Originally Posted by
KerrAvon
I've spotted the problem, EO.
The case that the article concerns was an appeal against a decision to strike out a court case in which it was alleged that the LA vaccines mandate was unlawful. The strike out was based on a previous decision in which it was held that mandates were lawful where the vaccine in question was a compulsory treatment for the health benefit of others.
The appellants argued that the earlier decision was based on a different factual position as the CDC had subsequently changed their definition of 'vaccine'.
The court didn't make a ruling on whether the COVID vaccines prevent transmission. They didn't need to. They simply accepted that the change in the definition of the word vaccine might take the current case out of the ambit of the earlier decision. The claim in your link was a mere sales puff or a load of bollox, if you prefer.
The decision strikes me as quite a poor one. The definition of 'vaccine' is a matter of fact, not something that is determined by what the CDC says.
It's actually quite an interesting case and one that I will watch as it progresses.
From this I have deduced that in your search for your truth, you either can't or don't distinguish between froth and fact. That's a very dangerous place to be if you are a regular visitor to rabid antivaxx sites that are heavy on froth and low on fact.
Hall Of Fame
Reply With Quote