Like many media, TrialSite’s headline may have been misinterpreted by groups discussing a significant June 7 opinion by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Our initial take-away was that the court was finally recognizing the importance of the fact that the mRNA COVID-19 shots do not prevent infection or transmission. Rather, the Ninth Circuit said that if, and only if, the assertions of the above facts by the plaintiffs are proven in court at a trial, then these products may well not constitute “vaccines” under this analysis.

LAUSD employee mandate

The case involves Health Freedom Defense Fund, Inc. and others suing the superintendent for the Los Angeles Unified School District over its employee COVID-19 shot mandate. In reversing the trial judge’s previous decision to dismiss this case, and also examining the fact that the mandate had been dropped, the court looked at two issues: mootness and the merits of plaintiff’s claims that among other things, these products are not vaccines.

From mootness to merits

Mootness means a claim is no longer valid, if for example, the conduct sued over has been stopped. The June 7 opinion found that LAUSD had a pattern of off-and-on mandates that smacked of gaming the legal system and that therefore they should not benefit from this doctrine. Hence the mandate being dropped twelve days after oral arguments in the case was seen as disingenuous. On the merits of the claims, the Ninth Circuit rules that the trial judge has wrongly applied the key case of Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905). Using this case, this judge decided that since there was a “rational basis” meeting the Jacobson standard the case should be dismissed.

**Will Jacobson survive as science evolves?**

Yet in the present case, the plaintiffs are asserting that the vaccines do not prevent spread, instead reducing severity of disease and that therefore they are a medical treatment and not a “traditional” product. In the early stages of litigation, the Ninth Circuit reminds us, if the defendant moves to dismiss, the plaintiffs’ claims must be accepted as true. Here, these plaintiffs plausibly asserted that these COVID-19 vaccines do not effectively “prevent the spread” of the disease. So that Jacobson does not apply. And given that plaintiffs’ claims match well with the current and developing science, all signs bode well for this litigation.
https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/ninth-circuit-federal-court-of-appeals-if-plaintiffs-claims-are-true-mrna-covid-19-shots-not-really-a-vaccine-0476be1c