Mississippi starts allowing religious exemptions for childhood vaccinations

apnews.com...

JACKSON, Miss. (AP) — Mississippi is starting the court-ordered process of letting people cite religious beliefs to seek exemptions from state-mandated vaccinations that children must receive before attending day care or school.

Mississippi is one of the poorest states and has high rates of health problems such as obesity and heart disease. But it has received praise from public health officials for years because it has some of the highest rates of childhood vaccination against diseases such as polio, measles and mumps.

In April, U.S. District Judge Sul Ozerden ordered Mississippi to join most other states in allowing religious exemptions from childhood vaccinations.

His ruling came in a lawsuit filed last year by several parents who said their religious beliefs have led them to keep their children unvaccinated and out of Mississippi schools. The lawsuit, funded by the Texas-based Informed Consent Action Network, argued that Mississippi’s lack of a religious exemption for childhood vaccinations violates the U.S. Constitution.

As long as vaccines have passed all the safety protocols and are proven to be effective and beneficial for children I see no reason why kids should not be vaccinated.

But this law imo can serve as a safety net when experimental/unknown products that haven't satisfied any safety standards are pushed in the market and could harm children who have almost zero risk from getting harmed from certain viruses.

a reply to: AlienBorg

As long as vaccines have passed all the safety protocols and are proven to be effective and beneficial for children I see no reason why kids should not be vaccinated.

Perhaps a deeper dive into the issue would expose an agenda few are aware of, such as the Vaccine Injury Act of 1986.

There's an excellent article on American Thinker that's very enlightening.

In 1986, Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (HR5546). This is an historic act because it removed liability for childhood injury vaccines. Removing liability tends to alter the behavior of entities that benefit. Indeed, it turned out that pharmaceutical companies were no longer liable for injuries caused by their products. That has been the law since 1986.

Attorney Siri says that he knows of no other product that has that kind of immunity. Not planes nor drugs. But since 1986, big pharma has not had any market force check of any significance. “Think of all the products out there that warrant safety precautions, and the one you give immunity to is the one you give to babies. Think about that.”

It turned out that in the years leading up to Congress’ 1986 Act, the amount of liability that pharmaceutical companies were facing from injuries far exceeded the revenue that those products accumulated. Manufacturers went bust or withdrew from the market. You would think that the typical and responsible action would be to simply make a safer product for any remaining pharmaceutical company. That’s how market forces work. However, Congress decided that they did not have to make a safer product. Instead, they could continue to sell harmful products and would be granted immunity to boot, thereby evading a lawsuit from anyone. Equally as awful, they made this law for any vaccine made for children from that day forward.

Subsequent to Congress’ ruling, drug companies now lacked the incentive to understand the safety profile for their vaccines before they were licensed. When it comes to other medical drugs, drug companies are very interested in knowing the safety profile because they are not immune in these cases. In the event of injury, they may very well have to pay for damages. But with vaccine clinical trials, there is no concern. Since the Vaccine Injury Act, Congress created the economic basis for this attitude. Pharmaceutical companies can make their money while taking the path of least resistance. And that path corresponded with the loosening of practices connected to clinical trials.

You can read more here:
[www.americanthinker.com...]

As long as vaccines have passed all the safety protocols and are proven to be effective and beneficial for children I see no reason why kids should not be vaccinated.

P.S. Remember the mRNA was said to have passed all safety protocols and one shot would protect us from Covid. FDA, CDC, the government and all involved agencies have lost credibility. That equates to a lack of trust in a huge number of people to believe in any organizations in charge of 'helping' us stay healthy through pharmacutacles.

originally posted by: nugget1
a reply to: AlienBorg

As long as vaccines have passed all the safety protocols and are proven to be effective and beneficial for children I see no reason why kids should not be vaccinated.

Perhaps a deeper dive into the issue would expose an agenda few are aware of, such as the Vaccine Injury Act of 1986.

There's an excellent article on American Thinker that's very enlightening.

In 1986, Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (HR5546). This is an historic act because it removed liability for childhood injury vaccines. Removing liability tends to alter the behavior of entities that benefit. Indeed, it turned out that pharmaceutical companies were no longer liable for injuries caused by their products. That has been the law since 1986.

Attorney Siri says that he knows of no other product that has that kind of immunity. Not planes nor drugs. But since 1986, big pharma has not had any market force check of any significance. “Think of all the products out there that warrant safety precautions, and the one you give immunity to is the one you give to babies. Think about that.”

It turned out that in the years leading up to Congress’ 1986 Act, the amount of liability that pharmaceutical companies were facing from injuries far exceeded the revenue that those products accumulated. Manufacturers went bust or withdrew from the market. You would think that the typical and responsible action would be to simply make a safer product for any remaining pharmaceutical company. That’s how market forces work. However, Congress decided that they did not have to make a safer product. Instead, they could continue to sell harmful products and would be granted immunity to boot, thereby evading a lawsuit from anyone. Equally as awful, they made this law for any vaccine made for children from that day forward.

