In this episode of Hebrew Voices, Religious Exemptions for Covid Vaccines, Nehemia Gordon talks with Prof. Michelle Mello about the legal status of “sincerely held religious beliefs”, what is happening in the US court system, and what we can expect from the Supreme Court. They also discuss why pro-abortion advocates do not apply “my body, my choice” to vaccinations and how “public health advocates” justify banishing law-abiding citizens from the workplace. Finally, they consider whether a future HIV vaccine would be mandated for those with high-risk lifestyles and how that scenario might be different from Covid mandates.
I look forward to reading your comments!
CHAPTERS
00:00 Intro
01:35 Covid vaccine religious exemptions
04:07 Sincerely held religious beliefs
09:28 Religious exemptions vs medical exemptions
13:16 NGLA laws vs strict scrutiny exemptions
19:20 Laws which incidentally effect certain religions
21:59 My body my choice vs personal liberty and security of others
25:07 Denying “benefits” (=human rights) to mandate vaccines
29:16 Conclusion
Podcast Version:
Transcript You are listening to Hebrew Voices with Nehemia Gordon. Thank you for supporting Nehemia Gordon's Makor Hebrew Foundation. Learn more at NehemiasWall.com. Nehemia: Shalom and welcome to Hebrew Voices. Today I will be joined by Professor Michelle Mello of Stanford University, who will talk to us about the legal status of forced Covid-19 vaccine mandates in the US court system.
Michelle Mello is a professor of law at Stanford Law School and professor of health policy in the Department of Health at Stanford University School of Medicine. She conducts empirical research, according to her biography, into issues at the intersection of law ethics and health policy. She's the author of more than 220 articles on medical liability, public health law, the public health response to Covid-19, pharmaceuticals and vaccines, biomedical research ethics and governance, health information privacy, and other topics. Dr. Mello teaches courses in torts, public health law and health policy. She holds a JD from the Yale Law School, a PhD in health policy and administration from the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, a Masters of Philosophy from Oxford University where she was a Marshall Scholar, and a bachelor's degree from Stanford University.
So join me now to have a conversation with Professor Mello.
So I want you to present what is going on in the courts right now with the Covid exemptions. And here we have Professor Michelle Mello, who is a professor at Stanford, who is maybe the foremost expert on this topic. What actually is going on?
Professor Mello: Well, there is just a barrage of litigation going on at all levels of the courts right now relating to Covid vaccination mandates, and much of this concerns questions about the extent to which the targets of these mandates are entitled to religious exemptions.
So there are people protesting mandates that don't have a religious exemption process at all. There are people who have applied for religious exemptions and been denied, who are protesting the process or the scope of the exemption that their institution has implemented. And then there are people who are just kind of attacking mandates more frontally, and among the claims that they're bringing, in saying that these mandates are kind of unconstitutional on their face, is that they treat religious exemptions differently than other kinds of exemptions like medical exemptions, pregnancy exemptions, in a way that is unconstitutional.
Regardless of the kind of the flavor of the claim that is being brought, I would say that the fighting boils down to three topics, all of which I think are heavily contested, and all of which are pretty uncertain at the moment, and the key reason why they're uncertain is that because of changeover in the composition of the courts during the Trump administration, our long-settled understandings of the scope of religious liberty and the way in which courts are going to analyze religious liberty claims have really been upended. And we've had a couple of Supreme Court decisions in the last year that have announced a different approach, but it's not yet clear how that approach will be applied to vaccination mandates.
So all of what I'll talk about is very unstable at the moment, yet to be resolved, and the Supreme Court so far has been kind of rebuffing attempts to get directly involved in this issue, but it's not clear to me that they will be able to do that for very much longer, because of the degree of disagreement among lower courts.
So there are three issues that are being litigated, that I think are unstable. The first is what constitutes a "sincerely held religious belief." You know, a lot of people allege that they have religious exemptions to vaccines, and the courts have to decide whether the nature of their belief is religious and also sincerely held, that's kind of the long-standing standard for what qualifies for constitutional protection.
Specifically, what is at issue here is what happens when you're a member of a church or other religious denomination where the religious leaders have given no indication that they oppose Covid vaccines on religious grounds, but you think your personal beliefs require you to reject it.
So for example, there is a case in Massachusetts where a Catholic athlete who's a student at UMass has challenged a vaccination mandate saying that as a Catholic she cannot accept Covid vaccines. One of the reasons that Catholics object to them is that, deep back in the development process for the vaccines - not in the manufacturing process, but way back when the vaccines themselves were being developed - fetal cell lines were used.
So UMass, in dealing with the student’s request, researched Catholic beliefs. Religious leaders in the Catholic Church have come out very clearly, very explicitly saying that the Church does not oppose its members receiving the vaccines, but this student feels like her interpretation of Catholicism is that she shouldn't receive the vaccine. So this is the type of claim that's being litigated, and courts so far have kind of split on what to do about this type of claim. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals and at least one federal district court have held that a member of a religious denomination can assert their own interpretation of religious doctrine, as long as they sincerely believe it, and they cite a Supreme Court decision that certainly seems to be along those lines. At least two other lower courts have held otherwise, including that case involving UMass.
So this is going to be a really important issue, because a lot of people during Covid are nesting objections to Covid vaccines in religious terms, in religious exemption processes. The proportion of Americans who are resistant to this vaccine, as you well know, is far higher than for any other vaccine, and people who have long accepted other vaccines now suddenly have a religious exemption to vaccination.
So the breadth that courts give claims that okay, yes, now I have a sincere religious belief, it's going to be really important to the effectiveness of vaccination mandates. A lot of churches have also kind of jumped into the fray issuing generic letters for parishioners that claim that the church has an objection to Covid vaccines - again, when the church has never objected to any other vaccines. So the extent to which courts are going to scrutinize claims of a sincere religious belief is going to have a big impact on how many people are able to wiggle out from under vaccination mandates. And again, at this point it's just not clear how this conflict among the courts is going to be resolved.
Nehemia: The Catholic example is a really interesting one, because it's inherently a hierarchical religion. My religious affiliation actually has a core principle that each person needs to figure out their own understanding of the Bible. And so, you could have one person who says, "No, it's forbidden to have the vaccine,” another person who says, "No, it's required to have the vaccine because it's a matter of life and death.”
But the Catholic example you brought from UMass, it's inherently... I mean, they have a Pope, right? So that's actually an extreme example, and even there the court, you're saying, is saying that this person has the right to work out their own... to quote Paul of Tarsus, "To work out their salvation with fear and trembling for themselves.”
Professor Mello: Yeah, I think to many Catholics this is surprising to hear, that they're kind of on their own to interpret religious doctrine. As you say, it's not a religion where we ordinarily think in that way. But the rulings have more to do with how the courts view religious liberty, than how any church does, which is to say... these are courts saying, "Look, we're hands off, we're not getting into the business of looking behind assertions about religious liberty; we're going to give it kind of a wide berth for people to figure it out.”
