14 hours ago
The argument in favour of the vaxx-that-doesn’t-vaxx is that there is a demonstrated therapeutic benefit to be obtained thereby. By refusing to hear of the evidence of the therapeutic benefit of a naturally acquired immunity (i.e. 99% +/- 5% of the populace thus far exposed to the virus (the people that have lived), the courts are denying that therapeutic benefit has any influence on the legal status of a mandated vaccines.
If there is no therapeutic benefit to be gained, why the **** would anyone who has already acquired natural immunity subject themselves to the jab?
Premium 14 hours ago (Edited)
The answer is because they are being forced to. Yes many are refusing. But others have been intimidated into acquiescence. Clearly, the people who sought to justify mandates on account of a public medical emergency are very hard pressed to do so in the face of a variant being compared to a common cold. The circumstances are dramatically different now. Yet they persist in the argument that the unvaccinated are endangering the vaccinated.
If you are young and healthy, it is obviously a personal decision. But why would you be eager to take the risk of a vaccination that endangers you more than the virus? Particularly if you already survived the more lethal variants. One size does not fit all. And the guy in charge, the one advocating mandates, is known to be a liar who thinks lying is fine for a good cause, such as profit. And to add insult to injury, their sh-tty vaccine does not work as originally advertised yet they want to mandate boosters, in between 4 hour hamburger breaks.
And suddenly, after their terrible track record, the morons puppeteering Mr Potatoehead are now parroting Trump’s position that it is up to the states to deal with. It will be bloody next November.
8 hours ago
Most have been coerced or psyoped into it or both. Criminal operation.
7 hours ago
There will be blood!