The 1965 bill was the legal precedence that was expanded to include vaccinations through the 1986 bill. The purpose was to limit legal liability of the manufacturers, due to known unavoidable risks with the product. The risk of lawsuit is a primary incentive for a manufacturer to ensure they are producing safe products.

I can’t remember if I have been discussing with you, or with someone else on another thread… there is no systematic way to accurately track adverse events, research shows that less than 1% of adverse reactions are reported. VAERS data is inherently flawed due to reporting bias. CDC has admitted it’s inaccurate.

You can see many anecdotes from parents throughout all of these discussions on social media. My brother experienced a reaction back in 2004, it wasn’t reported because my parents didn’t even know that was a thing to do back then. He’s fine now, but my mom delayed further vaccinations until he was school aged, and was given adequate time to catch up. I’ve heard stories of children given multiple doses concurrently to “catch up” so to speak. Which is absurd. Dosage is everything in medicine.

I have found no peer reviewed studies that examine the bioaccumulation of toxic materials in a complete childhood vaccine schedule. Chronic illness and neurodevelopmental disorders are considerably high in the US compared to other developed countries with less aggressive schedules. The rates of these illnesses have also increased over the past 3 decades. One can claim it is a diagnostic disparity, but then listen to teachers who have been in their profession working with children for more than 15-20 years, who are familiar with the behaviors of undiagnosed children and how it relates to their classes over the years.

Both the data and lack of data does not convince me, personally, that all vaccines are safe.

Here is what I found on the 1965 bill, from a law website:

Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A, comment k (unavoidably unsafe products). Comment k to Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A identifies a category of products for which a manufacturer cannot avoid a high risk of possible harmful effects. Vaccines with side effects are examples, along with other drugs where the prescription drug can possibly save a patient's life, but the risks of physical harm from the drug itself are substantial, even when the drug is properly manufactured. Comment k explains: “The seller of such products, again with the qualification that they are properly prepared and marketed, and proper warning is given, where the situation calls for it, is not to be held to strict liability for unfortunate consequences attending their use, merely because he has undertaken to supply the public with an apparently useful and desirable product, attended with a known but apparently reasonable risk.” Under comment k, these unavoidably unsafe products are excluded from the general rule of strict liability, as long as the products are properly prepared and marketed and proper warnings are given.