Nehemia: Do you think that's a bad thing, as a legal expert?
Professor Mello: Well, you're talking to a public health advocate whose life has been upended - professionally as well as personally - by the epidemic, and thinks that vaccine mandates are necessary. So yeah, as a policy matter in this case, I think it's a bad thing. You know, the courts have to consider these religious liberty claims not only in terms of the policy impact right now for this case, but for all future cases. And so, they're going to be viewing it from a different perspective than a public health advocate.
Nehemia: Okay. So that was your first...?
Professor Mello: Yeah, the second one is even more interesting to me, and it's the question of whether... if you're going to do a vaccination mandate as a state actor or a government actor, let's say you're a school district... If you offer a medical exemption, do you also have to offer a religious exemption?
Up until this year, no person who studies public health law would have said the answer is yes. It just has not been part of any... certainly any Supreme Court ruling, and also any lower court ruling, that a religious exemption is constitutionally required. But what has happened is that the Supreme Court has issued a couple of rulings that call that into question. One - and maybe the most important one - is this case called Tandon from last year, which had to do not with any vaccination mandates, but with California's stay-at-home orders, which restricted the ability of people to gather indoors, even in private homes, in numbers greater than three households, and which have the incidental effect of burdening religious worship, because people wanted to gather, for example, for Bible studies in their private homes, and were not allowed to do that. And in the Tandon opinion, the US Supreme Court said very clearly that a state cannot treat any comparable secular activity more favorable than religious activity. And what it meant by "comparable” was that it posed a comparable risk of spreading Covid.
So that raised the question for a lot of people, "What do they mean by ‘comparable activity?’” Does that mean that if you offer an exemption to a vaccination mandate for secular reasons, like medical contraindications, you also have to treat religious exemptions kind of on the same terrain? You can't privilege a secular reason for exempting out of a vaccine above a religious reason.
On that basis, recently the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals out here on the West Coast granted an emergency motion for an injunction against San Diego Unified School District's vaccination mandates for high school kids aged 16 and over, because it did not allow for any religious exemptions, but it did have an exemption based on pregnancy. The reason why they would have such an exemption to me is very unclear – as a sort of medical matter that's really not a thing, but that's what they chose to do. And it got them into some legal hot water because of this comparability issue.
So in that case, the school district can go back, they can just fix that problem with a Band-Aid, just make the students get the vaccine, but it raises a larger issue that I think is going to come up again and again.
Some conservative justices on the US Supreme Court - Justices Gorsuch, Thomas and Alito wrote in a dissenting opinion as recently as October 29 of this year that they think that Maine's vaccination mandate for health care workers is unconstitutional because it doesn't have a religious exemption, yet does have a medical exemption.
So in that case, the majority of the justices declined to issue a full opinion in the case, but there's this loud and consistent pressure from the conservative majority, particularly justices appointed in recent years, who are very strong proponents of religious liberty, to make such a holding, and it would not surprise me if such a holding eventually came. And that would be, again, a major upending of how we have thought about what public health authorities can do.
Nehemia: Okay, and what's the third issue that you're dealing with?
Professor Mello: The third issue is related, but it's a little bit more technical, and it has to do with the way in which courts evaluate religious liberty claims. Historically, if you have had a vaccination mandate that applies to everybody, the courts have treated that as what they call a Neutral Law of General Applicability - an NGLA. And if you have an NGLA, when somebody challenges it, the court will apply rational basis review, which is its lightest form of review, and the court will ask only, "Is this thing that the state wants to do - this vaccination mandate - reasonably related to a legitimate interest of the government?”
Nehemia: Can you explain the NGLA thing? You lost me…
Professor Mello: Yeah, it’s a neutral law of general applicability; the court is deeming this to be a general law that applies to everybody, it's not targeting religion.
Nehemia: Oh, okay.
Professor Mello: On their face, that's what vaccination mandates are. They say all healthcare workers, or all adults, or all school children, all teachers. They don’t say “all Jewish people”.
Nehemia: So if it doesn't target religion then you're allowed to do it even though it affects religious people?
Professor Mello: Yeah. If it doesn't target religion, if it's neutral and generally applicable, then the presumption is it's going to be okay. And the way the courts implement that presumption is to give this very light look, this rational basis review. And they basically ask, "Is this crazy?” It's not crazy. There's a reason for doing it, and the thing that the state is trying to do is of some importance, certainly stemming the spread of Covid would qualify. That's going to be okay.
Okay, so that's the traditional approach. What has happened recently, because of this case of Tandon out in California that we talked about, and another case called Fulton, that the court decided in June of 2021, is that that presumption that you're going to get rational basis review is under a lot of pressure. This case of Fulton didn't involve anything to do with Covid. It had to do with adoption of children in Philadelphia by same sex couples and whether you could discriminate based on religious preference. But the key thing about that case is that the court held that a rule is not an NGLA, not a neutral law meriting this rational basis review, if it contains a process for granting individualized exceptions or exemptions.
Nehemia: Explain that again.
Professor Mello: If you've got a rule that says, "Here's this general rule, but there's going to be a process where you can apply for an exemption, and the state will consider, a city will consider those requests on an individualized basis.” Now that's not generally applicable anymore.
Nehemia: And so, an example of an exemption would be like a medical exemption?
Professor Mello: It could be. I mean, in this case, it had to do with adoption, so there was a process for getting a waiver of a general rule that somebody wouldn't be eligible to adopt. So since that decision came down, people in public health law said, "Uh oh, does that mean that now if we have a process for a medical exemption where the people's claims are going to be considered on an ad hoc basis? I think I shouldn't get the vaccine because I have an immunodeficiency and so I apply for a medical exemption and there's somebody in the health department that is going to read my request and make a decision on it.” That seems like the kind of thing that the Fulton court was contemplating, and if it is, that means that any such mandate is not going to get rational basis review; it's going to get something much more stringent called strict scrutiny, which is almost always fatal to what the government is trying to do.
Nehemia: Okay, the opposite of the rational basis review - is strict scrutiny.
Professor Mello: Yeah, so in that case, the state has to show they have got a compelling interest, which, again, stemming Covid is, the Supreme Court has already said so. But also that the law is what the court calls narrowly tailored, meaning there's no way to achieve the state's purpose that is less burdensome on individual interests, in this case religious liberty.
So what does that mean in practical terms? It means that possibly, vaccination mandates that contain any individualized exemption process, whether it's medical or something else, might get strict scrutiny, and the state would have to show that it can't stem Covid through other means, whether it's granting a broader set of exemptions or saying to people, "Well, you don't want to get vaccinated, you could wear a mask and test twice a week instead.” And that's going to be really difficult for the state to do.
So that's the fear. Again, this is all very uncertain terrain, and the lower courts are giving us mixed signals about whether they're going to take this approach or not. There have been circuit court cases, court of appeals cases, kind of taking different approaches.
