Everyone ignores that the shots MAKE YOUR BODY PRODUCE THE SPIKE PROTEIN. I don't understand why, but that fact is more than enough to prove it's harm.
You're missing the point. Yes a very good argument against them. But until the vaccine/s have been defeated in court, their harm versus good. That data, what access. Anybody authorising them suggestively acted within their powers, emergency, granting them. Emergency, the state of the nation, pandemic offered a wider spectrum of power, decisions, also away from the courts at the time of an emergency. There's no real debate until the pandemic has ended. But before there's a debate, the vaccine has to be reviewed in court. Anybody else as an oppositional government could have also used them with the power, decisions, and advice available.
Good luck proving it. Circumstances, don't matter much because there was a pandemic where the global advice from its relevant committees and institutions was vaccinate. Government acted accordingly. Irregardless of any presumed conspiracy. Until a court case can actually prove against the other data suggesting it was partially effective, that the vaccine/s, there are a number of them, are ineffectual and lethal, there is no case against any individuals acting in public interest on the advice given. Then what are your rights, the immediate vaccine/s are brought into question and could become liable. But you're determined to prove that the presumed treatment, vaccination, see how easy you're to label, and protocols like quarantine stopping pandemics are against human rights. No wonder the fact checkers moved in prior to trial on this topic.
Everyone ignores that the shots MAKE YOUR BODY PRODUCE THE SPIKE PROTEIN. I don't understand why, but that fact is more than enough to prove it's harm.
You're missing the point. Yes a very good argument against them. But until the vaccine/s have been defeated in court, their harm versus good. That data, what access. Anybody authorising them suggestively acted within their powers, emergency, granting them. Emergency, the state of the nation, pandemic offered a wider spectrum of power, decisions, also away from the courts at the time of an emergency. There's no real debate until the pandemic has ended. But before there's a debate, the vaccine has to be reviewed in court. Anybody else as an oppositional government could have also used them with the power, decisions, and advice available.
Good luck proving it. Circumstances, don't matter much because there was a pandemic where the global advice from its relevant committees and institutions was vaccinate. Government acted accordingly. Irregardless of any presumed conspiracy. Until a court case can actually prove against the other data suggesting it was partially effective, that the vaccine/s, there are a number of them, are ineffectual and lethal, there is no case against any individuals acting in public interest on the advice given. Then what are your rights, the immediate vaccine/s are brought into question and could become liable. But you're determined to prove that the presumed treatment, vaccination, see how easy you're to label, and protocols like quarantine stopping pandemics are against human rights. No wonder the fact checkers moved in prior to trial on this topic.