No Decision Yet in Case Challenging “Vaccines”

by Sharon Rondeau

(Jul. 19, 2022) – U.S. District Judge Dale A. Kimball has not yet rendered a ruling in the case of Griner v. Biden, et al challenging the nature of the products rolled out in mid-December 2020 known as COVID-19 “vaccines.”

On July 6, a motions hearing took place by Zoom at the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, during which Kimball heard arguments from each side as to why the case should go forward or be dismissed, respectively.

As of Monday night, the PACER docket indicates Kimball’s intention to issue a ruling “in due course” which has not yet taken place. However, between July 7 and July 18, defendants and plaintiff have filed subsequent motions.

The case was discussed late last month in an interview between Dr. David Martin, PhD and Greg Hunter of USAWatchdog during which Martin characterized the “vaccines” as “bioweapons” whose manufacture dates back to 1998, according to research conducted by his company, M-CAM.

“The fact is that when you inject mRNA into a human being,…” Martin said (3:30), “that mRNA makes the human body produce a scheduled toxin, and by ‘scheduled toxin,’ I mean the spike protein modeled after the coronavirus spike protein, and we need to be clear on the fact that by all of their own admission, the spike protein that the injection manufactures is a computer simulation of a chimera of the spike protein of coronavirus. It is in fact not a coronavirus vaccine; it is a spike protein instruction to make the human body produce a toxin, and that toxin has been scheduled as a known biologic agent of concern with respect to biological weapons for the last now decade and a half.”

Martin’s company lent support to a federal case wherein a ruling in April deemed the mask mandate on “conveyances” unconstitutional.

During the July 6 hearing, Atty. George Wentz for the plaintiff agreed with the defendants’ attorney, Joel McElvain, that CMS has the authority to mandate the shots for healthcare employees at institutions which receive Medicare and Medicaid funding, as ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year. However, Wentz argued that the injections are not, per se, “vaccines” given they have been found, according to CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky, not to prevent transmission of the virus.

On page 4 of the 32-page complaint, Wentz wrote that the CDC has altered its definition of “vaccine” since the coronavirus products were released to the public from “A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease” to “A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.”

The definition of “vaccination,” too, was changed, Wentz pointed out.

His client, Dr. Devan Griner, MD, Wentz wrote, argues that having recovered from COVID-19 late last year, he does not need the “treatment” of an injection but in refusing same, has been prevented from carrying on his work as a pediatric plastic surgeon and operator of “a nonprofit organization founded to help local children along their reconstructive journey” (p. 23).