It still boggles the mind how we allowed so many people to suffer horrendous loss as a result of the 2020 plandemic. People lost their jobs, their businesses, their sanity, and their lives. And while people were suffering, the courts were mainly silent.
In addition to inaction from the courts, leaders, even in Tennessee, were shaming and coercing individuals to mask, distance, and get vaccinated. Governor Bill Lee tweeted in 2020 that the “vaccine will not cure selfishness and indifference.” This statement was to shame those Tennesseans who chose to celebrate Thanksgiving with their families and in gatherings instead of staying locked in their homes.
And in 2021, sixteen Tennessee state senators signed a letter stating that “The vaccines have been found to be safe and effective against COVID-19,” “the COVID-19 vaccines were developed utilizing high standards… with few adverse effects,” “[t]he COVID-19 vaccines save lives,” and “we strongly urge all Tennesseans…[to] get vaccinated.”
Even then, many of us instinctively knew that they had this all wrong. Our rights were being stripped by an aberration. And though we fought and pleaded, there was nowhere to turn and those pleas fell on deaf ears. We were labeled conspiracy theorists. As it turns out, those conspiracies were true, very true.
Now on the other side of the conspiracy, data pouring in from all over the world has proven that these so-called vaccines were never safe and effective. In 2023, the FDA revoked the authorization for the Johnson & Johnson shot. Just this year, AstraZeneca has now pulled its COVID shot from the shelves. And the Pfizer shot continues to be in litigation with demands for testing and research documentation to be released to the public. Meanwhile, stories of sudden deaths of otherwise healthy and young individuals continue including professional athletes at the top of their game.
Beyond the issue of whether or not the shot is effective, is the now central question of what to call it. Our government, the compliant media, and the pharmaceutical industry sold the idea that this was a vaccine that prevented both contraction and transmission of the disease. As it turns out, we now know that to be false and that point has been largely conceded.
On June 7th, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion in Health Freedom Defense Fund v Carvalho (Superintendent of the Los Angeles United School District), acknowledging allegations that the vaccine did not “prevent transmission or contraction of COVID-19.” In other words, the court buys the argument that this prophylactic is not a “vaccine” but more characterized as a “medical treatment.” And that is an important distinction.
This case involves a lawsuit by school employees who are suing the school district in Los Angeles over their continued mandates for the shot as a condition of employment. The central question is whether or not the school district has the authority to make such a mandate and whether or not such a mandate violates the constitutional rights of these employees.
The district court upheld the mandate on the basis of the Jacobson v Massachusetts case from 1905. (For more information about the Jacobson case, watch this video that we produced over three years ago in the heat of the plandemic.) The appellate court, however, has now overturned that ruling on the basis that Jacobson 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.”
The court went on to explain that,
“In Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997), the Court explained that Cruzan’s posited “‘right of a competent individual to refuse medical treatment’” was “entirely consistent with this Nation’s history and constitutional traditions,” in light of “the common-law rule that forced medication was a battery, and the long legal tradition protecting the decision to refuse unwanted medical treatment.” Id. at 724–25 (citation omitted). Given these statements in Glucksberg, the right described there satisfies the history-based standards that the Court applies for recognizing “fundamental rights that are not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.” Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., 597 U.S. 215, 237–38 (2022). The Supreme Court’s caselaw thus clarifies that compulsory treatment for the health benefit of the person treated—as opposed to compulsory treatment for the health benefit of others— implicates the fundamental right to refuse medical treatment.”
As with most things, this court ruling is not all good news. But there is a silver lining.
The court unfortunately holds that Jacobson would still apply in a situation where an actual vaccine would be necessary to save the lives of others. In other words, the belief is that governmental authority has a power to mandate vaccination where it has an impact on the safety of other individuals. But they would not have the power to mandate medical treatment that would only have implications to your own wellbeing or safety. They glean from common-law tradition that one has a right to “refuse unwanted medical treatment,” but apparently only in the case that this treatment does not carry potential implications for others.
In light of that, this is not really a ruling that bolsters the ideas of medical freedom that so many are working towards.
Additionally, the court continues to misapply Jacobson in the sense that the precedent of a mandate for an inoculation only applies to the actions of a state legislature. Jacobson does not support these same actions taken by governors by executive order, unelected state boards of health, employers, or even Congress. The case from 1905 only specifically dealt with a requirement that had been passed into law by a state legislature under its authority per police powers and the 10th Amendment. Unfortunately, this glaring fact is always left out of these court opinions, and they continue to use Jacobson to validate even the actions of a local school board.
On a positive note, this court opinion is taking us closer to the truth about the shots developed for COVID by Pfizer and the like. Once the dust settles, if indeed the final outcome of this case includes an acknowledgment that the so-called vaccine was never anything more than a medical treatment for symptoms of a disease but not a preventative measure, then we might be that much closer to seeing some level of accountability.