Subsequent to Congress’ ruling, drug companies now lacked the incentive to understand the safety profile for their vaccines before they were licensed. When it comes to other medical drugs, drug companies are very interested in knowing the safety profile because they are not immune in these cases. In the event of injury, they may very well have to pay for damages. But with vaccine clinical trials, there is no concern. Since the Vaccine Injury Act, Congress created the economic basis for this attitude. Pharmaceutical companies can make their money while taking the path of least resistance. And that path corresponded with the loosening of practices connected to clinical trials.

You can read more here:
[www.americanthinker.com...]

As long as vaccines have passed all the safety protocols and are proven to be effective and beneficial for children I see no reason why kids should not be vaccinated.

P.S. Remember the mRNA was said to have passed all safety protocols and one shot would protect us from Covid. FDA, CDC, the government and all involved agencies have lost credibility. That equates to a lack of trust in a huge number of people to believe in any organizations in charge of 'helping' us stay healthy through pharmacutacles.

See second paragraph in my OP

originally posted by: AlienBorg
a reply to: nugget1
See second paragraph in my OP

Doesn't address the extremely well referenced point raised by nugget1, in any way, shape or form, not even remotely.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: AlienBorg
a reply to: nugget1
See second paragraph in my OP

Doesn't address the extremely well referenced point raised by nugget1, in any way, shape or form, not even remotely.

You asked me whether I am in favour of mandates. I said I am not in favour of the government mandating vaccinations. It should be a personal choice.

I am in favour of liability when it comes to the big pharmaceuticals companies.

See second paragraph in my OP. It's there for a reason.

originally posted by: nugget1
a reply to: AlienBorg

As long as vaccines have passed all the safety protocols and are proven to be effective and beneficial for children I see no reason why kids should not be vaccinated.

Perhaps a deeper dive into the issue would expose an agenda few are aware of, such as the Vaccine Injury Act of 1986.

There's an excellent article on American Thinker that's very enlightening.

In 1986, Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (HR5546). This is an historic act because it removed liability for childhood injury vaccines. Removing liability tends to alter the behavior of entities that benefit. Indeed, it turned out that pharmaceutical companies were no longer liable for injuries caused by their products. That has been the law since 1986.

Attorney Siri says that he knows of no other product that has that kind of immunity. Not planes nor drugs. But since 1986, big pharma has not had any market force check of any significance. “Think of all the products out there that warrant safety precautions, and the one you give immunity to is the one you give to babies. Think about that.”

It turned out that in the years leading up to Congress’ 1986 Act, the amount of liability that pharmaceutical companies were facing from injuries far exceeded the revenue that those products accumulated. Manufacturers went bust or withdrew from the market. You would think that the typical and responsible action would be to simply make a safer product for any remaining pharmaceutical company. That’s how market forces work. However, Congress decided that they did not have to make a safer product. Instead, they could continue to sell harmful products and would be granted immunity to boot, thereby evading a lawsuit from anyone. Equally as awful, they made this law for any vaccine made for children from that day forward.

Subsequent to Congress’ ruling, drug companies now lacked the incentive to understand the safety profile for their vaccines before they were licensed. When it comes to other medical drugs, drug companies are very interested in knowing the safety profile because they are not immune in these cases. In the event of injury, they may very well have to pay for damages. But with vaccine clinical trials, there is no concern. Since the Vaccine Injury Act, Congress created the economic basis for this attitude. Pharmaceutical companies can make their money while taking the path of least resistance. And that path corresponded with the loosening of practices connected to clinical trials.

You can read more here:
[www.americanthinker.com...]

As long as vaccines have passed all the safety protocols and are proven to be effective and beneficial for children I see no reason why kids should not be vaccinated.

P.S. Remember the mRNA was said to have passed all safety protocols and one shot would protect us from Covid. FDA, CDC, the government and all involved agencies have lost credibility. That equates to a lack of trust in a huge number of people to believe in any organizations in charge of 'helping' us stay healthy through pharmacutacles.

It's straight forward.

Pharmaceuticals should be liable for all harms caused by their products.

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: AlienBorg
As long as vaccines have passed all the safety protocols and are proven to be effective and beneficial for children I see no reason why kids should not be vaccinated.

So, you're cool with mandates as long as you believe that they have been proven safe and effective.

Take your anti-liberty/freedom forced mandates and stick em somewhere warm, wet and putrid.

With safe vaccines yes.
With mandates no.
Never said I am in favour of mandates.
But again, see second paragraph in my OP

There is more than enough evidence to show the vaccines have never been tested for safety and efficacy. Try reading the link I provided so you can see how they have been mandated for all children in public schools.

Until proper safety testing is done on vaccines the should all be stopped, especially for children.

It's straight forward.

Pharmaceuticals should be liable for all harms caused by their products.

Well, sure-but with the Vaccine Injury Act they can't be legally held accountable.

a reply to: tanstaafl

As long as vaccines have passed all the safety protocols and are proven to be effective and beneficial for children I see no reason why kids should not be vaccinated

Nowhere I mentioned vaccines should be mandated.

