Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

375

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has delivered a seismic decision that could reshape public health policy across the nation.

In a contentious case involving the Health Freedom Defense Fund and other plaintiffs versus the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), the court has declared that mRNA COVID-19 injections do not qualify as vaccines under traditional medical definitions.

The case revolved around the LAUSD’s COVID-19 vaccination policy, which required all employees to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 by a specified deadline.

The plaintiffs argued that the district’s vaccine mandate infringed upon their fundamental right to refuse medical treatment, as the mRNA injections do not prevent the transmission of COVID-19 but merely mitigate symptoms for the recipient. . .

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has delivered a seismic decision that could reshape public health policy across the nation. >In a contentious case involving the Health Freedom Defense Fund and other plaintiffs versus the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), the court has declared that mRNA COVID-19 injections do not qualify as vaccines under traditional medical definitions. >The case revolved around the LAUSD’s COVID-19 vaccination policy, which required all employees to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 by a specified deadline. >The plaintiffs argued that the district’s vaccine mandate infringed upon their fundamental right to refuse medical treatment, as the mRNA injections do not prevent the transmission of COVID-19 but merely mitigate symptoms for the recipient. . . [Archive](https://archive.today/vTpCn)

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (5).
[–] • 0 pt

I've submitted archives only in the past, only to get grief from some anons that they can't seem to open the archives for some reason. Another negative, others may post the same article because I put the Archived version in the url field and they don't get flagged that the same article was recently posted when they put the source article in the url. By submitting the archive vs the source article it bypasses AOU's url test that verifies the article was not recently submitted.

I've chosen to do both, submit the source article in the url field to work with AOU's code to check for prior submission and I add the archive in the post body so folks like you can read the article without benefiting the source url bean counters. This seems to be the best of both worlds, keeps the majority of POALers happy.