The Turning Tide Against Tyranny
Unknown to the general public, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has changed the definition of “vaccination” several times in recent years. These are not just minor adjustments but consequential changes that radically redefined what it means to be “vaccinated”. As court battles raged against COVID “vaccine” mandates, it’s important to understand how these changes did and will impact the legal landscape.
In October 2021, AFLDS and Dr. Gold sued Kaiser Permanente on behalf of 4,000 employees being forced to comply with an illegal COVID-19 shots mandate under the coercive threat of losing their jobs and livelihood. It was evident that these shots were not vaccines as the word had been historically defined, failing to stop both infection or transmission, making them experimental therapeutics at best. Because of this, our government had no legal standing to mandate them. Leading the charge with science-based arguments, AFLDS was the first to present this legal theory to the courts. Despite violating numerous provisions of both the US Constitution and the California State Constitution, the judge refused to invalidate Kaiser’s mandate by dismissing the case. However, a recent ruling from the Ninth Circuit US Court of Appeals further validated AFLDS’ argument against these unlawful mandates.
In Health Freedom Defense Fund v. Carvalho, a three-judge panel vacated a lower court’s order which dismissed the Plaintiffs’ allegations that the Los Angeles Unified School District’s COVID-19 “vaccination” policy interfered with their fundamental right to refuse medical treatment. The Ninth Circuit recognized that because the experimental mRNA injections do not prevent infection or transmission of COVID-19, they should be considered as personal medical treatments only and cannot be forcibly mandated upon employees by the government. This groundbreaking decision exposed the truth. Because the COVID shots do not stop the spread of the disease, they cannot be classified as vaccines.
Jacobson vs. Cruzan
As lawsuits against the illegal COVID-19 “vaccine” mandates started to mount in 2021, many legal advocates relied on the precedent set by Jacobson v. Massachusetts to make their case. This landmark SCOTUS decision centered around whether or not the government could mandate the smallpox vaccine - a disease which had a very high mortality rate at that time. Jacobson held that the government may enact a mandatory vaccination law if vaccination is determined to be the best way to prevent smallpox and protect public health. However, individuals that refused the vaccine could pay a modest fine or get a medical exemption. Despite Jacobson being the leading Supreme Court precedent for public health mandates, it is the incorrect premise to use against the COVID shot policies that were pushed relentlessly during the pandemic.
From a medical perspective, the premise of Jacobson is that a vaccine stops the transmission of a contagious illness. In the case of the COVID-19 injections, overwhelming evidence shows that these shots do not prevent infection or transmission, merely claiming to reduce the symptoms of the disease. Thus, they must be classified as medical treatments and not vaccines. Therefore, legal challenges to the COVID shot mandates must look to a precedent involving the right to refuse medical treatment.
The case of Cruzan v. Director arose from a tragic car accident that left Nancy Cruzan in a vegetative state. Her family sought to end her medical treatment by taking her off life support because they believed she would prefer to die rather than remain in a vegetative condition. In short, the High Court ruled that the right of an individual to refuse medical treatment is a personal choice and cannot be dictated by the government. Cruzan very clearly states that the individual has an inalienable right to choose his or her own medical treatment.
Understanding the science behind the COVID shots, AFLDS and Dr. Gold recognized that any litigation against the mandates should focus on Cruzan over Jacobson. The lawsuit against Kaiser created the blueprint for what became the winning argument in the Health Freedom Defense Fund case. The Ninth Circuit’s ruling is a pivotal victory for the medical freedom movement and a major legal turning point for all those who have been harmed by unconstitutional mandates.
Weaponizing Words and Definitions
The strategy employed by AFLDS and Dr. Gold in the lawsuit against Kaiser is a firm reminder that these victories can be achieved by utilizing precedent-setting law while holding fast to the Constitution. In order to strengthen our legal arguments even further, we must also recognize that the tyranny of the COVID era did not happen overnight, and identify the strategies being used against us. A crucial example of this is the weaponization of words and their definitions.