But on November 28 of this year, a panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals said that New York City's school employee mandate, which considers requests for both religious and medical exemptions, would still be considered neutral, even though it has this individualized process, as long as it was careful to define very objectively defined and verifiable categories of people who could be exempted, didn't look too individualized.
So we don't know what's going to happen, but a possible outcome is that you get strict scrutiny whether you have religious exemptions or not, because if you have them, now that kind of looks like an individualized exemption process that would trigger strict scrutiny. And if you don't have them, then under Tandon that looks like you are treating non-religious reasons more favorably than religious reasons, and so it's not neutral for that reason, and so you're back in strict scrutiny land. And if you're back in strict scrutiny land, I think it will be hard to sustain these mandates.
Nehemia: Okay. Now, I come from a very different background. I'm not a public health advocate, I deal with history. And when you mentioned this NGLA, it triggered for me something. We're in December 2021, and we just ended the holiday of Hanukkah, the Feast of Dedication that Jews celebrate. Hanukkah was triggered by this law that the Seleucid Greek Empire imposed, that every citizen, no matter who they were in their empire, needed to participate in a sacrifice to the Greek god Apollo by eating a pig. And Jews revolted, because they said, "We can't do that.” And the Greek response was, "But this wasn't targeted at you. Be loyal to the empire. You’re a citizen, follow the law.”
So I know some people in my audience are thinking, "Yeah, you're not targeting us as Jews, as Christians, people from other backgrounds who are listening, but it affects us in the way that it doesn't affect someone who's secular, who's maybe from a religion that doesn't have some of those restrictions.” So how would you respond to that?
Professor Mello: Yeah, well, the historical example you gave is really interesting, that might support a second kind of religious liberty claim, which is that the state also can't adopt laws that effectively establish a certain religion by requiring the practice of that religion, or clearly favoring one religion over another.
Nehemia: Fair enough.
Professor Mello: But the more general point you make is that lots of laws have the incidental effect of burdening a certain type of religious practice, and the court is very experienced in evaluating those claims. And that is the whole reason why we have this category of NGLA laws that comes from a case - again, not about public health - called Employment Division v. Smith, where employees are objecting to various workplace rules that incidentally burden people who want to practice their religion on certain days of the week, for example.
And this is the balance that the court has struck, just to recognize that we're not going to hamstring the state or cities in all kinds of rulemaking that they have to do that happens to affect members of one religious sect over another, as long as those are reasonably related to a legitimate purpose.
And the question now is, you know, is that standard too low? Should we in fact be giving greater respect to burdens on religious liberty that are not intentional, not undue, but that exist, by giving courts more berth to scrutinize the necessity for those burdens.
Nehemia: Okay. You know, there's this motto in certain circles, “my body, my choice.” I've now heard a lot of people, for example, Senator Ted Cruz, who has adopted that motto - and he's been vaccinated - but he says it should be up to the choice of the individual, just like it is in Roe v. Wade. So what would your response to that be?
Professor Mello: Well, this is, of course, not a claim that is based in religion, it's just as a sort of personal or even political philosophy.
Nehemia: But based in ethics, I would think.
Professor Mello: Yeah, and it's based in a notion of libertarian ethics, or classical liberal ethics that places a heavy primacy on personal autonomy. And there's no doubt that is a critical part of our nation's moral founding - the notion that individuals ought to have a very substantial share of personal freedom.
However, classical liberals and even libertarians have always recognized that our right to individual liberty stops right at the point where it begins to infringe on the personal liberty and security of others. So we don't have a freedom to assault one another, and we don't have a freedom to spread contagious disease, we never have. That's always been the boundary of individual liberty.
So it's surprising to hear conservatives, who have long subscribed to this particular view of personal autonomy, saying that the right to bodily autonomy extends to the right to impose harms on others. It's very surprising. It's out of step with both conservative and liberal thinking, of long vintage.
Nehemia: Okay. And can you say something about... the example that comes to mind for me is Typhoid Mary, who ended up being isolated for 30 years because she was an asymptomatic carrier of typhus. I don't know that anybody would say- well, she has the right to go and continue being a cook because it's her liberty, right?
Professor Mello: That's right. And to take a modern analog, if suppose we had an unhoused individual with active tuberculosis roaming around the streets of San Francisco.
Nehemia: I think you have a lot of those in San Francisco, actually.
Professor Mello: They are there. I suspect that people like Mr. Cruz would not say that that individual should be at liberty to do whatever they please on the streets of San Francisco. They would likely support a public health order that requires that individual to take tuberculosis therapy drugs or to be confined until a period where their active infection reaches latent status and they're no longer infectious.
So again, I think this is political rhetoric that's being deployed for a political gain. It doesn't reflect well-reasoned thinking about public health and liberty, because even those individuals don't believe that in absolute terms. They surely would not support the right of somebody with Ebola virus disease or even Covid to roam around and infect others.
Nehemia: Let me ask you another application, which is, I suppose, hypothetical at this point. But if they were to develop an HIV vaccine, would you be in favor of a government mandate forcing that on... I'll just say, high risk groups who are of high risk to spread that?
Professor Mello: You know, I think I would have to think a lot more about that what we mean by "high risk" and how that can be...
Nehemia: Let's say intravenous drug users who we know they're intravenous drug users, they can't control themselves, they can't help it. Should they be forced...?
Professor Mello: Well, I think in that specific example, whether I think they should have the vaccine is quite different from the question whether and how I would force the vaccine on them. That is a group that is unbelievably difficult to reach, and things that are coercive tend to undermine our ability to reach them. So while I'd certainly support a program that would bring that vaccine to them... One thing we have to keep in mind about mandates is they have to be enforceable. Mandates have to be enforceable. And we don't hold people down and inject people in this country. That's not what we mean by mandates. We never do that.
What we do is condition access to some benefit on receipt of the vaccine, on complying with the mandate. So what are the benefits that we have to offer? School entry, employment, government welfare benefits – these are the kinds of things that are available to us, and this particular population that you’re talking about here, they don’t tend to avail themselves of any of those benefits.
So again, reaching them is really hard, and if we can enforce a mandate, it does us no good. It just tends to alienate a population without achieving any of the benefit. So for that specific example, I would want to think about what other tools we have at our disposal to reach a population that does not want to have HIV, would likely accept that vaccine, but a requirement may not be the best way to connect them with the vaccine.
Nehemia: Maybe I'm saying something extreme here, but if people opposed to the vaccine responded in extreme ways to these government mandates, you're saying you would drop the request for the government mandate, it sounds like, right?
