The Poke's Lawsuit Immunity in Trouble

Told ya...

Various companies and government entities have claimed lawsuit immunity in requiring “the poke” because of an abomination of a Supreme Court ruling called Jacobson v Massachusetts.

PoliticalArena explained in detail HERE why Jacobson v Massachusetts is considered heinous by ethical lawyers and not rational by today’s legal standards. Among other reasons, Jacobson v Massachusetts was also cited to justify the emergency powers used in Korematsu v United States where the court ruled that the internment of Japanese Americans was acceptable.

Misapplication of Jacobson was also used in another abomination Buck v. Bell, the involuntary sterilization of citizens deemed unworthy to procreate. Jacobson, Korematsu and Bell have long been considered to be a “Trilogy of Infamy” in jurisprudence.

Before COVID, even the National Institute of Health published peer reviewed papers saying that rulings like Jacobson are completely unnecessary and violate people’s liberty.

Jacobson is so bad it is akin to citing Plessy v. Fergusson as rational precedent. Yet, some bad judges who believe that in an “emergency” the government can do whatever it wants, Constitution be damned, cite it.

The case HEALTH FREEDOM DEFENSE FUND, INC. V. ALBERTO CARVALHO (Case No: 22-55908) involves a group of plaintiffs, including the Health Freedom Defense Fund, Inc. and California Educators for Medical Freedom, who challenged the COVID-19 vaccination policy of the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD).

The case was initially dismissed by the United States District Court for the Central District of California, which applied a “rational basis” review under Jacobson v. Massachusetts, concluding that the policy served a legitimate government purpose, holding that even if the vaccine did not prevent transmission or contraction of COVID-19, it furthered the purpose of protecting LAUSD students and employees from COVID-19.

The Ninth Circuit, in an amazing display of rationality, disagreed.

The rationale in Jacobson was that this traditional vaccine stopped the spread of smallpox, and the United States had no other real way of effectively combating the pandemic as the medical resources of the time were extremely limited by today’s standards.

The problem is that the COVID poke is not a traditional vaccine. In fact, the government changed the definition of vaccine four times in an attempt to call it a vaccine. The truth is that the poke is not a vaccine at all in the traditional sense, it is a therapeutic, and not a very good one at that, as the poke does nothing to stop people from getting or transmitting COVID.

The appeals court ruled that if it can be demonstrated (and it can) that the poke does not behave as a traditional vaccine, the rational basis for Jacobson no longer applies. So, the lawsuits can continue.

Does this mean that Pfizer and Moderna can be sued tomorrow? Not yet, but it is a good step in the right direction.

Related:

Famed Attorney Robert Barnes Gives Update on Pfizer Whistleblower Lawsuit - LINK.