The CDC’s ever-changing definition of the word “vaccination” is clear evidence of the slow burn strategy of tyranny. Prior to 2014, the CDC defined vaccination as the “injection of a killed or weakened infectious organism in order to prevent the disease.”[1] This straightforward definition is aligned with what most people understand vaccination to mean - taking the vaccine will prevent them from getting the disease which is the primary purpose of a vaccine.
However, as early as October 2014, the CDC changed the definition of vaccination to be “the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.”[2] This definition shifts the emphasis from prevention to the generation of immunity. The change appears to be subtle, but immunity is certainly a step down from prevent. Immunity means an individual is resistant but still susceptible to a disease after vaccination. Preventing the disease means vaccination stops the individual from getting infected with the disease.
In September 2021, in the middle of COVID, the CDC once again changed the definition of vaccination to be “the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection from a specific disease.”[3] This definition replaced the already weaker word “immunity” with the even weaker word “protection”. This is a significant departure from why vaccines were created in the first place: to prevent. By this new definition, vaccines are far less effective than their original definition. Prevention has been downgraded to immunity, and then downgraded again to protection: this is a far cry from the original prevention of the disease. Everyone who is disinterested in vague “protection” is now labeled with the pejorative “anti-vaxxer”.
The CDC wasn’t the only one making changes. In January 2024, Merriam-Webster added the phrase “a preparation of genetic material (such as a strand of synthesized messenger RNA)” to the definition of “vaccine”.[4] This text just burst onto the scene from … nowhere.
It’s clear that these changes were intentionally made to include the experimental mRNA technology and loop the COVID shots in with traditional vaccines. A vaccine that does not prevent infection or transmission is NOT a vaccine! Additionally, these medications require a serious reevaluation of safety, efficacy, legal and ethical implications. Under no circumstances should these medications be labeled as the same product as traditional vaccines.
The changes to the definition of “vaccination” appear subtle, but the impact is not. Because the CDC’s changes are not widely publicized, the general public is being misled and left completely unaware of the changes to the definition (and that the purpose of vaccines has fundamentally changed). Much like a frog sitting in a pot of hot water while it is being heated up, these gradual changes are made under the radar, hoping the public won’t notice until it’s too late.
This is a severe breach of trust. Judges overseeing vaccine legal disputes who rely on the traditional definition of the word will be unable to distinguish between the old and aggressively new definition. As a result, the judicial system will likely apply a vaccine legal standard that was never meant to include these new experimental injections.
The significance of these changes is that the COVID shots are not the same vaccines that the Supreme Court ruled could be mandated back in 1905 (Jacobson). Nevertheless, the government’s Orwellian tactic of retrofitting science to suit its purposes means that centuries-old laws are being applied to dangerous experimental injections. Children can be forced to take any injection under school-issued mandates as long as they fall under the CDC’s definition of a vaccine.
Moving Forward Against Tyranny
Liability protection under US law is only granted to valid vaccines. The CDC was fully aware of this key distinction when they changed the definition. The US government and its corrupt health agencies misled the public by altering definitions and pushing mandates that did not meet legal or health standards. The Ninth Circuit ruling challenges government overreach and represents a monumental victory for medical freedom, ultimately challenging Big Pharma’s unlimited liability protection and may hold them accountable for producing dangerous COVID-19 treatments. This decision could fundamentally reshape national vaccine policies and prevent unconstitutional mandates in the future. Further, this opens the door for those who lost their jobs and livelihoods for refusing the injections to seek restitution.
The tide is turning in the fight against the injustices that were perpetrated against the American people during the COVID-19 pandemic. This historic ruling paved the way for cases such as Johnson v. Kotek where the Petitioners are seeking damages resulting from illegal and unconstitutional “vaccine” mandates. AFLDS and Dr. Simone Gold recently filed an amici curiae brief with SCOTUS in support of the Petitioners, thoroughly reasoning that the Ninth Circuit’s decision has set a precedent that the High Court must uphold.
AFLDS remains committed to supporting these critical cases in the freedom fight and will continue to expose the corruption of our health agencies. Together, We the People must continue to apply unrelenting legal pressure to correct the injustices of COVID tyranny. Faith and trust in our judicial system can only exist if the court upholds the rule of law.