Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

COVID-19

Federal court rules COVID shots don’t stop transmission of virus, sides with anti-mandate lawsuit

Published

5 minute read

An appeals court ruled that mRNA COVID-19 shots do not prevent viral transmission and therefore that mandating COVID injections lacks legal basis.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Friday vacated the dismissal of a lawsuit against a California school district for mandating COVID shots, brought forth by the Health Freedom Defense Fund, California Educators for Medical freedom, and other plaintiffs.

The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) had required that employees get the injections or “lose their jobs,” which the plaintiffs said “interfered with their fundamental right to refuse medical treatment,” the appeals court noted.

The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California had defended LAUSD’s jab mandate on the grounds that the 1905 Supreme Court decision Jacobson v. Massachusetts upheld the right of states to mandate smallpox vaccinations.

READ: CDC discloses 780,000 new reports of serious side effects after COVID-19 vaccination

However, in an opinion penned by Judge R. Nelson, the Ninth Circuit appeals court said that the whole basis of Jacobson was the assumption that vaccines prevented the transmission of smallpox, whereas the plaintiffs in this case “have plausibly alleged that the COVID-19 vaccine does not effectively ‘prevent the spread’ of COVID-19.”

“At this stage, we must accept Plaintiff’s allegations that the vaccine does not prevent the spread of COVID-19 as true. And, because of this, Jacobson does not apply,” wrote Judge Nelson.

The plaintiffs also asserted that the mRNA COVID shots are not “traditional” vaccines, in part because the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) changed its definition of a “vaccine” in September 2021, from a product that “produce[s] immunity” to a “preparation” which “stimulate[s] the body’s immune response.”

“Their complaint’s crux is that the COVID-19 ‘vaccine’ is not a vaccine,” Nelson explained. “’Traditional’ vaccines, Plaintiffs claim, should prevent transmission or provide immunity to those who get them. But the COVID-19 vaccine does neither.”

As LifeSiteNews has previously reported, Pfizer’s president of international developed markets, Janine Small, affirmed during a European Union (EU) hearing that the pharma giant did not test the ability of its mRNA COVID-19 jabs to stop transmission of the virus, but pushed them through anyway to keep up with “the speed of science.”

This contradicted prior claims by CDC Director Rochelle Walensky and other prominent U.S. “experts” that the vast majority of people who had gotten “fully vaccinated” would not get or transmit COVID-19. U.S. President Joe Biden also falsely asserted that people who had gotten jabbed couldn’t spread COVID to others. Their claims lent credence to efforts in the United States and abroad to require people to get injected with the experimental shots before being allowed to participate in social life.

Dr. Anthony Fauci himself declared numerous times that people who take the injections become “dead ends to the virus,” before later reversing himself, as others supporters of the COVID jabs have done, including Bill Gates.

Small’s admission that Pfizer did not determine whether the COVID shots could stop transmission prompted Member of European Parliament Rob Roos to publicly declare that it was “shocking” and “even criminal” that governments allowed vaccine passports to become a reality when Pfizer had not even tested whether the shots stopped transmission.

READ: ‘So many have died’: Former Japanese minister apologizes for COVID jab-linked deaths

significant body of evidence links serious risks to the COVID shots. Among it, VAERS reports 37,544 deaths, 216,213 hospitalizations, 21,668 heart attacks, and 28,366 myocarditis and pericarditis cases as of April 26, among other ailments. U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) researchers have recognized a “high verification rate of reports of myocarditis to VAERS after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination,” leading to the conclusion that “under-reporting is more likely” than over-reporting.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

COVID-19

Court decision allows Trudeau gov’t to avoid accountability on COVID travel app, top legal group says

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Four Canadians who refused to comply with the government’s border surveillance program had charges against them withdrawn, but no determination was made on the constitutionality of forcing the unvaccinated to quarantine.

A constitutional legal group says a recent court decision to withdraw charges leveled against four men who refused to go along with a COVID border surveillance program means the federal government “escaped accountability” for rules that targeted jab-free Canadians.

“This outcome is bittersweet for each of our clients,” said Chris Fleury, an attorney for the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF), in a recent press release sent to LifeSiteNews.

“It is positive for each of them personally. On the other hand, they were deeply interested in seeking a determination of the constitutionality of the irrational and unscientific decision forcing unvaccinated Canadians to quarantine.”

Fleury noted that the court ruling means the federal government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has “again escaped accountability for Covid policy decisions that breached Canadians’ Charter rights.”

The JCCF said the City of Mississauga withdrew “five charges against four Canadians who refused to comply with ArriveCAN requirements at the Toronto Pearson International Airport.”

The federal government’s $59.5 million scandal-ridden ArriveCAN travel app was introduced in April 2020 and mandated in November 2020. The app was used to track the COVID jab status of those entering the country and to enforce quarantines when deemed necessary.

When the app was mandated, all travelers entering Canada had to use it to submit their travel and contact information as well as any COVID vaccination details before crossing the border or boarding a flight.

