Do you really think, outside of your fantasies, that any judge in any court would find for a litigant who said they were coerced into a medical procedure by a news writer using the word "vaccine" ?
And, moreover, that the "legal team" were consulted over the use of "vax" vs "vaccine" and they advised to use "vax" to avoid liability of coercion.
The entire premise is laughable and you are a clown for putting it forward.
we don't even know where this is published
and what exactly would the publisher be liable for ?
what legal advice are your imaginary team giving here?
who would be the litigant? and what damages would they be seeking concerning the use of the word vaccine?
Coercion, into illegal medical experimentation.
lol, you are ridiculous
Ok child
Do you really think, outside of your fantasies, that any judge in any court would find for a litigant who said they were coerced into a medical procedure by a news writer using the word "vaccine" ?
And, moreover, that the "legal team" were consulted over the use of "vax" vs "vaccine" and they advised to use "vax" to avoid liability of coercion.
The entire premise is laughable and you are a clown for putting it forward.