Professor Mello: So that's the rub when we think about extending even Covid vaccine mandates to the general adult population. I think it's well-justified on ethical grounds, but I worry about our ability to enforce that mandate. Again, we have to have a lever, so what's our lever? With Covid vaccination mandates we have basically two levers if you're not in school. One is you can't get into places unless you've been vaccinated. I think that's a pretty nice lever in terms of restricting access to concerts or restaurants. But if people who are really committed to not getting the vaccine will simply say, "Fine, I haven't eaten in a restaurant in a year, I'll just keep not eating at a restaurant.”
The other is employment, and I think that has proved to be a pretty powerful inducement. I think it's justified, but there will still be a group of people who are hardcore resistors, who even those two levers are not going to be sufficient to get them into the vaccine.
So then the question is - do we undermine things more by imposing this vaccine, recognizing that we're not going to get that entire group? You know, I'm still sort of thinking that over. I think there's no doubt that these mandates have provoked a backlash that has hardened people who are otherwise disinclined to get the vaccination. There's a group that's never going to be reached with these mandates, but does that mean we shouldn't do it for everybody else? Probably not. We're at the point where we have a vaccine that is amply justified in terms of its safety record, very good safety record, very, very good efficacy record. I think that justifies imposing it on people, but I'm not naive enough to think that that means we're going to get everybody. There will be a group of people who simply don't get it.
Nehemia: Well, Professor Mello, thank you so much for joining me on the program and clarifying some of these issues. It's really hard to get accurate information about what's going on, and obviously, you have your perspective of what you want to happen. But what I wanted the audience primarily to hear is what actually is happening and what could potentially happen. And I think my takeaway from what you're saying is we don't really know where this is going to go. Is that fair to say?
Professor Mello: Yeah, we don’t know but it’s going to be an interesting year.
Nehemia: It will be. Alright, thank you so much.
Professor Mello: Thanks for having me. You have been listening to Hebrew Voices with Nehemia Gordon. Thank you for supporting Nehemia Gordon’s Makor Hebrew Foundation. Learn more at NehemiasWall.com. We hope the above transcript has proven to be a helpful resource in your study. While much effort has been taken to provide you with this transcript, it should be noted that the text has not been reviewed by the speakers and its accuracy cannot be guaranteed. If you would like to support our efforts to transcribe the teachings on NehemiasWall.com, please visit our support page. All donations are tax-deductible (501c3) and help us empower people around the world with the Hebrew sources of their faith! Subscribe to "Nehemia Gordon" on your favorite podcast app! Related Episodes:
Makor Hebrew Foundation is a 501c3 tax-deductible not for profit organization.
Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Google Podcasts |
Amazon Music
| TuneIn
Pocket Casts | Podcast Addict | CastBox | iHeartRadio | Podchaser
| Pandora
A Physicist on the Nature of God
Apartheid in Palestinian Jordan
Torah and Prophet Pearls
Hebrew Voices Episodes
Hebrew Gospel Pearls
Teachings on the Name of God
Support Team Studies
Thank you Nehemia for all the great work you do. As for attorneys, check out Aaron Siri and Thomas Renz and see what you think. Blessings, Lori
The Supreme Court is suppose to interpret the law not make laws.
Wow,
There a few things that came to my mind while listening:
1) The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Which has data showing safety is an issue (perspective is an interesting caveat; what are acceptable losses to call something very safe).
2) If an effort to establish therapies for treatment was equivalent to the push for vaccinations, the statistics would be very different.
3) Vera Sharav, holocaust survivor; and the casual comment about “levers” (or leverage to make people conform).
Thank you Nehemia for getting that interview (forewarned is forearmed).
Where in the Constitution does President Biden have the right to dictate over Congress to the people (except for the southern border crossers and postal workers and members of Congress)? Is it that they can’t read the Bill of Rights? Or maybe it’s just a power hungery, God hating dictator pushing the system to the limits. The virus and vaccine mandates are only one example of a vehicle used to push their control over the people. If they can accomplish that, then the rights of the US citizens are shattered.
Peter McCullough is another great dr to listen to. He is cardiologist at Baylor UMC Prof of Medicine at Texas A & M College of Medicine where he also does research for pulmonary heart, lung and kidney disease, he’s president of the Cardiorenal Society, editor in chief of Cardiorenal Med Journal pub in Switz. and also Hong Kong, senior assoc editor of Amer Journal of Cardiology, writes textbooks on cardiology, has over 600 citations in the National Library of Medicine. Masters of public health and epidemiology from U of Michigan and much much more. He states that 57 authors in 17 countries have raised major concerns with the safety- there’s no critical event committee, no data safety monitoring board etc “There are no gen-toxicity studies, no teratogenicity studies, we have no business ever having a pregnant woman become vaccinated. There’s a concerning biodistribution study from Pfizer demonstrating hyper concentration in the ovaries. There’s concerning fertility study from Moderna showing reduction in fertility in animals” He goes on to state in randomized trails they(vax companies) excluded pregnant women and women of childbearing potential because they would have no opportunity to benefit and only opportunity for harm.
“We had a safety signal as of Jan 22nd, where the mortality was already 182 deaths. they had already exceeded the national average of 158 with all vaccines combined.”
“But just to give you a framework, for all 70 vaccines, we get about 16k total safety reports per year. We’re already at 358k verified safety reports from the CDC (this interview was in the late summer)
Why should it be mandatory when it’s so unsafe?
(I’ve heard hundreds if not thousands of immunologist, virologist, MDs, PHDs, and even the inventors of the vaccine have been censored when coming out with this information or any information that doesn’t comply with the standard news or government information of which your interviewee is a part of)
This is what I have composed for my fellowship of Torah Observant followers of Yeshua to use in their exemptions, and so far I several have been accepted. Anyone who wishes to use all or part of this letter is welcome to copy, edit, and use any, all, or parts of it in their own exemption letter if needed.
“It is the official position of [our fellowship’s name], regarding any and all inoculations prescribed as treatment or prophylaxis for the “COVID-19” laboratory-engineered pathogen, any current or future variants of the same, or other potential unknown pathogens, whether engineered, artificially enhanced, or naturally occurring, for which any federal, state, local, or other government jurisdiction, institution, corporation, or other directives authorize or mandate any form or mode, the introduction of synthetic (non-naturally occurring) genetic or cellular manipulation whether through an artificial, laboratory-produced, engineered, manipulated, or enhanced Messenger RNA (mRNA) therapeutic delivery system, or any alternative, such as an equivalent recombinant viral vector therapeutic, into the human body, inherently unsuitable for any Believer who seeks to remain “unstained from the world” (James 1:27). We consider all forms of cellular gene-altering therapies to be a most serious matter, placing a Believer in danger of committing a transgression that constitutes an irreconcilable blasphemy against YHVH’s sacred design embedded within our human genetic code, for which the Most High Creator of the Universe maintains supreme authority and sanction over. Any alterations thereof may expose a Believer to imminent danger of potentially forfeiting future expectations of Salvation in His Kingdom to come.
