"The plaintiffs argued that the COVID-19 vaccine, unlike traditional vaccines, does not prevent transmission or provide immunity, making it more akin to a medical treatment than a public health measure."
Except traditional vaccines do not prevent transmission, either. In fact, in dozens of studies, transmission of pathogens via the fluids…
"The plaintiffs argued that the COVID-19 vaccine, unlike traditional vaccines, does not prevent transmission or provide immunity, making it more akin to a medical treatment than a public health measure."
Except traditional vaccines do not prevent transmission, either. In fact, in dozens of studies, transmission of pathogens via the fluids of one person, causing another to fall ill, has never been proven. Nor has such a "novel" pathogen as SARS-CoV-2 been shown to exist in anything but a computer simulation.
My fear is that this ruling actually gives further cover to mandates for the administration of those "traditional" vaccines - all of which are poison and have never had a single measurable health benefit.
"The plaintiffs argued that the COVID-19 vaccine, unlike traditional vaccines, does not prevent transmission or provide immunity, making it more akin to a medical treatment than a public health measure."
Except traditional vaccines do not prevent transmission, either. In fact, in dozens of studies, transmission of pathogens via the fluids of one person, causing another to fall ill, has never been proven. Nor has such a "novel" pathogen as SARS-CoV-2 been shown to exist in anything but a computer simulation.
My fear is that this ruling actually gives further cover to mandates for the administration of those "traditional" vaccines - all of which are poison and have never had a single measurable health benefit.