The Core Issue:
COVID was never an emergency and the vaccines were always dangerous and ineffective. This case demonstrated just how dangerous and ineffective those vaccines were and continue to be. In this case we asked the court to stop the government mandates for COVID vaccines on a number of plaintiffs that Biden and Harris were going to ensure were fired if they did not accept these experimental gene therapies (so much for my body my choice).
This case ended up forcing the government to end the vaccine mandate on government contractors which ultimately spread throughout the system. It was the beginning of the end for the vax mandates.
[SEE THE FULL LEGAL COMPLAINT AND CASE BELOW]
Grounds for the Case:
- Efficacy Concerns: Early evidence suggested that the vaccines, particularly those using modRNA technology, did not prevent the spread of the virus or offer substantial protection against infection as initially claimed. This case highlighted these discrepancies using contemporary scientific citations and data.
- Safety Profile: The vaccines were labeled by some as “experimental gene therapies,” pointing towards potential long-term effects and immediate side effects that were either downplayed or not fully understood at the time of mandate initiation.
In this complaint we provided evidence and citations related to the issues with the COVID vaccines. Note that this case was filed in 2021. We knew that far back, the modRNA (not mRNA) vaccines were garbage. We knew they did nothing to prevent the spread of COVID and they did not provide any real protection. This case [arguably] was a major factor in ending the federal vaccine mandates.
Funding and Support:
Initially funded by America’s Frontline Doctors, we continued to move forward with the case with personal funding and public donations from supporters of the show and our work, like you, after the organization stepped back.
Conclusion:
This case was a call for reevaluating how health policies are enforced, especially when they infringe upon personal liberties. By challenging the mandates, it not only questioned the scientific backing of the vaccines at that time but also opened a broader dialogue on the balance between public health measures and individual rights.
- Educate Yourself: Dive into the case documents below and related legal discussions to understand the nuances of this health policy debate.
- Engage in Dialogue: Use this case as a reference for discussions on how health policies should respect personal freedoms.
- Support The Research and Lawsuits: If this case resonates with your views on personal choice, consider supporting our research and legal efforts HERE. We greatly appreciate every generous donation you make.