Mark 3:38-39 states:
Truly, I say to you, all the sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they speak, but he who blasphemes against the Set-apart Spirit has no forgiveness forever, but is subject to everlasting judgement”.
And in Romans 9:20-21:
“But who are you, O man, to talk back to Elohim? Shall that which is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why have you made me like this?’ Does not the potter have authority over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for value and another not for value?”
Moderna Pharmaceuticals (https:// www. modernatx. com/mrna-technology/mrna-platform-enabling-drug-discovery-development) describes mRNA therapies as the “software of life”, describing their technology as follows:
“When we have a concept for a new mRNA medicine and begin research, fundamental components are already in place.
“Generally, the only thing that changes from one potential mRNA medicine to another is the coding region – the actual genetic code that instructs ribosomes to make protein. Utilizing these instruction sets gives our investigational mRNA medicines a software-like quality. We also have the ability to combine different mRNA sequences encoding for different proteins in a single mRNA investigational medicine.
We are leveraging the flexibility afforded by our platform and the fundamental role mRNA plays in protein synthesis to pursue mRNA medicines for a broad spectrum of diseases.”
According to a research article published January 11, 2021 in the medical journal, Current Biology titled, “A Simple Breakdown of the Ingredients in the Covid Vaccines” by Juan C. Ravell, MD, the mechanism by which both the mRNA and viral vector platforms function in the body according to their laboratory-designed purposes, is by their ability to utilize enzymes through a process called “transcription”, which modifies the innate instructions in cells, which are a unique design of the Creator of the Universe, YHVH (God). (https: //www. hackensackmeridianhealth. org/HealthU/2021/01/11/a-simple-breakdown-of-the-ingredients-in-the-covid-vaccines/). In the article, Dr. Ravell states:
“the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines use a new approach by which mRNA is delivered into our cells to provide the genetic instructions for our own cells to “temporarily” make a “specific” viral protein (the coronavirus spike protein) that triggers an immune response. The J&J COVID-19 vaccine is a type of “replication-incompetent vector vaccine.” This vaccine also contains the genetic instructions to express a stabilized coronavirus spike protein, but instead of mRNA, these instructions are delivered via DNA stored inside a modified vector virus (Adenovirus 26). This adenovirus has been engineered to enter the human cells and deliver the desired genetic information without replicating itself or causing illness. Once inside the cells, the DNA encoding for the coronavirus spike protein can be read by the cell and transcribed into mRNA. At this point, the J&J vaccine acts similarly to the mRNA vaccines.”
Believers in Messiah such as we, are informed by Sha’ul, the apostle, Paul, in 1 Corinthians 3:16-17, “Do you not know that you are a Dwelling Place (Temple) of Elohim (God) and that the Spirit of Elohim dwells in you? And he who is joined to the Master is one spirit”; and in 1 Corinthians 6:29-20: “Or do you not know that your body is the Dwelling Place of the Set-apart (Holy) Spirit who is in you, which you have from Elohim, and that you are not your own? For you were bought with a price, therefore esteem Elohim in your body and in your spirit, which are of Elohim.”
By our understanding from Scripture, that the Most High Elohim (God), Creator of the Universe, in consideration for our bodies being a Temple and corporeal vessel of the Holy Spirit, we are Commanded against blaspheming, corrupting, or making any alterations to our Temple and its original design and purpose. As such, it is our contention, whereby any man-made product that is created to insert or deliver alternative programming into the cells of our body, the very building blocks constituting the fiber of our being and forming the physical structure of our bodily Temples, interferes with the natural use of our bodies in their pure, uncorrupted form, which is an essential component to our relationship and connection to our Creator.
We at [fellowship name] assert that the very function by which these newly introduced therapies in particular, operate within the human body, represent not only an assault upon our Creator’s perfect design, but also constitute a grave form of blasphemy against YHVH, His Word, and His Spirit, however we extend our assertion to even so-called “traditional vaccines” due to their reliance upon aborted fetal tissues and tissues known as “immortal cell lines” which are laboratory-cultured and manipulated cells obtained from deceased people used in the research and development of most “traditional vaccines”. We believe all of these various agents to be devices of Evil for the ultimate purpose not only of that of destruction, but for endangering our Salvation by altering us on a microscopic, biological level, from a being created in the Image of YHVH, into a being which is rendered physically corrupted and a vessel uninhabitable for the Holy Spirit, in order to permanently sever the source of our connection to the Most High God, YeHoVaH, and thus condemn our soul to eternal separation from our Creator.
It is then by this vital tenant which strikes at the core foundation of our humanity through which our image, that is made in the Likeness of the Most High, would suffer an irrevocable violation, that I would advise and admonish against all such mandated genetic therapy manipulations as devices of blasphemy against our Creator upon His unique and individual creation of Humanity, and petition those in authority over the employment of [Full Name], a beloved [son/daughter] of the Most High, that [he/she] be afforded the dignity due every individual to choose for [himself/herself] what is right and good for [his/her] body and for the sake of [his/her] Salvation, to “work out (his/her) own deliverance with fear and trembling” (Philippians 2:12), without discrimination toward [his/her] belief, nor extortion of [his/her] position and livelihood in exchange for the Salvation afforded to [him/her] through [his/her] love of Most High, YHVH, which [he/she] demonstrates through [his/her] obedience to His Word. We beseech you that [Name] should thus be exempted from any and all requirements, mandates, or orders for the acceptance of any substance or synthetic therapeutic protocols for treatment or prophylaxis of COVID-19, its variants, or any other pathogens now or in the future, whereby such treatments are found to contain specifically designed products which interfere with the natural use, function, and preservation of the human body as innately gifted to all by our Creator.
It should be noted, that on November 1, 2021, the New York Rabbinical Court officially decreed that the mRNA COVID shots are “absolutely forbidden” for children, adolescents, young men & women, and is cautioned for adults. While we are not specifically under the Rabbinical Court’s jurisdiction, we do consider their opinion to be authoritative and of importance. Please see attached* memo titled, “Official translation of the Halachic delineation” for more information.
I attach the letter from the Rabbinical Court as well you can download here: https://www.hyehudi.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Kol-Korei_English_20211101.pdf
Nehemia thank you for bringing this interview to us so we can further our understanding of the situation so many are facing today and the challenges that will be continuing on this in the US into the future, regardless of whether we agree with the opinion of the other party. It is still good to know what it is that outsiders are doing so we may form our own defenses accordingly.
Shalom!
I agree with the previous comments. The Government has not been candid/honest about this “vaccine”. They have consistently made claims that proved false. Anyone who has so much as questioned the validity of their claims has been characterized as not caring for the well fare of others. This is done with callous malice. This is why the individual rights issue has come to the forefront.
I think this woman is not addressing the fact that the COVID shot is not a vaccine by definition. It does not offer immunity from COVID nor does it prevent transmission. The medical risks of adverse reactions and death are beyond anything previously seen.
