“mRNA COVID jab not vaccine”: 9th Circuit Court rules mRNA COVID jab not a vaccine – What is it?

1. mRNA COVID-19 jab
2. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling
3. Traditional medical definitions

In a groundbreaking decision, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are not considered traditional vaccines. This ruling raises questions about the true nature of these vaccines and their effectiveness in preventing the transmission of the virus. Marketed as vaccines, the mRNA clot shots may not provide the same level of protection as previously thought. As the debate over the classification of these vaccines continues, it is important for the public to stay informed and make decisions based on the most up-to-date information available. Stay tuned for more developments on this controversial issue.

BREAKING: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Rules mRNA COVID-19 Jab is NOT a Vaccine Under Traditional Medical Definitions

So if it’s not a vaccine, what is it?

You may also like to watch: Is US-NATO Prepared For A Potential Nuclear War With Russia - China And North Korea?

This Ruling asserts that the mRNA clot shots, marketed as vaccines, do not effectively prevent the transmission of… pic.twitter.com/r0F7WcRUUV

— MJTruthUltra (@MJTruthUltra) June 8, 2024

Related Story.

In a recent groundbreaking decision, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that mRNA COVID-19 jabs are not considered vaccines under traditional medical definitions. This ruling has sparked widespread debate and confusion among the public, leaving many to wonder: if it’s not a vaccine, then what exactly is it?

The court’s decision challenges the widely held belief that mRNA shots, such as those developed by Pfizer and Moderna, are traditional vaccines. Instead, the ruling asserts that these shots, often referred to as vaccines, do not effectively prevent the transmission of COVID-19. This has raised questions about the efficacy and classification of these mRNA clot shots in the fight against the ongoing pandemic.

So, if mRNA COVID-19 jabs are not considered vaccines, then what are they? According to the court’s ruling, these shots function differently from traditional vaccines, which work by introducing a weakened or inactivated virus into the body to trigger an immune response. In contrast, mRNA shots utilize a small piece of genetic material from the virus to instruct cells in the body to produce a spike protein, which then triggers an immune response.

While both traditional vaccines and mRNA shots aim to stimulate the immune system to protect against the virus, the court’s ruling highlights the distinction between the two methods of vaccination. By categorizing mRNA shots as something other than vaccines, the court has opened up a new conversation about how these shots are classified and regulated.

This decision has significant implications for the ongoing COVID-19 vaccination campaign, as it challenges the narrative surrounding the safety and effectiveness of mRNA shots. With concerns about breakthrough infections and waning immunity, the classification of these shots as non-vaccines raises questions about their long-term protection against the virus.

In response to the ruling, health officials and vaccine manufacturers have emphasized the importance of continued vaccination efforts, regardless of the classification of mRNA shots. They argue that these shots still provide valuable protection against severe illness and hospitalization, even if they may not completely prevent transmission of the virus.

Despite the controversy surrounding the court’s decision, it is important for the public to stay informed and educated about the latest developments in the fight against COVID-19. By understanding the differences between traditional vaccines and mRNA shots, individuals can make informed decisions about their health and safety.

In conclusion, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling on the classification of mRNA COVID-19 jabs as non-vaccines has sparked a heated debate about the nature of these shots and their role in the pandemic response. While the decision has raised questions about their efficacy, it is essential for individuals to stay informed and consult with healthcare professionals to make the best choices for their health.