Editor 
By LINDA BOYLE
Every day, more truth emerges concerning Covid-19 and “vaccines.” For years there have been debates and arguments whether or not the Covid-19 mRNA jab is a vaccine by definition. The truth is finally coming out.
While the debate raged, the CDC changed the definition of vaccines to include treatments like the Covid-19 shots. This caused further outrage.
An “AP fact checker” wrote in 2022 that to claim it wasn’t a vaccine was “missing context.” Yes, CDC had changed its definition and yes, it was after the development of the Covid-19 jab. But it did not “alter the overall definition” and was done to prevent “misinterpretations.” The changes were just accomplished to “reflect evolution of the vaccine research and technology.”
The AP fact checker stated that the CDC has changed the definition of vaccine over the years and the latest change had nothing to do with problems with the coronavirus vaccines”.”
“The CDC has altered the language in the definition of vaccination on its website, including after the development of COVID-19 vaccines, but the changes were made to prevent potential misinterpretations, and did not alter the overall definition, according to the agency. Experts confirmed to The Associated Press that the changes reflect the evolution of vaccine research and technology. The AP was able to verify through web archives that the language on a CDC page titled “Immunization Basics,” has changed in these ways over time. But this does not mean that the agency altered it because of problems with the coronavirus vaccines,” AP wrote.
That was in February of 2022.
Those who have argued the Covid-19 shot is not actually a vaccine received good news this week from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Ninth Circuit Court ruled the Covid-19 jab does not meet the definition of a vaccine under “traditional medical definitions.”
The case came out of a lawsuit filed by the Health Freedom Defense Fund and other plaintiffs against the Los Angeles United School District and its vaccine policy that required all employees to get the Covid-19 shots by a certain date.
The plaintiffs stated the shot requirement “infringed upon their fundamental right to refuse medical treatment” citing mRNA shots don’t prevent transmission of Covid-19—they only mitigate symptoms.
The court, which covers nine states and two territories to include Alaska, agreed with the plaintiffs and stated this “crucial distinction undermines the foundational premise of the vaccine mandates enforced by various governmental and educational institutions.” Judge Collins went on to say forcing people to get something for their alleged health benefits infringes on “the fundamental right to refuse such treatments.”
Although the Los Angeles school district dropped its Covid vaccine mandate for school staff last year, the lawsuit over workers’ rights may proceed, the 9th District Court ruled on Friday.
Readers may recall in a 2022 European Union hearing, Pfizer’s President of International Developed Markets Janine Small stated they never tested the shot’s ability to stop transmission — despite what had been widely advertised.
Perhaps there is finally some justice that will occur for those who exercised their individual rights during this mass fear campaign. Perhaps they will get their jobs back and not have to take any more of these “vaccines” that violate their rights.
How many federal employees lost their jobs for refusing this so-called “vaccine”? How many military members lost their jobs? How many health care employees lost their jobs? How many private-sector employees lost their jobs?
As Mark Twain once said, “It is easier to fool people than to convince them they’ve been fooled.”
It’s more than a matter of semantics. It’s about individual freedom to decide about medical treatment.
Linda Boyle, RN, MSN, DM, was formerly the chief nurse for the 3rd Medical Group, JBER, and was the interim director of the Alaska VA. Most recently, she served as Director for Central Alabama VA Healthcare System. She is the director of the Alaska Covid Alliance.