It is gene therapy according to patent filings, which does, in fact, alter DNA. There have been denials but the mRNA tech does gene editing and other irreversible changes to the DNA.
An interesting fact is that in 2013 a law was passed saying if a patented product becomes part of and alters human DNA the company owns that altered DNA. Theoretically people could lose their human rights and be “owned” by the patent owners.
Further, according to Nuremberg, everyone has the right to refuse an experimental treatment because the risks are unknown therefore there cannot be informed consent.
I appreciate you looking into this issue.
BTW… the question regarding if she would do the same thing with Aids or some other similar thing was an excellent comparison.
This sounds like Nazi Germany to me. paraphrasing this professor…
If we can’t force them to take the vaccine, then they must be manipulated into it by going after their children’s education and their ability to work and put food on the table.
Who the heck can actually argue that this would be the behavior of a functional democracy? No healthy government (if there is such a thing) should have this kind of power over their people. The fact that she could actually justify doing this to American citizens disturbs me greatly. As a Jew, this just sounds a bit too familiar to me.
Nehemiah, curious on what your view is on the subject??
She’s a Soviet Russian communist for sure! You can invoke your Religious exemption at any time in the United States and they can not discriminate against you. It’s title 7 of the civil rights act of 1964.
If it works then why do you need two jabs and a booster? It’s not a vaccine people!! Vaccines give you immunity, small pox, hep b, malaria etc which means you cannot receive or transmit the virus. 85% of the hospitilaztion and death are from the ‘vaccinated’! Why?! Because it’s not a vaccine it’s a bio-weapon and it contains graphene hydroxide which is a non-biodegradable nano particle in the shape of razor blades the size of an atom. That is what’s causing the myocarditis i.e the heart attacks on the soccer field, basketball and football fields. Super healthy teenagers and pro athletes in the best shape of their lives are suddenly dying because the inoculation was supposed to be injected into the muscle but if you nick a vein the graphene hydroxide gets into the bloodstream and starts circulating in their bloodstream and cutting the person internally faster and faster the harder their heart beats. Eventually they will die most in 3-5 years. Study done in Israel shows the pfizer death jab to be 40 times deadlier for the elderly and 260 times deadlier for children because they don’t die from CovAids. This nanotech comes from DARPA and might even be Azazel (aka Satan’s) own DNA. It’s the workshop of the Fallen Angels. Whatever you do do not get the poison death shot! ☠️
Yes!! People need to wake up!
You are right- if it works why do you need to fear others and- it is not a vaccine
So because she is a Prof she wants to tell us what is best for us?
1. The Covid-19 vaccine is still only experimental, they cannot force it upon us.
2. More vaccinated people are getting sick than unvaccinated.
3. What makes the man-made vaccine’s antibodies better than the antibodies we get after we had covid?
Covid-19 is a man modified virus and the vaccine is bull, it is all about control, if you do not take the poison you cannot eat ect. Only an idiot or someone who is part of the problem cannot see what is going on. Jew, Christian, Muslim or any other religion has the right to say NO to this, just like the Jews being experimented on by Hitler now they want to do the same.
I work in a hospital so I know what I am saying and there are thousands of Medical Doctors that tell people not to take the vaccine.
But here is my religious views regarding the mandatory vaccination.
1. When God created everything he gave Man, Adam and Eve free will, in my church we call it Agency.
Moses 4:3
3 Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down;
Doctrine & Covenants 29:36
36 And it came to pass that Adam, being tempted of the devil—for, behold, the devil was before Adam, for he rebelled against me, saying, Give me thine honor, which is my power; and also a third part of the hosts of heaven turned he away from me because of their agency;
So by forcing me to take a vaccine is taking away my God given Agency to choose. That is the same thing that Satan tried to do in the premortal life when he told God he would bring every soul to God but he want the power and glory, but Jesus said he would go and God’s will be done and mankind will have their Agency and the right to choose.
2. My body is a Temple of God and thus I cannot pollute it with anything.
1 Corinthians 6:19-20
19 Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.
1 Corinthians 3:16-17
16 Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in your midst?17 If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy that person; for God’s temple is sacred, and you together are that temple.
For me as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints it is very important to treat my body as a Temple and to not put anything in that can harm it, I do not smoke, use drugs or drink alcohol. In vaccines there are many animal cells used and I cannot use that because I will be polluting my Temple.
3. I am against abortion and shedding of innocent blood and offering children to pagan gods.
Leviticus 18:21
21 And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the Lord.
Alma 39:5
5 Know ye not, my son, that these things are an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yea, most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost?
Doctrine & Covenants 132:19, 26-27
19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.
26 Verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man marry a wife according to my word, and they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, according to mine appointment, and he or she shall commit any sin or transgression of the new and everlasting covenant whatever, and all manner of blasphemies, and if they commit no murder wherein they shed innocent blood, yet they shall come forth in the first resurrection, and enter into their exaltation; but they shall be destroyed in the flesh, and shall be delivered unto the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption, saith the Lord God.
27 The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which shall not be forgiven in the world nor out of the world, is in that ye commit murder wherein ye shed innocent blood, and assent unto my death, after ye have received my new and everlasting covenant, saith the Lord God; and he that abideth not this law can in nowise enter into my glory, but shall be damned, saith the Lord.
Jerimiah 22:3
3 Thus saith the Lord; Execute ye judgment and righteousness, and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor: and do no wrong, do no violence to the stranger, the fatherless, nor the widow, neither shed innocent blood in this place.
Some vaccines including Covid-19 vaccine has MRC-5 in it, this is aborted fetal cells and other DNA and I cannot according to the above use that as aborted fetuses is shedding of innocent blood and offering your child to Molech.
Beware of the Progression:
“First they ask
Then they push
Then they shove
Then they make it law
Then they come by force”
🥺
VLADIMIR LENIN
exactly
Several months ago our Prime Minister promised us that no Australian will ever be forced to take the vaccine, that it was “un-Australian” to force people to take any medical procedure against their will. It would always be entirely voluntary.
Today in Queensland you cannot enter a club, bar, restaurant or cafe unless you are double vaccinated. Our Premier is urging pharmacies and grocery stores not to serve the unvaccinated. An elderly woman died of sepsis this week because she was refused admission to a hospital because she was unvaccinated.
So when Nehemiah’s guest promises that this is America, the government will never hold you down by force and jab a needle into your arm against your will just remember the promise our government made to us.
Amen Robin! If this jab was so good for mankind, why are they threatening our very livelihoods to try to get this bio weapon? Because they are liars and they are trying to depopulate the earth. The Jabs don’t even work.
Haven’t followers of Yah been resisters of man’s laws vs. Yehovah’s laws. I don’t think he wants us to take a bio-weapon created for who knows what purpose. In Scotland 9 out of 10 Vaccinated vs. unvaxxed are dying per their on stats.
