractors. With the rise of the multi-polar world, the wars around the periphery of Eurasia have morphed into a proxy WW3. The latest World War will be lost by the West without the return of command and control sovereign governments that operate in the best interests of their people.

    For a period, the public health system controlled yellow fever, malaria, tuberculosis, cholera, pertussis, influenza, pneumococcal disease and gonorrhea which all are reemerging. Billions were spent to profit the pharmaceutical industry in the coronavirus pandemic. Not to provide public health interventions that have been proven to eliminate these disease and new pathogens too; if surveillance, contact tracing, paid safe quarantines, ventilation, school and workplace air filtration had all been implemented. But this needs the consent of the governed and tax money being spent to save lives not to increase corporate profits.

    My Ex’s last Christmas present was her breast tumor disappearing thanks to cancer immunological treatment where her immune system was triggered by the engineered tumor’s genome. Clearly in her case the benefits outweighed the risks and the money was well spent.

  4. mcohen says:

    This year 2024 I went on holiday to a place called Merimbula in Australia.Great spot.Small town.
    Anyway Saturday morning I walk down to the town and there in the park sit 2 elderly ladies in the shade.
    Next to them are a whole lot of sticks about a meter high with cards attached to them with photos of mostly young people and a description.They all had died from covid 19.There were at least 100.
    For the first time since the pandemic it brought home the tragedy of covid 19.The media here have not rally reported these kinds of details.
    Anyway I carry on walking along the foreshore and come to the war memorial.Here was a wall with the names of locals who had died.
    Then a thought or vision came to me.
    The covid 19 memorial and the war memorial were one and the same.Covid 19 was a biological warfare virus.People who had died from covid 19, died in a war.
    https://www.monumentaustralia.org.au/themes/conflict/multiple/display/22093-merimbula-war-memorial

  5. babelthuap says:

    There is a video of Dr. Henderson of Small Pox fame explaining what should never be done when dealing with a pandemic. Fauci did all those things and more. Dr. Henderson also explained in that video what would happen if the wrong things were done. All those things happened, the main one however is people would lose trust in the government.

    I have come to the conclusion that Fauci knew exactly what he was doing the entire time, way before the lab leak. My only question is why did he do it? There are likely many reasons but those reasons were a series of reasons to achieve a bigger reason.

    Many are unaware that before covid, there was an outbreak of a virus in Ukraine. You know, the place Nuland said had all the bio labs. People went hysterical, causing a shortage of garlic (sounds very similar to the US toilet paper and Ivermectin situations). Also, Wuhan was having large gatherings and protests about pollution in the city. It was getting out of control.

    We likely never know the main reason but getting rid of Trump, emergency voting practices, persecuting his supporters and kicking off a war in Ukraine are all viable candidates IMO.

  6. morongobill says:

    Proudly anti mnra vaccines.

  7. Keith Harbaugh says:

    I think we need to note the aggressive war on reality that is talking place:

    New Olympics media guidelines say that referring to trans athletes as ‘biological males’ is ‘harmful’

    https://www.foxnews.com/media/olympics-issues-media-guidelines-saying-referring-trans-athletes-biological-male-harmful

    There is a lot one could say here,
    but I will just say this:
    “sex” is a biological reality, we are all familiar with.
    “gender” is a grammatical term, that whose definition can be assigned almost arbitrarily.
    It is a grave error to identify the two.

  8. LeaNder says:

    A counterpoint (Dorit Rubinstein Reiss) perspective to Barbara’s point: A true legal victory, the court agrees: mRNA Covid vaccines are no true vaccines, only treatments. If I get matters right, or understand Barbara’s opinion or celebration of the court’s decision:

    A bad Appeals Court decision:

    https://tinyurl.com/ad-Appeals-Court-decision

    • Barbara Ann says:

      Great find LeaNder and a perfect counterpoint, as you say, to the HFDF’s jubilant reaction to the appeal. For better or worse it seems this ruling has raised more issues than it resolves.

      • Fred says:

        Barbara Ann,

        “The mootness doctrine means that courts should not decide cases where the issue has already been resolved – including if a party voluntarily changes the behavior challenged. ”

        That’s a bit laughable as the school board or other administrative official would just reinstate the same condition after the case became moot. Michigan did that when Whitmer lost in court as having no authority to issue her first order so her appointed health official issued the same thing a day later as she claimed legal authority as ‘public health officer’ or some such position title. I can see the left playing the lawfare game with this; in addition lots of people lost both employment and promotional opportunities due this type of mandate.

  9. Barbara Ann says:

    All

    Eric Newhill above raises the interesting issue of (holistic) societal benefit and I think this justifies an brief afterword. The following represents my own take on this:

    Many folk voluntarily got Vaxxed out of a sense of societal duty – among them Colonel Lang. Without getting into a rock fight over the stats, it is certainly claimed that the widespread take up benefited society as a whole – directly by saving lives as well as indirectly by lessening the burden on the healthcare system. This aspect I think is at the heart of the pro-mandaters’ argument – i.e. that governmental and even commercial entities ought to have the right to force compliance on everyone – even perceived sociopathic holdouts like myself. For the Greater Good.

    We are a tribal species and the pressure of conformity to both authority and the majority view is a powerful force. Much of the bad feeling that surfaced during and in the aftermath of the Covid era and pejorative labels like “anti-Vaxxer” have their origins here, I suspect. This feeling is understandable, but the moral dilemma involved is I think of a higher order – one which covers a wide range of disagreements in our highly polarized societies. At its core it is the Utilitarian vs. Libertarian divide which is a watershed for both individual attitudes and whole political movements. Should the Greater Good trump individual liberties and if so where is the line drawn? At one end of the scale all narcotics would be legalized and at the other the government would completely ban smoking, pump us full of drugs like so many cattle and dictate what we eat (see the #1 killer in TTG’s stats above).

    Col. Lang had strong views on Utilitarianism – the Greater Good having been used in the past to justify all manner of tyrannical governance practices. I’ll leave the matter there, as the intent of this post was to limit the scope to the specific legal case and its arguments. Thanks again for posting this TTG.

    • Eric Newhill says:

      BA,
      There are market failures in a free market system. Negative externalities is one of them. Most economists and ethics scholars think that it is the government’s duty to step in – albeit as lightly as possible – when negative externalities exist.

      Let’s look at some gross examples. Bob is a psychopath who enjoys murdering people. It is the government’s job to stop Bob. To interfere with his freedom because his freedom is impacting others in ways that outweigh the value to one person, Bob.

      More banal and maybe more common, ABC company is dumping toxic waste into the river. ABC Co saves a lot of money by dong that. It’s good for them. However, it is very bad for the farmers downstream and for the consumers of those farm products. The farmer’s and consumers rights and collective damage outweighs the value of toxic dumping to ABC Co and the government should step in and stop ABC Co. even if it harms the company.

      I didn’t get the covid shot. Neither did my wife. I called BS on its personal and societal value from day one. That said, if it really acted like a true vaccine and really did prevent others from contracting a deadly disease, then I would have been ok with mandatory vaccination and would have even gotten myself. That to me is the crux of the court case. Yes, we are social creatures and societal value does sometimes take prominence over personal freedom, but we must be VEY CAREFUL deciding where that line lays. Liberals/progressives, God bless ’em, have very loose criteria for drawing that line – way too loose.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *