The Ninth Circuit Ruling in the Health Freedom Defense Fund Case, and on July 31st (just this past month), the Ninth Circuit in the US issued its ruling in Health Freedom Defense Fund et al v Megan K. Reilly et al, vacating the earlier ruling of a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit in favor of plaintiffs Health Freedom Defense Fund, California Educators for Medical Freedom, and several individual plaintiffs.

The reasoning of the court in its latest ruling, as represented by Judge Bennett’s majority opinion, is really an affront to all who value truth, justice, even the United States Constitution, and logic. Incredibly, the court concluded that as long as a government official believes a vaccine will protect public health, it is irrelevant whether the vaccine actually works. Armed with this rationale, a state government, simply by uttering the words “This is for public health,” can force any individual to submit to a medical treatment, even if that medical treatment does not benefit that individual—and perhaps harms him. The implication of this line of thinking is clear: Government is our absolute ruler, our master, and we are its chattel.

Now, here is the context of the ruling: In November 2021, the plaintiffs sued the Los Angeles Unified School District for mandating Covid injections for all employees. They argued that the Covid injections do not stop transmission or infection and therefore lack any public health justification. They contended that the Jacobson v Massachusetts case, which is a Supreme Court of the United States case from 1905, did not apply to their case because Jacobson was predicated both on (firstly) the extreme emergency posed by smallpox—as its death rate was 30%, whereas Covid has a 1% rate of death—and (secondly) on a safe and effective smallpox vaccine that was believed to actually stop the spread of the dreaded disease based on decades of use, therefore providing a public health justification. Although of course, we have discussed here on ‘The War Room’ that the science behind the smallpox vaccine was not only fallacious, but also became the basis for the rationale behind many of the vaccines today, which have a similar change of inefficacy and harm.

In any case, nearly a year later after the plaintiffs had sued the Los Angeles Unified School District, in September 2022, the district court ruled AGAINST the plaintiffs. But in January 2023 plaintiffs appealed that decision. And in June 2024 a three-judge panel ruled in favour of plaintiffs, overturning the district court and remanding the case to the district court. The next month—July 2024—the defendants filed a petition for an en banc review by the Ninth Circuit – and this is a process where an entire appellate court, rather than just a randomly selected panel of judges, reviews a case; ad is essentially a request for a broader panel of judges to reconsider a decision made by a smaller panel. Well, that petition was granted in February of 2025 and oral argument was held in front of the 11-judge panel, on March 18, 2025. It was then on July 31st that the Ninth Circuit issued its ruling in favour of the defendants and dismissed the case; resulting in an outcome where as long as a government official believes a vaccine will protect public health, it is irrelevant whether the vaccine actually works. But, before we proceed to unpack the details of the ruling, here’s a reflection from Leslie Manookian, who is on of the plaintiffs in the case.

UNPACKING THE COURT’S RULING: WHY THE JACOBSON CASE DOES NOT FIT THE STATUS QUO

Now, before we proceed, it bears mentioning that the SCOTUS has actually overturned decisions rendered by the Ninth Circuit more often than it has any other circuit court in the US. And so, this case amply serves to illustrate precisely why the Ninth has earned such a discreditable reputation. Which then necessitates that we also break down the main issues in the case, and why the court’s ruling is so controversial – especially in light of its reliance on the precedent that was established in the Jacobson case.

Now, the first issue in the case pertains to the fact that the Ninth Circuit asserted that the right to direct one’s own medical treatment is not a fundamental right. It cited several precedents, including the Mullins v Oregon case of 1995, in which the court held that (quote): “Only those aspects of liberty that we as a society traditionally have protected as fundamental are included within the substantive protection of the Due Process Clause.” Now, to be clear, nowhere does the American Constitution empower the state to dictate any medical intervention. On the contrary, the Constitution serves as a restraint on government, not on the people.

Moreover, there is not a single case in the 105 years since the Jacobson v Massachusetts case when a locality mandated a vaccination or otherwise directed the medical treatment of the people in general. Thus, the Ninth Circuit’s insinuation that American society routinely accepts vaccine mandates for adults in general is patently false. In fact, by this metric and Jacobson’s holding in 1905, women would still not be allowed to vote. IN ACTUALITY, the Jacobson case did NOT allow the state to condition employment or engagement in normal life on receipt of an injection. INSTEAD, it merely allowed the state to impose a fine, and not to condition employment or participation in normal life on receiving an injection.

