You are aware that the illnesses you are listing have had vaccines developed, perfected and streamlined for them for years or even decades, have achieved an extremely high rate of effectiveness and an extremely low rate of averse side-effects, let alone death rate, and can therefore be legitimately required as compulsory, right?
There is no possible comparison with a completely new type of medicine that is one year old, hasn't undergone and accumulated nearly the same extent of testing and empirical evidence over time, and is currently resulting in a spike of vaccine-related deaths and overall sudden deaths according to official numbers, including teens and children who would otherwise have had an extremely high chance of beating this virus naturally? Calling a completely new tech a "vaccine" (because that's how it was imagined to work) doesn't magically turn it into the same type of product as the traditional vaccines we've known about for decades, therefore cannot blindly and automatically generate the same legal consequences as the latter, which is why informed consent becomes key (more on this later).
As for the ignoramouses invoking a consensus among "experts", would the inventor of mRNA vaccines himself Dr. Robert Malone, would the former Pfizer vice-president and chief science officer Michal Yeadon, would the Nobel Prize winner virologist Pr. Luc Montagnier (who has had a key role in discovering and studying the HIV), to name just a few, qualify as such?