It would be good if people were able to be confident of the data they are accessing. it depends on the truthfulness of Government. I have reasonable confidence that the data available from the US, UK and Australia is accurate. This does not say that the interpretation of that data is accurate!!!!
Using the Our World in data website it is good that I am not making a comparison from 8th December when the cases/deaths ratio for US was 2.2% and 0.64% for Australia. As at 15th December the cases/deaths 1.09% and 0.44% but are expected to rise where natural immunity/vaccination is low. New cases have not risen so quickly as yet in the US as in the UK but deaths per million have.
Claims that everyone is well and only risking themselves seem to be invalid.
Claims that anyone person is exempt from succumbing to infection seem also to be invalid.
One day this particular virus will reduce itself to the status of flu but will still be contagious.
But this presentation was nothing to do with all these things but was about the legal process that may have impact on individual freedoms and future laws.
Even though I do not live in the US this was a very interesting and dispassionate view that explained the questions that come up when making legal decisions that have an impact on future US laws and also in some ways all over the ‘western’ world. it explains why our emotional/personal responses are not received in the way we would want.
There is a State Moto in the state of New Hampshire here in the US that explains things clearly. “Live Free or Die”. I expect you could understand that freedom has never been the ideal option if your priority is safety but if you are of the cloth of those who came here and were willing to Die to be free you would understand this Moto.
We will be free from any man made authority who would prefer to make decisions for us and would use any sort of coercion to do it. The fearful can lock themselves down, I will live my life even when it’s not the safest option because freedom is of a higher priority than the safety of the fearful. “Those who would give up freedom for safety deserve neither freedom nor safety.”
@Michael Mauro
Thats a big Amein & Amein! Praise Yah! In Yeshua’s name….Praise Yah!
“”My body my choice vs personal liberty””
With great freedom come great responsibility, a reality we have forgotten.
Hi John
From your comment, I guess, and it’s only a guess, that you are vaccinated (jabbed as it is NOT a vaccine but an experimental RnA treatment).
So, if you are vaccinated, (protected), how am I a danger to you???
I’m not.
Wow! Kudos to Nehemia for biting his tongue while she rambled on with Big Brother doctrine. I heard someone recently say that many have had the jab and regretted it, but no one has refused the jab and made any noise about regretting it.
Thank you Nehemia for doing this. When I hear it is safe I tune out. I know more that have died of the shot than the virus. I am not believing those that refuse to place in their agenda that the treatment has proven to be worse than the illness. I go to you Nehemia to get to the truth of the words of the Bible and to doctors like Dr. Malone for truth about this. He is the one that gave us mRNA therapy and tool the Shot. This woman just confirms to me that this is the hill I will die on. I believe my body is a temple and I will not let it be defiled by an evil treatment meant to depopulate. I will go naturally or with a bullet.
Elda, Please provide the research document that evidences “more that have died of the shot than the virus” I wish to read it and pass it on to a scientist whose integrity I trust.
I found this https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html
I took a left turn at Albuquerque as soon as the guest began hemming and hawing on the AIDS issue. That was an excellent injection ( pun intended) into the argument as it revealed the logic that trying to apply equity to issues whereby a demographic is largely immoral, unethical or accountable to reasonable social interventions, the AIDS group would stand a better chance in the government’s eyes of getting a no-jab nod. This revelation is unethical on its own logic. That is, those who are conscientious and deemed more accountable provide less hassles to OWN. The guest cites effective enforcement as the difference between the AIDS vs Non- AIDS demographic. So the lawless ones are entitled to a “grace” that the rest are not. This is why governments make lousy gods.
Very well put… I too noticed that obvious pause.
This woman is a government-type ‘expert’ who glibly asserts that there is NO danger from the jab. Just today, the J&J vaccine has been taken off the list. This whole thing was a rush job. Usual safety studies take years, up to a decade. Just wait…
I work for the DOD and so far, my religious exemption is being honored.
They are testing me weekly, but it’s not a difficult test to take and proves me right at least once a week…:)
safety record?!? has anyone looked at the vaers lately?
The comments made by the Prof. regarding vaccines in general, may be considered however, the comment regarding these vaccines which have not even completed the required trial time, so no medium or long term effects are even known. No previous vaccine was based on the new tech of mRNA Gene therapy, and the US VAERS database and the UK Yellow database show that even the side effects for short term use are dangerous. More than 17,000 people have died in the US alone from this VAX.
My heart has already been damaged from the so called safe (not!) vioxx! So now this lady thinks its safe to put this self-assembling operation system in me which includes parasites, hiv, sars, spike proteins, bats, aborted babies, nano hydrographene razor blades, monkey, rat, & who knows what other critters are hiding in this….in my body? You either have lost your mind, lady, or your a well paid eugenicist!
My heart and prayers go out to you….
@Bible believer
Thanks. I could always use a prayer. When the heart Dr. told me I had fluid around my heart & wanted to operate….I said “no thank you, Ive been through enough with you doctors.” I just pray & take a blood thinner when I get the chest pains. That was back in 2010….so far, prayer & a blood thinner have gotton me this far. When Im doing heavy snow shoveling, I just take a break when the heart pains come on. Im a very hard worker & now in my 50’s, Ive had to learn to take it easy & take a break or I may not be here. I had a hyper thyroid when I was younger, so Im used to having the threat of dropping dead at any moment, kind of thing, but I never had chest pains till the vioxx. I had a bad reaction to the vioxx & after a week, the doctor took me off it & had to give me antibiotics because it gave me heart problems & a terrible infection & I got pnemonia from it. Ive had enough things taken out of my body …nobodys going to cut me open again & mess with my heart cause Ive had enough with Doctors! I will just trust in Yah! Yahs my doctor now.
Wonderful interview!
My hope and wish is that you will do another QA session with her and put the focus on informed consent.
No need to bring religion in at all.
Bless you, Nehemia and all that you do!
Thank you Nehemia for a well reasoned presentation on a timely topic.
If the vaccines were stopping the transmission of COVID, then a valid argument could be made for mandatory vaccines. However, all the 3-letter agencies have said these vaccines do NOT stop transmission. In choosing to not vaccinate, one is only affecting themselves. According to Dr Fauci- the vaccine will lower hospital admissions and deaths. My vaccination ONLY eases my COVID experience. Start thinking this through instead of touting the standard rhetoric.
During the “my body, my choice” segment the discussion revolves entirely around the assumption that everyone is sick and intentionally wanting to spread a virus based on liberty. On the contrary, most people are not sick and/or may never get sick, but the government wants to mandate a medical treatment and deny individual right to continue personal liberties as a “not sick” person. Likewise, the establishment will not even discuss nor consider natural immunity or other therapeutic treatments which are on record of having huge success with early treatments.
Again, not sick and not spreading should not be mandated a medical treatment and refusal should not be punitive.