The second issue in the case concerns the fact that the Ninth Circuit not only claimed that the ruling in the Jacobson v Massachusetts case is binding but it also ignored ample and more recent jurisprudence from the SCOTUS that holds otherwise. In recent decades, the SCOTUS has determined that each of us possesses a zone of privacy around us into which the state may not intrude (Griswold v Connecticut); that each of us has the right to refuse unwanted medical treatment (Washington v Harper); and that each of us has the right to refuse lifesaving medical treatment (Cruzan v Director, Missouri Department of Health). Yet the Ninth Circuit has dismissed those decisions and has hidden behind the clearly immoral and century-old Jacobson v Massachusetts.

Then, thirdly, perhaps most egregious of all its conclusions, the Ninth Circuit held that as long as authorities could reasonably assume the Covid injection had a public benefit, the policy was Constitutional—irrespective of whether the injection worked or whether any claims made by authorities were valid or true. Judge Bennett wrote that (quote): “The Jacobson v Massachusetts case holds that the constitutionality of a vaccine mandate, like the Policy here, turns on what reasonable legislative and executive decisionmakers could have rationally concluded about whether a vaccine protects the public’s health and safety, not whether a vaccine actually provides immunity to or prevents transmission of a disease.” (end quote). But, now, this contention is false. The Jacobson v Massachusetts did actually hinge on the general perception that the smallpox vaccine in particular, and vaccines in general, prevent transmission of disease (even though we now know that to be false). But, the point is that clearly, absent that ability of public benefit, there is no public health rationale. And most worryingly, by the court’s metric, a lying politician or policymaker can mandate virtually any medical intervention on the American people as long as it is under the guise of public health!

Then finally, in the Jacobson v Massachusetts case, the Court reasoned that “in every well-ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand” – which essentially tried to justify the limitation of rights in a relative context, in the same way that lockdowns were presented as being a fair limitation of the freedom of movement during COVID. BUT, even then a number of people have argued that the Ninth Circuit made a massive stretch by equating the dangers of Covid with the dangers of smallpox, because no comparison could be further from the truth. More specifically, evidence proves that early spread of Covid had already occurred across much of Los Angeles County by the spring of 2020, when research found that 4% of adults had already had the disease and had recovered from it, thereby negating the need for any preventive measures by late 2021, when the school district’s policy was implemented. In addition, it was widely documented at the time that the dangers of Covid were miniscule for all but the elderly and extremely infirm in comparison to the ravages of smallpox. Because there was provably no great danger from Covid, the Los Angeles Unified School District’s injection mandate for employees was completely unreasonable and unjustified.

But, ultimately, this is all to double down on the fact that the Ninth Circuit Court had a very generous application of the precedent found in the Jacobson v Massachusetts case. Whereas, in contrast, a number of people in the American society (and the world at large), and even Supreme Court Justices like Justice Alito, have constantly emphasised that it is dangerous to assume that the Jacobson v Massachusetts case gives broad justification for governments who wants to coerce medical interventions in society.

But, based on what we just outlined, two things standout: first, this case exposes that while the judiciary is one of the most crucial parts in a system of checks and balances in constitutional republics, by virtue of having people in this system as the judges who preside over cars, it means that the judiciary is susceptible to error or corruption, and can thus enable court-sanctioned authoritarianism – which is actually what the Ninth Circuit did is issuing a ruling that states that as long as a government official believes a vaccine will protect public health, it is irrelevant whether the vaccine actually works – because (again), a state government, simply by uttering the words “This is for public health,” can force any individual to submit to a medical treatment, even if that medical treatment does not benefit that individual—and perhaps harms him. And so, we have a categorical imperative to pray without ceasing for the judiciary in all nations.

THE HEALTH FREEDOM DEFENSE FUND CASE EXPOSES THE DANGER OF THE NEW DEFINITION OF A VACCINE

But, then secondly, this case also exposes the danger of the new definition of a vaccine. You’d recall that in 2018, the CDC’s website presented a definition of vaccines to connote the meaning that vaccines generate immunity from a disease. Of course, we have discussed here on LN24 International, including here on ‘The War Room’ how fallacious this underlying belief about vaccines has been, taking from the teachings of the President of Loveworld Incorporated, who has been at the forefront of exposing the vaccination agenda.

However, the CDC’s definition of a vaccine not only changed just before the planned COVID pandemic in 2020, but it also no longer reflects the claimed functionality of a vaccine to generate immunity against a disease – which is very complimentary to how the Ninth Circuit Court held that as long as a government official believes a vaccine will protect public health, it is irrelevant whether the vaccine actually works.