In February, LifeSiteNews reported that Conservative Party MPs accused the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) of lying to Parliament over sweetheart contracting approvals concerning ArriveCAN.

Man revealed COVID jab status after breaking down under ‘pressure,’ then hit will $5,000 fine

“After arriving in Toronto from the Netherlands, Mr. Sly-Hooten felt that his personal medical information should remain private and chose not to disclose his vaccination status via ArriveCAN. In response, Peel Regional Police and Public Health Agency of Canada personnel detained him,” the JCCF said.

The JCCF added that “under pressure” and without any “counsel,” Sly-Hooten “broke down and revealed his vaccination status.”

“He received a $5,000 ticket for violating the Quarantine Act and was ordered to quarantine in his home for 14 days,” the JCCF explained.

The JCCF noted that it was able to help Sly-Hooten launch a constitutional challenge “against ArriveCAN, citing his right to liberty, his right to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure, his right to be free from arbitrary arrest and detention, and his right to counsel after arrest and detention – all protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

Other withdrawn tickets include those issued to Mark Spence, Aaron Grubb, and Evan Kraayenbrink.

The JCCF noted that, like Sly-Hooten, “each were charged for choosing not to provide information via ArriveCAN and were ordered to quarantine for 14 days.”

“Prosecutors have withdrawn the charges because they believe it is not in the public interest to expend further resources on a trial,” the JCCF said. “This outcome follows a similar pattern of ArriveCAN-related charges being dropped before their trials in what appears to be an attempt to shield the controversial program from constitutional scrutiny. In other words, charges are being dropped before the merits of constitutional challenges to ArriveCAN can be heard by the courts.”

Canadians were told ArriveCAN was supposed to have cost $80,000, but the number quickly ballooned to $54 million, with the latest number showing it cost $59.5 million.

The app itself was riddled with tech glitches along with privacy concerns from users.

Canadian Auditor General Karen Hogan announced an investigation of ArriveCAN in November 2022 after the House of Commons voted 173-149 for a full audit of the controversial app.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates (OGGO) is investigating how various companies such as Dalian, Coaradix, and GC Strategies received millions in taxpayer dollars to develop the contentious quarantine-tracking program.

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Employee wins lawsuit filed by gov’t agency after losing job for refusing COVID shot

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Emily Mangiaracina

The federal government successfully sued on her behalf, citing a Title VII violation.

A former assistant manager who was fired after applying for a religious accommodation to refuse the COVID shot has been awarded a six-figure payout after a federal government agency filed a lawsuit on the employee’s behalf.

Federal Judge M. Casey Rodgers on Thursday ordered the Pensacola, Florida store Hank’s Fine Furniture (HFI) to pay a former manager, identified in the lawsuit as “K.M.O.,” $110,000 for refusing to accommodate her request for exemption from the COVID shot due to her “sincerely held Christian beliefs.”

“HFI is permanently enjoined from discriminating against any employee on the basis of religion in violation of Title VII,” Rodgers wrote, the Pensacola News Journal reported Monday. He further declared that HFI “will reasonably accommodate employee and prospective employee religious beliefs during all hiring, discipline and promotion activities,” and “any activity affecting any other terms and conditions of employment.”

Significantly, the store also “cannot require proof that an employee’s or applicant’s religious objection to an employer requirement be an official tenet or endorsed teaching of said religious belief,” according to Pensacola News Journal.

Hank’s Furniture must also adopt a written policy, disseminated to all employees, declaring that HFI “will not require any employee to violate sincerely held religious beliefs, including those pertaining to vaccinations, as a condition of his/her employment.”

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued on behalf of K.M.O. (EEOC v. Hank’s Furniture, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-24533-MCR-HTC) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida after it was unable to reach a pre-litigation settlement “through its administrative conciliation process.”

According to Pensacola News Journal, about two weeks after HFI implemented a policy mandating that its employees receive a COVID shot, K.M.O. told the company she would not get the shot due to her “sincerely held religious beliefs,” and then requested a religious exemption.

According to the lawsuit, HFI ignored her request and asked if she would comply with their COVID shot policy, and K.M.O. then told HFI she planned to submit a written religious accommodation request, asking “whether HFI had a particular form she should use.”

HFI reportedly did not respond to her request. When K.M.O. complained that HFI’s unwillingness to grant her a religious exemption was “unjust,” her new supervisor reportedly told her that “HFI did not care why she would not take” the COVID shot and that HFI “would never grant an accommodation.”

When K.M.O. emailed HMI on September 6, 2021, asking for the status of her religious exemption request, HFI informed her that her religious exemption request was “severely lacking,” and then denied it.

K.M.O. then “asked for help to submit an acceptable religious exemption request,” but HFI refused to discuss any accommodation, according to the lawsuit. Then on October 31, she was fired by HFI because she did not comply with their COVID “vaccination” policy.

Birmingham District Director Bradley Anderson remarked regarding the case for an EEOC press release, “Employees should not have to renounce their religious beliefs in order to remain employed. Let this case serve as a reminder that employers should afford accommodation for religious beliefs unless doing so would cause an undue hardship.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X