She states “Our right to individual Liberty stops when it begins to Infringe on the personal Liberty of others” The human, that is living inside my body is a separate person. He or she is not me so me deciding to kill that baby would then infringe on that Human’s individual Liberty and The basic and first right, to life.
But back to the vaccine, with that same statement, Just because a person doesn’t get a vaccine doesn’t mean they are walking around spreading Covid. If you are sick, stay home! Common sense? When you are no longer infectious return to normal life.
People aren’t forced to get the flu shot and also aren’t just actively walking around spreading influenza. This woman and people like her assume you are sick till you are proven not sick.
If I am a healthy person going about my business and have not been Covid vaccinated I am not infringing on anyone else’s Liberty. I can’t spread anything I don’t have! 99.9% of my life I am not sick, so Bc I may be sick once in my life with Covid and don’t want a vaccine for it, I should not be allowed to do anything? Even though 99.9% of my life I am not spreading anything and thus not infringing on anyones Liberties. But it’s ok for the government to infringe on my individual Liberty by forcing me to get a shot that I don’t even need?
Her HIV response is wildly contradictory to the Covid mandate.
There is no long term safety data. Vaccines take years, usually at least 10years to come out with long term safety data.
Wow. Thank you for this episode Nehemia. It has opened my eyes to the way the bureaucrats are thinking. May Yehovah keep us all in the palm of His mighty hand. Shalom.
This type of episode is what I love about you. I thought this would be with a constitutional lawyer fighting for religious freedom, but no, it is a public health advocate. Thank you for getting this perspective on this issue. May God give strength to all those who feel this mandate conflicts with their beliefs. May God give provision for all those facing the “levers”.
I would love to also interview a constitutional lawyer active on this issue. If you know someone please put me in contact with them.
Richard Flemming MD JD one of the top 4-5 people in the world that knows so much about this. I heard him in an excellent interview.
https://www.flemingmethod.com
I am curious of your thoughts??
The ENTIRE concept of people who are really in truth against the vaccine on grounds of misinformation or politics, suddenly claiming “religious exemption” by claiming opposition to abortion is 100% BUPKIS, and a total FRAUD. None of these people have never taken a Panadol, Ibuprofen… or dozens of other drugs (and vaccines) which were developed using the SAME fetal cell line from a decades-ago abortion. In fact, it is likely that they don’t even know that all these drugs used the SAME source… nor would they suddenly eschew their use of them based on their opposition to abortion. This lays bare the falsity of their sudden claims to “religious exemption”.
Until the vaccines have gone through all of the clinical trials- they only at stage 3- there should be no mandates. All of the vaccines are still in the investigation stage. Cominarty was FDA approved but is NOT what is being used by Pfizer. The myocarditis caused by the vaccines should give everyone pause!! Since the vaccines do not stop the spread as all the 3-letter agencies have said, informed consent should be the number one mandate!
So what is their reason for opposing it?
In the last part of that conversation I wonder if your guest is familiar with how the Mark of the Beast is described to be implemented. “That unless you were to take the Mark then you wouldn’t be able to buy or sell”. It sounds more and more like this is the conduit or process of; if not how the Mark itself will be leveraged. She describes its implementation perfectly.
I also appreciate Nehemiah’s line of thought on the historic implications of a Greek law forcing all people’s to eat swine. I was thinking the exact same thing when she brought up that angle of what is considered “non discriminatory” if it is a law passed on everyone equally. In fact Nehemia shows that it does not in fact play out equally due to religious held beliefs.
US law is so convoluted and hopeless the further it reasons it’s way away from Gods moral law.
I would like to further add that John Adams Pointed out in his letter to the Massachusetts Militia that our laws were made to govern a moral and God fearing people and it was made to govern no other. If we try to secularize our culture and live under these laws it will not work.
John Adams says holding back immoral human passions with our laws will be like trying to hold back a whale with a net. It will just break through and become a horrible habitation for all and that is exactly what we are witnessing in our society.
Gods moral law has to be the foundation of society or it will collapse upon itself.
This was interesting. Thank you. I have heard another attorney lecture on the religious rights clause of our constitution and he stated that the Supreme Court has struck down the claim that they must be supported by leaders of a recognized religion to be valid (which she did allude to quite briefly but didn’t explain.) I think it would be wise for us to resist acquiescing to those who would ask us to supply a “letter” or other such proof as it only gives validity to their unconstitutional requirement. I appreciated the questions you asked her, Nehemia.
Hepatitis C is horrendous, easily transferred to others and some people who couldn’t get jobs elsewhere, got jobs as cooking. Can govt force vaccines and restrict who can work, even California said yes to both. The vaccine had active virus in it.(bacteria) which is scary. Much better example than TB.
The jab is the same thing to true jews & christians from different rationale but really the same. A real jew knows the jab alters DNA and thus you are not in book of life. A true christian calls it mark of beast. Both are correct-you go to hell. The jab is a global extermination program and the erev rav also rules israel. The top leaders are evil but lower level leaders are just as blind as the common sheep.
@Stive, Im really,really heartbroken over this. Ive cried & cried over whats happened & still happening to Israel, Australia, Austria, Germany & everyone else being forced. I just pray & cry! The anger is really festering inside me! Now the evil ones want to harm the children. They come to my door with needles & theres going to be a 1 woman Holy war with forks, spoons, butter knives & frying pans! Im so angry that I dont think Yah can even hold me back at this point. My door will be the last strawl!
Religious exemption = God says I shouldn’t do it. There is NOTHING in Torah or the New Testament that says or even suggests that one should not receive this vaccine. God says “chose LIFE”. Overwhelming data shows that this vaccine saves lives and is very safe for the vast majority of people. AND that vaccinated people who catch Covid are less sick and have less virus shedding (spread it to others less). This also means less chance for mutation or it developing a more lethal strain. The overwhelming evidence sides with getting the virus rather than not.
My comment only addressed the concept of religious exemption.
I firmly believe that some people have this a political issue and their motivation is purely for political gain. Not based on medical data or facts.
I also believe that Satan has a dirty hand in this because he wants Gods people to die. Don’t fall for his temptation or deceit. Be smart. Chose life. Get the vaccine.
I would agree with you except on the issue of a mandate. The Mandate itself lends itself to qualify for the Mark of the Beast. You either take it or you cannot buy or sell. I’m not anti Vax. I am anti mandate and any Christian who doesn’t see this doesnt understand the relationship of the Mark of the Beast with mandates.
What about the thousands that have died from the vaccine. Go to the CDC VAERS page and then tell these people the vaccine is safe. We have NO long term studies on the MRNA vaccines. The animal studies were a dismal failure – every one of them died. So….. no one at this point is in a position to say that the benefits outweigh the risks. Until the studies have been completed, informed consent instead of mandates should be the law of the land. No politics – just the science.
Did you know that Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA vaccine technology used in this shot, recommends we don’t get it? He says that it creates the spike protein in your blood and causes damage to the vessels and capillaries. I think I will take his advice.
yes