So, this change in definition explains a number of unfortunate ramifications in the status quo. First, it means an additional layer of immunity from liability for pharmaceutical companies. More specifically, pharmaceutical companies, when they are being called out for not protecting people with their vaccines, as they claim when promoting the material, can simply say that definitionally, vaccines do not inherently protect from disease. This is incredibly dangerous because ALREADY the pharmaceutical industry is granted immunity from liability, especially in the US! You’d recall that we had an abridged discussion about the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, which was signed into law in the United States as part of a larger health bill on November 14, 1986. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act’s purpose was to eliminate the potential financial liability of vaccine manufacturers due to vaccine injury claims to ensure a stable market supply of vaccines, and to provide cost-effective arbitration for vaccine injury claims. And this happened because pharmaceutical companies made the case that they simply would not be able to profit if they were open to liability.

So, what this means is that pharmaceutical products are so fundamentally likely to cause harm, that they simply cannot remain in business unless the government protects pharmaceutical companies from people demanding damage payments from them. Therefore, the change in definition of a vaccine adds to already existing laws that protects the pharmaceutical industry from liability.

However, the compounded issue when it comes to the Ninth Circuits ruling is that the court is making it appear acceptable for governments to coerce vaccine mandates on the public, for vaccines that do not have public benefit, and that the state would arbitrarily deem necessary. And so, the Ninth Circuit not only protects an income stream for pharmaceutical companies whose products could be mandated, but it also sanctions authoritarian conduct by protecting state officials who would wish to implement vaccine mandates! And it all comes down to the fact that the new definition of vaccines does not necessitate a public benefit of generating immunity against a disease.

MEANWHILE, COVID JABS ARE ALSO A DEFINITIONAL EXAMPLE OF A BIOLOGICAL WEAPON

Of course the irony of editing the definition of a vaccine to allow the COVID jab to pass as one is that the COVID jab also actually fits the definition of a bio weapon – and this has had numerous ramifications for genetics among those who have taken the jab.

But, this occurs parallel to another concerning development, where according to a recent article in the BBC, a person at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology was given £10 million by the Wellcome Trust to start making new designer DNA, because apparently our DNA is insufficient. But, yes, this is from the same Wellcome Trust that “frequently collaborates with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation on so-called global health initiatives.” In fact, in their 2024 annual report, they wrote under “Strategic partnerships” that they have forged significant collaborations with the Novo Nordisk Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and others, enhancing their ability to tackle shared global health challenges effectively.

Of course, the immediate question is “WHY?”. And according to the collaborators, the scientists’ first aim is to develop ways of building ever larger blocks of human DNA, up to the point when they have synthetically constructed a human chromosome. These contain the genes that govern the human body’s development, repair, and maintenance. They add that these can then be studied and experimented on to learn more about how genes and DNA regulate human bodies. In fact, Prof Matthew Hurles, director of the Wellcome Sanger Institute which sequenced the largest proportion of the Human Genome, even added that many diseases occur when these genes go wrong so the studies could lead to better treatments. HOWEVER, they conveniently leave out how this can be manipulated for harm – much like how the COVID jab was developed to be a biological weapon of significant genetic disruption – and this is a fact that many scientists and medical professionals have testified concerning. And so, when a new invention is being devised, it is incumbent on us to always consider how it could be abused, and if the potential harms outweigh the potential benefits.

Now, speaking of whether potential harms outweigh potential benefits, the science is fairly settled on the fact that the COVID jab is not only a biological weapon of genetic disruption, but one whose harms far outweigh any claimed benefits. In actual fact, it has come to the fore that the COVID shots infiltrate every organ system, including the brain, heart, bone marrow. In addition, over 17 million COVID-19 vaccine deaths have been reported worldwide, with conservative US estimates at approximately 600,000 deaths. Meanwhile, there have also been reports of long-term genetic disruption, as thousands of critical genes regulating immunity and cancer suppression are dysregulated after mRNA injection; and spike DNA and mRNA fragments have been detected in the body years after injection — suggesting genomic integration! And so (once again) the irony of editing the definition of a vaccine to allow the COVID jab to pass as one is that the COVID jab also actually fits the definition of a bio weapon.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

In a diabolical new development, scientists have unveiled a controversial method for delivering mRNA vaccines using dental floss instead of needles. Dental floss, of all things, has become the latest delivery system for “vaccines,” bypassing injectables and entering uncharted territory in mRNA technology. In light of this, a study published in Nature Biomedical Engineering reveals how researchers laced dental floss with mRNA components and flu vaccine ingredients. They then applied it to the gums of mice. What was said to follow was an immune response that the scientists claim could revolutionise how vaccines are administered in the future. But as with everything involving mRNA technology and vaccines, the stakes are high, and so are the questions.