Nowhere did I say pharma shouldn't be liable for the harms caused by their products.

originally posted by: nugget1

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: AlienBorg
As long as vaccines have passed all the safety protocols and are proven to be effective and beneficial for children I see no reason why kids should not be vaccinated.

So, you're cool with mandates as long as you believe that they have been proven safe and effective.

Take your anti-liberty/freedom forced mandates and stick em somewhere warm, wet and putrid.

With safe vaccines yes.
With mandates no.
Never said I am in favour of mandates.
But again, see second paragraph in my OP

There is more than enough evidence to show the vaccines have never been tested for safety and efficacy. Try reading the link I provided so you can see how they have been mandated for all children in public schools.

Until proper safety testing is done on vaccines the should all be stopped, especially for children.

I said as long as they have passed all safety tests. I didn't make a discussion on which of the vaccines have passed the safety tests.

I know this article btw

a reply to: AlienBorg

You asked me whether I am in favour of mandates. I said I am not in favour of the government mandating vaccinations. It should be a personal choice.

Read the link, please; vaccines are mandated for all children attending public schools. Not every parent can afford private or home schooling, thus are forced to inject poison into their children.

originally posted by: AlienBorg
a reply to: tanstaafl
You asked me whether I am in favour of mandates.

No, I didn't, I simply ass-u-me-d you were, due to the way you responded to what are right now vaccine mandates, wherein you stated:

"As long as vaccines have passed all the safety protocols and are proven to be effective and beneficial for children I see no reason why kids should not be vaccinated."

I took that to indicate support for the child vaccination program - which are mandated.

I said I am not in favour of the government mandating vaccinations. It should be a personal choice.

Ok, so apparently you don't believe kids should be forced to be jabbed in order to go to school, so I apologize for misconstruing your words.

I am in favour of liability when it comes to the big pharmaceuticals companies.

Good, thanks for clarifying that too.

See second paragraph in my OP. It's there for a reason.

It only references experimental drugs, which is completely irrelevant when you consider that they outright lied about these experimental jabs claiming that they too were 'safe ad effective'.

How you can not even begin to question each and every other drug or vaccine that these liars and murderers are selling that they also claim are 'safe and effective' - well, I just don't understand someone like that.

originally posted by: AlienBorg
a reply to: nugget1
I said as long as they have passed all safety tests. I didn't make a discussion on which of the vaccines have passed the safety tests.

Which vaccines? Which safety tests?

Are you aware that, like most pharmaceutical drugs, no vaccine currently in use today have had any serious, unbiased safety tests?

a reply to: AlienBorg

But this law imo can serve as a safety net when experimental/unknown products that haven't satisfied any safety standards are pushed in the market and could harm children who have almost zero risk from getting harmed from certain viruses.

How? It's only for religious exemptions. It's not for people that simply do not trust the vaccine maker. Besides, religion and faith have nothing to do with whether or not you trust a vaccine maker, it's about having trust in your God and following your religious doctrine.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: AlienBorg

But this law imo can serve as a safety net when experimental/unknown products that haven't satisfied any safety standards are pushed in the market and could harm children who have almost zero risk from getting harmed from certain viruses.

How? It's only for religious exemptions. It's not for people that simply do not trust the vaccine maker. Besides, religion and faith have nothing to do with whether or not you trust a vaccine maker, it's about having trust in your God and following your religious doctrine.

A large number of people are religious and can make a claim based on their religious beliefs. Even if they're not they can still make it according to what the District Judge ordered

In April, U.S. District Judge Sul Ozerden ordered Mississippi to join most other states in allowing religious exemptions for childhood vaccinations

Nobody can check how religious you are. Say I am a Christian or Muslim or whatever and on the basis of your religious beliefs argue your child should be made exempt from some vaccinations. It's good to take advise from an attorney on the way...

a reply to: AlienBorg

Mississippi starts allowing religious exemptions for childhood vaccinations

Gonna be a lot of very sick kids in Mississippi....perhaps they can pass the diseases to their parents.

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: AlienBorg

Mississippi starts allowing religious exemptions for childhood vaccinations

Gonna be a lot of very sick kids in Mississippi....perhaps they can pass the diseases to their parents.

Like all the Amish who aren't sick?

Pure big pharma propaganda.

a reply to: AlienBorg

A large number of people are religious and can make a claim based on their religious beliefs.

I know of a few religions that disavow certain medical intervention, like blood transfusions, but the majority of religions don't.

Nobody can check how religious you are. Say I am a Christian...

Okay, let's say that. What Christian doctrine or biblical passage forbids immunizations? Good thing Mississippi doesn't question a person's religious sincerity, because a lot of people are going to have to lie, hard, to get this exemption. As God intended, right?

a reply to: AlienBorg

10th Amendment.

States rights.

If that's what the people want, then that's what they get.



Freedom, it's a wonderful thing.