Originally Posted by jdog View Post
Originally Posted by redietz View Post
I say "not-vaccines" because that is their current legal status in at least one US state, which may serve as precedent for the country.
Which state are you referring to here?

A lawsuit in California is moving forward regarding whether Covid-19 vaccines were indeed vaccines in the generally defined sense. Near as I can tell, the argument against was that the actions requiring "vaccination" are no longer in force, therefore moot. But not being a lawyer, I'm not sure this was the main thrust of the counter-argument. This lawsuit figures to go all the way, as the damages involved will be earth-shaking. Basically, Covid-19 vaccines as "vaccines" didn't pass the first legal checklist, so on we go.

This is going to be fascinating, as what'll be examined is the retro-fitting of the definition of the word and industry of "vaccines" to include the mRNA products. It becomes a question of whether an industry can legally medically redefine a product based on its own immediate preferences, as opposed to a general, accepted definition of a product that's been used for decades.

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datasto...7/22-55908.pdf