But, let’s start with the invention itself. So, the scientists behind this invention were said to be a group led by a Dr Rohan S. J. Ingrole of the Department of Chemical Engineering at Texas Tech University. Meanwhile, Texas Tech University, which is based in Lubbock, Texas, also receives funding from self-proclaimed philanthro-capitalist Bill Gates himself, through a grant offered through the Gates Foundation.

Now, this new dental floss “vaccine” method is further said to take advantage of the gingival sulcus, which is the tiny trench between your gums and teeth. The researchers believe this delivery method offers a unique, highly permeable entry point into the bloodstream. The gumline’s permeability could allow for vaccine molecules to be absorbed directly into the body, bypassing the complications of traditional oral methods or injections. And while the concept may seem far-fetched, it’s rooted in research that’s getting increasing attention from the vaccine enterprise and its collaborators. This is primarily because the idea is that by using floss laced with “vaccine” components, medical researchers could provide an alternative to traditional “vaccination” methods, without the need for needles, specialised medical staff, or even consent from the public!

This is to say that if the floss-based “vaccines” become widespread, there’s a real concern about consent, transparency, and safety; because this technology could be used for mass “vaccination” campaigns without the public being aware that it is being administered! In fact, given how quickly government entities and corporations have adopted new health policies in the past (particularly during the COVID plandemic), this development is likely to serve as a conduit for efforts at mass vaccination!

Secondly, this invention also raises questions of how this technology could be adapted (or – more accurately – weaponised) to add mRNA “vaccines” to other basic necessities, such as toothpaste or even drinking water. This is considering that entities such as the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (or the CDC) and even other public health bodies have pushed for easier, more accessible vaccination methods – again , like we saw during the COVID plandemic.

Well, in response to these concerns, which have been highlighted by others, even before the release of this study, the argument from supporters of floss-based mRNA delivery make a jarringly a-contextual argument. They state simply that floss-based “vaccines” could be delivered by mail, making them accessible to people anywhere without the need for a doctor or health professional to administer the shot; and that this could be convenient for mass vaccination campaigns.

The first problem with this is that it is utterly a-contextual in that it assumes that there is consensus of the plausibility of vaccines, and therefore, a corresponding need to access them with greater ease. And yet, vaccines are easily one of the most controversial inventions till date. Their claimed efficacy, benefits, and the impact they have had in enabling big pharma, while corrupting governments are a constant focus in the status quo – with examples ranging from autism discourse in the US, and Ursula von der Leyen Pfizergate scandal in the EU. But, then the second problem with the argument from supporters of the floss based mRNA delivery system is that they deliberately ignore how this mRNA delivery system opens up a massive door for coercion, whether overt or subtle. Because imagine receiving a package in the mail with instructions to simply floss your teeth to “protect yourself” from the latest health crisis. It may sound harmless to some, until you consider the implications of who’s making those decisions and how much oversight you’d really have over what’s going into your body.

And by the way, this indirect coercion is intrinsic to the vaccine enterprise’s modus operandi – affecting even the medical industry at large. For instance, Dr Daniel Neides, a respected educator at Lerner College of Medicine and Case Western Reserve University, has raised urgent concerns about the lack of vaccine education in medical schools.

He reveals a troubling reality: medical students are not taught about vaccine contents, safety records, informed consent, or the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Instead, they are required to memorize vaccine schedules to pass exams, with no discussion of the nearly $4 billion paid to vaccine-injured patients since 1992.

Neides calls this a failure to provide the fair balance expected in medical practice. Neides also highlights conflicts of interest, noting that providers are often paid to complete vaccine schedules, which may pressure them to prioritize compliance over patient concerns.

What’s more, the use of mRNA technology for this floss-based delivery method comes with its own set of concerns. And this takes place against a backdrop where we’ve already seen the risks associated with Covid mRNA “vaccines,” and the long-term effects remain uncertain and far from positive… For instance, Dr Jordan Vaughn, a clinician overseeing 170,000 patients annually, testified before the Senate, revealing critical insights on the spike protein’s dangers. As a doctor and researcher, he has witnessed the devastating impact of COVID and mRNA vaccines on millions.

He revealed that the spike protein (or S1 subunit) is far from benign. It triggers inflammation, disrupts blood vessels, promotes clotting, and forms amyloid aggregates, impairing oxygen delivery and damaging organs. Patients that he’s seen reported experiencing heart racing, brain fog, shortness of breath, and severe fatigue. In his Alabama clinic, Dr Vaughn uses immunofluorescent microscopy to detect these aggregates in patients—teenagers unable to stand and adults suffering strokes without clear causes.

Furthermore, long COVID and vaccine injuries affect 10-15 million Americans. Dr Vaughn’s clinic has treated approximately 4,000 such patients, many young and previously healthy. Their struggles are real, life-altering, and often ignored by the system, while researchers develop more mRNA delivery systems.

WHY mRNA VACCINES ARE CATEGORICALLY HARMFUL AND DANGEROUS

But, here’s why mRNA interventions are categorically harmful and dangerous – irrespective of how they are delivered into the body. In essence, mRNA vaccines use lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) to deliver modified mRNA, instructing cells to produce spike protein. Unlike traditional vaccines (which are also bad), as proven by how they have often caused or worsened the illnesses they claim to solve, the spike protein produced through the instruction given to cells from mRMA causes uncontrolled spike protein production for unknown durations, spreading to the heart, brain, vasculature, ovaries, and testes. In fact, the EMA’s assessment of Pfizer’s vaccine confirmed biodistribution beyond the injection site, contradicting claims it “stays in the arm.”

For instance, in 2021, Dr Vaughn treated a 69-year-old patient with unexplained shortness of breath after a second Pfizer dose. Tests ruled out typical causes, but anti-clotting therapy brought rapid relief. This case led him to study how spike protein induces fibrin resistant to breakdown, activates platelets, and damages blood vessels—explaining this case and thousands more.

Additionally, myocarditis signals emerged in spring 2021, particularly in young males post-mRNA vaccination. The DoD confirmed cases, studies detected spike protein in myocarditis patients, and autopsies linked fatal cases to vaccines. Yet, federal mandates intensified, sidelining these concerns. Subsequently, the CDC and FDA’s inaction—and vaccine promotion—eroded public trust. Meanwhile, the patients coerced by 2021 mandates despite prior infections or health risks, now face disability if they have not been killed by those vaccines already. And all this because Informed consent, which should be a cornerstone of medicine, was undermined – much like will be done with floss based mRMA delivery systems… But, the truth is that this is yet another step into uncharted territory, where science (or scientism) is rapidly evolving but leaving important ethical and safety considerations behind. Especially considering that no one asked for this, and natural immunity was always better.

FORCING mRNA HAS BECOME THE VACCINE ENTERPRISE’S OBSESSION

But, the reality is that not only is the vaccine enterprise aware of the dangers of mRNA vaccines, but forcing mRNA on the general public has become something of an obsession for them. For instance, you’d recall that in 2023, a team of researchers was reported to have developed what they call an inhalable vaccine against the COVID virus. It actually also makes it possible to deliver other messenger RNA therapeutics for gene replacement therapy. Now, for the so-called vaccine, the researchers demonstrated that two intranasal doses of the treatment, made with nanoparticles carrying mRNA Covid vaccine, is effective in mice. It also apparently demonstrates that an inhalable delivery system allows for minimally invasive and lung-targeted mRNA delivery, potentially applicable for numerous pulmonary diseases in addition to covid.

In their new study, the researchers showed that the shot isn’t necessary to provide protection. They state that there is no intramuscular injection, they just gave two doses, a prime and a boost, intranasally. They also state that based on their research, this method enables them to deliver different kinds of mRNA; meaning that it’s not just used for a vaccine, but potentially also for gene replacement therapy in diseases like cystic fibrosis and gene editing. Therefore, they used a vaccine-based study to show how an aereosolised mRNA vaccine works, but admit that it opens the door to doing all these other kinds of interventions… Well, this then explains the attraction of an aereosolised mRNA vaccine to the propagators of the covid debacle and vaccine enterprise at large; which is that an aerosolised mRNA vaccine is actually a tool to execute airborne interventions, such as gene editing; without having to deal with objections and dissent, or the responsibility to respect the bodily autonomy of people. Now here is how they detail aerosolisable lipid nanoparticles for a pulmonary delivery of mRNA.

Similarly, reports indicate that the vaccine enterprise and associates are spraying airborne mRNA on dense urban populations and rural areas with low vaccine uptake according to a commercial airlines pilot who has come forward to blow the whistle on chemtrails operations in North America and Europe. As the globalist so-called elite find it harder to convince humanity to submit to Covid mRNA shots and endless boosters, they are having to find deceitful new ways to force their mRNA.

According to pilots familiar with the scheme, the new airborne mRNA, known as Air Vax, is designed to deliver the vaccine right into people’s lungs, bypassing the need for injections – and the need for consent.

Then, on top of that, seemingly because it was not enough to try to forcefully vaccinate humans, the vaccine enterprise extended its efforts even to animals with the vaccination of cattle. As you can imagine, Bill Gates is also an advocate of vaccinating animals; in particular cows, and he says it is with the aim to eliminate the bacteria in their stomachs that produces methane. Meanwhile, nations like Australia and Kenya inclined themselves towards this agenda!

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso